US Army may be about to 'waste' up to $22b on Microsoft HoloLens The US Army could end up wasting much as $22 billion in taxpayer cash if soldiers aren't actually interested in using, or able to use as intended, the Microsoft HoloLens headsets it said it would purchase, a government watchdog has warned. In 2018, the American military splashed $480 million on 100,000 prototype augmented- …
And trust it to be just as effective in its main role as a helmet. I'm sure a bullet ricocheting off it won't cause it to die if the mud, dust, heat or cold doesn't kill it first!
Probably the military is hoping that grunts will see the enhanced reality as a video game, and be more willing to kill without conscience or thought like they are taking out hookers and drug dealers in GTA.
"Hang on,Sarge, I've just rebooted my helmet"
Being a MicroS**t product, it will decide by itself when is the most inappropriate time to reboot.
On another issue, presumably these units will all be in conversation with each other, telling the grunts where the commander wants them to be and what to target, or passing info about friend-or-foe. Even if the traffic is encrypted, how long before the other side develops an RF triangulating targeting system that drops a mortar round on every headset that generates an ack signal. The usual philosophy is radio silence except in exceptional circumstances.
Given the rubbish level of comments in this discussion, this, so far is the one that concerns me. The headsets do indeed talk to each other so the individual soldier is emitting RF. The range is not published, and it can't be far, but even a 1/4 watt signal can travel a mile... which is way outside the typical close combat radius; soldier-on-soldier.
Triangulation is fast these days; just ask a count rocket, artillery and mortar system operator. The US in particular has systems that can detect, track, warn of and target a round before it gets halfway through its flight!
Picking up these systems will be child's play if they are not careful.
HammerOn1024
Fair points, but is it an issue in practice?
Triangulation means picking up the signal from two points, (one point just gives you a bearing) and as you note, it's not like the signal is likely to be travelling all that far.
So you need two interception points on the ground that both pick up the signal, and which are in contact with each other (which either means a cable placed in advance, or at least one of the two intercept stations has to itself also transmit). Both intercept stations have to be close enough to pick up the signal which means they are well within range of all sorts of weapons, even down to small arms.
And you are trying to track a person, who might be quite mobile.
Counter-battery radars have the advantage that they pick up a projectile which is following a ballistic flight path, so by tracking a chunk of the flight path mid-flight, they can project back to it's point of origin, and they can do this from some miles behind the actual front line. You then use that data to counter battery fire at an artillery battery that an might be moving off fairly quickly after they fire their last round, but not instantaneously.
@EvilDrSmith
So you need two interception points on the ground that both pick up the signal, and which are in contact with each other
Given that they are likely to use 5G technology which is millimetric wavelength, you could reasonably assume that computer controlled ranging could control a mortar round up to 1km using 2 antennae about 1 metre apart. Even if accuracy demanded that the antennae were 10m apart, this could still be a fully portable mobile unit.
which either means a cable placed in advance. or at least one of the two intercept stations has to itself also transmit
The intercept stations (antennae) could communicate with IR laser which would be invisible to the enemy except in fog or rain. Indeed if the antennae are not on a rigid platform you would need lidar anyway to accurately measure the distance between the 2 units.
JassMan,
All good comments, agreed, but that's a lot of specialist expensive tech that you are now sticking very near the front line to try and locate my specialist and expensive tech.
Also, assuming I'm using my specialist expensive tech in a sensible manner (i.e only transmitting briefly, and when necessary), you will need to have a mortar (or whatever) tasked and ready to fire as soon as you pick up the signal. If you need to move the weapon into range and then set up the weapon, I've likely moved somewhere else (if I have any sense / know that you have this capability).
But since you don't know where on the battlefield I am until you pick up the signal, you actually need a whole load of mortar's or similar in position ready to fire, to be able to reliably exploit this once you detect my signal. Only, you probably need those weapons to be doing something else.
In practice, I'm a small, mobile target, that is difficult to detect (and can only be detected at quite close ranges).
