Smartphones in the Army.

• Author: Buchan, Andrew S.
• Position: Readers' Forum

* Regarding your recent coverage of the Army's activities in considering the acquisition of smartphones, while the usage of such devices is not new within the armed services, the approach taken with insertion of this technology should cause reflection on the risks and effects to war fighters and industry.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

During a recent soldier technology conference in the United Kingdom, I listened keenly to a representative from the Army brief an overview of the current Army program to implement smartphone technology into the service. Listening to audience reaction during the Q&A session, and in the proceeding networking discussions, all of which served only to ratify my own concerns, I felt compelled to take a step in voicing what 1 believe is, in the very least, a precarious acquisition strategy.

The Army's smartphone acquisition enterprise seemingly is trying to "rewrite" the rules of acquisition. I can only commend the vision as it is nothing less than a full frontal assault on tackling ever-increasing acquisition costs, equipment costs and shrinking defense budgets that plague us all in this line of business. However, the approach is also rewriting the very acquisition rules by which defense equipment has been bought and designed for decades, without any real justification or clarity other than the perceived immediate cost savings.

I understand that smartphones are fully integrated into young people's lifestyles, are vastly cheaper communication tools than traditional systems employed by the military, and offer unmatchable function and application for the price paid. In that regard, it truly does make sense to buy something that is low cost and "disposable."

But who decides that a smartphone does not have to be ruggedized? Who decides that the smartphone does not need to be submersible, survive altitude, withstand 12-foot drop onto concrete etc., when other items such as a radio or thermal sight have to pass all of these requirements? How do we determine that some pieces of equipment are more or less important than others when they are all operating from the same platform (the soldier), within the same environment on the same mission?

It appears that the allure of a "cheap" price tag, commercial-off-the-shelf availability and familiarity allows us to bypass the very requirements that exist to ensure that military equipment is fit for their purpose when a life depends on it.

Buying cheap and useful tools like an iPhone or...