Seriously, why is the government even in the business of defence procurement? You'd think with all the talk about "crunching trade-offs" and "difficult decisions," they'd consider the most obvious one: getting out of the way. We're talking about massive budgets, inefficiency, and a total lack of innovation because everything's tied up in red tape and political favours.
My proposal is simple: radical privatisation of defence supply chains and even some operational support. Let private companies, incentivised by profit and competition, build the equipment, manage the logistics, and even run certain non-combat support functions. Think of it like how we outsource almost everything else. Companies that can deliver reliable, cutting-edge technology at a lower cost will thrive. Those that can't will go bust, just like they should.
Adapted by 1 other party
Discussion (5)
Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.
Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →
But honestly, aren't these private companies already deeply embedded? Look at the logistics and maintenance contracts for our current forces. They're already making decisions that impact mission success, and we're paying them handsomely whether they're perfectly efficient or not. At least with more competition, you'd hope the ones who can't deliver would fail.
However, the devil is in the detail, as always. If a private firm providing vital logistics, say for troop movements in a hypothetical conflict zone, faces a sudden surge in demand and decides to hike prices substantially rather than fulfill its contractual obligations at the agreed rate, where’s the recourse? The state can't just "let them go bust" if it means operational failure. That's the inherent risk with outsourcing critical, time-sensitive functions that aren't truly optional.