Intercepting the signal and reacting to it (being ABLE to react to it) is going to take a lot of resources on your part.
(And then we get into silly season - I know that you can do this, so I set up a remote transmitter and cover it with a counter-battery radar, so that when you react to what you think is me using the system, I can pin-point and kill your mortars: move and countermove)
I know we're all focusing on the Grunt on the frontline case, but I dont really see that being specifically mentioned in the use case.
There are plenty of other positions where it potentially could be useful (big emphasis on potentially!). I'm thinking trajectory overlays for Field Artillery crews, maintenance information for maintenance crews, 3D spatial information for Radar monitors, etc.
No need for these units to be frontline and away from bases.
Obviously I think we all want comm linked visual displays with enemy markers, and squad level networking ala Space Marines, but that I do not see happening for at least another generation... (or perhaps another 40k years... :P)
Cloud punchers don't really need overlays because they're often firing at targets >20km away. Laptops with digital terrain models would be more useful, ie the ability to warn that engaging a target means your shells will probably intersect that high rise building. Or the first few rounds will.
It'll be interesting to see how much it'll borrow from video game overlays, and if it'll be able to combine stuff like zooming, low light or thermal vision, or just pair with an iPhone & show pron. Or ads for CoD96.
Have you ever seen a modern soldier? They are already wearing/using lots of electronics. From the armchair in which you commentate, I perhaps wonder if you are thinking of the WW2 dramas you watch when viewing the modern armed forces.
Why you think this would be a flimsy plastic thing covered in loose wires I am not sure. Even consumer versions are somewhat sleek and these custom military versions will obviously be tough.
"They'll also be radio silent ..."
When they need to be, at other times I they might benefit from interactions through the squad comms link to provide better tactical awareness [e.g. visual cues as to where the rest of your squad is]. I would think that having a "look and shoot" capability to bring artillery/air strike support down on a target might be welcomed if in a bit of a tight spot.
Challenge is not just radio silence, but also every other emission. So shielding the whole system so electronic activity can't be detected. Or triggered by transmitters that might induce emission. Or non-radio effects, like glare off visors, light spillage from displays, heat generated etc. Or just being able to mask the shape so a bulky helmet looks vaguely natural.
The job of the DoD is to spend a $1Tn defense budget in the USA.
It can buy 50,000 more Humvees and park them in the desert after already retiring the program
It can buy a couple more nuclear aircraft carriers in case the current 16 aren't enough to defeat the Venezuelan navy
It can pay soldiers more and invest in veteran care (Joking!)
It can ship pallets of $100 bills to Iraq and lose them
Or it can bankroll a disastrous failed product by the company that corporate America and the American govt relies on for Piss-Poor-Powerpoint-Presentations
At least this won't actually kill anyone
Or it can bankroll a disastrous failed product by the company that corporate America and the American govt relies on for Piss-Poor-Powerpoint-Presentations
.. with added irony that the company involved was actually responsible for introducing the time waster called Powerpoint.
Maybe it's my age, but I feel more and more that Microsoft's main goal in life is to slow down industry and (over)charge them for the privilege.
Carry on while I fire up my Wyse VT 102 :)
Maybe it's my age, but I feel more and more that Microsoft's main goal in life is to slow down industry and (over)charge them for the privilege.
An interesting viewpoint. So you think that industry is happy to pay more for a worse solution. What does that say about the alternatives do you think?
> An interesting viewpoint. So you think that industry is happy to pay more for a worse solution. What does that say about the alternatives do you think?
Microsoft buys the alternatives and then discontinues them. Groove.net is a case in point - excellent product which did team collaboration far far better than Teams, at least 10 years earlier.
The Teams team should simply have re-released Groove (rebranded) and MS management would have been none the wiser and fallen over themselves to congratulate the team on a great product.
Microsoft buys the alternatives and then discontinues them.
