Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

What's wrong with "Off The Shelf"?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

What's wrong with "Off The Shelf"?

Old 15th Oct 2016, 09:12
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The best thing the military could buy off the shelf would be airworthiness oversight, if EASA 145 is good enough for all the airlines in Europe it should be good enough for the UK military.
A and C is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 11:59
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most of your posts, PDR, seem to be very logical but it simply doesn't follow that an expensive procurement process is necessarily linked to technical advance. On the contrary, there are instances of the procurement process taking so long that the equipment is obsolete before it even enters service!

Nobody is suggesting that buying kids toys is a good idea, as in the walkie-talkie example. But there are many robust and capable handheld radios in widespread use. Insisting that ours be designed to order would seem to be a good example of wasteful procurement.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 12:51
  #23 (permalink)  
ImageGear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the case of "big procurement" one typically aims for a requirement/technology capability target, some 3, 4 or even 10 years beyond conceptual design phase.

Suppliers will have to base their design on a projected level of technical development which will not initially be understood, and to complicate matters, the original business case may subsequently change beyond all expectations to accommodate new threats, requirements, etc.

In my experience, Clients generally tie down the window of acceptability to a very small area consequently it becomes very difficult to pass.

COTS rapidly becomes unworkable for anything except the smallest projects.

Imagegear
 
Old 15th Oct 2016, 13:06
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
But there are many robust and capable handheld radios in widespread use. Insisting that ours be designed to order would seem to be a good example of wasteful procurement.
Agreed, but as long as one differentiates between Commercial and Military off the shelf. Another factor is interoperability. And Joe Bloggs Backstreet Comms Ltd isn't likely to understand a typical MoD SIMOPS, Transec or Comsec requirement, never mind have the wherewithal to implement a cunning plan to demonstrate interoperability with various allies. (Not that many co-operate with us, or that we ever seek true interoperability!) A good example of a perfectly valid reason for a made to measure radio is the 1980s multi-mode fitted to RN Sea Kings, Lynx and Merlins. (And Nimrod R after the RAF nicked them). Eye-wateringly expensive due to the harmonic rejection spec and non-standard frequencies. Most companies would laugh at the former.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 13:29
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Received 47 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
Most of your posts, PDR, seem to be very logical but it simply doesn't follow that an expensive procurement process is necessarily linked to technical advance. On the contrary, there are instances of the procurement process taking so long that the equipment is obsolete before it even enters service!
Who said anything about an "expensive procurement process"? I'm simply talking about the trade-off decision to meet a particular need with off-the-shelf vs developmental items. Nor am I suggesting that COTS (or more often "MOTS") is inherently a "bad" idea. I'm just pointing out that when looking at things to integrate into an aircraft system there are risks and issues which are often not full appreciated, especially by project managers and procurement authorities (hence the final line of my main post "If all the above issues and risks can be identified, quantified and managed then COTS approach may well be a viable solution").

You can find examples all over the place - possibly one of the most obvious being when the UK decided not to buy the "OTS" P-40 (which was totally unsuited to our mission) and instead contracted for the development of the P-51 (so it could be designed AROUND our mission).

If you are really, really lucky you may find a piece of OTS equipment that meets every single line of your requirement spec. In theory it can happen, but in >30years in the military aircraft industry I've never seen it. So when you buy COTS/MOTS you either trade the requirements it *doesn't* meet or you have it modified until it does. Modified COTS is just fundamentally a bad idea which is bound to be expensive, risky and unsupportable - it can be done and sometimes you strike it lucky but it's rare. Traded requirements should always restrict some aspect of the mission or increase some aspect of the ownership risk/cost (assuming the requirements were properly established) - otherwise the requirement didn't need to be there. These things are self-evident.

Nobody is suggesting that buying kids toys is a good idea, as in the walkie-talkie example. But there are many robust and capable handheld radios in widespread use. Insisting that ours be designed to order would seem to be a good example of wasteful procurement.
In the walkie-talkie example - if there are OTS items that meet the requirement then you can obviously buy it. Walkie talkies don't have much of an integration need at the technical level. But of course these days they will all include microprocessor-based systems, and these microprocessors will be obsolescent within 5 years (you won't be able to buy any spares). The manufacturer may offer an upgrade to a new processor, but that will need different test systems and test code, and will invalidate (say) the EMC or APEX qualification. It also means that you will have a mixture of configurations in service so you either have to bin the old ones or manage the different spare parts, repair procedures, test systems etc.

