Sponsored by Blinkist: Get a 7-day free trial and 25% off Blinkist Annual Premium by clicking here:
Long before equipment reaches the front, it must first be ordered, designed, produced and fielded.
This is a process that nations have been going through for centuries. That doesn’t mean they’re always good at it.
With every year that passes it seems that military equipment becomes more expensive, delivery schedules blow out more, and failures mount.
Sometimes the answer may be corruption – but sometimes it’s just a case of mistakes being made and things going wrong.
In this video I want to have a look at some reasons why…
Patreon:
Comments & Caveats:
The level of simplification is outstanding – from the simplified flow to a lack of discussion on turned out dollars, this is a basic, illustrative version of this issue. but I nonetheless hope it is helpful and entertains.
Sources/Reading:
Secretary Kendall on NGAD and F-35 contracting
GAO on the F-35 program
GAO highlights on F-35
More GAO on F-35
Publicity on UK defence procurement
Baden-Wurttembuerg
Czech Leopard procurement
P-75I reporting
Reporting on E-3 sustainment costs
EU joint ammunition program
Featured NGAD reports:
ASPI – Dr. Marcus Hellyer – Understanding the price of military equipment
Canadian Senate Committee on National Finance
USAF proposing cuts
Burevestnik reporting
F-35 FRP reporting
Included article on Oskosh contract award
Further
Canada strikes F-35 deal
Indian Submarine Tender
Ajax
F-35 service contract
CRS Russian defence industry
Why Military Procurement Has Rarely Adhered to Authorised Schedules
Challenges in UK Defence Acquisition – RAND
Timestamps:
00:00:00 — How Procurement Destroys Armies
00:01:24 — What Am I Talking About?
00:04:26 — Procurement And Why It Goes Wrong
00:10:37 — Getting The Requirement Wrong
00:27:56 — Contracting Goes Wrong
00:34:07 — I Have Altered The Deal
00:37:47 — Speed Kills, So Does Delay
00:40:43 — When It Doesn’t Actually Go Wrong
00:44:11 — The Quantity Death Spiral
00:51:09 — Putting It All Together
00:57:35 — Getting It Right?
01:06:30 — Conclusion
01:07:35 — Channel Update…(read more)
HOW TO: Hedge Against Inflation
REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation
HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing
HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing
Title: How Procurement Destroys Armies: Requirements, Risks & Development Gone Wrong
Introduction
Procurement plays a crucial role in military operations, ensuring that armed forces have the necessary equipment and materials to carry out their missions. However, inadequate procurement processes can pose significant risks, impacting the effectiveness and readiness of armies. This article delves into the requirements, risks, and development failures that can plague military procurement, ultimately undermining the strength and capabilities of armed forces.
Requirements: Setting the Foundation
Procurement requirements are the foundation upon which military hardware and equipment are acquired. These requirements outline the specific capabilities and functionalities that the military seeks in its procurements. A failure to accurately identify and document these requirements can lead to severe consequences.
Insufficient or unclear requirements can result in the acquisition of unsuitable equipment, hampering battlefield effectiveness. For instance, if the procurement process fails to consider the needs of soldiers in extreme weather conditions, it may result in the acquisition of inappropriate clothing or gear. This oversight can directly impact soldier safety and operational efficiency.
Risks: Pitfalls in the Procurement Process
Various risks emerge during the procurement process, threatening the success and viability of military acquisitions. Inadequate risk assessments and management can undermine the overall effectiveness of armies. There are several key risks that procurement must navigate:
1. Delays: Delays in procurement can arise due to bureaucratic red tape, budgetary constraints, or inadequate planning. As a result, armed forces may face critical equipment shortages, leading to compromised operations and increased risks for personnel.
2. Cost Overruns: Poorly managed procurement projects can lead to cost overruns, exceeding budgetary limits. These budgeting failures divert funds away from other crucial military initiatives, causing resource shortfalls and impacting overall operational readiness.
3. Technology Obsolescence: The rapid pace of technological advancements means that military equipment can quickly become outdated. Failure to anticipate technological obsolescence during the procurement cycle may result in armies being left with outdated assets that do not meet current demands and strategic needs.
Development Gone Wrong
Beyond requirements and risks, development failures can also contribute to the destruction of armies’ capabilities. Ineffective development processes prolong procurement time frames, hinder technological advancements, and limit innovation. This can result in significant detrimental consequences:
1. Inefficiency and Relevance: Development failures may stifle progress, with delays and inefficiencies dampening the introduction of new technologies and improvements. This can lead to military capabilities lagging behind, jeopardizing soldiers’ safety and battlefield success.
2. Overspecialization and Non-Interoperability: Inefficient development processes can result in over-specialized equipment that is not compatible with other military systems. This lack of interoperability weakens collaboration between different branches or even partner countries, limiting joint operations and hindering overall military efficiency.
Conclusion
Procurement, when mismanaged, can have a detrimental impact on armies’ effectiveness and capabilities. Failure to establish accurate requirements, manage risks adequately, and facilitate efficient development processes can lead to compromised operational readiness, budgetary shortfalls, and obsolescence. To mitigate these challenges, an effective and robust procurement system must be established, ensuring that armies have access to the right equipment at the right time, while minimizing risks and safeguarding national security.
