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

« Silly drone math: a response to the USAF's incomprehensible accounting in the QDR | Main | Some basic drone economics: the money saved by not flying »

28 October 2013

Comments

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

The shift did give OC the $50M E-coating facility they didn't have. But, in the end, the relative weak position that the USG is in, given their financial quagmire, doesn't actually help them get a cheaper truck. The field of competitors is quickly thinning. LMC will drop out if the margin is historically low, like in the single digit (after being negative initially) range like the FMTV. Navistar is no longer a consideration. AMG, well, still is AMG, and that doesn't make them a factor. Who is left?

I might remind you that OC did threaten to sue when the S&S board took a low offer from AH. OC had a chance to run Sealy their way, if they were given the opportunity to buy the Division. OC, as desperate as a drowning cat, was that winner. The Army still overpaid by 30% for 75% of the fleet.
Sadly, Oshkosh had a better ride available 10 years ago. With independent suspension. For less money. The Marines got it, and they are about 3-4 decades ahead of the Army....
So now they are stuck with that hard axle, non-updated chassis. That can't be retrofit to IS cheaply.
Welcome to the next M35, boys. They will be in service until at 2040. Brilliant.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Accolades

  • 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