I am a political economist studying innovation, industry, and international security. Since September 2001, I have been advising industries and ministries on their issues of strategy, planning, and policy. My work aims to inform investors, industrialists, technologists, and policy-makers on how to effect, economically, a secure future.

Recent Articles

« Should the WTO's decision bear upon the KC-X competition? | Main | Six issues in military robotics »

25 March 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


More great work here. With the Navair lifecycle cost brief, the recent GAO report, and the congressional hearings, I'll go out on a limb and assert that it's not just water leaking from the dam, but the water is running brown. With this week's democrat shenanigans and the concomitant, massive outyears' liabilities, looming if not present social security and medicare insolvency, US bond rates now outstripping solid corporate paper by 2x-3x and the Greek bailout on the scale of a week or two's worth of US debt interest (stand by Tim Geitner, the bond rating will drop from AAA this year), the pricey mediocrity of the JSF program will likely come under fire from most political angles in the FY11 defense authorization wrangling. The Navy will break from the program first, with the Superhornet an easy answer as a plausible replacement for the legacy fleet. The USAF will sit back and let the Navy take the early political heat for its intrasigency, but will bail once it senses the argument sticking. Allies will quickly bail thereafter, relieved of the profligate arrangement made during the now hazy yesteryear of an apparent rise of NATO brotherhood in the world order during the end of history era. Which will leave the Corps the last man standing, out of airspeed, ideas, and having leveraged its tacair future amid the last decades' cascade of bogus cost estimates. But, once the program falls apart, the Marines will quickly remember history's lesson that it's always been the Marine that's the most important ingredient in the fight, not the toolset. Go ahead, put a Marine in a Gripen or Superhornet or a next generation A-10. It'll work.

Keep up the great analysis.

About your "Consider Austria".
That is a long story but in short it is just the wrong example.
We Austria have 15 planes because people in our country think we need none at all.
Why Eurofighter? Cause back in 2002 the price differents between them and Gripen was around 7%.

About 2,000-lb bombs. We dont had them, we dont have them. We dont have any air to ground systems. talking about it would be political suicide and you would get into an investigation of parlament and the left as well as the biggest newspaper in Austria(50% of all people read it daily) would scream for your head.

But wait, there's more: call within the next 15 minutes we'll throw in a factory-refurbished Reaper with 1 Hellfire, a 1 HIMARS (non-ATACMS) pod and an HK-416 with a Ginsu knife bayonet!

Jim your true call is marketing!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Read only the first few pages. The clarity and eloquence of them is highly unusual. Extremely un-boring. Everything that one does not need to know seems to have been removed before publication.
    — Attorney, politician, academic, and strategist
  • I'm continually amazed and impressed with what appears to me to be some magical ability you have to synthesize a tremendous sweep of ideas and sources and to cogently streamline into a tight and, most importantly, readable essay.
    — Test engineer, Naval Air Systems Command
  • One of the most insightful analysts on issues of defense economics...
    — Senior defense industry equities analyst
  • I need a Jim.
    — DC think tank director
  • Simply outstanding.
    — Deputy Under Secretary at the Pentagon, on recent analyses of future force structure requirements
  • You and Aboulafia are the only two publicly-quoted defense consultants worth paying attention to.
    — Public policy advocate
  • You’re one of the few guys who brings me real numbers. Most people just try to blow smoke...
    — President of a major military trucks and armored vehicles manufacturer
  • You are an impressive madman whom I am glad to know.
    — Vice President and M&A practice leader with an aerospace & defense consultancy
  • One of the best strategic moves we could have made, short of starting another war.
    — General Manager, leading weapons manufacturer, regarding recommendations for using the lessons of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to plan the future of the company’s product lines
  • Exactly what we needed.
    — CEO of a defense buy-out firm, on market insights and financial projections regarding an acquisition target
  • Your ability to infer from open sources is wonderful.
    — Vice President for Corporate Strategy, leading armored vehicles manufacturer, on recent studies of fatality patterns in military vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • We should have done [this] a year ago, but I could never find someone like you with the right perspective.
    — Vice President for Business Development at a fast-growing manufacturing firm, on recommendations for managing the company’s problematic alliance with a Fortune 500 defense contractor