Every year, a number of companies come out with various gadgets to sell off to the military. Their open tests? Well...sometimes, they are rigged to make a big show and an enthusiastic viewer might come away that some new gadget is a four-star item...when the truth is that it’s marginally better than what they already bought and own.
Adding to the mess is various companies which hook into political groups or individuals and hope that two Senators or five congressmen will make a difference in getting a contract. So they contribute to campaign funds to get more attention.
This software pitch might be better....or it might involved rigged results. The Army is in this test and evaluate mode. And the thing is....there really isn’t an unlimited budget anymore.
BINGO, you nailed it. That wapo story is full of half facts and half truths. Honestly, Palenteer and DCGS are two completely different animals. It is comparing apples and oranges.
This same story has raised it’s ugly head several times over the past two years each time with some office liking Palenteer and hating DCGS.
This software pitch might be better....or it might involved rigged results. The Army is in this test and evaluate mode. And the thing is....there really isn’t an unlimited budget anymore.
Be that as it may, can you explain why the report was ordered "destroyed?"
If what you (and aparently others) suggest is true, then there would have been no need to destroy the evaluation and let the results speak for themselves. That in itself is a a big red flag.
Don't know if you ever served, but when it comes to the safety and lives of our Warriors, we should NOT be counting pennies or be worried about the "Budget," especially if there are ways to minimize casualties which exist and are not being considered or utilized...usually for political or worse, "monetary" consideration, i.e., that of companies/contractors having influence with the Pentagon or Congress.
Now that I think of it, the Brits had some kind of software to find disturbed locations. That was a while ago.
“This software pitch might be better....or it might involved rigged results. The Army is in this test and evaluate mode. And the thing is....there really isn’t an unlimited budget anymore.”
Considering that the troops who’ve used it evaluate Palantir as the better option, that seems quite unlikely. I’ve been through the process with hardware for satellite systems, which the Army manages. It takes decades to get results from the Army’s procurement system even for KNOWN and well-documented problems.
WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)
aka Old Student