Have you tried getting a spare screen or battery for (say) a five-year-old smartphone? Have you tried to replace the processor in a 5-year-old laptop?

You will get similar problems with developmental kit, but it will be longer before it happens because the components used will be the latest at the time of procurement, not "already several years old" at that time.

James V Jones (Texan former tank officer who became one of the gurus in through-life engineering) used to lecture on this sort of thing, and he said that Rand had analysed procurement histories of all US government procurements <above some value that I can't remember> and one of their findings was that they couldn't find a SINGLE "modified COTS" procurement which ended up being cheaper than the developmental alternative. I don't have the study reference (it may be in the boxes of study notes in my loft, but I'm not looking for it!), but thousands of people attended those lectures over the years, so there should be others who remember it.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 14:27
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The thing I have observed is the apparent inability of the 'system' to adapt traditional procurement models to the reality of COTS/MOTS procurement. We are still spending an inordinate amount of time gathering User Requirements and converting these to System Requirements before putting out ITNs or ITTs, marking bids, selecting the preferred bidder, awarding contracts and then Testing and Evaluating the delivered 'solution. Very slow and cumbersome in the extreme.

To my way of thinking, in some areas we'd be better off submitting an invitation to industry to deliver a particular capability and see what comes in. For most people the most complex and significant technical thing we buy is a car. The URD is not 127 pages long, and does not contain statements such as 'must be able to go forward and reverse' or 'must have a means of making the vehicle change direction whilst in motion', because these are assumed capabilities. That's not to say that we don't have any requirements, but these tend to be mature and based on capabilities we know are available. Personally, mine now include Cruise Control, Climate Control and enough seats/space to move the kids to and from school/uni. There are about 6 realistic options and I pick the one that offers the best balance between cost and capability or perhaps the best one I can afford that is available - I find it had to believe that this model can't work more efficiently than it does in procurement.
SirToppamHat is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 15:06
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 71
Posts: 195
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with PDR1
In my experience trying to manage a large new, IT heavy, aviation project, it is obsolescence of COTS software that will come back to bite you. Literally hundreds of separate but interdependent software products may be required.
If you own the overall product then you need an in-house organisation to track obsolescence and manage the impacts this does not come cheap.
IMHO best buy the entire product, with the software maintenance task,and let industry do the dirty work of keeping it all together and functioning.
MACH2NUMBER is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 16:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
STH

Very slow and cumbersome in the extreme.
As I said earlier, very often this slowing down is a political decision to delay expenditure. Otherwise, you are spot on. One of the practical problems is the URD is often physically impossible to attain (never mind sustain) and after some years fannying about the project manager is forced to issue a clarification paper telling London (a) what is possible, (b) what is affordable within the endorsed funding, and (c) what they'll get. A solution emerges.


M2N

If you own the overall product then you need an in-house organisation to track obsolescence and manage the impacts
Unsurprisingly, mandated policy until the department responsible for management and oversight was disbanded without replacement in June 1993. In July 1996, two generations later in posting terms, EFA (Typhoon) convened an urgent meeting at which one of their very expensive consultants declared that they had uncovered a phenomenon called electronic component obsolescence, and would wish to open dialogue with attendees in an effort to work out how to deal with it. We gave him the mandated Def Stan and left. It doesn't take long for corporate knowledge to disappear.

this does not come cheap.
Which is why MoD stopped doing it! But this ignored the fact that the consequential cost was measured in lost aircraft and lives. The same solution emerges.....
tucumseh is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2016, 17:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
-re the walkie-talkie example (which you've got to admit is quite funny) there is a key integration issue, with the man. It is what the Army refer(red?) to as the left shoulder problem, whereby a slack handful of kit is allocated a spot on the PLCE left shoulder harness/strap. Aforementioned PRR, LCAD, PRC349 (in turn, stressing the antenna) and so on. The PRR battery compartment, as well as the Argos kiddie toys, leaked like a sieve, which tends to make electronics fizz. ("What, you wanted it splashproof?") As the trials included a jaunt round the Warminster obstacle course, including watery holes and ditches, a few questions were asked about why the product selected even passed, never mind "won". Well, actually, it didn't, coming a resounding last in many trials elements. A possible explanation emerged when, the next day, a picture of Lord Willie Bach appeared in the press, having just had a "winning" PRR thrust into his mits by a sharp company marketing chap. By no means the strangest procurement selection tale!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 05:59
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Contrary to what many might believe, every commercial passenger jet produced is actually a custom product. For example, every 737 that Boeing produces is custom built to customer requirements, and is assigned its own end item number. No true COTS product available in this regard.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 09:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Great yarmouth, Norfolk UK
Age: 72
Posts: 631
Received 10 Likes on 10 Posts
I have no experience of military procurement. However, I did spend many years in the offshore industry, part of which being managing contracts for various services.

