US government spends millions on weapon...

Full story here.

Quote :

There was a time, not all that long ago, when the Pentagon sank tens of millions of dollars into remote-controlled lightning guns that it hoped would fry insurgent bombs before they killed any more troops. Now, disassembled parts from the one-time wonder-weapons are being sold on eBay. At least one buyer snatched up the gear, hoping to use it in his latest art project for Burning Man.

That sounds dangerous, doesn't it? Military hardware falling in the hands of unwitting civilians? Oh, but that's just the tip of the wrongness iceberg.

Quote :

All of which would make for a funny little story, if that buyer didn’t discover that the multimillion dollar “Joint Improvised Explosive Device Neutralizers,” or JINs, were kluged together from third-rate commercial electronics, and controlled by open Wi-Fi signals. In other words, the Pentagon didn’t just overpay for a flawed weapon. On the off-chance the JIN ever worked, the insurgents could control it, too.

That's a pretty fucking big flaw. No wonder it was safer to sell it on eBay for parts.

Quote :

It started one day last April, Oliver says. He was brainstorming with sometime-employer, Elon Musk, about their next project for Burning Man. For the last three years, Oliver had built for Musk “art cars” — tricked-out jalopies — in the shape of rocket ships that Musk then drove around the festival. (Musk is the founder of the rocket-maker SpaceX, among other firms.) This year, Oliver suggested something different — a remote-controlled art car. Musk liked the idea. So Oliver started trolling eBay for robotic control systems.

...

Oliver knew there was something different about these controllers almost as soon as he took them out of the crate. The steering wheel was outfitted with black buttons labeled “Enable Weapon” and “Weapon On.” In the center was a big red button marked, “STOP!”

Yeah, that's reassuring.

Quote :

Things got more curious when he started poking around the software. There was no password on the gear that was supposed to be outfitted on the robot, so he was able to type “root,” and get right in. Then he checked out the operator’s equipment, which ran a Java app on Windows XP. He decompiled it, and found a string in the code: “IONPaysBills=true.”

ION was the stock market symbol for Ionatron, the company that managed to convince Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary during the early years of the George W. Bush administration, to give the firm $30 million for its bomb-zappers. Shaped like golf carts, the remote-controlled JINs were supposed to use short-pulse lasers to carve conductive channels in the air. Electricity could then be sent down those channels, frying bombs from a safe distance. A company press release quoted Brig. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Task Force as saying, “The Ionatron system was just the type of out of the box, new technology solution we’re looking for.”

No wonder this was has been going on for a decade.

Quote :

Oliver eventually dropped the idea of using the Ionatron gear for Burning Man — and not because of Parish’s threat. The gear just seemed too jury-rigged. Its network detector was a wire connected to the “on” light on the front of the router.

“I just don’t trust it,” he says.

The military, on the other hand, continues to have some faith in Ionatron’s technology, investing additional millions into their lightning weapons. The Marines combined the JIN with a mine-roller, used to crush buried bombs. Then they hung the whole thing in front of a truck, and called it a “JOLLER.” A May 2009, Marine Corps briefing (.pdf) shows the phallic contraption shooting electricity into the ground. “Lightening Bolt: Pricele$$,” it reads.

At least, until it goes up for sale on eBay.

This sort of thing happens with infuriating regularity. The key is to catch them early. A contractor got into a lot of trouble when they tried to pass off FireWire as their own proprietary tech, and were charging thousands of dollars for it. An avionics tech called bullshit and swapped out the "proprietary" cable with one he brought from Radio Shack. The system worked fine.

That company lost its contract, among other things.

I'm not surprised something like this happened, only that it took so long. We are, after all, talking about the same U.S. Defense Department that thinks it makes perfect sense to shell out $20K for a hammer.

