More on batteries ...

• Author: Morganstein, Mel
• Position: Letters - Letter to the Editor

I read with very great interest Michael Peck's article on the Army's munitions battery programs and the problems the service is having.

I retired from "Army Research Labs" (Harry Diamond Laboratories) after 39 years developing reserve ordnance power supplies for the Army and even other services.

I was tasked by Picatinny Arsenal a number of years ago to work with one of their engineers to research and report on how the Army could buy their reserve fuze batteries cheaper and more easily. It was evident quite early that their management expected a report that came up with magic technologies that solved all their acquisition problems. I knew that was not the answer.

As I confirmed in talking to every supplier then in the business, Army policies with respect to these acquisition of these assets were the problems. Aside from the rather "take-it-or-leave-it" way the government treated its suppliers, our fuze report included such findings as:

* The refusal by the Army fuze managers to adequately support and utilize the Army's own reserve battery technology experts. We were people who could bring long-term corporate knowledge to the table and were almost never invited to be a part of the fuze system development from the beginning. Instead, we were usually only called in on a program after it got into trouble because of battery problems, avoidable battery problems.

* The failure by Army to take control of and try and standardize reserve battery designs, thus resulting in a new battery being developed with each new system.

In large measure, this was encouraged by the Army's insistence on taking the easy way out and turning everything over to a prime contractor, often one that was big on promises...