Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon Taps Crowdsourcing to Chart Future Threats

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
In a story just posted in the online edition of Time Magazine wrote...


said late Thursday that it’s seeking a “crowd-sourcing entity,” mostly likely a contractor, to chart “the types of future challenges to national security for which the President of the United States would expect U.S. armed forces to have the ability to address.”

The Pentagon wants the winning bidder to brainstorm online with “a large and diverse group of people collaborating in real time” to improve how the nation prepares for, and fights, its wars.


Basically what they want is people like you and me... Folks who read and take in everything who can see patterns and make educated guesses as to what they might mean.

it relies on a constellation of thousands or more individuals, often unpaid, who funnel their ideas into a central clearinghouse, where the optimum ones supposedly float to the surface.


As a side note to the TPTB here at ATS...

If you’re interested in helping hone the nation’s future war-fighting environment, you’d better get cracking. The Pentagon is seeking a three-year deal beginning next month, and the deadline to apply is Sept. 4.


They go on to say that the Pentagon has used """"crowdsourcing"""" as they call it... on a much more limited scale, to design a next-gen combat vehicle. I hate to think of what that new 'Designed By Committee' vehicle looks like... Prob the only tank on the market with a bud vase and built in aroma therapy dispensers???

Well anyway... if the went to Time Magazine with this, then they must be serious and given the demographics of Time readers.... their looking for a certain kind of person to help out with this project.

go read the story... there's more facts there about what they hope to achieve




posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: HardCorps

Actually it's not necessarily a born to lose proposition.
The military doesn't tend to solve small non-mission critical problems easily. They just sit there for generations- the problems actually become part of military culture- almost a point of pride or at least a hardship that brings the group together for the grunts who have to live with it. God knows just how many small components of the Marine Corps are being held together entirely by boot bands and medical tape because nobody bothered to rethink a small problem with an otherwise effective tool. So there's always gonna be one guy in the unit who just can't drink from his canteen while in MOPP (chem suit) for example. But you can bet that there's somebody at Coca Cola who could come up with something better overnight if he thought it would sell a few million extra cans and get him a raise.

All the military really has to do is throw out the ideas that aren't fully formed, and then cost-benefit the remaining ones, and god knows how many small sources of battlefield friction might be eliminated as a result.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond

I agree with you...
often the solution to a prob is found by someone who's standing outside of and has different prospective.
Yet I do wonder how far their willing to go as a partner in this.

if we look at part (b.)

b. Generate innovative scenarios that present pathways to a crisis or conflict that is antithetical to U.S. national security interests. Scenarios will provide a narrative description that captures a representative potential future national security challenge and includes the following key elements: identity of key actors, their interests and objectives, primary drivers to conflict and rationale for key actors’ decision-making and actions, key capabilities they could use in a crisis or conflict, description of representative activities they would take (i.e., the manner in which they would use their capabilities to achieve their objectives), and role of third parties. Scenarios should remain within the bounds of plausibility.


that part where they want """key elements: identity of key actors""" etc...

That's the kind of intel people like us normally do not have access too.
Surely that would require some kind of disclosure on their part declassification of intel briefs... I mean you couldn't expect all the unpaid volunteers to get a 'Q' clearance. that would delay the start up date considerably if not make the project untenable altogether.

it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Its a set up, they want all your thoughts and ideas to better control you now too.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
Its a set up, they want all your thoughts and ideas to better control you now too.


Their to late...
My wife called dibs and since she has me by the ---you know what--- I have to do what she tells me too!

Still I'd like to see Denis McDonough try to beat the wife's fav method of persuasion---aka--- wearing a lacy black bra and sporting a mischievous smile---

Never mind... Upon reflection I do not want that image in my head!



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: HardCorps
a reply to: The Vagabond

I agree with you...
often the solution to a prob is found by someone who's standing outside of and has different prospective.
Yet I do wonder how far their willing to go as a partner in this.

if we look at part (b.)

b. Generate innovative scenarios that present pathways to a crisis or conflict that is antithetical to U.S. national security interests. Scenarios will provide a narrative description that captures a representative potential future national security challenge and includes the following key elements: identity of key actors, their interests and objectives, primary drivers to conflict and rationale for key actors’ decision-making and actions, key capabilities they could use in a crisis or conflict, description of representative activities they would take (i.e., the manner in which they would use their capabilities to achieve their objectives), and role of third parties. Scenarios should remain within the bounds of plausibility.


that part where they want """key elements: identity of key actors""" etc...

That's the kind of intel people like us normally do not have access too.
Surely that would require some kind of disclosure on their part declassification of intel briefs... I mean you couldn't expect all the unpaid volunteers to get a 'Q' clearance. that would delay the start up date considerably if not make the project untenable altogether.

it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.



