4 ms·

>They are also yet another defense incumbent that needs to be disrupted. The first and arguably only mission of the Department of Defense is to win wars. Diver

>They are also yet another defense incumbent that needs to be disrupted. The first and arguably only mission of the Department of Defense is to win wars. Diversifying the economy is none of their concern beyond having a economy with which to fuel their war machines. If you want diversification of the economy, look towards the Department of Commerce. Or to put it another way: Thumping your diversity drum doesn't win you wars.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
Diversifying the economy is a pathway to winning wars. Limiting themselves to a few expensive and stagnant vendors is a way to lose in the future. Other countries make these things much more efficiently because they don’t have lazy governments captured by old companies. Also I have no idea what this has to do with “diversity” or what you even mean by that.
- nytesky 3y ago
  What country has more efficient and effective military aircraft?
- throwup238 3y ago
  > Other countries make these things much more efficiently because they don’t have regulatory capture by old companies. This contract is for cutting edge unmanned fighter jets. Other countries don't make them at all!
  - modeless 3y ago
    Probably because it's way better to make swarms of dirt cheap drones
    - throwup238 3y ago
      No one makes swarms in any real sense of the word, either. These unmanned Wingman jets will be the first in the world to do that too.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        Look up Rogozins comments about how Ukrainians operate drones for a Russian loyalist perspective
        throwup238 3y ago
        Those are cheap consumer drones not “swarms”, cheap airplanes, and drones from other countries. If they could make an F16 equivalent combat drone, they’d jump at the chance.
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    I meant other countries make the plane portion (not Anduril’s unmanned controls) that General Atomics is responsible for. Predators and Reapers are very expensive.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Also I have no idea what this has to do with “diversity” or what you even mean by that. Diversity, or "the condition of having or being composed of differing elements"[1], in this case a wide variety of suppliers. I assume most of us are speaking English here. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity >Limiting themselves to a few expensive and stagnant vendors is a way to lose in the future. You win wars by buying your equipment from the most capable suppliers. If that happens to be a centralized cabal of suppliers (this stuff is expensive, after all), then it is what it is. It's not the mission of the DoD to diversify the economy, its mission is to win wars as effectively as possible at any cost.
  - matthewmacleod 3y ago
    …and at the level of the DoD your goals include ensuring that there ARE as many capable suppliers as possible, using your commercial power, to increase your chances of “winning wars as effectively as possible”. Wars are won on logistics; a corrupt, stagnant, or under-innovating market is a barrier to successful defence.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      You aren't going to win wars by procuring from second and third rate suppliers just to keep the market diverse. You have to ask for proposals from across the market, but it's natural that suppliers will become centralized given how much money, time, and expertise is required. The mission of keeping the economy healthy lies upon the Commerce and Justice Departments, whose missions are to manage the economy and keep industries within the confines of the law respectively.
gantron 3y ago
Optionality, even for a monopsony like the Defense industry, is good for the consumer (Pentagon). They still want suppliers to compete. What incentive is there for a company to innovate if the DoD allows their competitors to die out? When it's time to buy a new fighter jet (or whatever else) those acquisitions chiefs want several options, same as any consumer. The OUSD for Acquisition & Sustainment publishes lengthy analyses on competition within the industry and how to stoke it. [0] [0] https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/15/2002939087/-1/-1/1/STATE-OF-COMPETITION-WITHIN-THE-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/15/2002939087/-1/-1/1/STA...
renewiltord 3y ago
Competitive procurement is intentional US military method expressly for military purposes. Saying the DoD shouldn't care about it because it needs to win wars is a meaningless statement. Part of how it wins wars is by having effective equipment and part of how it has effective equipment is that it has a competitive process. Cultivating supplier diversity is intentional. Honestly, quite an absurdity of a comment. Just says words without any coherent meaning.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago

Diversifying the economy is a pathway to winning wars. Limiting themselves to a few expensive and stagnant vendors is a way to lose in the future. Other countries make these things much more efficiently because they don’t have lazy governments captured by old companies. Also I have no idea what this has to do with “diversity” or what you even mean by that.

nytesky 3y ago
What country has more efficient and effective military aircraft?
throwup238 3y ago
> Other countries make these things much more efficiently because they don’t have regulatory capture by old companies. This contract is for cutting edge unmanned fighter jets. Other countries don't make them at all!
- modeless 3y ago
  Probably because it's way better to make swarms of dirt cheap drones
  - throwup238 3y ago
    No one makes swarms in any real sense of the word, either. These unmanned Wingman jets will be the first in the world to do that too.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      Look up Rogozins comments about how Ukrainians operate drones for a Russian loyalist perspective
      - throwup238 3y ago
        Those are cheap consumer drones not “swarms”, cheap airplanes, and drones from other countries. If they could make an F16 equivalent combat drone, they’d jump at the chance.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  I meant other countries make the plane portion (not Anduril’s unmanned controls) that General Atomics is responsible for. Predators and Reapers are very expensive.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>Also I have no idea what this has to do with “diversity” or what you even mean by that. Diversity, or "the condition of having or being composed of differing elements"[1], in this case a wide variety of suppliers. I assume most of us are speaking English here. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity >Limiting themselves to a few expensive and stagnant vendors is a way to lose in the future. You win wars by buying your equipment from the most capable suppliers. If that happens to be a centralized cabal of suppliers (this stuff is expensive, after all), then it is what it is. It's not the mission of the DoD to diversify the economy, its mission is to win wars as effectively as possible at any cost.
- matthewmacleod 3y ago
  …and at the level of the DoD your goals include ensuring that there ARE as many capable suppliers as possible, using your commercial power, to increase your chances of “winning wars as effectively as possible”. Wars are won on logistics; a corrupt, stagnant, or under-innovating market is a barrier to successful defence.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    You aren't going to win wars by procuring from second and third rate suppliers just to keep the market diverse. You have to ask for proposals from across the market, but it's natural that suppliers will become centralized given how much money, time, and expertise is required. The mission of keeping the economy healthy lies upon the Commerce and Justice Departments, whose missions are to manage the economy and keep industries within the confines of the law respectively.

gantron 3y ago

Optionality, even for a monopsony like the Defense industry, is good for the consumer (Pentagon). They still want suppliers to compete. What incentive is there for a company to innovate if the DoD allows their competitors to die out? When it's time to buy a new fighter jet (or whatever else) those acquisitions chiefs want several options, same as any consumer. The OUSD for Acquisition & Sustainment publishes lengthy analyses on competition within the industry and how to stoke it. [0] [0] https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/15/2002939087/-1/-1/1/STATE-OF-COMPETITION-WITHIN-THE-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/15/2002939087/-1/-1/1/STA...

renewiltord 3y ago

Competitive procurement is intentional US military method expressly for military purposes. Saying the DoD shouldn't care about it because it needs to win wars is a meaningless statement. Part of how it wins wars is by having effective equipment and part of how it has effective equipment is that it has a competitive process. Cultivating supplier diversity is intentional. Honestly, quite an absurdity of a comment. Just says words without any coherent meaning.