Agree - that's why it was accused of stifling innovation a decade ago and it is IMHO still at it. Alternatively, I already pointed out with Visio that it has otherwise a habit of butchering the UI of an acquisition.
I have no idea what they teach the people working there, but efficiency and clean workflow management clearly ain't part of it.
Case in point. I've just had an hour meeting with 12 people on the design of an expert system to be buried inside MS sale pitch; to try and take on the role of analysing some data that previously was looked after by one competent person.
The permanent "IT" solution needs permanent IT support and no doubt licensing; all while diluting the expertise of the competent person. The IT solution also can't react to new situations or information and analyse them on it's own.
There's more to MS than just software, and selling bloated solutions to problems to orgs that have forgotten how to do things is one of them.
Enough to put me on the search for another job. All a bit disappointing really.
".. with added irony that the company involved was actually responsible for introducing the time waster called Powerpoint."
It's my understanding that PowerPoint is the primary weapon used by anyone with the rank of colonel (sp?) or higher in the modern US armed forces.
right now the best use of this money would be to provide Ukraine with anything they need to push the Russians out, and that includes pushing them out of Crimea. If they end up in a substantially worse position than before the war then we may finally be rid of that Putin asshole
I saw the comments from Russia this morning that NATO is trying to start WW3, which made me laugh. I mean The West Vs Russia maybe, but who else would be on the Russian side. China arent going to kick off a war to back Russia, they might slip them a few bits of hardware, but there not stupid enough to get involved there. Who else does Russia have? Syria and Mali? Transnistria? Not exactly threats to Europe or America are they. And if NATO decided to launch into Ukraine, well we've seen how "good" Russian Forces are against the much worse equipped Ukrainian forces - The Russian forces would be sent packing so fast they'd get whiplash from the speed of the turnaround.
About the only thing stopping NATO getting properly involved at the moment is Russia's nukes, and the fact that everyone is pretty certain that Putin is just about crazy enough to try to use them if he was to think he personally was in any danger.
I almost wish Putin would do something to force NATO's hand and get them involved, it would make the war end much sooner, and relieve the Ukrainian people from their suffering.
China is, if anything, rather pissed at Vlad right now. NATO's fresh motivation to gear up makes retaking Taiwan tougher for them.
India/China intermittently flares up; so as crazy as it may sound, given Russian interests in India; China may well end up being if not allied, certainly aligned to Western interests against Vlad.
But in grand scheme, China benefits most by being a supplier and staying politically neutral.
NATO involvement in Russia would be a bloody affair for all involved; even if it were somehow possible to contain it to conventional engagement. Given Russian performance against a lightly equipped opponent; one would not fancy their chances in a conventional engagement against a well practised combined arms force explicitly designed to beat them. Still, losses on both sides would be vicious. Would Russia try on even a limited interdiction at such risk? I don't think anyone can rule that out.
The nightmare scenario would of course be for China and the Norks to undertake both attacks on Taiwan and South Korea; diluting NATO's response on any front. China might be motivated to act now before NATO sees the benefits of upping it's commitments.
IMO we are closer to nuclear armageddon today than at any point in the cold war.
Right now the best exit plan appears to be to cut off Russian income entirely. Certain countries haven't been persuaded thats the right thing to do. Looking at you, Germany. Fermenting the fire of rebellion inside Russia against it's own leadership seems to be the only practical way to de-escalate. No accident that we've seen massive crackdowns against even the slightest hint of disobedience.
Fermenting the fire of rebellion inside Russia against it's own leadership seems to be the only practical way to de-escalate
Yeah... Germany tried that once, even sending an Lenin-sized piece of yeast to speed the fermentation process in Russia.
It did not end well, I see why Germany would be afraid to give it a shot. Russia is simply too much of an unknown for Western Europe to even start trying to predict what could go on if a revolution starts.
Whilst NATO involvement could bring the Ukrainian war (or is it a conflict, I believe there is a subtle difference) to a speedy end, the method and collateral damage may not be in everyone's best interests.