And on the other side, they could be so distracted with the events in the Middle East that they don't see the border confrontation between two African countries over Tellurium crystal mines that have suddenly become worth billions because they are used for the latest fondleslab phones.

I've seen systems designed by committee. They basically maintain a set of requirements some of which are fixed, others which vary as the project evolves, many of which conflict. They want a vehicle that can travel over sand, water, mud, climb over obstacles, have a maximum speed of 60mpgh, withstand RPG grenades, be able to carry 20+ people, defend itself from air attack, use standard engines and fuel, be able to be carried in a Hercules transport plane, be light enough to drift down by parachute.

So the initial list of possible vehicles ranges from a bullet-proof monocycle to a Star-Wars dune-crawler, but eventually narrows down to something between a cross of a beach-buggy with roll-bars to a 100-tonne Abrams tank with jet engines.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: HardCorps

You're right, that's fishy. It seems very un-fed-like to outsource intelligence to the unwashed masses.
My shot from the hip is that it's a psy-op. They want to know what we find credible and worrying so they can get us to play ball with their own agenda on the things they actually perceive as threats without actually being told what's going on.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell



there's there answer...
A vintage VW Microbus with a chain gun...

not so good going up hill or all that fast on the interstate... But man can it clear a traffic lane!

edit on 15-8-2014 by HardCorps because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: HardCorps

I know you're joking but trade that in for an offroad capable Toyota pickup and you actually do have a fighting platform capable of being used by any average joe who knows the local terrain to rout a soviet equipped regular army. It worked for Chad against Libya in the Toyota War.

I've thought for some time that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the US to keep a backline force of cheap low tech, mission specific options that can be loaned to allies or deployed by militia at home if ever needed as a suppliment to the shrinking and increasingly sophisticated all purpose forces that they envision as the way of the future.

One such idea would be a hovercraft conversion kit for a commonly available light vehicle (I figured out during an episode of junk yard wars that all you would need is some old industrial conveyor belts, a sawzall, some ducting, a fan blade, a radiator repositioning kit, and an adapter to bolt on to the water pump to connect the fan, and bam, you have a humvee fleet that can be ready to cross a river at any point with just a couple hours down time to reconfigure.

I'm sure there are engineering problems I'm missing there, but they'd be considerably less expensive than other projects the military happily takes on with no guarantee they will be used, and you could add an awful lot of wildcards to the deck that would make the US military much less predictable in any scenaro.
edit on Fri 15 Aug 2014 by The Vagabond because: typo



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond

The USMC had the very same idea


But that's all 'Old School' stuff...

"New School" is way more ----Intense---




The Marine Corps is engaged in an acquisition program to develop a Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle in order to provide the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) with a tele-operated/semi-autonomous ground vehicle for remoting combat tasks in order to reduce risk to Marines and neutralize threats. The Gladiator is designed principally to support dismounted infantry during the performance of their mission, across the spectrum of conflict and range of military operations. The primary function of the Gladiator will be to provide the Ground Combat Element (GCE) with unmanned scouting and reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA). Operating forward of GCE units, the Gladiator will perform scouting and reconnaissance tasks while permitting the operator to remain covered and concealed some distance away. Additional functions of the Gladiator system will be to utilize a modular configuration capable of employing the Anti-Personnel/Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS), M240G/M249 Machine Guns, and currently fielded chemical detection systems. With the development of future Mission Payload Modules (MPM), projected operational capabilities include: obscurant delivery; direct fire (lethal and non-lethal); communications relay; tactical deception (electronic and acoustic); combat resupply; casualty evacuation, or counter sniper employment. These modules will allow commanders to increase their operational capability by tailoring the capabilities of the Gladiator to best meet their mission requirements.”


ETA: The Gladiator was from back in my day...2006... god only knows what way cool--- and truly insidious devices they've come up with nowadays... Damn are we humans good at finding new and better ways to kill each other or what?

edit on 15-8-2014 by HardCorps because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Always thought the something form the old Anime cartoon Robotech would be pretty slick. That is the cyclone battle armor. Granted the engineering would be a pain but.. still would be freaking cool:

Image

Grim



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimmley



A great big giant robot would make a fine target for a tinny tiny Gladiator...

Being so small--- your taller than it is--- being about the same size of an over grown Quad Bike--- it also makes it rather hard to hit too

edit on 16-8-2014 by HardCorps because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: HardCorps

Aye but those are man sized power armor not 40ft tall robots. I do think that something the size of the cyclones would be a benefit on the battle field, heck it gives you a ride with the bike and protection when its in armor mode, win/win. Now it would only truly work if they could make them as agile as the operator, otherwise you would be a sitting duck. I will admit it has been interesting to see the development of machines the past 12 years. Autonomous robots, still does not completely sit well with me. There is just to much room for error with hackers and what not.

Grim

edit on 17/8/2014 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join