Some DoD Acquisition Problems

Our DoD’s failure with battlefield drones (as opposed to large surveillance and targeted raid drones) is shamefully demonstrated by a small US drone builder and Ukraine’s position on and need for actual, small, battle-capable drones.

Most small drones from US startups have failed to perform in combat, dashing companies’ hopes that a badge of being battle-tested would bring the startups sales and attention. It is also bad news for the Pentagon, which needs a reliable supply of thousands of small, unmanned aircraft.

One aspect of the American problem stems from too much dependence on DoD specifications.

American drone company executives say they didn’t anticipate the electronic warfare in Ukraine. In Skydio‘s [a Silicon Valley company] case, its drone was designed in 2019 to meet communications standards set by the US military.

How is it possible that our own military establishment, with its battlefield experience, has so badly misunderstood battlefield communications threats, counters, and needs? One reason—not the only one, since military officers are capable of learning from the past and anticipating the future—is that our military establishment hasn’t any current battlefield experience, only experience at fighting terrorist organizations. Even as recently as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US military didn’t face a qualified army, for all its formal army-like structure.

There’s this, too, particularly related to acquisition, although here applied specifically to drone acquisition:

Several startup executives said US restrictions on drone parts and testing limit what they can build and how fast they can build it.
Those restrictions have proven a problem in the drone battles that sometimes require daily updates and upgrades, said Georgii Dubynskyi, Ukraine’s deputy minister of digital transformation, the agency that oversees the country’s drone program.
“What is flying today won’t be able to fly tomorrow,” he said. “We have to adapt to the emerging technologies quickly. The innovation cycle in this war is very short.”

But the bureaucrats don’t care. They only care about their personal imperatives. One result of this bureaucratic interference and failure:

Ukrainian officials have found US-made drones fragile and unable to overcome Russian jamming and GPS blackout technology. … American drones often fail to fly at the distances advertised or carry substantial payloads.

There’s that communications failure again, along with a general failure to perform.

Skydio is showing the way [emphasis added]:

Skydio employees went back to Ukraine 17 times to get feedback, Bry said. Its new drone is built around Ukraine’s military needs and feedback from public-safety agencies and other customers, he said, rather than US Defense Department requirements that are sometimes divorced from battlefield realities.

None of our DoD acquisitors have done that. That’s as much on SecDef Lloyd Austin and CJCS General Charles Brown, Jr (and General Mark Milley before him) as it is on the acquisitors, though.

Skydio‘s growing success from its more independent development process is illustrated here:

Ukraine has requested thousands of the new Skydio X10, which has a radio that can switch frequencies on its own as soon as its signal is jammed by electronic interference. It also has better navigation capabilities so it can fly at high altitudes without GPS, Skydio said.
“It is critical for Skydio, and I think the US drone industry at large, that we make X10 succeed at scale on the battlefield in Ukraine,” Bry said. “There’s no alternative. As a country, we can’t miss on this.”

These problems—and they aren’t the only ones, they’re just a few exposed by DoD drone incompetence—will prove fatal in American battles, and so damaging if not fatal to American national security—independence.

We badly need to clean house in the DoD, following that with a removal of the civilian bureaucrat contingent in DoD acquisition (returning them to the private economy, rather than reassignment withing the Federal government), and we badly need to elect a President and Congress with the national security awareness and political courage to do so.

“Dialog”

Ex-Republic of China President Ma Ying-jeou, of the RoC’s pro-People’s Republic of China Kuomintang Party, was invited to and met with PRC President Xi Jinping, and they talked about the prospects for improved relations across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from mainland China.

Amanda Hsiao, a Taipei-based analyst with the Brussels-headquartered International Crisis Group, accurately characterized the meeting:

Beijing is trying to show for an international audience that they are open to dialogue with Taiwan—open to peaceful unification. All of which is an attempt to try to make China appear more reasonable.

Indeed. But it’s dialog within a PRC framework: Xi: “Stop resisting. Surrender and be assimilated into the body of the People’s Republic of China.” Ma: “Yes, Sir.”

In addition to Hsaio’s characterization, thought, the Xi-Ma meeting also was an in-your-face counter to our own Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s White House contemporaneous meeting with Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida (which Philippine’s President Ferdinand Marcos Jr later will join them) regarding PRC aggressiveness.

For each reason, and especially for both together, Biden’s response to the Xi-Ma meeting will be important for RoC security.

Progressive-Democratic Party Selling Out Israel

Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) wants to deny Israel F-15 fighters—in the middle of Israel’s war for survival against a Hamas and Islamic Jihad of Palestine’s effort to exterminate that nation. She’s gaslighting Americans with her premise that Israel is somehow responsible for the destruction and death that the terrorists are inflicting through their use of Gazan civilians as shields for the terrorists, and the terrorists’ use of civilian residences, schools, mosques and churches, and hospitals as cover for the terrorists’ weapons caches, launching sites, and command centers.

Nor is Warren’s move an isolated incident. It’s typical of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s sellout.

House [Progressive-]Democrats called on President Joe Biden to stop sending weapons to Israel following the country’s drone strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza.

These wonders are using the tragically mistaken strike by the IDF as their own excuse to betray Israel. They don’t care that one of the things that makes the mistaken strike so notable is the utter rarity of such mistakes by the IDF and the enormous pains they go to to minimize civilian casualties. Those pains include, but are far from limited to, warning everyone in the target zone—including, in consequence, the terrorists—of an impending strike so the civilians (and terrorists) could leave beforehand.

This is the depth of the perfidy of the Progressive-Democratic Party that they’ve become so protective of the Hamas and IJP terrorists.

Again, I Ask

The subheadline of a Wall Street Journal editorial concerning Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s pushing Ukraine to stop hitting inside Russia, particularly Russia’s oil refineries, says it al.

The White House fears attacks on refineries inside Russia could raise global prices.

In the body of the editorial:

…the Biden Administration had urged Ukraine to halt its campaign targeting Russian refineries and warned that “the drone strikes risk driving up global oil prices and provoking retaliation.”

That’s Biden’s tacit admission of two things: the currently in place oil sanctions against Russia aren’t working—else Ukraine’s successes would severely impact Putin’s ability to get fuel to his barbarians inside Ukraine, which we should be able to expect even Biden to consider good, but those successes would have no effect on oil prices outside Russia.

The other Biden admission is that he doesn’t want the sanctions to work.

Again I ask: whose side is Biden on?

Deals with Terrorists

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is applying ever increasing pressure on Israel to reach an agreement with the terrorist Hamas regarding cease fires and hostages. This extends to his telecon with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu late last week, using the IDF’s screwup (an amazingly rare occurrence, illustrating the IDF’s amazing skill at minimizing civilian casualties, a skill that is amazingly ignored by the press and by Biden and his SecState) as his latest excuse for pressuring Israel.

President Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to work out the issue during a phone call Thursday. He also called for an immediate cease-fire and for Netanyahu to empower his negotiators to reach a deal, according to US officials.

Which raises a couple of questions in my peabrain. What is Biden’s evidence that Netanyahu hasn’t already—hasn’t all along—empowered his negotiators to reach a deal?

The larger question, though, is when has Biden called Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas MFWIC, or Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’ Gaza Strip MFWIC? Has he even tried? Neither of them will take his calls?

The answers to that larger question, coupled with Biden’s blatantly one-sided pressure on Israel to reach a deal that he knows Hamas doesn’t need or want, are very strong clues to whose side Biden is on and to the depth of Biden’s antisemitism.