TAC President Trent Kimball is nuts :) and a great marketer. I'm sure this TA is undermatched but I still would not do this. Kudos to Trent for having giant balls and confidence in his supplier. I assume AGP or GKN.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Is TA a commodity?
No matter how much we try to fight, it appears that the US DoD would like to treat TA as a commodity. Assuming it meets the spec, DoD views all TA as equal. I have some issues with this, but we'll get into that in a minute. It makes sense for the buyer to try and commoditize almost any product. It drives competition which, in turn, drives down cost. If you can consider all things equal, price becomes the only variable. With all TA manufactures in a price knife fight, DoD wins in the short term. In the long term, however, it is my opinion they lose.
Now I like competition, and have always been very competitive. There are definite long term advantages to good competition, it creates evolution. The next generation of TA will be born from a healthy competition between manufacturers to create tomorrow’s solutions, each better then its predecessor. But this type of competition is variable infinite. You can create a great solution without boundaries. That’s the pro. The con comes when the buyer’s perception is that glass is glass. If we are lucky, that perception is based on a well-rounded standard like ATPD 2352, which addresses both ballistic and environmental parameters. There are many that do not. But even then, what does the buyer get for their money and what message is sent? Well the buyer had better be getting TA that will stop the threat as sold while maintaining at least the minimum optical quality and life cycle environmental testing deems necessary. The message it sends however is, “give me the cheapest solution that meets the bare minimum requirement”. Now you have manufacturers researching how to build a product that is the cheapest it can be while meeting only the minimum requirements (I’m wearing my required 15 pieces of flair). Doing the bare minimum doesn’t feel good, but does that make it wrong?
The threat faced by the US warfighter is evolving and so too should the armor used to defeat it. I do not want to start a protection vs. mobility discussion here, so let’s highlight technologies that stop the increasing threat without adding weight. Technologies like lightweight TA, advanced materials, battle damage sensors and multi-kit solutions. Even for sustainment we should be upgrading with better solutions. And we should be researching parameters that evolve TA, not devolve it. If there is no monetary reward for researching evolutionary (or revolutionary for that matter) solutions you diminish the incentive to do so. With so few new vehicle programs there is a need to backfill with RDT&E dollars if one wishes to advance armor evolution.
To be fair, a good business should understand its product and the solutions it provides. It should also understand the customer and their evolving needs. Keeping an eye on the gaps and future requirements should drive a good company to research and develop game changing products, a surefire way to avoid commodity status. But a good company is also a profitable company. The customer must take some responsibility in shaping the risk/reward landscape to meet their long term objectives. The US Military has been the leading world power due, in part, to the technologies it possesses. As we move into more lean procurement times we need to be careful to not create a roadmap to obsolescence. We also need companies who are willing to wear more than 15 pieces of flair even though it’s not required.
This whole post makes me think of this for some reason…
Now I like competition, and have always been very competitive. There are definite long term advantages to good competition, it creates evolution. The next generation of TA will be born from a healthy competition between manufacturers to create tomorrow’s solutions, each better then its predecessor. But this type of competition is variable infinite. You can create a great solution without boundaries. That’s the pro. The con comes when the buyer’s perception is that glass is glass. If we are lucky, that perception is based on a well-rounded standard like ATPD 2352, which addresses both ballistic and environmental parameters. There are many that do not. But even then, what does the buyer get for their money and what message is sent? Well the buyer had better be getting TA that will stop the threat as sold while maintaining at least the minimum optical quality and life cycle environmental testing deems necessary. The message it sends however is, “give me the cheapest solution that meets the bare minimum requirement”. Now you have manufacturers researching how to build a product that is the cheapest it can be while meeting only the minimum requirements (I’m wearing my required 15 pieces of flair). Doing the bare minimum doesn’t feel good, but does that make it wrong?
The threat faced by the US warfighter is evolving and so too should the armor used to defeat it. I do not want to start a protection vs. mobility discussion here, so let’s highlight technologies that stop the increasing threat without adding weight. Technologies like lightweight TA, advanced materials, battle damage sensors and multi-kit solutions. Even for sustainment we should be upgrading with better solutions. And we should be researching parameters that evolve TA, not devolve it. If there is no monetary reward for researching evolutionary (or revolutionary for that matter) solutions you diminish the incentive to do so. With so few new vehicle programs there is a need to backfill with RDT&E dollars if one wishes to advance armor evolution.
To be fair, a good business should understand its product and the solutions it provides. It should also understand the customer and their evolving needs. Keeping an eye on the gaps and future requirements should drive a good company to research and develop game changing products, a surefire way to avoid commodity status. But a good company is also a profitable company. The customer must take some responsibility in shaping the risk/reward landscape to meet their long term objectives. The US Military has been the leading world power due, in part, to the technologies it possesses. As we move into more lean procurement times we need to be careful to not create a roadmap to obsolescence. We also need companies who are willing to wear more than 15 pieces of flair even though it’s not required.
