I was under the impression that the MIC was looking forward to replacing these vehicles with the next gen. Also, how much have Western equipment being very superior to their Russian counterparts affect sales?
Already ordered. There is a long process from we need to we can field. So what we were handing over was equipment from the First Gulf War up to Iraq Invasion with a few exceptions (MRAPS). But we have already contracted replacements. @atomheartbevo can correct me. Even if we are going to run a new platform, say the bradley, the upgrades to it make it almost a new vehicle. Since there are not that many manufacturers out there, real competition is at the component level. Who makes a better sight or mobile espresso machine.
If we would sell our old shit, there is a lot still in storage, it would sell. But we keep reserves. Real beneficiaries are going to be other manufacturers who are going to replace Russia. It is now known and accepted their equipment is not great and they cannot sustain. India and South America are big buyer markets and both are trying to strengthened their capacity to build. Winners, well South Korea is probably the happiest. Others would be Sweden (SAAB and their aircraft) with pretty damn good gear that is cheaper then US. Also, we DO NOT Sell the latest and greatest. It is why countries buy versions.
This is not the case with components or ammo. The guns we give them are tied to our supply chain. There is a massive demand right now for 155mm anything. Casings, fuses, etc. Same with 5.56 ammo (Military Spec). Those factories take time to ramp up. A lot of our aid are consumables. MRE's, bandages, etc. Yeah, we can make them and expand pretty easy.
The companies making consumables, artillery shells, ammo, etc are doing real well in growth. But once there is "peace" those orders go way down or stop. All it takes is 1 letter from a Contracting Authority (Probably Rock Island)
In US contracting you get an award. It can be for services or items. Items is tied to what they think they need over a set period of time. At anytime you can get a halt notice. We don't need that many widgets since we decided we need wackets for example. It is one reason when Congress fights so hard over programs in every Defense Bill. One items gets cut down, well those are jobs in districts.
So when a decision is made to kill or reduce a supply contract then a Contracting Authority sends a letter saying so. That is where it begins. Lots more happens, but that is some legal shit even Brisket won't understand. (Oh, and Beltway Lawyers make a pretty penny. In fact more like a shiny nickle.)
Rock Island is a small Army base. It has control of the largest sustainment contract in existence, LOGCAP. Right now KBR is the only company that can work under that contract in the European Command area of operations. There are other places, but Rock Island is the one used as a solid example. For instance, the USMC has their equivalent in Albany, GA.
What is the overlap between war footing and reconstruction with specific companies? Is this similar to John Deer, GM, and Ford after WW2? What about banking and finance? What is their role in war versus peacetime?
Most of the non-manufacturing MIC companies, like those named, don't make shit. They "sustain" operations. Build camps down to empty shitters. Shrink wrap helicopters for shipping to maintaining them where they are told to. Not 100%, but a lot of it. So, being smart and seeing the examples from Iraq and Afghanistan, they all created development and reconstruction divisions within the company. They focus on different sales approaches and US Government agencies. For reconstruction and development it is mainly USAID and sometimes the Corps of Engineers (infrastructure like roads and irrigation).
So the change is the congressional allocation of funding. Groups will watch the Department of State and USAID budgets. for instance, instead of training patriot teams they will be looking to provide police monitors. Instead of building a camp for the army, it will be a camp for the companies rebuilding roads or irrigation.
Same company, same board, different divisions. Maybe some different branding. They might create an offshoot. Or in the VC world 1 holding company will have 1 of each.
There is a lot more and I am sure on here others have opinions and information, but there you go in a nut shell.