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

« Cyber, terrorism, and what was the third thing? | Main | Between MRAPs and "a couple of Nobel Prizes"—reasonable priorities in armored vehicles in the US and the UK »

08 January 2014

Comments

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

Jim,

The biggest problem accrues from what is treated as a throwaway in Step 1, namely "recognized military requirements." Were that critical yet intractably problematic issue so clear cut as simply stating it implies then DoD would, itself, have far fewer problems with its procurement. Rather, ambiguous, specious, incredible, and hardly "recognized" in any fundamentally sound way is ground zero for the perpetual procurement woes. I submit that Goure is too breezy regarding the thorniness of step 1. It has indeed been decades since DoD has had many (if any - I have no examples readiliy at hand) requirements as discrete and bounded as those for U-2, SR-71, or even a general purpose "fighter" such as the F-16 (which has subsequently morphed into a bread and butter attack platform). Everything these days is something of an Allthing, and the tech immaturity going into the complex Allthing programs is the underlying cost/performance/schedule killer.

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