Azzandra wrote:

Quote :

The military, on the other hand, continues to have some faith in Ionatron’s technology, investing additional millions into their lightning weapons. The Marines combined the JIN with a mine-roller, used to crush buried bombs. Then they hung the whole thing in front of a truck, and called it a “JOLLER.” A May 2009, Marine Corps briefing (.pdf) shows the phallic contraption shooting electricity into the ground. “Lightening Bolt: Pricele$$,” it reads.

Nothing in this paragraph surprises me.

Chris91 wrote:

I'm not surprised something like this happened, only that it took so long.

"Something like this" is happening every day, and has happened ever since businessmen figured out that getting government contracts is a pretty sweet gig.

Quote :

We are, after all, talking about the same U.S. Defense Department that thinks it makes perfect sense to shell out $20K for a hammer.

Actually, we're not, and it was a quirk of running up the bill. Though it's good to know that you watched Independence Day at some point in your life.

As if stories like these aren't common enough, our Defense Secretary has the gall to claim that cutting defense spending will threaten national defense. "We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. "I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense." But of course, your wasting billions on shit technology that could be easily commandeered by insurgents isn't a threat, is it? Sickening.

Owlish wrote:

As if stories like these aren't common enough, our Defense Secretary has the gall to claim that cutting defense spending will threaten national defense. "We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. "I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense." But of course, your wasting billions on shit technology that could be easily commandeered by insurgents isn't a threat, is it? Sickening.

You do realize that R&D and production of materiel will need to continue with even with a reduced budget, right? And that it in no way will make things like this happen less often? And that probably the worst that the Taliban could hope to do with this given system would be to make it... not work. It's not like this was an offensive weapon system. "Oh noes, the Taliban might GET A CRAPPY MINESWEEPER!" The Taliban has managed to break into unsecured communications before; media hype was that they'd "hacked our Predator drones!" like it was Modern Warfare 2 or something, but they really just figured out how to watch the video feed before it was encrypted. But you know what? Once that was discovered, it was fixed almost instantly.

Basically:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It really seems like it is more about the money than our defense from where I am standing. Our naval power is a joke on the west coast compaired to the east coast. Just compaired to the east coast, not claiming anything else. Point is, I learn more every day about what huge buisness shipbuilding is on the east coast, and see how much better orginized the advocates for east coast shipbuilding are compaire to the ones we have here, and when my own company's home office in Virginia treats us like their unlikable bastard child, it sort of makes me think, you know? Every Nimitz-class carrier that docks here for repairs means a lot of money for the local economy, money we are taking away from the east coast companies. If the media was in a frenzy about, say, North Korea, a country that actually has nuclear weapons and is just in general being a big dick about it, as opposed to being in a frenzy about shit that involves deployment from the east coast, then the east coast might just loose several carriers.

That is just my own, personal observation. I am not particularly well informed about the sitch in NK, and I doubt they could hit anything outside of Hawaii and/or Alaska, it just seems to me that confirmed nukes > maybe-nukes-but-not-really. If you are gonna talk nukes, which of course no one does anymore because omg embaress~ing.

tl;dr: GETTIN CYNICAL UP IN HERE.

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

As if stories like these aren't common enough, our Defense Secretary has the gall to claim that cutting defense spending will threaten national defense. "We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. "I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense." But of course, your wasting billions on shit technology that could be easily commandeered by insurgents isn't a threat, is it? Sickening.

You do realize that R&D and production of materiel will need to continue with even with a reduced budget, right? And that it in no way will make things like this happen less often? And that probably the worst that the Taliban could hope to do with this given system would be to make it... not work. It's not like this was an offensive weapon system. "Oh noes, the Taliban might GET A CRAPPY MINESWEEPER!" The Taliban has managed to break into unsecured communications before; media hype was that they'd "hacked our Predator drones!" like it was Modern Warfare 2 or something, but they really just figured out how to watch the video feed before it was encrypted. But you know what? Once that was discovered, it was fixed almost instantly.