Putin is unstable and as you state, if he is personally not at immediate risk, then it is completely plausible that a nuclear or chemical/bio strike on a NATO member is possible.
My gut feeling is not nuclear but a messy bio agent spread in a major city. That will create far more fear and damage than nuclear. The latter makes a huge mess but the real collateral damage takes longer to have an effect.
If there's any truth to some of the videos doing the rounds, Putin is on the verge of keeling over anyway. Whether anyone better gets the keys is an open question.
Oligarchs mysteriously dropping dead in large numbers leads me to think the successors are already lining up to "deal" with each other, surreptitiously, for the top job. Still, a Russian oligarch war between a bunch of dickheads sounds far preferable to them attempting to stomp on their neighbours.
Russia talks about Balkanising Ukraine, when, it is quite apparent that actually the real problem is the lack of Balkanisation of Russia.
Wait, there have been Oligarchs dropping dead? Why haven't I read about that? Do you have a link somewhere?
I have noticed that old Vlad doesn't seem to look as healthy as he normally does in the few videos I've seen. I guess not being able to go out and ride a bear in Siberia is beginning to get to him... :P
Or they could use the money for other very useful military equipment.
I was a lead for a project which needed a Hololens in a Defence (not Defense) environment. The use case is not field infantry, but "elsewhere"
Long story short, despite "promise" and relevant features, it was never used and sat in it's box all day (years really).
Why:
1). No one could show the person/people using it how to.
2). The deployment models do not suit a Defence environment - namely needing Azure AD and various other bits in the lovely cloud to operate
3) Offline (ie no public cloud/internet) deployment model was crippled and needed local shared admin access to work
etc etc
Other aspects of this project were fine, but the Hololens, as good and as promising as the hardware is, was not suited to this environment. This project did not have a $22bn budget, where I am sure some "let's just make it work" may occur after it blows out to $80bn but thats not the point I'm making.
Anonymous for obvious reasons.
This. The IT industry is happy with the billions of military money, but when it comes to requirements in the field?
I could see a proper use for such things in the military, however, in warfare you can't take anything for granted. So if it does not work offline, everybodys time and money is wasted.
The use-case that comes to my mind is a small camera-equipped drone that is paired to a tank. The tank commander can then use the VR set and the drone to get a bird's eye view from the surroundings even though the tank is fully buttoned up and resting somewhere in a camoflaged position.
If the drone is shot down, launch the next one. If a viable target is identified, the tank gets into action.
>is a small camera-equipped drone that is paired to a tank
In theory yes, in practice no.
At any sort or range there should be some other asset identifying any target worth a 120mm shell
Was involved in a trial to put a sideways looking camera on the end of the Chally's gun. Idea was you can poke it around a corner and have a look before exposing yourself. Problem was that the tank stopped and cautiously looked around every corner rather than do the barreling forward crushing opposition stuff that the chaps in charge rather rely on tanks to do.
If the drone can operate independent from the tank, say within a couple of miles, then the tank commander can get a picture of the situation; barrel out and shoot on the move at pre-identified targets.
Using the tank's gun as a stick to mount a camera on, might sound good in theory, but has all the flaws you described.
The actual worth of such a system depends on how it operates, but a system that can give the individual tanker, or the individual group <insert smallest tank formation above the singular tank> eyes in the sky sounds pretty promising to me.
I dare to say that the Ukraine would have done much worse, if they would have had access to data gathered by NATO using all their flying radar sets.
But I agree with you, any system that interferes with the tank's movement and positioning will be equally a liability. Hence the idea of using drones.
Following up: Adding drones etc to individual tanks has the problem of slowing the operation and losing momentum.
As we've seen in Ukraine, individual tanks operating alone and without infantry aren't a good idea compared to a tank group with a plan.
Drones and other sensors as an addition to scout units at a higher level directing multiple tanks are coming online.
For some reason one of our former colleagues bought 20 of the damn things. We have no use for them, no demos, no business case.
We *could* come up with one, but it would require a lot of investment in a lot of our fundamental systems before going anywhere near touching a hololens. In the asset management world, one of the major concerns is the retaining skill base for people to do work. People clear off to jobs in 2-3 years now as matter of routine; so you can't rely on personnel knowledge transfer. Recording stuff in a hololens for how-to playback etc. seems a fairly logical idea for future technicians that might never have stripped item X before - or never will again. (Given that maintenance cycles might be 12-18 years it's entirely possible you will have no staff that ever do a maintenance procedure on certain models).
The base system of paper-procedures and text documents describing procedures is good enough, so no-one wants to invest a shedload in transferring over to a different way of working that costs a ton more to do. Good enough being measured in terms of safety and system reliability. If it wasn't good enough; then one would consider doing things differently.
There is a reason the US army likes a manual loader as a crew position in their battle tanks. The extra pair of eyes and arms is invaluable to real-world living with the tank; while simplifying the machine's design.
The US will drop the manual loader when they drop the rest of the crew. And that IS coming, you can save a LOT of armor weight if you're not trying to protect a live crew (and the US does try to protect the humans inside the box as well as they can, unlike the Russians).
Maybe that's even the use case for this stuff. Infantry outside the tank are actually driving the tank, they can see what it does, send the heavy armor over the ridge and dump some fire with no risk to themselves, then when they pop up they get an overlay of what the tank's AI thinks still needs infantry firepower.
Design it right, and the autoloader acts like a self-destruct, making sure the advanced electronics don't survive if the tank does take a hit. No humans inside means you design the blowout panels so that the explosion goes through the electronics compartment and out the bottom of the tank to minimize risk to nearby infantry.
And if I'm thinking about it, you know there's already a few dozen US research teams working on it. I'll be amazed if whatever eventually replaces the Abrams has a crew inside.
Yep, you are onto something with that. The role of a NATO infantryman in a straight up fight is very much recon, calling in artillery or air support onto relevant targets. Remote armour would be a logical extension of that idea.
Of course the Germans pioneered this stuff with the Goliath over 70 years ago.
Whilst this is probably inevitable, where it all falls down is when the comms from base to field all gets chewed up. At that point you are a sitting duck, no matter how much funky technology you have because assets will not be in the correct place or worse you don't have them.
Unmanned aircraft drones are all well and good but you have exactly the same issues. So far all this remotely operated technology has only had to work when the theatre has been very localised and risks are already minimal.
There is a reason the Kalashnikov AK47 is so successful.....
It is designed to be as basic and robust as possible and not require funky maintenance.
Without a doubt there are better, more accurate blah blah blah weapons out there but all require better looking after. The concept was that it did not need to be accurate at 100s of meters. They simply worked on the principal that the more bullets sprayed out the better. If they need real accuracy then you put the expensive equipment in the hands of special forces or snipers that will look after it.
We had a couple of customers interested in them a few years ago for use in Iron Ore Mining and electrical utilities. Unfortunately their biggest drawback was cooling - they would not have handled the outdoor temperatures in an Australian summer plus are useless in sunlight. Also no GPS or magnetic compass on it [bear with me...]
It could have been an absolute game-changer if an electrical crew could put them on, look at a piece of equipment and get all the stats and info on it. Not impossible but too many basic drawbacks. Same with mining - overlay crucial data and graphics on them.
It's a workable tool for indoors use with a lot of programming effort but 10mins is about the max you can cope with the weight on your head.
Ironically Google glass was much more appropriate but it was killed.
My firm and some partner firms have done some work with AR stuff to do with installations - think seeing where a cable should be routed in a build, but they are always based on having a tablet with a camera on the back. So basically you point the tablet at the installation area and then can see on the tablet screen where each cable should be routed. This sort of situation can be really good compared to trying to refer to drawings and CAD models, but it's still a very limited usecase.
