Off the shelf – re-thinking innovation in the military

Today, it is possible for most people to go to their local electrical shop and option upwardly an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) consummate with HD camera, Wi-Fi connectivity and live streaming capabilities all for nether $400. These relatively low prices open up UAV technology not only to hobbyists but likewise to a whole host of industries including farming, energy, telecommunication and security.

Off-the-shelf UAVs – while not as sophisticated as larger military systems such as the Predator UAS – offer unique capabilities and are relatively easy to utilize. So easy in fact, that ordinary civilians are finding ingenious ways to use UAVs to raise their business or profession.

Non-defense industries embracing the unmanned revolution

In the mineral-rich region of Pilbara, Western Australia, driverless trucks are used extensively in iron mines run by British firm Rio Tinto. Convoys of huge, unmanned 500 ton trucks snake their way through Pilbara’southward dusty red deserts conveying freshly mined ore – it’s known as the Autonomous Haulage System. Concluding yr, the trucks moved more than 100 meg tonnes of earth.

It’s all a sign that the commercial sector is embracing technologies which were once the sole preserve of the war machine. Demand for unmanned and robotics technology is surging and tech companies are answering that call with cheaper and more than advanced products, increasing demand further. This is disruptive innovation – creating new markets and applying unlike values – and it’s existence led past the likes of Google and Amazon, not defence departments.

This raises a number of important questions every bit to whether cash-strapped defence departments can leverage commercial innovation for their ain defence needs. Why does the US war machine demand to pump money into unmanned ground vehicle research when the applied science is being used right at present in Australian mines? Why do soldiers have to wait for expensive drones when there are highly capable off-the-shelf options?

It’s a mutual sense approach and one that, in theory, could salve meaning sums of money in research, evolution and procurement costs. At that place are, withal, circuitous reasons why it can be both a good and bad thing for the military machine to use commercial innovation and the technology it spawns.

Unmanned trucks – all the same?

Let’s get back to Rio Tinto’s autonomous haulage trucks operating in Western Australia; they have been hugely successful and their use is expanding. Past contrast, the US armed forces – i of the biggest spenders on robotic trucks – is still experimenting with democratic trucks. Then why can’t designers only unbolt the equipment that makes haulage trucks autonomous and bolt it on a military truck instead?

Tony Stentz, director of the National Robotics Technology Center (NREC) at Carnegie Mellon University, says in that location is some overlap in the technologies needed to drive democratic military and commercial vehicles, but there are besides significant differences. And Stentz speaks from experience; NREC has worked with mining truck makers Caterpillar to develop the Democratic Haulage Arrangement and also with the United states military on autonomous trucks.

“One fundamental difference would be terrain,” explains Stentz. “Military vehicles demand to be able to get anywhere, they demand to be able to cross the next loma and deal with whatever is there, whether they take a map of that surface area or not. That is a significantly harder problem than commercial vehicles have to face.”

Autonomous vehicles used in mining or agriculture usually follow pre-adamant routes devoid of hazards or nasty surprises. For the commercial manufacture, steps can be taken to make the environs more conducive to autonomous navigation including installing infrastructure and limiting the amount of personnel and vehicles on-site. The military doesn’t have these luxuries, so it requires much more intelligent autonomy.

“”Why does the US military demand to pump coin into unmanned ground vehicle research when the technology is being used right now in Australian mines?””

Other differences include end objectives, atmospheric condition weather condition and, nearly importantly, the fact that an enemy force would disable your vehicle if it had a chance.

Using commercial core components – the iRobot approach

Despite these differences, Stentz believes technology from the commercial sector will brand a pregnant contribution that the military machine can leverage. It is core components, including computers, sensors and devices such as GPS, which the military machine tin can make use of and where the commercial sector can significantly bulldoze downwardly costs.

One company which is using commercial applied science to accelerate armed forces equipment is iRobot, the Massachusetts-based tech company best known for its line of robot vacuum cleaners. Information technology developed and congenital the PackBot, an advanced robot mainly used for bomb disposal, in response to the clear need for the equipment when things turned sour in Iraq.

“Nosotros wouldn’t have the PackBot or any of our robots if it wasn’t for commercial technology,” the head of iRobot’s defense and security business, Frank Wilson, told Army Technology in January. “Hidden within our robots are a tremendous number of industrial chips, some of which aren’t even total mil spec [military specification] that nosotros use in our war machine robots. That’s because commercial chip technology has and so improved that the reliability of even industrial-course components can be suitable for war machine environments,” he added.

iRobot jumped the gun and built a paradigm PackBot before it was even given the go-ahead by the United states Department of Defense force. It’s this kind of innovation initiative, with commercial applied science backing, that many in the defense force industry would similar to see more of. The PackBot has gone on to become an incredibly successful piece of kit; thousands have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan over recent years and they have saved many lives.