Basically:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not addressing the rest of your post because I see your point/don't really care, but the bolded line? It sure as hell should happen less often. I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable, but there are good and bad ways of managing those costs. That you think it won't tells me that there are far bigger problems going on. Change the way contracts are awarded. Be more judicious in choosing which technologies to develop and who gets to develop them. Get the fuck out of foreign countries where we don't belong and are attempting to interfere for our own supposed benefit, because you cannot seriously tell me that is "national defense."

I think this whole budget argument is insane and entirely unnecessary, and if cuts are forced then I think things like billions in oil subsidies should be cut before anything else. But what I'm really objecting to is that Panetta (and apparently Obama) would rather see the military play with more big destructive toys than covering medication or food for seniors, or health insurance for children who have done nothing wrong other than being born to parents who can't get decent jobs. Food is a necessity. Lightning that can blow up roadside bombs isn't.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

It really seems like it is more about the money than our defense from where I am standing. Our naval power is a joke on the west coast compaired to the east coast. Just compaired to the east coast, not claiming anything else. Point is, I learn more every day about what huge buisness shipbuilding is on the east coast, and see how much better orginized the advocates for east coast shipbuilding are compaire to the ones we have here, and when my own company's home office in Virginia treats us like their unlikable bastard child, it sort of makes me think, you know? Every Nimitz-class carrier that docks here for repairs means a lot of money for the local economy, money we are taking away from the east coast companies. If the media was in a frenzy about, say, North Korea, a country that actually has nuclear weapons and is just in general being a big dick about it, as opposed to being in a frenzy about shit that involves deployment from the east coast, then the east coast might just loose several carriers.

A lot of that comes from politics and USN culture- well, basically, government and Navy politics. "The Atlantic ocean is our ocean!" and a bunch of other archaic herp-de-derp nonsense that has no business in a 21st century military. Plus all those East Coast shipbuilding companies have some pretty strong representation in Congress.

Owlish wrote:

Not addressing the rest of your post because I see your point/don't really care, but the bolded line? It sure as hell should happen less often.

"Should" and "will" do not mean the same thing.

Quote :

I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable, but there are good and bad ways of managing those costs. That you think it won't tells me that there are far bigger problems going on.

Quote :

I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable

Quote :

I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable

Quote :

I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable

Quote :

I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable

That's the fundamental problem that will not be addressed by budget cuts. R&D will still be put into whatever technologies look like they would bring an edge. The spectrum will be narrowed to the most pressing current problems, with less looking into problems likely to crop up in the future, and we'd still be stuck with tools for fighting the last war. Case in point: Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded by forces designed and equipped to tear apart the Russian military and fight against their tactics, which eventually led to the infamous "Army you have, not the army you wish you had" gaffe by Rumsfeld.

Quote :

Change the way contracts are awarded.

That'd pretty much require pulling Congress' fingers out of that big fat pie. Good luck with that.

Quote :

Be more judicious in choosing which technologies to develop and who gets to develop them.

This requires DARPA to be psychic, and screws over all but the major defense contractors.

Quote :

Get the fuck out of foreign countries where we don't belong and are attempting to interfere for our own supposed benefit, because you cannot seriously tell me that is "national defense."

Well, Iraq's still drawing down and we've got a Timetable for leaving Afghanistan, but it turns out that entering a third war and bombing the crap out of Libya was a really popular move.

Quote :

I think this whole budget argument is insane and entirely unnecessary, and if cuts are forced then I think things like billions in oil subsidies should be cut before anything else. But what I'm really objecting to is that Panetta (and apparently Obama) would rather see the military play with more big destructive toys than covering medication or food for seniors, or health insurance for children who have done nothing wrong other than being born to parents who can't get decent jobs.

If you really wanted to improve the budget and help feed the hungry, ending completely ridiculous farm subsidies would do a lot more. In any case,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Spoiler:

Quote :

Food is a necessity. Lightning that can blow up roadside bombs isn't.

If only they had a sandwich.

Penguin wrote:

Plus all those East Coast shipbuilding companies have some pretty strong representation in Congress.

