Another drawback of the industry is evident in the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ procurement process:
In a war fought at the highest technological level, the ability to procure equipment quickly and flexibly is crucial throughout. Huge defense contractors simply cannot offer that.
Ukrainian unit and formation commanders order equipment, UAVs, weapons, and accessories through a government website where many small businesses offer their products. This decentralized procurement process provides the armed forces with what they need: Immediately available equipment that can be tested, adapted, discarded, and replaced.
An army’s tactical level is not concerned with long-term contracts, maintenance schedules, or spare parts production lead times—all of which defense contractors try to sell to a government seeking to become a customer in order to earn predictable, long-term profits.
When we talk about major defense projects such as main battle tanks, cruise missiles, frigates, submarines, and fighter jets, the major defense contractors remain in a league of their own. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the following is also evident in Ukraine:
- A €35 million tank can easily be destroyed by a €1,500 drone
- The operational value of a fighter jet is drastically reduced in a war between two evenly matched parties due to a lack of air superiority
- Frigates and submarines can be trapped in ports, as setting sail is too dangerous due to underwater UAVs
- Cruise missiles costing millions are being replaced by inexpensive long-range UAVs, which enable better aerial reconnaissance and more selective target engagement
Defense contractors will not stop making money, especially since countries like Germany continue to rely heavily on conventional warfare, but there are also reasons why what defense contractors offer may not be attractive to an army.
In a war fought at the highest technological level, the ability to procure equipment quickly and flexibly is crucial throughout. Huge defense contractors simply cannot offer that.
Ukrainian unit and formation commanders order equipment, UAVs, weapons, and accessories through a government website where many small businesses offer their products. This decentralized procurement process provides the armed forces with what they need: Immediately available equipment that can be tested, adapted, discarded, and replaced.
An army’s tactical level is not concerned with long-term contracts, maintenance schedules, or spare parts production lead times—all of which defense contractors try to sell to a government seeking to become a customer in order to earn predictable, long-term profits.
When we talk about major defense projects such as main battle tanks, cruise missiles, frigates, submarines, and fighter jets, the major defense contractors remain in a league of their own. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the following is also evident in Ukraine:
- A €35 million tank can easily be destroyed by a €1,500 drone
- The operational value of a fighter jet is drastically reduced in a war between two evenly matched parties due to a lack of air superiority
- Frigates and submarines can be trapped in ports, as setting sail is too dangerous due to underwater UAVs
- Cruise missiles costing millions are being replaced by inexpensive long-range UAVs, which enable better aerial reconnaissance and more selective target engagement
Defense contractors will not stop making money, especially since countries like Germany continue to rely heavily on conventional warfare, but there are also reasons why what defense contractors offer may not be attractive to an army.
•
77
•
@hendrik_lmr Thank you for your in-depth analysis and explanation, which is absolutely spot on.
I think that many combat missions will also undergo fundamental changes in the future.
We’re already seeing the first steps in this direction with the CCAs program for the F-35. Something similar is also conceivable for tanks. To my knowledge, this is called MUM-T and is also based on the loyal wingman principle.
And even though drones now pose the greatest threat to infantry, we will always need “boots on the ground” and will continue to seek solutions there to minimize the danger as much as possible.
I think that many combat missions will also undergo fundamental changes in the future.
We’re already seeing the first steps in this direction with the CCAs program for the F-35. Something similar is also conceivable for tanks. To my knowledge, this is called MUM-T and is also based on the loyal wingman principle.
And even though drones now pose the greatest threat to infantry, we will always need “boots on the ground” and will continue to seek solutions there to minimize the danger as much as possible.
•
11
•