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…