Haha, yeah I got that impression. I did not realise that the navy was so protective of the Atlantic though. Like, the Pacific is way better, obvs.

Boy, our governement could sure save a lot of money if there were not all these private interests throwing their weight around trying to get their piece! I mean there is a lot of hating on the governement ITT and very little tut-tutting the contractor who ripped them (ie: US taxpayers) off for a flawed product...

I personally would prefer my tax dollars go to social services vs. wagin' war (or whatever the hell we are doing), but we could do both just fine (or at least much better)if our system did not allow for all this unrestricted greed all over the place. That includes the farming subsidies bs and letting health insurance companies take such a huge chunk of our health dollars as well as our military spending screw-ups.

oh god I spelled lose 'loose' i am such a moron

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Not addressing the rest of your post because I see your point/don't really care, but the bolded line? It sure as hell should happen less often.

"Should" and "will" do not mean the same thing.

True, but so what? Plenty of other federal agencies have R&D needs as well, but they aren't given piles of money. In fact everyone else gets a piddly amount in comparison. Maybe it's time the military folks learn to cope with the budget restraints that every other federal agency has to deal with.

Quote :

Owlish wrote:

I know that R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable, but there are good and bad ways of managing those costs. That you think it won't tells me that there are far bigger problems going on.

That's the fundamental problem that will not be addressed by budget cuts. R&D will still be put into whatever technologies look like they would bring an edge. The spectrum will be narrowed to the most pressing current problems, with less looking into problems likely to crop up in the future, and we'd still be stuck with tools for fighting the last war. Case in point: Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded by forces designed and equipped to tear apart the Russian military and fight against their tactics, which eventually led to the infamous "Army you have, not the army you wish you had" gaffe by Rumsfeld.

...So, are you using Rumsfeld's line to try to help your argument? Really? It's still a shit excuse for skirting my point, because R&D is not the only thing the military spends money on. It's actually a pretty small part. In 2008 it was about 12 percent. Operations are ongoing in at least three countries right now, all of which are of dubious value, and your excuse for not cutting military spending is R&D? Come on.

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Change the way contracts are awarded.

That'd pretty much require pulling Congress' fingers out of that big fat pie. Good luck with that.

Congress is not the only problem. This is what I'm talking about.

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Be more judicious in choosing which technologies to develop and who gets to develop them.

This requires DARPA to be psychic, and screws over all but the major defense contractors.

Psychic? Yeah, like I didn't just acknowledge the difficulties of R&D budgeting--nope we have to predict the outcome of every single project we undertake ever!!1 "Be more judicious" is like demanding psychic ability, yep. Look, I'm pretty sure that everything the military chooses to fund could have potential value, but there's potential value in providing more funds to every other federal agency.

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

]I think this whole budget argument is insane and entirely unnecessary, and if cuts are forced then I think things like billions in oil subsidies should be cut before anything else. But what I'm really objecting to is that Panetta (and apparently Obama) would rather see the military play with more big destructive toys than covering medication or food for seniors, or health insurance for children who have done nothing wrong other than being born to parents who can't get decent jobs.

If you really wanted to improve the budget and help feed the hungry, ending completely ridiculous farm subsidies would do a lot more.

Agreed.

Penguin wrote:

In any case,

Spoiler:

This has got to be the dumbest excuse ever. The past does not have to dictate the future. I'm not contesting the country's military history, I'm saying it doesn't make sense to continue pouring money into the military when there are far more pressing issues going on.

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Food is a necessity. Lightning that can blow up roadside bombs isn't.

If only they had a sandwich.

You know, before I even said anything in this thread you stated that technological failures like the OP happen with "infuriating regularity," but god forbid someone take the next logical step and say, gee, maybe we shouldn't throw so much money at them to screw around with, but OH NO WE CAN'T DO THAT IT WOULD IMPERIL R&D when that's bullshit and you know it.

