Transparent Armor Cost Benefit Study Lisa Prokurat Franks RDECOM (TARDEC) and David Holm and Rick Barnak TACOM Cost & Systems Analysis Directorate Distribution A. Approved for Public Release; distribution unlimited. 3/6/2007 1/17 Committed to Excellence Supporting America s Warfighters
Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 22 JAN 2007 2. REPORT TYPE N/A 3. DATES COVERED 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Transparent Armor Cost Benefit Study 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) ; ; Prokurat Franks /LisaHolm /DavidBarnak /Rick 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) USA ARMY TACOM 6501 E 11 Mile Road Warren, MI 48397-5000 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) TACOM TARDEC 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 16767 RC 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images. 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT SAR a. REPORT unclassified b. ABSTRACT unclassified c. THIS PAGE unclassified 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 17 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Agenda Background Current Demand Data Government Cost/Benefit Analysis Timeline 3/6/2007 2/17
Equipping Our Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan Up-Armored HMMWVs (M1114s) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2003 2005 2006 3/6/2007 3/17
Early OIF Recent History 2004-2005 - GPK Curb Wt: 10,300lbs GVW: 12,100lbs 2006 Iraqi Pope Glass 3/6/2007 4/17
Future Transparent Gun Shields Requirement: Upgrade GPKS with transparent armor for enhanced situational awareness while maintaining soldier cover within armor envelope. Baseline Initial AHI GS & GPK Upgraded Gunner Shield Transparent Armored Gun Shield (TAGS) Field Modified GS & APK Interim Objective Interim Solution Marine Corps TAGS Future Solution Modified Solution based upon 3/6/2007 5/17 (MCTAGS) theater recommendations
HMMWV M1114 Glass Demand Left Windshield Average Monthly Demand Quantity Quantity 1200 900 600 300 0 1200 900 600 300 0 FY04 FY05 FY06 Fiscal Year Right Windshield Average Monthly Demand FY04 FY05 FY06 Fiscal Year Door Window Average Monthly Demand Over $5.2 Million was spent per month in FY05 for the Up-Armored HMMWV windshields and door windows. Demand for both right and left windshields increased 133% and 101% respectively from FY05 to FY06. Demand for door windows increased 658% from FY05 to FY06. 1800 1500 Quantity 1200 900 600 300 0 Bottom Line: Army needs an improved Transparent Armor solution! FY04 FY05 FY06 3/6/2007 Fiscal Year 6/17
Increase In Door Glass Demand Soldiers are adding another piece of glass to each door for added protection. Adds additional weight to an already overweight vehicle and reduces payload capacity! 3/6/2007 7/17
Causes Of Current Glass Failures Insurgent Attacks (with a wide range of threats) Sandstorm Damage Rock Strikes Improper removal and installation Clouding Delamination caused by environmental degradation Improper curing process Improper cleaning techniques 3/6/2007 8/17
Other Problems with Current Glass Weight Weight of current glass solution adds significant weight to vehicle. Visibility Thickness of glass can cause distortion and glare 3/6/2007 9/17
Future Transparent Armor Solutions Failure Causes Potential for Improvement over Current Laminate Technology Insurgent Attacks Yes/No (with a wide range of threats) (Depends on Threat) Sandstorm Damage Yes Rock Strikes Yes Improper removal and installation Yes Clouding - Delamination caused by environmental degradation - Improper curing process - Improper cleaning techniques Yes Yes Yes 3/6/2007 10/17
Future Transparent Armor Solutions Cost Cost for 3 x 3 piece ranges from $500 - $3000 depending on desired thickness and treatments ARL Ceramic Glass/Plastic Ballistic Current Laminate ARL Glass Current (2006) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Time ARL Army Research Lab 3/6/2007 11/17
Basic Research Effort GE Global Research and Nanocerox partnership Goal is to develop nano-structured ceramic bodies with a combination of high optical transmission and exceptional mechanical properties and capable of effective performance in an outstanding transparent armor system. Two Funding Opportunities of Effort: FY05: : Develop design rules from the system level armor requirements to the mechanical and optical properties of the ceramic body and then into the properties of the nanopowder. Objective is for a process to be in place for the fabrication of 2 x 2 2 x 0.375 samples. FY06: : Scale up the materials systems to a final dimension of 4 4 x 4 x 4 x 0.375.. Characterize and deliver samples for ballistic testing. 3/6/2007 12/17
Government Cost Benefit Study Purpose: Determine break-even cost for new transparent armor solution based on expected reliability improvement and required investment. Use current fleet of Up-Armored HMMWV as the study platform for initial look. Approximately 11,000+ vehicles in Army inventory. NSN 2510-01 01-435-9693 Right Windshield $2,759 (FY06$) NSN 2510-01 01-435-9690 Left Windshield $2,759 (FY06$) NSN 2510-01 01-435-9692 Door Window $1,025 (FY06$) Expand analysis to include rest of TWV fleet. 3/6/2007 13/17
Cost-Benefit Methodology Obtain current demand data and cost data to determine operations cost for status quo. Completed LH Windshield Unit Cost vs. Improved Reliability Obtain investment costs for new transparent armor. Parametric Analysis Determine operations cost for transparent armor solution. Determine savings between status quo and transparent armor alternative. Calculate Net Present Value and Savings to Investment Ratio. $3,000 Cost $2,000 Break $1,000 $0 Even Cost Contractor provides reliability improvement factor estimate and estimated cost for transparent armor Material at end of Phase I. 3/6/2007 14/17 Unit Cost $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 Break Even Curve 0 +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% +60% +70% % Improvement Over Current Failure Rate
Cost Benefit Parametric Analysis Up-Armored HMMWV Glass Unit Cost LH Windshield Unit Cost vs. Improved Reliability $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 Increased Costs $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 Cost Savings $1,000 $0 0 +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% +60% +70% Break Even Curve % Improvement Over Current Failure Rate Unit Cost RH Windshield Unit Cost vs. Improved Reliability $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 Increased Costs $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 Cost Savings $1,000 $0 0 +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% +60% +70% Break Even Curve % Improvement Over Current Failure Rate Door Window Unit Cost vs. Improved Failure Rate $4,000 $3,500 Unit Cost $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Increased Costs Break Even Curve Cost Savings Curves Based on the FY05 Demand Data $0 0 +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% +60% +70% % Improvement Over Current Failure Rate 3/6/2007 15/17
Other Potential Benefits of a New Transparent Armor Solution Vehicle Weight Logistics Footprint Crew Survivability Platform Operational Availability Safety related accidents Impact 3/6/2007 16/17
Timeframe FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 DRAFT RFP Final Solicitation Released FY 05 Congressional FY 05 Contract Award IPR IPR FY 06 Congressional FY 06 Contract Award IPR IPR Data Collection & Parametric Analysis Evaluation Phase II Effort Cost Benefit Analysis 3/6/2007 17/17