A BALANCING ACT
Soldier modernization has been a hot topic for a number of years, with many nations engaged in programs to improve the equipment provision for their land forces. Whether it is bespoke or commercial off-the-shelf, there is a desire to do more with less and maximize effectiveness with cutting edge technology and highly trained end-users.
This is partly a consequence of changing threats and theatres of operation with the need for greater flexibility and adaptability, but also in response to reducing defense budgets and social and political pressure based on reports of inadequacies from the front line. This has been emphasized further with the recent ruling from the courts that provision of defective equipment is a breach of human rights and that soldiers and their families can take the MoD to court for compensation resulting from injury or death whilst serving.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for both the individuals who use the equipment, and those involved in design and procurement. How do we recognize where failure has occurred compared to the tragic loss of life based on the perils of warfare? How do we unpick the front line accounts to identify a root cause when the behavior of systems is dictated by tight interrelationships between multiple elements?
The press have published accounts of deaths and injuries in both Iraq and Afghanistan linked to inadequate body armour, inappropriate vehicles and insufficient general provision of personal kit; but that is not the whole story. For every decision that is made there is a consequence; increasing the armour on a vehicle will potentially increase size and weight, which, in turn, will reduce mobility (often cited).
Therefore, an increase in protection may well put the occupants of the vehicle in harm’s way for longer or may impact the way in which operations can be conducted (for example, ability to operate in urban environment with narrow streets). Similarly, increasing personal protection may, in turn, increase the physiological load to the wearer or impact their ingress and egress from vehicles making them a greater target. The list goes on and is well documented, but is probably only considered in detail by those designing and building the equipment.
It is only with an understanding of the threats to be faced in conjunction with doctrine and operating procedures that trade-offs can be accurately conducted. It all comes down to the impact of one thing on another: cause and effect, but on a massive scale. Where are the interfaces and inter dependencies within and outside of my area of interest, and what is their impact on overall combat effectiveness? This is the essence of providing capability, the most recent Mod definition of which is: ‘The enduring ability to generate a desired operational outcome or effect, and is relative to the threat, physical environment and the contributions of coalition partners. Capability is not a particular system or equipment
