Content deleted Content added
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) →Description: found a pdf to cite (the others were 404s) |
Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) m last-author-amp=y/yes → name-list-style=amp; WP:GenFixes on |
||
Line 44:
An April 2012 report recommending further study after initial success. Palantir software was rated easy to use, but did not have the flexibility and wide number of data sources of DCGS-A.<ref>{{Cite news |title= Palantir Operational Assessment Report |date= April 5, 2012 |author= US Army Operational Test Command |url= https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/08/1830_001.pdf |accessdate= September 29, 2013 |work= Wired |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131116073234/http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/08/1830_001.pdf |archive-date= November 16, 2013 |url-status= live}}</ref>
In July 2012, Congressman [[Duncan D. Hunter]] (from [[California]], the state where Palantir is based) complained of [[United States Department of Defense|US DoD]] obstacles to its wider use.<ref>{{cite news |newspaper= [[The Washington Times]] |title= Military has to fight to purchase lauded IED buster |date= July 16, 2012 |author= Rowan Scarborough |author-link= Rowan Scarborough |url= http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/16/military-has-to-fight-to-purchase-lauded-ied-buste/ |accessdate= September 29, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120719162415/http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/16/military-has-to-fight-to-purchase-lauded-ied-buste/ |archive-date= July 19, 2012 |url-status= live}}</ref>
Although a limited test in August 2011 by the [[United States Army Test and Evaluation Command|Test and Evaluation Command]] had recommended deployment, operation problems of DCGS-A included the baseline system was "not operationally effective" with reboots on average about every 8 hours. A set of improvements was identified in November 2012.<ref>{{Cite web |title= Distributed Common Ground System – Army (DCGS-A) |publisher= United States Army Test and Evaluation Command |date= December 27, 2012 |url= http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/army/2012dcgs-a.pdf |accessdate= September 29, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140211082334/http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/army/2012dcgs-a.pdf |archive-date= February 11, 2014 |url-status= live}}</ref><ref>[https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1007951.pdf Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Distributed Common Ground System – Army. (DCGS-A) Increment 1 Release 2. (January 2016) Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) Report ] p.ii "There were no hardware failures during the FOT&E; however, software failures were still a challenge for users. The system required reboots about every 20 hours for users who had heavy workloads such as the fire support analysts and data managers in the BCT Tactical Operations Center (TOC)". p.iii list of recommendations. Tests coordinate with NIE 15.2. p.45: recommendations. Diagrams. Tests were Mar-Jun 2015.</ref>
The press reported some of the shortcomings uncovered by General Genaro Dellarocco in the tests.<ref>{{Cite news |title= Brain, Damaged: Army Says Its Software Mind Is 'Not Survivable' |author= Noah Shachtman |date= August 8, 2012 |work= Wired Danger Room |url= https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/software-brain-not-survivable/ |accessdate= September 29, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131115212453/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/software-brain-not-survivable/ |archive-date= November 15, 2013 |url-status= live}}</ref>
The ambitious goal of integrating 473 data sources for 75 million reports proved to be challenging, after spending an estimated $2.3 billion on the Army system alone.<ref name="flaw" /><ref>{{Cite news |title= No Spy Software Scandal Here, Army Claims |author= Noah Shachtman |date= November 30, 2012 |work= Wired Danger Room |url= https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/no-spy-software-scandal-here-army-claims/ |accessdate= September 29, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131116041237/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/no-spy-software-scandal-here-army-claims/ |archive-date= November 16, 2013 |url-status= live}}</ref>
Line 51 ⟶ 50:
In May 2013 ''[[Politico]]'' reported that Palantir lobbyists and some anonymous returning veterans continued to advocate the use of its software, despite its interoperability limits. In particular, members of special forces and US Marines were not required to use the official Army system.<ref>{{Cite news |title= Spy Chief Called Silicon Valley Stooge in Army Software Civil War |author= Noah Shachtman |date= August 1, 2012 |work= Wired Danger Room |url= https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/palantir/ |accessdate= September 29, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130925205328/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/palantir/ |archive-date= September 25, 2013 |url-status= live}}</ref>
Similar stories appeared in other publications, with Army representatives (such as Major General [[Mary A. Legere]]) citing the limitations of various systems.<ref>{{Cite news |title= Boondoggle Goes Boom: A demented tale of how the Army actually does business |date= June 19, 2013 |work= The New Republic |author= Robert Draper |url= https://newrepublic.com/article/113484/how-pentagon-boondoggle-putting-soldiers-danger |accessdate= September 30, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131101193103/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113484/how-pentagon-boondoggle-putting-soldiers-danger |archive-date= November 1, 2013 |url-status= live}}</ref>
Congressman Hunter was a member of the House Armed Services Committee which required a review of the program, after two other members of congress sent an open letter to Secretary of Defense [[Leon Panetta]].<ref>{{Cite web |title= Open Letter to Leon E. Panetta, Secretary, US Department of Defense |author= Darrell Issa |author-link= Darrell Issa |author2= Jason Chaffetz |author2-link= Jason Chaffetz |
The equivalent system for the [[United States Navy]] was planned for initial deployment by 2015, and within a shipboard network called Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) by 2016.<ref name="flaw" />
| |||