The only time I've seen it actually used with a headset has been stuff for the sales people. Being able to walk around the product your thinking of buying can be quite helpful. The MANPAD VR that was built was quite fun too, being able to pretend your actually shooting down some "enemy" aircraft whilst getting an idea of the weight and size of the MANPAD (a dummy of course) on your shoulder was quite good for sales, I believe.
... the Army hasn't yet fully determined if or how service members will find these HoloLens headsets valuable in the field ...
Anyone can tell you that.
ie:
If = No, they will not.
They'd be absolute idiots to have their lives/survival in battle depend on any aspect of this BS.
How = In no way
Because 'If'.
A battlefield is situation not a VR game where you can reboot if the hardware stops working for whatever.
Once that happens, you_are_dead.
O.
The OIG might be right to express reservations about the amount being spent if there are significant uncertainties in the plans - but helmet mounted technology could bring many advantages to the soldiery.
For many years Western forces have had advantages such as night vision and thermal vision - but that is now becoming ubiquitous. Such stuff is readily available in the civil marketplace - maybe not as high-specced, but does close the gap.
To maintain a tactical advantage innovation is required - and improving real-time situational awareness and integrated operations is a significant one.
Warfare is brutal and unpleasant - but I would rather our side had all the advantages, because the alternative is even less pleasant.
"To maintain a tactical advantage innovation is required..."
Yes, it's basic R&D. Even if the individual technology ultimately doesn't work, the collective investment is needed and it wasn't a waste. If they only purchased proven tech then there would never be any tactical advantage.
Ha, all that will happen is that the data centres will become the targets. And at that point there al also few if any people actually in them any more so the people making the decisions can have a warn fuzzy feeling.
Whilst we are still quite a long way from the "Terminator/Cyberdyne" scenario, the speed things move it is entirely feasible. Whilst the systems will not necessarily become "self-aware", hacking and intercepts from the wrong place will have much the same outcome.
The trouble is humans are incapable of learning from past mistakes.
I have said before, we are the smartest, most selfish and most stupid being in existence.
And sadly most of it is driven by money/greed,
" But over time, they became more experienced with the technology ad developed tactics around it."
Technology ad?
Now I have visions of ads popping up in the middle of a firefight.....
Want more powerful bullets? Visit Guns'R'Us today, 5% off your first 100 bullets!
Someone said that the best way to get the right things was to get the bosses to have to use it.
So I suggest the top brass responsible for this stuff get dropped into the middle of Australia or Africa, or Siberia and have to use it for a week in full battle kit.
How heavy are the batteries? Is there any WIFI? - No WIFI because of the terrain is hilly and there are dead spots.
I remember having to use a face mask in a hot dusty environment - one problem was the sweat would collect and slosh around inside it. Periodically you had to take it off, and pour out the sweat.
Well, I can see quite a few uses for these, mostly in connection with drones. Would be useful to locate the enemy and translate their location into a visual overlay of the world so you can better see what's going on and avoid that ambush. Networked with other units in a squad could do the same: What one person sees, the others will be made aware of. Feedback to support vehicles and you've targeting systems for artillery.
Now, will these AR systems be able do deliver any of this?
It's Microsoft: What do you think?
If you're interested in what I expect is a fairly reasonable view of what this kind of thing could grow into, I heartily recommend the Frontlines series by Marko Kloos.
Definitely useful and powerful tech.
Possibly even useful enough that even MS will have the resources to do it approximately right.
There was a system (Israeli IIRC) called Glass Tank. You wore a VR headset and as you moved your head around you saw the view from the external sensors in that direction.
Looks cool but it's easier to just look at one of the multiple multi-purpose screens in a modern AFV.
Imagine if instead of looking at the rear camera screen in front of you, you had to turn your head 180deg so the goggles could show you the crunchy you were about to reverse over.
It's all legit uses.