Owlish wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Not addressing the rest of your post because I see your point/don't really care, but the bolded line? It sure as hell should happen less often.

"Should" and "will" do not mean the same thing.

True, but so what?

So, making budget decisions based on what ought to happen rather than what will happen is pretty poor economic policy.

Quote :

Plenty of other federal agencies have R&D needs as well, but they aren't given piles of money. In fact everyone else gets a piddly amount in comparison.

A large orange amongst a bunch of different apples. So?

Quote :

Maybe it's time the military folks learn to cope with the budget restraints that every other federal agency has to deal with.

Oh, don't worry, we always have, and do. Just, not the "military folks" you have in mind. Nobody wearing birds or stars will be terribly bothered by this, and they'll always take it out of manning, COLA, cost of inflation pay raises, and now they're seriously looking at taking it out of our retirement plan.

The military's been cutting down on many things for quite awhile now, which is how you run into things like completely undermanned maintenance squadrons working 12+ hour shifts 6 days a week to keep jets in the air so that the aircrews can stay current on training. Not to fight a war, to keep up with training requirements.

Quote :

...So, are you using Rumsfeld's line to try to help your argument? Really?

No, it was a case in point for a need for R&D.

Quote :

It's still a shit excuse for skirting my point, because R&D is not the only thing the military spends money on. It's actually a pretty small part. In 2008 it was about 12 percent.

So your point is "Oh my God, we're wasting so much money on military R&D on stupid shit, let's cut their budget!" and then try to reinforce this with "R&D is actually a pretty small part of the military budget"?

Quote :

Operations are ongoing in at least three countries right now, all of which are of dubious value, and your excuse for not cutting military spending is R&D? Come on.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about expensive, experimental military technology that failed and wasteful spending on new technology. So we're attempting to wish away the entire military-industrial complex now? My bad.

Owlish wrote:

Congress is not the only problem. This is what I'm talking about.

And that requires a change in regulations and policy, not a reduced budget. Actually, the savings in that method would allow the money to be spent elsewhere, or actually cut from the military budget. But let's not put the cart before the horse.

Owlish wrote:

Psychic? Yeah, like I didn't just acknowledge the difficulties of R&D budgeting--nope we have to predict the outcome of every single project we undertake ever!!1 "Be more judicious" is like demanding psychic ability, yep. Look, I'm pretty sure that everything the military chooses to fund could have potential value, but there's potential value in providing more funds to every other federal agency.

Point is, the phrase "be more judicious" doesn't really mean much without specifics. It's like saying "They should work smarter, not harder!" Okay, great, but... how?

Owlish wrote:

This has got to be the dumbest excuse ever. The past does not have to dictate the future. I'm not contesting the country's military history, I'm saying it doesn't make sense to continue pouring money into the military when there are far more pressing issues going on.

No, but when you start betting against a trend, you're probably going to lose.

Owlish wrote:

You know, before I even said anything in this thread you stated that technological failures like the OP happen with "infuriating regularity," but god forbid someone take the next logical step and say, gee, maybe we shouldn't throw so much money at them to screw around with, but OH NO WE CAN'T DO THAT IT WOULD IMPERIL R&D when that's bullshit and you know it.

It is absolutely not. Again:

Quote :

...R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable

R&D is costly, and putting less money into it will not make it less so.

The sort of thing that happened with the minesweeper can only be stopped by putting people on the project who'll recognize commercial parts being passed off as proprietary. A lot of that can depend on dumb luck, like having someone who joined the military straight out of high school noticing a Linksys router when he sees it. But the increasing use of "COTS" hardware as a cost-saving measure, it gets even trickier.

So, no. Simply slashing the military budget is not going to make this problem go away.

Just goes to show...

You can buy ANYTHING on Ebay.

It makes all those Ebay jokes worthwhile and worryingly accurate.

Penguin wrote:

So, making budget decisions based on what ought to happen rather than what will happen is pretty poor economic policy.

