GMJoe™ Consulting | Strategic Intelligence
Who pays for readiness when several facilities need the same protection at once?
Suppose two factories buy access to the same air-defense crew. On an ordinary night, sharing the expense may make protection affordable for both. On the night both factories are threatened, the value of each agreement depends on which promise can be kept.
On November 4, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence announced that the government had expanded its experimental private air-defense program. Participating companies can now contract to protect other firms’ facilities. Authorized companies can also transfer air-defense assets to one another for use by joint decision with the Air Force Command. The program remains under military control within Ukraine’s unified air defense. (Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence)
A second customer can finance a second crew or buy a second claim on the first. Either transaction can look like expanded protection in the purchasing records of both firms. During a raid, nearby facilities can need protection at the same time. The commercial value of a contract depends on what capacity is available when other customers are likely to call for it.
Military command has a different interest in where that capacity goes. A factory has reason to protect its production line. A substation that powers several factories may matter more to the region than any one of those lines. Each plant can justify paying for its own protection, while the benefit of protecting the substation is dispersed among firms that can each hope someone else will pay. A market can direct money toward assets with identifiable buyers while the command responsible for the wider area sees a different order of importance.
The ministry reported that nearly 100 companies had joined the initiative by mid-October and that private air-defense groups had destroyed more than 60 aerial targets. Those figures describe reported participation and interceptions. The announcement leaves open how many sites could be served concurrently and how much essential production continued. Even a lower cost per interception can improve the economics of an engagement while leaving the cost of keeping coverage available across several sites unresolved.
The U.S. comparison starts with a different allocation of authority. The SAFER SKIES framework extends specified counter-drone powers to eligible state, local, Tribal and territorial law enforcement and correctional agencies under federal conditions. For a U.S. infrastructure owner, continuity planning therefore has to account for the availability and lawful scope of the public response it expects. (U.S. interim final rule)
Grand Forks has a place to examine that question. UND and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site are working with JIATF-401 to identify technologies for further evaluation, and Project ULTRA has funding for a counter-drone testbed at GrandSKY. An evaluation could start with several facilities that need the same limited response and depend on the same critical service. In that case, success is measured in which operations can continue and for how long. A tally of engagements would leave that question unanswered. (UND agreement and Project ULTRA funding)
For a manufacturer weighing a regional investment, the resulting diligence question comes before the choice of hardware. Who will keep paying for capacity in the months when it is rarely called, and what will the buyer accept as evidence that it was available? The answer determines whether the region has a recurring market for readiness or a series of equipment orders.
Bring a business problem, question, or opportunity. Joe Cozart applies the Clarity Algorithm™ and delivers a confidential written Clarity Report™ with findings, implications, and practical options.
Joe Cozart, GMJoe™, GMJoe™ Consulting
Private Strategic Engagements — independent, confidential, written strategic assessments for decision-makers confronting consequential uncertainty.
GMJoe™ — Live Upstream.™
Clarity. Strategy. Sovereignty.™