Breaking Down Barriers in Defence Technology Development

Breaking Down Barriers in Defence Technology Development

Defence technology development is a complex process that requires collaboration between the military and industry. However, this partnership is often hindered by differing expectations between the two parties. Retired Colonel Rakesh Shishodia, who has served in operational, command, and instructional appointments, has put forth a series of recommendations to address these challenges.

Clear Expectations are Key

Shishodia argues that startups and military users need to have clearer expectations when working together on developing new defence technologies. He notes that Army commanders will approach industry with operational problems that need to be solved, while startups bring ideas and a willingness to develop products. However, both parties can walk away from the same meeting with dramatically different expectations for what will happen next.

Prioritizing Core Capabilities

One of Shishodia's key points is that there is no need to try and include every desired feature in a defence product at its first version. He recalls a project in which he once participated to develop a tool to assess a particular capability in soldiers, where development continued for years as additional requirements were added. He took over to decide to accept a workable Version 1 and then to build Version 2 and Version 3. Adding capabilities can come with additional cost and weight, as well as increased complexity. Shishodia argues that users and developers need to make a distinction between what they really need and what can be added later.

Financial Realities

Shishodia also highlights the financial realities for smaller defence companies. Travel, engineering work, prototypes, modifications, and repeated demonstrations all come with costs. He advocates for startups to be upfront about what they are willing to spend on their own and where paid development work will begin. The problem is especially relevant to early-stage defence companies, who may have limited capital while being expected to demonstrate and modify products for potential military users.

Field Experience Meets Engineering

Shishodia calls for a closer interaction between ground-level military experience and engineering. A soldier may understand an operational problem in great detail, but may not know the most practical engineering solution for the problem. A technically impressive system may not necessarily work under the conditions that a soldier will face. He advocates for both sides to accept criticism and listen to each other. Industry should be prepared to tell the military when a particular requirement is simply unachievable given the time or the budget.

Demonstrations and Procurement

Shishodia warns against treating a product demonstration that has been attended by senior officers or dignitaries as an implicit Army endorsement or procurement commitment. He notes that companies should seek appropriate permission before using names, photographs, or feedback from the military publicly. A demonstration that was valuable should know what has been tested, what has been learned, and what the next step will be, even if it comes to concluding that the project needs to be ended.

Prototypes and Sustainability

Shishodia stresses that a successful prototype is only the beginning of the acquisition journey. A system that works in a lab may fail in the field, and even a successful field prototype will require quality control, documentation, training, spares, repair, and production capability before it can become a sustainable military product. He suggests that Commanding Officers can help define operational problems, while Brigade Commanders can identify requirements that are common across units, subject to security and other applicable permissions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, defence technology development requires a collaborative effort between the military and industry. However, this partnership is often hindered by differing expectations, financial realities, and a lack of clarity. By prioritizing core capabilities, being upfront about financial limitations, and fostering a closer interaction between field experience and engineering, we can break down these barriers and develop more effective defence technologies. Only then can we ensure that our military personnel have the tools they need to succeed in the field.