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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

I would argue that in the peace time commercial universe people regularly gamble to see what works. It takes effort to pry that money out of tight fists but given 7 Billion pairs of fists it is not difficult to find people willling to try doing things differently. Individuals not constrained by the need to do things the same way as their neighbours and competitors. In fact they seek out difference to find competitive advantage.

....

Relevant quote from recent article

"25th ID’s fielding of new technologies will continue unabated: “We’re literally transforming all the time,” although “we do have to manage how we do this, and we have to be disciplined in this approach.”"

US Army’s ‘Tropic Lightning’ Division ponders transformation lessons from Philippine war games

Because of HIMARS, Maj. Gen. Bartholomees pointed out his “division artillery is really what transformed the most.”

www.defensenews.com

The GOC said that his mobile infantry, artillery and sustainment brigades have been taking the brunt of the Transformation in Contact effort but the Combat Aviation Brigade is next with the addition of a Gray Eagle company. It is necessary to complement the long ranges of his recently acquired HIMARS missiles.

He also said something interesting about the ISVs.

"Bartholomees praised the Infantry Squad Vehicle that makes his soldiers “more lethal, light and mobile.” By increasing the mobility of his two infantry brigades, it helped shed a lot of needless vehicles. “Infantry brigades had too much stuff, too many vehicles, they were too unwieldy,” he said."

....

In my opinion the real change is not the changes themselves but the learned ability to constantly change. I hope that becomes an ingrained attribute.

 

[Furniture]

In my opinion the real change is not the changes themselves but the learned ability to constantly change. I hope that becomes an ingrained attribute.

That's a cute throw-away line, but when the next election comes around and you have to explain why you spent millions/billions on projects that lead to nothing, the story changes.

I'm not suggesting change is bad, I'm simply pointing out that a nation at war has different priorities than a nation at peace. Even in the peak of Afghanistan, Canada writ large was at peace. As was said often at the time, "We went to war, Canadians went to the mall". More personally, my ex-wife and her friends were more concerned with Friends than with the war.

To this day, the average Canadian is just starting to wake-up to the notion that war is coming, and we should make some progress toward getting ready. Canada is not in a position to just throw money at things and see what comes out. Canadians still need to see tangible benefits(jobs, new technology), before they are willing to spend on the CAF.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's a cute throw-away line, but when the next election comes around and you have to explain why you spent millions/billions on projects that lead to nothing, the story changes.

I'm not suggesting change is bad, I'm simply pointing out that a nation at war has different priorities than a nation at peace. Even in the peak of Afghanistan, Canada writ large was at peace. As was said often at the time, "We went to war, Canadians went to the mall". More personally, my ex-wife and her friends were more concerned with Friends than with the war.

To this day, the average Canadian is just starting to wake-up to the notion that war is coming, and we should make some progress toward getting ready. Canada is not in a position to just throw money at things and see what comes out. Canadians still need to see tangible benefits(jobs, new technology), before they are willing to spend on the CAF.

Not a throw away line at all.

I have been a constant proponent of the need to have slack in the budget to allow for experimentation.