Our Future Combat Systems?

[Ken White]

the Signal corps pattern; in WW I, they manned all the radios due to then high tech demands -- and got some really smart people due to that factor. As the systems got more user friendly, the Signal corps mission effectively transmuted during WW II, they got less brainy folks and as the systems got automated and miniaturized, they eventually became not needed for battlefield comm.

That's a gross over simplification but I always figured the 'puters would follow the same pattern. Long way of a non-computer savvy country boy saying I'm absolutely sure you're right...

Now, as an aside, if we can just get rid of LTs as FOs, a process and system that has essentially followed the same pattern (but that final solution is stoutly resisted by the FA)...

[Presley Cannady]

the Signal corps pattern; in WW I, they manned all the radios due to then high tech demands -- and got some really smart people due to that factor. As the systems got more user friendly, the Signal corps mission effectively transmuted during WW II, they got less brainy folks and as the systems got automated and miniaturized, they eventually became not needed for battlefield comm.

That's a gross over simplification but I always figured the 'puters would follow the same pattern. Long way of a non-computer savvy country boy saying I'm absolutely sure you're right...

Well, you're not that far afield, but the reasons why things didn't pan out that way is threefold:

1) IT is full of crooks who invariably claim more knowledge in the brochure than they actually possess.
2) The component reusability and reconfigurability in the hardware realm has not, despite four decades of promises, been replicated to any significant degree in at the software level. This mostly has to do with the fact that IT folks are lazy bums who enjoy automated tools but not putting in the work to implement them.
3) What reusability and reconfigurability exists remains extremely low level compared to the functional spec and still requires almost entirely human hands on know how to use in repairs (bug fixes) or modification (extensibility).

I'm pretty sure this fully explains why you a guy can still rake in $25+/hr knowing little more than how to write loops, if/then blocks and (these days) class declarations. I seriously recommend reading Yourdon's Decline and Fall of the American Programmer. The only thing that's changed much since his lit review came out are new interesting algorithms that then populate and breed in the developer space to the point where today's systems are just as if not more incomprehensibly expensive to maintain and improve.

[Ken White]

Well, you're not that far afield, but the reasons why things didn't pan out that way is threefold:...

I was talking about end users. Given the proliferation of laptops and related devices to the Joe Tentpeg level, we're already there. The esoterics of design and software may still be somewhat problematical at echelons above reality but the end user phenomenon has already panned out...

[Presley Cannady]

I was talking about end users. Given the proliferation of laptops and related devices to the Joe Tentpeg level, we're already there. The esoterics of design and software may still be somewhat problematical at echelons above reality but the end user phenomenon has already panned out...

My mistake. Let's keep this between ourselves.

[Rob Thornton]

Hi Presley,

As far as I know, DARPA's job isn't even proof of concept, but more along the lines of basic research done in universities in the new drug discovery chain.

Just a note on DARPA. While proof of concept is usually something we associate with something after its been turned over to a uniformed project manager, or beyond - DARPA does do allot of field testing. In fact my experience with them has been they test their stuff harder then anybody else. I think part of this has to do with the way they view things - the DARPA crews I've worked with have been all about taking it out and breaking it - then figuring out why it broke and engineering it so it does better next time.

On the other hand, by the time private sector brings in the uniformed side, its been my experience that there is risk aversion. The test conditions are generally set, and there is allot of rehearsal. DARPA does not do allot of scripting, and if it breaks in front of the audience, so be it.

One thing I did learn while working that job was that there are different pots of money - I'll probably get this wrong, but basically there is a pot for ideas that have no identified concrete needs - but might fit identified concepts, there is a pot for identified needs but no clear solution, then there are two for stuff that is at stages further along in development. I probably screwed that up.

DARPA is an interesting organization that has provided us some real headway in allot of areas. Much of the what they do gets folded back into other projects, and benefits the end user. I don't mean to make this a DARPA public service message, but I was impressed by the guys in the way they went to the field, and where they wanted to go - the guys I worked with wanted to know where some of the most challenging conditions were - and they enjoyed being out there.

Best, Rob

[Tom Odom]

Hi Presley,



Just a note on DARPA. While proof of concept is usually something we associate with something after its been turned over to a uniformed project manager, or beyond - DARPA does do allot of field testing. In fact my experience with them has been they test their stuff harder then anybody else. I think part of this has to do with the way they view things - the DARPA crews I've worked with have been all about taking it out and breaking it - then figuring out why it broke and engineering it so it does better next time.

On the other hand, by the time private sector brings in the uniformed side, its been my experience that there is risk aversion. The test conditions are generally set, and there is allot of rehearsal. DARPA does not do allot of scripting, and if it breaks in front of the audience, so be it.

One thing I did learn while working that job was that there are different pots of money - I'll probably get this wrong, but basically there is a pot for ideas that have no identified concrete needs - but might fit identified concepts, there is a pot for identified needs but no clear solution, then there are two for stuff that is at stages further along in development. I probably screwed that up.

DARPA is an interesting organization that has provided us some real headway in allot of areas. Much of the what they do gets folded back into other projects, and benefits the end user. I don't mean to make this a DARPA public service message, but I was impressed by the guys in the way they went to the field, and where they wanted to go - the guys I worked with wanted to know where some of the most challenging conditions were - and they enjoyed being out there.

Best, Rob

To second Rob, I sharee offices with the science guys and DARPA has been here repeatedly over the past 8 years. Their projects are indeed wide ranging and they bring a key ingredient--money--to the table when it comes to making things happen.

Best

Tom