Nothing new here at all. To say that the military doesn't already use DT (Developmental Testing - Laboratory/engineering evaluation) and OT (Operational Test - giving whatever it is to USERS to evaluate) before assigning funds is simply ignorant. DT/OT was required for all new major procurements for the 45 years I served the military in and out of uniform.
The Army has needed a new scout helicopter for decades. The OH-58 A/C models were upgraded to the OH-58D, initially called AHIP (Advanced Helicopter Improvement Program) and later dubbed “Kiowa Warrior”. The endless effort was envisioned to be transitioned into a totally new helicopter called the Comanche. The aircraft actually made initial flights but died swirling around the bowl. Get ready for a repeat.
The Army and the Marines have been unable to agree on a Command and Control System since … well… forever. They simply have different requirements. The Marines got so disgusted that they actually ended up using an Israeli system for awhile. I’d be amazed if anything changes.
Use of COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) hardware and software components have been encouraged for decades. Move along. Nothing new to see here.
The article states: “Close-combat infantrymen account for only 4 percent of the army’s personnel but have suffered 90 percent of the casualties in conflicts since 2001.” Y’think? And I bet all the typewriter jockeys in the Army account for ZERO percent of the casualties. People that get shot at get to be casualties. Those “in the rear with the gear” don’t. Gees.
First there was “FORCE XXI”… the “Future Force Warrior”…. Now this. Some things never change.