Except, it's what happens with just about every budget decision ever. Because cutting
Planned Parenthood funds will stop evil whores from getting abortions,
and won't affect cancer screenings for women who can't afford them. Especially within the last two decades US federal and state financial policy and budgeting has been based heavily on ideology and very little on fact. Not saying it's correct, but it's not entirely out of the ordinary.

Quote :

A large orange amongst a bunch of different apples. So?

If you see nothing wrong with this picture, I'm not going to waste my time; we are clearly on opposite ends of the spectrum on this.

Quote :

Oh, don't worry, we always have, and do. Just, not the "military folks" you have in mind. Nobody wearing birds or stars will be terribly bothered by this, and they'll always take it out of manning, COLA, cost of inflation pay raises, and now they're seriously looking at taking it out of our retirement plan.

The military's been cutting down on many things for quite awhile now, which is how you run into things like completely undermanned maintenance squadrons working 12+ hour shifts 6 days a week to keep jets in the air so that the aircrews can stay current on training. Not to fight a war, to keep up with training requirements.

That is pretty shitty. But that means there needs to be significant reallocation of funding within the military, which is only going to change in response to different priorities--having a smaller or larger budget overall is not going to change that.

Quote :

So your point is "Oh my God, we're wasting so much money on military R&D on stupid shit, let's cut their budget!" and then try to reinforce this with "R&D is actually a pretty small part of the military budget"? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I never said to cut the R&D budget specifically, I said cut military spending in general (of which R&D is a part) which I realize I should have explained given that the OP dealt with R&D.

Quote :

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about expensive, experimental military technology that failed and wasteful spending on new technology. So we're attempting to wish away the entire military-industrial complex now? My bad.

As I said above, I was referring to military spending in general and not specifically R&D. Just because it's politically and socially unfeasible, and all but impossible right now, doesn't mean I won't keep harping on it.

Quote :

And that requires a change in regulations and policy, not a reduced budget. Actually, the savings in that method would allow the money to be spent elsewhere, or actually cut from the military budget. But let's not put the cart before the horse.

A reduced budget and policy changes aren't mutually exclusive. Changes in the budget can prompt policy changes, and policy changes can prompt alterations in the budget, though the former is probably more likely. Point is, there are potential ways of reducing military spending as a whole without damaging R&D investment.

Quote :

Point is, the phrase "be more judicious" doesn't really mean much without specifics. It's like saying "They should work smarter, not harder!" Okay, great, but... how?

Ok fine, but there are tons of possible "specifics" here. The article I linked above is one way. Frankly if I typed out every possible idea in sufficient detail to implement, it would take forever but also both of us would be bored to sleep. And I fully admit that I'm not the best person to be planning a military's budget, but I don't think it takes a brilliant mind to see that spending "tens of millions" on a lightning gun with idiotically simple design probably wasn't the brightest idea.

Quote :

No, but when you start betting against a trend, you're probably going to lose

And as I said above, that's not going to stop me from harping on it.

Quote :

It is absolutely not. Again:

Quote :

...R&D often requires large sums of money that don't ultimately produce anything valuable to get something that is valuable

R&D is costly, and putting less money into it will not make it less so.

The sort of thing that happened with the minesweeper can only be stopped by putting people on the project who'll recognize commercial parts being passed off as proprietary. A lot of that can depend on dumb luck, like having someone who joined the military straight out of high school noticing a Linksys router when he sees it. But the increasing use of "COTS" hardware as a cost-saving measure, it gets even trickier.

So, no. Simply slashing the military budget is not going to make this problem go away.

I never said that slashing the budget would solve wasteful spending. My initial comment in this thread was about the irony of the Secretary General claiming that national defense would be "threatened" if we dared to cut military spending before we eliminated Medicare, which, y'know, is kind of important too. Even if there was no evidence of wasteful spending at all I would still think that the military's budget in comparison to other federal agencies is not right, but examples of waste and fraud only make it that much more shameful and frustrating.