Table of contentsIntroductionLow risk investments with cot itemsScotsEconomically viable ways to acquire advanced military equipmentMeeting our own requirementsGovernment regulation and export limitationsSecurity implications SecurityResolving obsolescence issues in military systemsConclusionIntroductionAcross the world, the defense industry has grown significantly, producing the equipment required by militaries around the world. With private companies, the majority of sales consist of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items, as they have significant benefits for all parties involved. From overall cost to achieving higher quality and more advanced technology, this seems to be a trend that continues. However, COTS has not been officially defined by any international organization, but has been generally accepted as software or hardware purchased directly from the market and used. Therefore, this test must include completely unchanged COTS and slightly modified COTS to meet the needs of the buyer. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Low-Risk Investments with Cots ItemsScots items have a distinct advantage over custom-purchased items in that they are a low-risk investment. COTS items are purchased once the product is available in the market, so the product has passed the initial phases of product development, such as idea generation, prototyping and feasibility checks. As with most projects, the riskiest phase lies in the product development stages, as the product can ultimately fail for a multitude of reasons. Ranging from technical limitations to management and decision-making issues, all of these increase costs and waste time for everyone involved in the project, explaining the high percentage of failed products. One of the newest aircraft in development, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, is a prime example of the risk involved in developing new military equipment. Namely, overshooting the original planned cost of 233.0 billion for 2866 aircraft to the current amount of 406.1 billion for 2470 aircraft, and putting it into service by 2012, which has been expected since a long time. As the primary funder of this project, it has placed enormous strain on the U.S. defense budget, and not only will the program cost more, it will also require the purchase of fewer sets for operational use , at a later date. Such collaboration is also happening around the world, with increasingly large projects underway to develop better military equipment incorporating more advanced technology, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Therefore, by purchasing COTS items, you effectively mitigate all risks associated with creating and manufacturing a new product by simply acquiring it when it is nearing completion. Economically viable ways to acquire cutting-edge military equipment. the most economically logical and efficient way to enable smaller or poorer countries to be able to afford cutting-edge equipment. Developing this high-end equipment often costs more than billions, especially when it comes to developing the next generation of combat capabilities. The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit project cost was $44.390 million.dollars, in 1994 dollars, not even including the cost of acquiring, maintaining and operating the bomber, while fifth-generation fighter jets, such as the Lockheed Martin F-35 The cost of the Lightning II and Chengdu J-20 is in the billions. To be able to cover the entire cost of the project would represent a substantial increase in the total budget of any country that wanted to attempt to create them. Compared to the cost of purchasing from the manufacturer, the initial cost will be significantly reduced, which will make it possible to acquire this equipment. Additionally, COTS provides a way for countries and companies to develop and acquire the equipment they need. The complexity of next-generation combat capabilities requires collaboration between multiple parties, combining their expertise to produce the final product, especially for sectors such as submarine construction and combat aircraft construction, which are too complex so that most countries are capable of creating them themselves. Additionally, much non-combat infrastructure comes from commercial sources, such as building simulators for training purposes. Not only in actual military equipment, non-combat infrastructure is often obtained commercially around the world. Floss of Tactical Advantagecots items are often produced to the same specifications and construction, meaning the hardware is likely to have minimal differences while the software, such as Microsoft, works. systems and Microsoft Office, are often completely identical because no modifications are required. By using the same equipment, it becomes easier to discover and, if possible, exploit weaknesses and flaws in the system to the detriment of the opposing party. In our time, information warfare has become essential in planning operations. From open sources, operational data and other key information such as the layout of military bases can be obtained easily, allowing enemy forces to strategize around the boundaries. Taking radars and submarines as examples, by knowing the operating range and depth, naval forces can plan their approach with a known parameter. Reducing uncertainty in a military operation will improve the likelihood of success. Compatibility Issues Between Different Cots Elements Compatibility is also another important factor when using COTS elements. Many studies have been done on the problems associated with integrating different COTS software into a main system, when a larger system is built from smaller building blocks. Although there is standardization and recommended practices within a programming language, it is still a recommended practice and there is no standardization between different programming languages. Beyond that, there is an additional problem related to differences in written language and the complexity of modern software. Combining these factors results in a potent mix of disasters waiting to happen. Suitability of Cots articles to meet their own requirements. Ultimately, as with any product, the main goal will be to make money and generate revenue for the company. This will motivate companies to offer their COTS items to the biggest spenders or prime acquirer of the new equipment, which are primarily countries like the United States, China, and Russia, as evidenced by their military spending. Therefore, the equipment will be built to suit their climate andtheir populations. While this won't be a problem for countries that fit these parameters, Asian countries will need to customize the equipment to suit their own needs, which might not be possible. Differences such as body build and climate make a big difference in the overall effectiveness of the equipment. Asian bodies are biologically smaller than those of our European counterparts and, therefore, the reach and reach of our bodies are smaller. This will effectively mean that the equipment will need to be modified to fit the purchasing company's bodywork. However, the difficulty will be great, especially with elements like fighter jets, which significantly optimize every part of the cockpit. Government Regulation and Export Limitations Military COTS products are often regulated by the governing body of the manufacturer's country. Military equipment is naturally built for war purposes and so the sale of such equipment will raise concerns as it could be used for unorthodox purposes, such as suppressing protesters or inciting terrorism. The major players in this industry are often limited by their governing body as to what they are allowed to export. This is often achieved by completely banning the sale of such equipment, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, or by creating an export variant, such as the Type-214 submarine. The primary reason for these bans is to deny adversaries access to powerful technology, as reflected in U.S. national security priorities. This will result in either acquiring a less powerful version or purchasing other equipment, both of which are subpar substitutes. Safety and Security Implications With these pros and cons, there will be reasons to worry when it comes to safety and security. The United States has identified COTS software as an area of ​​concern, and this is a common consensus among countries. However, COTS software often controls and manages real machines, from airplanes to the missiles they carry. Operational security will therefore be a major issue that will need to be addressed. As highlighted previously, COTS elements will naturally mean that other countries with the same or similar equipment will be able to learn key operating parameters. This means that the military has lost its information advantage and therefore other areas of planning and intelligence must cover this area of ​​weakness. Software integration will have a significant impact on safety and security. In the absence of international standardization specifying how programs should be programmed, a single command in an embedded system may result in multiple actions or an error, neither of which is serious. Even with the best programmers, such a complex and complex system will often have bugs, as seen with large software companies like the Patriot system during the 1991 Gulf War, where a bug caused the failure of the destruction of an incoming enemy missile and 27 deaths. Entrepreneurs' profit goals will also pose a safety risk because they prioritize other aspects, such as efficiency or lower production costs. This can put device security at the bottom of priorities, making it easier to hack or breach. Being granted remote access to military information and equipment is rarely a good thing and threatens the lives of millions. With COTS items, there is a greater likelihood of being hacked, because.