Should Private Business be at the heart of the armed forces.

[HeyYou]

I don't see why the private sector can't do it, the important thing is competence and value for money. As for making profit, if they can provide a good service, value for money and make a profit then it shows just how inefficient the public sector is. The problem with some private sector contracts is they've not been given on the basis on competence and value but instead on greasing the right palms, G4S for example.

 

I think that right there is the big question..... the military isn't concerned with turning a profit on the job, only with getting the job done, and, hopefully... done right. Private sector is going to be concerned about making money on the deal. So, where are they going to cut costs, to maximize profits?

 

I suppose, only time will tell if this was a good idea or not.

 

They can cut costs by cutting waste and being more efficient, the public sector in the U.K has got wasting money down to a fine art. The private sector have an incentive to be efficient, not being so cuts into their bottom line and they run risk of losing the contract if they don't provide an acceptable level of service. The public sector have no incentive, they've always seen the taxpayer pocket as a magical thing that dispenses endless piles of cash. Of course there are good and bad companies, the trick is use the good ones.

 

Good points. Just so long as the company has their priorities straight, it may indeed be a winning decision. Let's hope it is. :D

[mizdarby]

Seems a decent consensus that the private sector, would do a better job, at keeping costs down which is a good thing, and not too concerned about private businesses being so close to the heart of the military.

I live near to the Devonport dockyards, where the nuclear submarines are refitted, which does have some private business involvement, and though I am not nervous as such, I probably would be less concerned, if the military refitted their own subs.

[Nintii]

Just a question here ... Is the military not harder on it's own people if their is a breach in security ?

If so, and this is a deterrent to any would be traitor or spy ... wouldn't a civilian "get off" easier if they were to spy or sells secrets etc. and get caught and then cry foul if the military tried to convict

them and ultimately manage to escape a harsher penalty uinder a civilian court ?

 

If so, I'd have a serious issue with Private business involved with my nations security.

[HeyYou]

Just a question here ... Is the military not harder on it's own people if their is a breach in security ?

If so, and this is a deterrent to any would be traitor or spy ... wouldn't a civilian "get off" easier if they were to spy or sells secrets etc. and get caught and then cry foul if the military tried to convict

them and ultimately manage to escape a harsher penalty uinder a civilian court ?

 

If so, I'd have a serious issue with Private business involved with my nations security.

 

The military courts are not bound by a fair few civilian laws.... (like, sentencing guidelines, for instance....) And yes, I would suspect that a civilian would have a much larger chance of getting a good lawyer, that could pull some stunts, that would get their client a significantly reduced sentence, if not get them off completely, no matter how much evidence there is that said person is guilty.

[McclaudEagle]

Most of the world's military's have been contracting private businesses known as defense contractors for decades. Most of the technology, vehicles, weapons and equipment are designed and manufactured by defense contractors. The F-22 Raptor for example was mostly developed by Lockheed Martin, the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines by BAE Systems, the M1 Abrams MBT by General Dynamics. The LGM-30 Minuteman nuclear ICBM is manufactured by Boeing.

 

The military themselves don't really build much of their stuff, they just contract these guys to do it for them. As a result, I'm not too worried that the storage and maintenance of military equipment is being carried out by defense contractors either.

[mizdarby]

Most of the world's military's have been contracting private businesses known as defense contractors for decades. Most of the technology, vehicles, weapons and equipment are designed and manufactured by defense contractors. The F-22 Raptor for example was mostly developed by Lockheed Martin, the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines by BAE Systems, the M1 Abrams MBT by General Dynamics. The LGM-30 Minuteman nuclear ICBM is manufactured by Boeing.

 

The military themselves don't really build much of their stuff, they just contract these guys to do it for them. As a result, I'm not too worried that the storage and maintenance of military equipment is being carried out by defense contractors either.

I fully agree that private companies, design and manufacture the tools of the trade, and thats because they are far better at innovation and thinking outside of the box.

However, using an analogy to demonstrate my concern. I drive a Vauxhall Nova, and quite rightly Vauxhall design and manufacture cars far better than I could. But would I be happy, if Vauxhall engineers drove my car for me, and decided how to use my car. I think not. So in the same way, should the customer (the military) allow the manufacturers of their hardware, be happy allowing the manufacturers access to the weapon systems, once they have been deployed.

[HeyYou]

Most of the world's military's have been contracting private businesses known as defense contractors for decades. Most of the technology, vehicles, weapons and equipment are designed and manufactured by defense contractors. The F-22 Raptor for example was mostly developed by Lockheed Martin, the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines by BAE Systems, the M1 Abrams MBT by General Dynamics. The LGM-30 Minuteman nuclear ICBM is manufactured by Boeing.

 

The military themselves don't really build much of their stuff, they just contract these guys to do it for them. As a result, I'm not too worried that the storage and maintenance of military equipment is being carried out by defense contractors either.

I fully agree that private companies, design and manufacture the tools of the trade, and thats because they are far better at innovation and thinking outside of the box.

However, using an analogy to demonstrate my concern. I drive a Vauxhall Nova, and quite rightly Vauxhall design and manufacture cars far better than I could. But would I be happy, if Vauxhall engineers drove my car for me, and decided how to use my car. I think not. So in the same way, should the customer (the military) allow the manufacturers of their hardware, be happy allowing the manufacturers access to the weapon systems, once they have been deployed.

 

If I understand it correctly, they will only be responsible for storage, and maintenance, not use...... (I should hope....)

[JimboUK]

The full thing can be found here http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ModSignsTridentSupportContract.htm

 

The companies involved aren't new to the defence sector.

[mizdarby]

Thanks jim_uk, very informative link.