COTS – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

,

One of the big changes for military vendors in recent years has been the greatercots-good-bad-ugly  emphasis placed on acquisition of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products by the Department of Defense (DoD).  In the past, COTS constituted a few percent of all items purchased by the DoD.   While the overall amount is still low, some weapon systems are composed by as much as 50% of COTS.  What are the good, the bad and the ugly about COTS?

Good:

1)    Cost:  One of the main drivers for the acquisition of COTS has been the price. By definition, COTS products have no development cost, so, in theory, the DoD gets a cheaper item. Despite its behemoth budget, Defense still accounts for a minuscule part of the electronics market.  So, by buying from the much larger commercial sector, DoD also benefits from economy of scale. Read more

/by

Mapping the unmanned future: CBO Policy Options & Other important documents

, , ,

At a gathering of unmanned systems professionals, I heard a lot ofrobot attack  griping about product development.  Trying to deliver a system that the government wants was impossible, because of the time lag.  Who knows what the Department of Defense would want or need 2 or 5 years from now? All participants in the meeting agreed that it was the governments’ fault.  The Feds simply weren’t telling us what they wanted.  Well, it’s not for the lack of trying.  It seems every week there’s a new roadmap, report, vision, or long-term plan.  I recently reviewed my personal collection of downloaded documents and came up with: Read more

/2 Comments/by

Biometrics: Why specs aren’t enough

, , ,

Those who work in an engineering/hi-tech culture know the  Biometrics Iris Symbol BIOMETRICS importance of “specs.” Go to any biometric solution provider’ workplace, and you will see highly trained professionals closely examining the latest RFP, eagerly analyzing the specifications, as well as the Scope of Work.

Focusing on specifications alone can lead to not only tunnel vision, but also to a kind of passivity.  We shouldn’t sit around waiting for the RFP to tell us what to do. We should go out into the field at every opportunity and seek input from end-users.  That’s why AMREL is a fixture at events such as the Tactical Network Topology (TNT) and Biometrics Field Experiments (BFEX). Read more

/by

P. W. Singer, Tight Budgets, and the Future of Robots

, , ,

Tight budgets = less robots?
The always interesting P.W. Singer had some interesting things to sayDepartment of Defense Seal  in his article, “U-Turn: Unmanned Systems Could be Casualties of Budget Pressures”  (Armed Forces Journal).  In an era of shrinking budgets, he worries that funding for unmanned systems will suffer.

“As the Pentagon wrestles with declining overall budget numbers, the new becomes more directly threatening to the old. And in bureaucracies, the old is not only more established, but is often at an advantage in any battle.”

As evidence of his concern, he notes that out of the 25 current costliest Pentagon acquisitions programs, “… there isn’t a single U — for ‘unmanned’ — on the list.” Read more

/1 Comment/by

ISR and Unmanned Systems

, , ,


C4ISRThe C4ISR explosion
The need for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) is a major force driving the tremendous growth in unmanned systems. C4ISR systems constitute approximately 5% of many national defense budgets. One estimate of global C4ISR market in 2010 is $63.6 billion.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

 

/by

War and depth: Why your battlefield robot needs 3D

, , ,

View to a war
One way that modern warfare mirrors contemporary life is theTALON with stereo cams  dependence on Video Display Terminals. All of us have heard stories of warfighters remotely operating unmanned systems while staring at flickering images on computer monitors. Even manned vehicles are sometimes driven by personnel who use computer screens, so as not to expose themselves to hostile fire. Click here to read the rest of the article.

/2 Comments/by

COTS Obsolescence & Total Cost of Ownership

, , , ,

The initial purchase price of your rugged computer may only be aCOTS Obsolenense  small part of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Platform support, customization, integration, connectivity, and inadequate durability may make your “bargain” very expensive.  Will your rugged computer be good for your ROI five or ten years from now or just for today?

Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) products are attractive for the price and established supply chain. However, there is a fundamental problem buying mass-produced off-the-shelf items. New and upgraded products typically generate more profit than old ones. Corporations prioritize the overhead of product support for the greatest revenue earners, i.e. the new products. Support for older platforms is phased out. Read more

/1 Comment/by

A future for manned unmanned vehicles?

, , ,

If the unmanned vehicles and systems’ community could trade acronyms for  manned unmanned vehicles dollars, we’d pay off the national debt. One particular acronym, OPV (Optionally Piloted Vehicles), is popping up all over the place. Northrop Grumman unveiled Firebird, an aerial OPV for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that boasts a 65 foot wingspan. The Army’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap outlines plans for helicopters that are both manned and unmanned. The Army also developed Autonomous Vehicle Navigation Systems (ANS) specifically for optionally piloted ground vehicles. Read more

/1 Comment/by

Batteries, overburdened soldiers, and form factors

,

National Defense Industrial Association has a highly informative  article,  Army, Marines Face Uphill Battle To Lighten Troops’ Battery Load, about batteries and the heavy load they impose on soldiers. Of the 130 pounds of gear a modern soldier lugs around, 35 may be due to batteries. This excessive weight limits his maneuverability and may even cause injuries.batteries

In addition, batteries are expensive (“An infantry battalion on a one-year deployment typically burns through $150,000 worth of batteries”).  The frequent need to replace them, as well as their complete lack of standardization, presents a logistical nightmare.   Read more

/1 Comment/by

What is “MIL-STD 810”?

, , ,


The primary purpose of MIL-STD 810 is for “…generating  confidence in the environmental worthiness and overall durability of materiel system design”(U.S. Army Developmental Test Command (DTC)). This standard establishes specifications and testing procedures for resistance to rain, shock, vibration, dust, humidity, salt fog, and extreme temperatures. 810

Some think of 810 as “the” rugged standard, which of course, is not true. Many other standards come into play, such as MIL-STD 461 for electromagnetic emissions or the Navy’s MIL-S-901D for equipment mounted on US ships.

MIL-STD 810 is sufficiently complex and multivariable, that it may be more appropriate to think of it as a set of environmental standards, rather than a single specification. This is especially true when evaluating compliance. It is quite common for commercial companies to claim that their product “meets” MIL-STD 810, when actually it only meets a small fraction of the specifications. Read more

/by