Is off the shelf better than new?

[Pursuit Curve]

I have read an interesting article describing the Bell ARH (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter). It would seem that the US Army is going the route of off the shelf tech enhancements to existing airframes to a low cost solution.

Does anyone see this as a trend that is starting among Nations to avoid as much as possible the expensive undertaking of designing, testing, and intergrating new technology into service? Was that the reason the Comanche was cancelled?

 

[Big-E]

I have read an interesting article describing the Bell ARH (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter). It would seem that the US Army is going the route of off the shelf tech enhancements to existing airframes to a low cost solution.

Does anyone see this as a trend that is starting among Nations to avoid as much as possible the expensive undertaking of designing, testing, and intergrating new technology into service? Was that the reason the Comanche was cancelled?

The Comanche was cancelled due to the advent of UAVs. You obviously understand the concept of "Off the Shelf"(OTS) so I need not explain the expense of R&D. What OTS provides is not only cheaper but quicker procurement but PROVEN tech. Governments hate going into uncharted waters if their operational reqs can be met by OTS equipment.

The trends are certainly going to OTS in the US. The ballooning prices of all procurements is a fiscal nightmare to the auditors. When you go OTS you get something thats cheap and you know it works. The pioneer equipment is left for the big ticket items ie. F-22, DDG-1000.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Big-E. Thank you for the reply. Would it be too far fetched to state that alot of the pioneer projects could be cut back on by simply retrofitting older platforms with OTS tech and thus saving alot of money and time?

I am not sure of the current status of the AH-1Z Cobra for the USMC?Is the AH-1Z a good example of OTS? Will all scout and attack missions that were previously carried out by manned rotary wing be taken over by UAV?

If so, what do you see as a timeline for that to happen?

 

[Big-E]

Big-E. Thank you for the reply. Would it be too far fetched to state that alot of the pioneer projects could be cut back on by simply retrofitting older platforms with OTS tech and thus saving alot of money and time?

I am not sure of the current status of the AH-1Z Cobra for the USMC?Is the AH-1Z a good example of OTS? Will all scout and attack missions that were previously carried out by manned rotary wing be taken over by UAV?

If so, what do you see as a timeline for that to happen?

No doubt all platforms could be fitted with OTS at a considerable savings. What is lost is any and all innovation in military tech. If the US wants to maintain her edge against the high threat environments of which the future are bound to produce new technologies must be R&Dd. Cobras are OTS b/c they are a legacy aircraft. All the new platforms are including pioneer tech b/c we are designing them to incorporate new concepts that cannot efficiently be employed by legacy platforms.

 

[ComSec]

Dear Big-E and Pursuit Curve
True the OTS trend is indeed strong but in addition to that there is a also a growing trend for the insertion of COTS solutions within military systems across US and to some extent Europe. However, besides the apparent advantages already mentioned above we should consider the fact that COTS are still not up to MIL STD's in several areas. More precisely the area of land based tactical communications is a good example of the limitations COTS appear to have. Some key issues have to do with resistance in humidity, shock, vibration and performance under severe electromagnetic emissions environment. Some examples where COTS insertion is proven to be succesfull include the recently fielded US Joint Network Node as well as fielding of Canon laser-optical communications in fixed communications infrastructure in Iraq. Do you see the trend for COTS as equally strong with OTS?

 

[adsH]

The Comanche was cancelled due to the advent of UAVs. You obviously understand the concept of "Off the Shelf"(OTS) so I need not explain the expense of R&D. What OTS provides is not only cheaper but quicker procurement but PROVEN tech. Governments hate going into uncharted waters if their operational reqs can be met by OTS equipment.

The trends are certainly going to OTS in the US. The ballooning prices of all procurements is a fiscal nightmare to the auditors. When you go OTS you get something thats cheap and you know it works. The pioneer equipment is left for the big ticket items ie. F-22, DDG-1000.

You'd be supprised how much you can still accomplish with OTS Tech, we're only talking about Hardware that is OTS, for instance Powerpc architectures, but the rest is custom built, something like the JSF, the reason why F-22 systems are custom built and new projects are OTS; F-22 was conceptualized when OTS tech was not trendy and Software wasn't very capable and defense projects relied on more physcical hardware or emmbeded Programeing, which can only accomplish so much, By OTS you can spend less on Building Hardware that has the least impact on system capability (caompareing custom Vs OTS) and you can emphasize more on software which has a high impact on system capability. Commercial tech has come along way since the 70's and Defense Sector has just relized the power of new emmerging technologies.

One other reason why OTS may be favorable when compared to Custom hardware is becasue OTS is allot more thoroughly test it has a wider application base in Commercial tech, it evolves much faster requires little or no R&D effort and you also have the added bonus of thorough exhaustive testing.

Comments

 

[Pursuit Curve]

One of my favorite examples of OTS tech is the B 26 Invader, the A1 Skyraider and the Sherman tank.

The B26 Invader was used to great effect in Vietnam until the spare parts ran out. But it was OTS equipped with modern weapons, Radios Etc.
The A1 Skyraider was used also to great effect in Vietnam, even shooting down some MiG 17 aircraft. The Israelis kept the Sherman tank effective until 1973 with upgrades.

I am sure there are many examples of OTS.

Would it be safe to say that there are Legacy systems that will be more effective and economic when fighting the COIN type of warfare that seems
to be the majority of combat at this time? Will the A10, A1Z Cobra etc and all legacy platforms have a place in the future as long as the west fights insurgencies?

 

[rjmaz1]

This is a good reason why projects like the JSF should never have started as it didn't provide a big enough advance in technology.

The JSF for example, its airframe is far from spectacular performance wise and the avionics could have been placed in an F-16 to produce an excellent budget swing role fighter.

The Comanche provided the same level of advanced over current rotary aircraft as the JSF does over current fighter jets. Both the Commanche and JSF only have added stealth and an avionic advanced, yet the Commanche program eneded without question.

They say the Commanche is not needed as current UCAV and Apaches can do the job of the Commanche. However i believe the same thing also applies to the JSF. All the aircraft that the JSF are replacing are currently uncontestable in the sky, all these aircraft have excellent combat records and will have great records in 10 years time.

Sure if you put a JSF one on one with an F-16 or Harrier the JSF would come out on top every time, but we aren't attacking our own aircraft. We should be comparing aircraft to the poorly trained and equiped enemy threats of 3rd world countries.

People cant say "oh but the new russian jets are superior" because thats what the hundreds of F-22 are for.

Thats my two cents.