Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The reversal of an old trend
From the National Center for Policy Analysis came a daily digest entry that pointed up a problem with the way we do military acquisitions.
Some systems have been almost legendary in their effectiveness and useful life span, the M-1, and the 45 Automatic, and some of the heavy armor systems. But others don't seem to do so well, the Humvee when faced with IEDs, etc. Systems such as airplanes that can become obsolete rapidly, need a different kind of procurement cycle, one that allows for continuous upgrade and trickle down of weaponry to units based on their priority of need.
The analogy is the automobile market. Models are continuously improving, year to year. The improvements start with the top of the line, and as they become well established move to lessor models. There are new, improved models every year. Last years models are either sold to new users or eventually traded in a few years as the owner sees fit. So a top of the line fighter plane would be built, with each year seeing improvements. The units most likely to face combat get the newest and best, and the older models filter down to reserves and finally scrap. Worked right this could lead to much more rapid improvement of equipment and also newer, more effective equipment at the reserve level.
We have to remember that the purpose of the military is to provide for our security, not provide pork barrel projects for Congressmen and Congresswomen to distribute to their constituencies, nor to be subjected to the latest social engineering fad. When you are faced with a big, nasty guy with a club, gun or knife, who do you want on your side, some slick-talking, fancy-dresser, that has never had to fight for anything, or a rough-looking guy with an automatic, laser sights, and training to take on anything. Right now we have the former, when we need the latter.
Technology created for military use has gone on to become widely used by civilians. As gizmos become smaller and cheaper -- and they invariably do -- they are then able to percolate from the soldier on the battlefield to the man in the street. But lately some kinds of technology have been moving in the other direction, says the Economist....But it still crosses my mind that this twenty-year cycle of weapons development is wrong. By the time a new system is developed and production started, the system it replaces is obsolete, so that by the last units to be upgraded will have been fighting with obsolete equipment for years. This may satisfy politicians and generals, but it does nothing to create a strong, responsive military force and protect our soldiers.
--Global defense spending, at about $1.5 trillion a year, far exceeds sales of consumer-electronics, at around $700 billion a year; but only a small fraction of defense spending is devoted to developing electronics.
--The consumer-electronics industry can therefore outspend the military in research and development, and spread out those costs over a far larger market.
--Electronics firms also move much faster than the slow, multi-year grind of military procurement programs. [emphasis mine, bk]
--The emergence of open standards and open-source software makes it easier to repurpose off-the-shelf technologies or combine them in novel ways.
Of course, there are limits to this off-the-shelf approach: it is no way to procure tanks, helicopters or missile systems. But the selective use of existing technology allows military planners to focus their spending on the development of new technologies, rather than reinventing the wheel.
Some systems have been almost legendary in their effectiveness and useful life span, the M-1, and the 45 Automatic, and some of the heavy armor systems. But others don't seem to do so well, the Humvee when faced with IEDs, etc. Systems such as airplanes that can become obsolete rapidly, need a different kind of procurement cycle, one that allows for continuous upgrade and trickle down of weaponry to units based on their priority of need.
The analogy is the automobile market. Models are continuously improving, year to year. The improvements start with the top of the line, and as they become well established move to lessor models. There are new, improved models every year. Last years models are either sold to new users or eventually traded in a few years as the owner sees fit. So a top of the line fighter plane would be built, with each year seeing improvements. The units most likely to face combat get the newest and best, and the older models filter down to reserves and finally scrap. Worked right this could lead to much more rapid improvement of equipment and also newer, more effective equipment at the reserve level.
We have to remember that the purpose of the military is to provide for our security, not provide pork barrel projects for Congressmen and Congresswomen to distribute to their constituencies, nor to be subjected to the latest social engineering fad. When you are faced with a big, nasty guy with a club, gun or knife, who do you want on your side, some slick-talking, fancy-dresser, that has never had to fight for anything, or a rough-looking guy with an automatic, laser sights, and training to take on anything. Right now we have the former, when we need the latter.
// posted by Bill @ 2:24 PM 
