Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Kirkhill]

American story but a Canadian, and Western, problem.

The limitations of the rule of laws designed for peacetime when applied to wartime.

Pentagon aims to sidestep potential 'collusion' through Defense Production Act: Senior official - Breaking Defense

"Our interest is using voluntary agreements .... For us to articulate problems to them around nasty issues in the supply chain and the industrial base that allow them to communicate and work together, essentially collude," said Michael Cadenazzi, the assistant secretary of Defense for Industrial...

breakingdefense.com

These are the types of situations for which the Emergency Measures or Wartime Powers acts are required.

On the other hand, even in peacetime, there is an argument that the defence industries should not be held to the same standards as other commercial enterprises but need their own regime for operation and control.

 

[FJAG]

American story but a Canadian, and Western, problem.

The limitations of the rule of laws designed for peacetime when applied to wartime.

Pentagon aims to sidestep potential 'collusion' through Defense Production Act: Senior official - Breaking Defense

"Our interest is using voluntary agreements .... For us to articulate problems to them around nasty issues in the supply chain and the industrial base that allow them to communicate and work together, essentially collude," said Michael Cadenazzi, the assistant secretary of Defense for Industrial...

breakingdefense.com

These are the types of situations for which the Emergency Measures or Wartime Powers acts are required.

On the other hand, even in peacetime, there is an argument that the defence industries should not be held to the same standards as other commercial enterprises but need their own regime for operation and control.

There are significant differences between American Anti-Trust laws and Canadian laws under the Competition Act. I'm far from an expert in these matters, but in general, the American laws are tougher and broader and more likely to be used by private parties. I wouldn't even want to comment on what the pitfalls and "avoidance" mechanisms would be in Canada.

As a general thing, however, there are already many ways that numerous companies combine in order to produce a given complex weapon system.

The real issue here is of having competitors for the same type of competing product to work together to produce a single product where they can control the price charged to government. The hope here is that by combining their respective IPs on a colluded product, they can produce a superior product in larger numbers but without a massive per unit price increase.

I haven't thought this through much, but one of the strengths of competition is that the companies each strive to improve their product in order to gain a competitive advantage. While combining might result in a better product, it might also result in complacency in that improvements are less important because there is no competitor.

I've really only tracked one type of weapon system which is artillery, and I find that European (and other nations) are a bit more innovative in things like artillery shells. IMHO, Canada is complacent in this field buying/producing costlier and more effective rounds only when there is no option otherwise. We have some systemic bottlenecks there. Hopefully those will open up in time with the new acquisitions regime.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am a big fan of competition.
I really dislike gatekeepers.

Funneling a variety of competitors through a gatekeeper defeats the value of competition in the first place.

In Ukraine's case, and in commercial practice, competing solutions involve multiple technologies employed in multiple ways by multiple users. All of whom are committed to making the solution work. Most of them make the solutions work to some degree or other. Some of the solutions turn out to be world beaters.

But none of that is ever discovered in labs and boardrooms. It is only discovered by trying in the field.

....

Take the business of the UGVs in Ukraine. Ukraine asked for UGVs. It got them (and the rest of the UxVs) by the score and allowed everybody and her brother to play with them, adjust them, modify them and finally decide what pathways to develop.

This is the opposite of the hidebound bureaucratic nonsense associated with government procurement.

 

[Furniture]

I am a big fan of competition.
I really dislike gatekeepers.

Funneling a variety of competitors through a gatekeeper defeats the value of competition in the first place.

In Ukraine's case, and in commercial practice, competing solutions involve multiple technologies employed in multiple ways by multiple users. All of whom are committed to making the solution work. Most of them make the solutions work to some degree or other. Some of the solutions turn out to be world beaters.

But none of that is ever discovered in labs and boardrooms. It is only discovered by trying in the field.

....

Take the business of the UGVs in Ukraine. Ukraine asked for UGVs. It got them (and the rest of the UxVs) by the score and allowed everybody and her brother to play with them, adjust them, modify them and finally decide what pathways to develop.

This is the opposite of the hidebound bureaucratic nonsense associated with government procurement.

It's the difference between war and peace.

In peace, throwing money around to see what works is wasteful, and results in governments being booted out of office. In war, every reasonable solution nneds to be investigated, because there are real and immediate stakes.

Comparing our procurement to Ukraine's is like comparing a comedy special to improve. One is a curated experience designed to offer the best bang for buck, the other is just throwing things out there to see what works.