The most important thing we found was that the scope of work for the service had to be accurate, measurable and apply to the job in hand. From reading earlier posts, and past comments on procurement, in a lot of cases the people buying didn't do this.

For example, the engines on the Navy's new frigates were COTS items, absolutely fit for purpose for cruise ships, but not the right thing for warships. Who wrote the scope of work / specification, then who let the items be bought and installed and didn't o r wasn't allowed to say 'Hang on a minute....'

Waiting for incoming on this ......
bobward is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 10:22
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
riff raff:-
Contrary to what many might believe, every commercial passenger jet produced is actually a custom product.
Exactly right! I was once employed by a charter airline that flew "pre-owned" BAC 1-11's. Our fleet included 200, 300, 400, and 500 series aircraft, but within those different series were different designations, ie 207, 301, 401, 414, 509, 518, etc, each one indicating an original airline's bespoke model (no doubt the cognoscenti will guess the airline in question ;-). The variations could even extend to the performance parameters, ie the 500's had "new" or "old " wing leading edges and thus differing ODMs.

These discussions often degenerate into using cars as examples of generic "off the shelf". I'm not sure that can be true either. I once bought a UK spec VW Polo in Berlin (when such practice saved considerable sums of money, as perhaps it may well do again in a few years time). I could specify any engine and any trim that I wished, and had to avoid the temptation to stray from the very restricted range then on offer within the UK (with eventual sale/trade-in in mind). In other words, the shelf has now many more possibilities than it perhaps once did...
Chugalug2 is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 17:32
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let's be clear what we're saying. Nobody is suggesting that airliners are literally plucked off the shelf like a tin of baked beans. But when an airline wants 200 people taking to Spain fifty times a week they don't invite a contractor to commence a design process.

PS, chugalug, I don't hold up the 50's/60's UK airlines as a model for optimal procurement.

Last edited by ShotOne; 16th Oct 2016 at 18:11.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 18:01
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 71
Posts: 195
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airliners these days have an extremely short lifespan compared to military platforms. The risk of software obsolescence, due to COTS products, is therefore considerably less than a military platform using COTS,which often has to survive for up to 50 years. Look at many ISTAR platforms like AWACS for example.
MACH2NUMBER is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 19:22
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,779
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
an airline wants 200 people taking to Spain fifty times a week
A nice simple statement of requirement, indeed. Replace "Spain" with "countries of possible foreign policy interest between 2020 and 2060" and it starts to get a bit trickier. This highlights another problem with military procurement - the requirement often draws heavily upon intelligence and futurology, disciplines which make business forecasting appear a paragon of accuracy.

If we could be better at knowing precisely what we need our kit to do, we might be better at accepting OTS stuff that is "good enough" for the purpose. Unfortunately we have not proven very good at forecasting events over the years and I don't see any particular reason why that should change, so we'll probably just keep pushing the boundaries to insure against all those Rumsfeldian "unknowns".

Last edited by Easy Street; 16th Oct 2016 at 19:33.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 19:24
  #36 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Actually I think in a way they do. Boeing asked industry is they wanted an SST or a wide-body. Airline companies want sub-sonic and had their requirement fed in hence 787
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2016, 19:31
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One member of MOD's Governance Team expressed surprise regarding a project with which I was involved recently, because the life was in the order of 20 years. It was/is quite heavily IT focused, though relatively specialist in nature. He was reassured that there was expected to be a need for a 'Tech Refresh' at or about the 10-year point. Ten years is about the maximum he would expect an 'IT Capability' to last in service.
SirToppamHat is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 03:18
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wars and superior military capabilities are all about inventing and possessing and producing cutting edge technology. You don't get that off-the-shelf.

In WW2, it was only the newest and latest virtually unproven designs that guaranteed a winning edge.
Unfortunately, many paid the ultimate price when that new technology or design had flaws that produced early and unexpected failures. That's the price of winning wars.