Overcoming cumbersome acquisition processes

Importantly, the iRobot approach is cost-effective – two aureate words in this current fiscal environment. Merely it has to compete with entrenched and cumbersome acquisition processes already in identify for many Western defence force departments.

“That was OK in the Common cold War where our antagonist was even slower and more cumbersome than we were,” says Randy Garber, a defence skillful and senior partner at AT Kearney. “But in today’s historic period, the cumbersome bureaucracy and regulations is a major impediment. Certainly [defense equipment] has much higher security standards than a typical commercial product merely I recall at times that is more of an excuse than a legitimate reason.”

Traditionally, when governments are purchasing new equipment they, equally the only customers, specify the need for a certain capability, and they are the ones that pay for it. A department will fund the concept stage, development phase, low-charge per unit initial production phase and and then full-rate production. The incentive for defence force companies to innovate is limited.

Commercial tech companies are a “different animal”, says Garber. Innovation drives need rather than the other way round. Who would have thought five years ago that the tablet, at the fourth dimension derided equally a larger tough-screen telephone, would make such a huge difference to the global computer market? Commercial companies take to innovate, otherwise they get bankrupt – a problem not faced by large defence contractors with assured contracts.

The question is whether defence departments in the Westward can use this model of innovation. Cases such as iRobot’s PackBot – which depart from traditional defence purchasing models – are rare as it’s an inherently risky venture with no guaranteed return.

“Substantially, governments would generally adopt it if commercial companies would pay to develop the innovations into a product, system, equipment or platform and and so come back to them with it and say ‘here it is, would you lot like to buy some?’,” says Graham Tootell, a senior technology consultant at the Cambridge-based Plextek Consulting.

“”The UK MoD, especially in the last two or iii years, has done a great bargain to very deliberately pull in innovation from outside of the manufacture.””

The UK approach – Centre for Defence Enterprise

In the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, the Ministry of Defense (Mod) is trying to leverage commercial innovation and technology through the Eye for Defence Enterprise (CDE). The CDE funds inquiry into ‘novel loftier-risk, high-potential-benefit innovations’ from a range of science and applied science providers, including academia and small companies. Ane product to be funded is the lightweight, stupor-arresting ‘goo’ made past Britain-based D3O, which can be used in helmets.

“The Uk MoD, particularly in the terminal two or three years, has washed a groovy deal to very deliberately pull in innovation from outside of the manufacture, to go outside their usual suspects and to look for interesting ideas and to see if people can come up with proposals how they might be useful for the defence force industry,” explains Tootell. “If in that location’south a difficulty it’s probably bridging the gap from demonstrating a clever idea that could be really useful to a slice of equipment on the battlefield somewhere,” he adds.

It’s what is sometimes referred to as the ‘valley of death’ – where funding is stopped one time research is complete and this results in companies being unable to properly industrialise their innovations further. In March 2013, the House of Commons Science and Applied science committee criticised the UK government for not being able to bridge this valley and having “no coherent innovation policy”.

With a global downturn in defence spending, defence buyers have had to make tough choices regarding off-the-shelf commercial technology. In ordinary circumstances, commercial products would not have passed muster with the armed forces because they are often non robust, rugged or secure plenty. But with upkeep cuts imposed while wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were underway, at that place has clearly been a adequacy demand which offsets these drawbacks.

The challenges of a new purchasing paradigm

In electric current UK defence parlance, the Modernistic is attempting so-called ‘modified off-the-shelf’ acquisition and it is the lack of money that’south the driver. “If you look at the R&D upkeep, it’south very minor in the scheme of things. You want to spend your limited budget on the bits that commerce is never going to practice for you – like aircraft carriers,” says Tootell.

At that place is a trend to movement away from bespoke technology when off-the-shelf options are viable alternatives. It reflects similar strategies in areas such equally commercial manufacturing. For example, near mobile phone manufacturers will employ standardised off-the-shelf components such as graphics cards and CPUs rather than develop their own, which saves on evolution costs.

But there are challenges to this approach and the increased use of commercial technology could run into bug. The more than you lot use open commercial applied science, the more than everybody else knows how the equipment works, including a potential adversary. If they know how your equipment works, the likely hazard is they likewise know how to stop it working and render it useless.

Many commercial components are made cheaply in People’s republic of china which also presents a whole series of issues if an Asia-Pacific conflict were to break out in the future.

These are new paradigms which have nevertheless non been fully explored and the consequences of which are unknown. Can we afford to chance it but so we tin can have more affordable equipment? Some would shudder at the thought. The use of commercial technology in the military machine clearly offers some pregnant benefits which can already be seen today, though much more piece of work still has to exist washed to ensure saving coin is non at the expense of security.

Follow Grant Turnbull on Google+