This whole post makes me think of this for some reason…
Thursday, July 21, 2011
OSG continues to support Navistar Defense, USMC and the US Army.
20 July 2011
OSG continues to support Navistar Defense, USMC and the US Army.
OSG’s unique transparent armor solutions continue to protect the US warfighter following orders received by Navistar Defense from U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command.
Navistar Defense received its third delivery order for 140 International® MaxxPro® Recovery vehicles with rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) nets as announced July 18th, 2011.
This 140 recovery vehicle order follows two recent orders for 471 International® MaxxPro® Dash vehicles and 250 International® MaxxPro® Dash ambulances and also includes additional parts and support for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in theater. OSG will provide transparent armor solutions as a subcontractor on all three orders.
OSG operates three cutting-edge manufacturing facilities on two continents, serving more than thirty militaries worldwide. OSG support its partners from R&D and engineering to full scale production of transparent armor, frames, assembly and more. OSG is a one stop, in house solution for all of your transparent armor needs.
Learn more about Oran Safety Glass at www.osg-armor.com
For more information please contact us.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
FPI's Timberwolf extended promo vid
Tight vid. Thanks to SNAFU (http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/) for blogging it.
Oh by the way, thats OSG TA. (http://www.osg-armor.com/)
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Why Transparent Armor Matters
My first official blog will attempt to make a compelling argument, not that transparent armor (TA from here on out) is necessary, but why it is necessary to look at TA separate from opaque armor. Of course opaque armor and TA have a number of similarities: both need to defeat the same threats, both are composites and, ultimately, both are protecting the warfighter. However, TA has not received the same attention as opaque and is viewed as part of a survivability package. This lack of scrutiny and assumption that the survivability guys are "working on it" has hindered the potential progress of TA over the years. Also, the single fact that TA needs to be transparent limits the materials and processes used to manufacture this armor. That 87% of kinetic attacks occur first and only at TA illustrates its importance. By nature, people shoot at what they can see. The see a head and shoot at it. They don't guess where the body is behind the opaque.
So let’s expound on a few points.
The survivability guys tend to be opaque armor manufacturers who have matured into survivability package designers, and good ones at that, to move their product. And while they try to understand TA, they are not expert. This is only a problem because the armor integrators work with the OEM vehicle manufactures who build trucks for DoD, putting us TA guys a few degrees of separation from the user. This can limit our interaction with the user who provided feedback and urgent needs. The type of information that allow us to drive focused improvements and identify R&D initiatives.
TA needs to be clear, duh! But what does that really mean for its development and manufacture? Well for one, the TA industry has a greatly reduced material list from which to choose then does the opaque. Because clear doesn't just mean clear, it means optical clarity, optical quality, light transmission and let’s not forget about UV light and night vision. This isn't the windshield of your Camry, or Bentley (if you got it like that). So TA engineers are fighting with one hand tied behind their back when trying to keep up with the opaque armor manufacturers.
Kinetic attacks, I don't care where or why, almost always start (and finish) at what the attacker can see. It's human nature. This could be an insurgent will a rifle, huge balls and burning desire to get to his 72 virgins (or is it 27?) attacking an Army convoy in Kandahar province, Afghanistan or carjacker who wants your Camry in Newark, NJ.
I'm not trying to say that TA has been wholly forgotten and I’m not crying in my beer. ARL has a great knowledge of TA and a number of serious programs to develop TA and the materials used in its composite, whether traditional or advanced. And the user community is becoming more interested in TA, its performance and life cycle. Weight savings at reasonable cost increases, or cost effective solutions as I like to call them, are maturing with user interest as well. All these topics will be addressed, or, at least, discussed in the future. All I'm saying is TA matters and is a highly technical industry that would benefit and mature better and faster with a little more direct attention and understanding. I ask for this attention knowing full well it can be a mind numbingly boring topic at times, but it sure beats getting shot in the face.
So let’s expound on a few points.
The survivability guys tend to be opaque armor manufacturers who have matured into survivability package designers, and good ones at that, to move their product. And while they try to understand TA, they are not expert. This is only a problem because the armor integrators work with the OEM vehicle manufactures who build trucks for DoD, putting us TA guys a few degrees of separation from the user. This can limit our interaction with the user who provided feedback and urgent needs. The type of information that allow us to drive focused improvements and identify R&D initiatives.
TA needs to be clear, duh! But what does that really mean for its development and manufacture? Well for one, the TA industry has a greatly reduced material list from which to choose then does the opaque. Because clear doesn't just mean clear, it means optical clarity, optical quality, light transmission and let’s not forget about UV light and night vision. This isn't the windshield of your Camry, or Bentley (if you got it like that). So TA engineers are fighting with one hand tied behind their back when trying to keep up with the opaque armor manufacturers.
Kinetic attacks, I don't care where or why, almost always start (and finish) at what the attacker can see. It's human nature. This could be an insurgent will a rifle, huge balls and burning desire to get to his 72 virgins (or is it 27?) attacking an Army convoy in Kandahar province, Afghanistan or carjacker who wants your Camry in Newark, NJ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)