OTS technology works just fine for commercial applications and peacetime military activities, but it won't win wars. It will help when non-critical equipment is involved.
I can recall when a U.S. military study found 187 different makes and models of road vehicles were utilised by the military during WW2, resulting in a plethora of different parts and vastly increased logistical requirements.
As a result, it was determined that reducing the numbers of makes and models and utilising common componentry - and proven OTS componentry - was advantageous.
However, very rarely is a road vehicle a critical item, unlike aviation items.

Last edited by onetrack; 17th Oct 2016 at 03:29.
onetrack is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 06:03
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
onetrack, excellent points.

Some very highly paid people in MoD (so the wrong people!) constantly wrestle with these problems but occasionally the likes of the Public Accounts Committee ask a good question that demands a back to basics assessment. This happened in 1999 when they issued a report "Modifying Defence Equipment". There were 6 test cases, only one of which delivered to time, cost and performance. Senior staff didn't know how to reply, because the procedures and regulations governing the subject had been cancelled, and money chopped.

But a short paper was submitted from the viewpoint of the one successful programme, breaking down the acquisition process into functions. Two things stood out. First, there were two key posts whose roles kept cropping up through-life. Every project needed them, constantly, but as a matter of policy they had been disestablished without being replaced. The one successful test case had, purely by chance, a programme manager who had carried out these roles in a previous life. The failures identified in the other five were directly attributable to this work not being done. Nothing was done because, as ever, for senior staff to endorse the recommendations would mean criticising their own past decisions.

The second was more an observation. The author thought Service personnel very pragmatic and tolerant of procurement problems (witnessed by many of the above posts) and opined that, when one broke down the serious moans and groans, the key was getting Ranging, Scaling, Documentation and Packaging right first time. (So much else falls out of this). It then pointed out that, unsurprisingly, one the the first things the abandoned Service HQ role (above) does is raise an RSD&P form. A simple form, the only real thought being the Maintenance Policy Statement, and a whole process kicks off. But, by disbanding one post and throwing the forms in the back of a 6x4, everything ground to a halt. Support staff throughout MoD and Industry suddenly had no tasking, this was construed as nothing to do, and posts were cut never to be replaced. You had stupid things happen, like very complex equipment bought, but no spares, test equipment, training or tech pubs. (Recognise this, front line?) Radios bought, with no antenna, because the postholder paid to spot such howlers no longer had a job.

Shortly before I retired I saw the effect of the last first hand. When they know you're going, you get the trouble shooting jobs which require you to upset people. (The MAA should learn this lesson). A unit, shortly to deploy, had been given their new comms kit, but no antennae. "Not in the URD" apparently, but it is rather implied when you buy a radio, as you have to test and trial it before acceptance. Or so you'd think. I was standing with the long haired CO and he took a call on his mobile. His Yeoman of Signals, on a day off, was at a boot sale. He'd spotted a Rhode and Schwartz broadband HF antenna, in good nick, for two grand. If he flashed his credit card, would mess funds cover it? No said the CO, but he personally would pay. (He knew he was going to lose men without it, another thing lost on the BCs). The next day YofS pitched up, took 10 minutes to erect the antenna, and all was well. A good example of COTS, because the Mil Spec was the same as the Civ spec. They returned 6 months later, no losses.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 07:29
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting arguments.

My own take on things is that too much of the argument for specialised equipment is based upon the dysfunctional procurement processes and overly extended operational lives.

Wars are won with cutting edge equipment? Possibly, there is no doubt that conflict gives innovation and advancement a real kick - but how does that square with keeping equipment in service for 30 years. Obviously after 5 years most of this stuff belongs in a museum.

Buying equipment which is not yet developed is a hugely risky prospect - and leads to 'concrete' radar systems and the like - which obviously are not going to be any use.

Speccing the equipment is obviously critical and the military has a hugely unfortunate tendency to make it all far to too difficult. The best example I can think of is the coffee machine on a certain US aircraft, capable of operating at +6,-3g, massive temperature margins and can withstand a 27g impact. Not surprisingly an extraordinarily expensive coffee maker - based on a completely flawed premise. Nearer home look at military LandRovers - different really just for the sake of being different.

Far too much of this seems to be driven by the idea that the equipment must last 25 years. During a conflict nothing lasts that long - it is obsolete in 2 years. But is has too in peacetime because it takes the procurement process 3 to 5 years to buy anything. As noted in many of the posts above nothing IT can be made that future proof, accept that and change it out every 5 years - just like the rest of the world does!
gasax is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.