Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Ground Combat Vehicle RFP Cancelled

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 08:47 AM
Original message
New Ground Combat Vehicle RFP Cancelled
unhappycamper note: Since the Pentagon has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

I didn't realize that the Pentagon/MIC could restrict my First Amendment rights as well as morph the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 with zero, zip, nada Congressional approval. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.[br />
unhappycamper summary of this article: The comments at the end of this article are priceless.



The GCV competition was cancelled so the Army can “better ensure an achievable, affordable, and timely infantry fighting vehicle,” according to an emailed Army announcement. The cancellation will result in a six month delay of the program, although the service intends to field a vehicle within seven years after a contract is awarded. The statement says:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/25/army-cancels-gcv-competition/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. The wrong guys were winning
Can't quite figure out the details, but this sounds suspiciously like a case of "the wrong guys were winning". That can either be a political decision (the wrong company is winning) or a case of "the design we disliked the most still scored better over all". They'll rewrite the requirements to virtually dicate a design. You'll be able to tell what the problem was by reading what the new requirements virtually dictate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. Since it wasn't a demand why pay pay atttention?
As an alternative:

1) Abide by the 4 paragraph limit
2) Use the article from other sources that are non-military
3) Replace key names with buck fush
4) Insert derogatory names in key spots of the article
5) Insert hidden messages in the article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC