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

« Rethinking the problem of the next amphibious assault vehicle—an update | Main | If the rotorcraft industry could bear consolidation, why hasn't rotorcraft procurement shown more competition? »

31 January 2014


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

James, in your comments about the Royal Marines Snowcats and BVS10 Vikings you missed out a vehicle that is exactly what I think you might be referring to

The BV206, the UK still has some in service and there are many nations that also have them in service. I actually thought the US 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team used them but not sure

Anyway, they are internally transportable by Chinook and there are loads of variants, recovery, mortar, flatbed logistics, tippers and even fire tenders.

Chinook transportability


There is even a VIP version?


They can go anywhere and can swim as well

Do you need to reinvent the wheel?


Thanks much for the information. I too thought of the Bv206—just without as much supporting detail! It's clearly a vehicle that has served in many armies with a great record in the field.

The trouble, I think, is that requirement for sling-loading under a Black Hawk. If I understand correctly, the empty weight of an unarmored Bv206 is 9,900 pounds. The maximum load on the sling of a UH-60L/M is 9,000 pounds.

This leaves two options. If Hägglunds were to offer something, I imagine that they could find a way to cut the vehicle's weight by 10 percent or more. Even then, we have the Stryker-on-the-Hercules problem: it can't fly very far with a maximum load. Alternatively, I can imagine the crew decoupling the two sections in the field, and hooking up two Black Hawks. But that's probably not what the Army has in mind.

Besides, the Army wants to carry a single nine-man squad. I don't think that's essential, as I've written in this column in the past, but that's what the Army's asking for. Against that requirement, the Bv206 is too big. So, to be competitive, Hägglunds would need to create something slightly different, based on the technology, with probably just a single unit (no trailer). I'll be delighted if the company jumps into this.

And yes, you're correct: the US Army does have some Bv206s, which they call Small Unit Support Vehicles (SUSVs).

Ah, now that makes it double interesting

Internal carriage in a Chinook and sling load from a UH60 so no more than 4.5 tonnes, a big ask I think

If you ease of on being tracked then Supacat have the 4x4 Extenda, a bit of a monster off road, internally carried and able to be converted into a 6x6 by adding a module


They are 7.5 tonnes though

The Supacat ATMP is another one worth looking at


I always wondered why the people that make ski slope machines never got into the military market

Have a look at the Pisten Bully website


Am sure you could use narrower tracks and add in a cab for some of their smaller models and still come in under 4 tonnes

I do get the feeling we are into wheel reinventing territory a bit !

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