Map and ammo count, obvious. Weapon selected, sure, you know what you've got in your hand, but the screen telling you if you've got the safety on and whether it's in full or semi auto mode is useful. Armor, you've taken a hit and not noticed because it's a firefight, get down now, go get a new plate. Heath, you've sweated out too much water, quit trying to tough it out, go get a gatorade. And the medics can triage your dumb ass that got shot before they even get to you, and they know exactly where you are.
Oh, and your rifle has a cam too. Don't stick your head around the corner. It's already calculated range to target and windspeed and adjusted the crosshairs.
It's all coming to American soldiers. Not all at once, but it's going to get there.
Is this the right system? Dunno. Probably not, it's MicroS**t. Is there a reason for a system? Obviously.
Yes soldiers did not like night vision gear in the 70’s. Because it sucked.
It was heavy, attached badly to the helmet (designed for the steal-pot but used in the Kevlar.) covered both eyes, and was like looking through a straw.
Over time they improved it and made it useful. So now it is widely used.
This could have potential but does not sound like it is ready.
At some point, technology similar (but much more mature and resilient) will start to be incorporated into front line troops' kit. It probably won't be for a couple of decades at this stage, and the various sci-fi powered battle armours are even further off* but (and I admit to being a non-military layperson here), with everybody linked into a tactical network, you reduce the likelihood of friendly fire between linked groups and offer command teams more data to decide upon tactics & strategy.
Will it be a modified hololens when it goes into active service? Almost certainly not. Will it be issued to the entire infantry once the military has a design it's happy with? Certainly not. They'd start at senior field officers and would have it trickle down from captains to lieutenants to seargents to corporals to privates.
*Unless the US gets into WW3. Then I expect we'll see some rapid improvements in front line AR tech as that's a wide-open field for development to my knowledge.
WW3 has probably already started. Right now we're in the "world dumps as much equipment as possible into the battlefield and let Ukraine do the actual shooting" phase, so right now it's just proxy WW3. Maybe it won't escalate from that, particularly with how spectacularly bad Russia is doing. Maybe China says "not yet" and sits on their hands. Maybe somebody in Russia with the opportunity eliminates Putin. But this may get a lot worse before it gets better.
Think of all the money saved in war equipment not needed because the two sides talked things out. Yeah, I know peace is not as manly, or profit inducing, as fighting is.
BTY, why is it assumed that war is inevitable and diplomatic negotiations are always after the fact? I think we need better leaders.
"This is a contract ceiling that includes all possible hardware, components, and services over a ten-year period at the worst possible pricing structure."
And is therefore the MS sales team's target.
Never, ever, tell your consultants the actual size of your budget, they will spend and spend and spend until it is all used up and you have to pay more to get a workable system. Remember that at the end of the contract the consultants walk away, and YOU are left to live with whatever they 'delivered'.
(D'oh icon, obvs.)
Such monies are not necessarily clearly wasted, for the mind-numbing generous sums are granted to give the impression that the economy is booming and the dollar is driving growth rather than propping up a collapsing ponzi system of zombie businesses dependent upon warrior conflicts to inflict debt and destruction upon others for Uncle Sam to appear as a errant saviour and gallant white knight galloping to international rescue. It’s the American Dream Way.
Is Ukraine expected to pay for all the weapons and aid it is apparently being gifted by concerned foreigners or is it a loan shark operation ..... whenever it has no profitable industry nor national reserve pots of money of its own available and its own destroyed infrastructure is yet to be rebuilt first if the displaced population is ever to return home and make a living?
Whether it is admitted to be the Grand Master Plan or not, and it is nothing new for it has been practised before many time, is Ukraine forever to be crushingly indebted to the Western allies and fully reliant upon their submitting to their whims for all future help?
Do you choose to ignore what President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961) warned y'all about was gravely to be regarded ....... the establishment of a "military-industrial complex."?
Has history not taught you any valuable lessons at all?
There's at least four pertinent impertinent questions more than just Ukrainians would likely wish to be comprehensively answered ..... with a quite a few others desperately hoping that they be not asked such leading questions.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