Sponsored by Blinkist: Get a 7-day free trial and 25% off Blinkist Annual Premium by clicking here: https://www.blinkist.com/perun
Have been a bit ill recently so I'll say this is relatively few words. I know this video is a bit of a personal indulgence voted for by my Patrons, and I appreciated a chance to make it. I never thought people would watch PPTs on defence economics….but even moreso never thought anyone would watch anything on procurement issues. Will see how this one goes before I decide if the series should be extended to special interests, competition and other elements, but just know I had great fun making this.
More procurement vdeos please.
It would seem that Kiwiland has acquired a new geopolitical rival: the Republic of Koala. The actions of "volunteer" Koala soldiers in the south island conflict (2014-Present) has indeed drawn significant international condemnation. An interesting video would be on some of the methods Kiwiland can use to keep Emutopia and The Republic of Koala from aligning their interests to further support the southern insurgency.
"The sinews of war: infinite money." But even unlimited budget won't save you if you make bad enough decisions about what to spend it on.
Here's a nightmare procurement scenario Drachinifel shared: There was a movement in the interwar US Navy to replace large fleet carriers like USS "I didn't hear no bell!" Enterprise deploying a mix of fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers with light carriers (when they were down to just Enterprise in the Pacific, they kept Ranger in the Atlantic for good reason) loaded with a multirole fighter/bomber along the lines of the Blackburn Skua.
Imagine showing up to Midway with that kind of fleet. Zero pilots would've had to consult the ships' doctors about priapism, and pretty much any direct hit would've ended the carriers.
I think my second favourite part about these videos is Perun very obviously (and wisely) side-stepping around the obvious Australian examples
Praised be Perun!
Lol, loving the Stormsurge cameo!
feature locking needs to be a clear thing. You hear about this sometimes with video games where they announce something is feature locked, I means no more things can be added going forward.
Gotta love the Aussie humor when discussing stern subjects. Please continue.
THE PROBLEM IS UPGRADE
NO SOONER IS SOMETHING BUILT AND A PRODUCTION LINE STATS UP ITS OUT OF DATE
BUT THEN LOOKING AT WHAT UP GRADE MAY BE POSSIBLE LET ALONE A GOOD IDEA
YES MY IDEA MAYBE SIMPLISTIC BUT IS AL LEAST WORKABLE
THANKS FOR DOING THIS VIDEO IN THE FIRST PLACE
20:27 oh yeah. Sold my ticket for one of Taylor's LA for a crazy amount.
Yesterday the SoD here in Germany make a public statement about a new general framework agreement between the Bundeswehr and the Weapon Industry. This should speed up the procurement processes here by many times and sign ammunition orders for several years. They dont publish exact numbers only the goal that in 2031 the Stockpile of 155mm Ammuntion should grow from its actuam very low inventory of just 20000 Grenades to 230000 in 2030 but much more important and without precedence in the hlstory of german military procurement the Need of the Ukraine Armed Forces are integrated in this framework aggrement. Ukraine can Order Ammunition directly ad the factories without political bargaining and Germany guarantees the funding. That is are very smart solution and will hold the ammunition supply line for Ukraine steady for several years.
Greed, spending more each year guaranteed, blank check war time proliferation. Pax any conflicts.
As a procurement professional myself, this is an amazing piece and I really envy for whichever country you work for and guess we'll see it in ability in 5-10 years
The person who says “wouldn’t it be great if” is also known as the “Good idea fairy”. Always show up in the middle of detailed planning
Emo Emu.
"Upgrading their IT infrastructure to be more secure."
If there had been someone else in the room they might have thought I had a nervous breakdown because of my laughter.
heck, forget military procurement. Most of the issues you point out are a problem where I work and it's got zero in common with military goods.
I wish management would watch this video and take these lessons to heart. Scope creep and indecisiveness are such project killers.
Great video as always, would love to see parts 2 and 3.
Hope you feel better
Most of this video talks about costs and risks from requirements statement to fielding. 70% of your actual costs are in the operations and maintenance phase. They escalate in that phase once production runs for new acquisitions shut down. Now your spares become really expensive and systems start to wear out faster as their designed lifecycle nears its end. Too often thought systems are going o be kept operational past that design end date. The industrial base for manufacturing spares may be gone by that time. Your cost per hour of run time keeps rising. It is difficult to walk into say your Ford dealer and get parts for a car made 30 or more years ago. They do not stock them.
Then there is disposal costs. It costs money to decommission stuff.
As someone in the Lifecycle Logistics field … I can tell you the sustainment part is far too often an afterthought. Simple things like designing for ease of refueling are often left out. Systems designed for use in certain environments and then they have to operate in other environments. Doing an engine pull and replacement in the field in arctic conditions is different than in the tropics. All of that has to be thought out in the design and engineering phase as well as … what special testing, diagnostic, repair tools and training will be required.
It's not as simple as … I like that one … give 5,000 of them.
thnks for the ride
How do governments estimate value on equipment and used vehicles like an Abram?
Like what’s the going rate of a used Abram that’s been in deserts for most of its service life?
In the depravity of realpolitik, procurements aren't there to equip militaries: Militaries are there to rationalize and fund procurements. Actual battlefield consequences are one of the lowest-weighted variables in the calculation that determines them. The concentration of power, secrecy, obedience, and journalistic meekness that attends military programs makes them ideal levers of theft, practically impossible to hold accountable.
we need a good smuglers and a bullet refillingfactory