Comments on: DNI Pushes Spy Sat Shakeup

By: Do the right thing

Do the right thing — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:32:34 +0000

Seems like they need to restructure more than just the NRO. Do we have too many intel groups and too many layers of oversight? Wasn’t that problem in masking the 911 perpetrators?

Why don’t we have more vertical integration and less horizontal disintegration???

By: David Rahfeldt

David Rahfeldt — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:01:00 +0000

Want a world class NRO ? Give them back their own budgetary control, give them back their own right to mission determination and prioritization of taskings, give them back research money to fund technology development that is real and significant.

Give them 12 boses, no control over mission or taskings, make them share funding randomly with whoever can get on their coat-tails to suck up their time and budget … and you are lucky if they can produce 1980’s quality results still , at all …

The point made about strategic and tactical intel is a critial one … it takes different assets, different analysis, different deployment methodologies, simply put, it is a different mission and different skill set using different technologies.

Technology is not magic, neither are craftsman … gotta have the right men and tools if you want the mission to succeed.

Failure is not only an option, it is probable if they dont get the tools, technology, funds, and autonomy they need.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:48:49 +0000

58thMIND: Part of the issue is that there really is no “community”. ‘Strategic Intel’ and ‘Tactical Intel’ are totally different requirements.

Indeed, it seems to me that a lot of the recent confusion comes from DoD trying to steal NRO money to buy DoD missions…another end-run around the acquisitions process, similar to “hosted payload”.

By: The58thMIND

The58thMIND — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:25:01 +0000

SERIOUSLY? Are we really going to get the same folks together (again and again and again) and go through this? What’s it going to take for everyone to realize that we’re just rehashing the same old song and dance? We must start looking at other avenues and fresh points of view to get truly unique and NEW approaches to these community requirements.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:17:45 +0000

It seems that this may well be part of the result of declassification. Once people know that there’s pie, they’re all gonna want a slice. Back when you couldn’t distribute IMINT because it would blow “fact-of IMINT”, it was a lot easier to define a narrow mission and optimize for it!

By: Chief Houston

Chief Houston — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:30:38 +0000

KISS Doctrine should prevail. Information flow patterns should be the backbone. If the situational leadership can handle the group interface objections and begin to lead through the maze, then this may be viable.

The first thing is to untie the knot, then figure out what the objective of the line is, before you begin to secure it properly.

Finally, oversight can be a review of the resultant data if the systems flows properly.