Elegance in procurement

.

Some people who comment on military affairs develop an inadvisable fixation, such as everything should be "light, or everything should be "small" , "unmanned", "8x8". One might think that "elegance" (reducing things to essentials without luxuries) is my weakness. Maybe it is, but I have very rational reasons(,too):

Think about my lists of really essential equipment, examples of how we could reduce the variety of weapon systems in an army.

The army bureaucracies and the associated ministry of defence bureaucracies are not coping well with the current fashion of having very many different weapon systems in use, procurement, under development.  Their badly limited competence at buying things (the initial purchase and replacement purchases, spare parts purchases) could and IMO should be focused on fewer, truly important systems.

Moreover, large countries should have a look at how small countries buy stuff for their armies There are differences, and in recent years it appears that the big countries tend strongly towards having systems developed to their own specs (then often cancelled instead of introduced), while smaller ones either buy market leader equipment  versions (CV90, F-16, FN SCAR), domestic equipment (Czech Republic with Tatra, similar in Slovakia) or unusual systems such as Korean AFVs or Israeli tech.

Sometimes the smaller armies get superior kit, sometimes they get worse kit. Sometimes a procurement by a small army is so badly expensive in terms of per-copy price that it smells of corruption, other times a procurement by a large army is so badly expensive in terms of per-copy price that it smells of corruption.

It's interesting to see that small armies do not appear to make worse deals on average despite obviously more limited procurement establishments (smaller, no domestic testing infrastructure). They sure do freeride on the equipment testing and R&D of the bigger countries, but they also appear to often procure equipment more quickly and less stupidly.

Any quick repair of an army from rotten state to fitness for purpose should focus on the key equipment pieces. Everything else can stay at 1980's level or be commercial off-the-shelf. Our resources for competent procurement are too stretched by too many programs.

Standardisation is not only a theoretically costs-saving approach; it may also be a beneficial impetus towards self-discipline.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.