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

« An observation of some incoherent USAF thinking at the AFA | Main | That "extraordinary principle" about the MQ-9 Reaper »

03 October 2011


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

Hear, hear.

And not only is there Moore's Law viz the decades-to-be-calcified stealth form factors and fairly small materials-derived RCS reducing factors, but signal processing in general is also proceeding apace. Stealthiness in aircraft is bound to become, or has become already, analogous to the value of the submarine; merely being under the surface is very advantageous and discrete for the majority case when an adversary is not at high alert, but the technology to find outpaces the technology to hide and so the risk window for adversary-on-high-alert operations will become larger with time until we get the cloaking device ready for airframes (http://www.gizmag.com/invisibility-cloak-mirages/20048/).

Even the most concerted and high fidelity systems engineering efforts, like all forms of planning and modeling, will not erase the inevitable learn-as-you-go and assumptions-reality mismatch but it is, when seriously embarked upon, worth the effort. Concurrency is fine for smart phone apps and low cost consumer electronics but our low production volume weapons systems programs do not succeed absent a sound upfront SE. E.g. was X-35 the JSF tech dev prototype or was Block III? Block IV plus all of the ECPs so far might be an EMD phase. Well, anything goes when there's no plan B...

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • 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