Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
Defense Watch 

Should the Pentagon Rescue Ailing Suppliers? 

2,014 

By Sandra I. Erwin 

Many Pentagon contractors will not survive the defense budget cuts that began in 2010 and will continue through the decade. While the shrinkage of the defense industry is certain, it is less clear whether or how it might affect the military.

It is an inevitable consequence of plunging budget cycles that suppliers go out of business, and the Pentagon typically has favored a laissez-faire industrial policy even though the defense sector is far from a free market.

“Our market-based approach has served DoD well,” says the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on industrial capabilities. The underlying theme of the report is that, except for a handful of unique components and materials that only the U.S. military buys, there is ample manufacturing capacity in the United States and abroad that the Pentagon can tap.

The problem for the Defense Department is that, outside the top contractors that make big-ticket weapons, it does not know precisely what suppliers are truly essential. When vendors go out of business, the Pentagon will not notice until a need arises that cannot be met. The Army learned this in 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq and soldiers did not have adequate body armor or armored trucks that could survive mine explosions, nor did it have enough electronic bomb-jamming devices.

“The service economy is great if you don’t have to field an army,” the Army’s then procurement chief Lt. Gen. Joseph L. Yakovac Jr., noted in 2005. “You need some type of indigenous manufacturing capability, and that’s been our problem,” he told a gathering of industry executives. “Nobody wants to hear it, but there have been some things we’ve been slow to provide because there is no industrial base, or there is just one supplier.”

Flush with war funds, the Army threw billions of dollars at the problem and was able to buy the armor it needed, although it took a couple of years to ramp up production.

Top prime contractors, whose financial performance continues to be rewarded by Wall Street, are not at risk. But second and third tier vendors that lack the cash flow to survive during lean times will either be acquired by larger firms or disappear altogether, says Brett Lambert, the Defense Department’s former director of manufacturing and industrial base policy. It is tough to predict what the next critical supply shortage might be, although the Pentagon could cushion the blow by becoming better informed about the state of its lower-tier suppliers, he says.

While in office, Lambert led a so-called “sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier” study of the U.S. defense industry that he conceived purposely to help the government identify the weak links in the supply chain before they snapped. Lambert spent four years on that effort and concedes it’s not perfect. “We often found it difficult in DoD to collect information from industry,” he says. Companies are naturally disinclined to reveal they are in trouble, particularly to the Defense Department. “There is distrust of what we would do with that information, and legal concerns,” Lambert says.

In his post-government life, Lambert has volunteered to lead a similar sector-by-sector study under the National Defense Industrial Association. He is hopeful that companies will participate in the study and will furnish information that the Defense Department should have but is afraid to, or cannot ask. “Often the supply chain is not willing to disclose vulnerabilities or issues that might be of concern to them. It’s understandable in this business environment,” says Lambert. Regardless, it is important that the Pentagon identify “at-risk critical suppliers and skills.”

Prime contractors often say they fear they will lose lower tier suppliers as orders for new weapons dwindle. They will not say what their backup plan is for when that day comes. Lambert would like the Pentagon to have deeper visibility into the supply chain. “The lower tiers are very important,” he says.

As to what specific supplies or skills the Pentagon should protect, Lambert defines them as “defense-unique, will have future demand, may be relevant to many platforms, relies on specialty materials, uses highly-skilled labor, cannot be sourced from allies, requires special design team skills, has a high reconstitution cost, has no technology alternatives, or is a long-lead item.”

The Defense Department has some authority to rescue companies that are sole suppliers of essential items that the government cannot obtain elsewhere. For instance, the Pentagon could stockpile products that are “unique and vulnerable to industry exits,” Lambert says. In other cases, the Defense Department could determine a minimum rate of production that is required to keep a company alive, with enough capacity that it could ramp back up if needed. Pentagon acquisitions chief Frank Kendall has suggested funding high-tech research projects that would produce prototypes of next-generation systems. That would at least keep designers and engineers employed, he said. In this context, the Pentagon is seeking more than a billion dollars over the next five years to develop a fuel-efficient jet engine.

During a budget crunch, says Lambert, the emphasis should be “on the industrial base we need, not the one we have.” When military spending soars, the tendency is to solve “million-dollar problems with billion-dollar solutions,” he says. “Instead of understanding the true, critical nature of the lower tiers of the industrial base, there was an effort to preserve platforms to help all suppliers survive.”

Lambert’s observations are a reminder that the defense industry is no longer that mythical manufacturing juggernaut that built the Arsenal of Democracy. It is dramatically smaller, and makes up a tiny, although consequential, fraction of the national economy.

“The reality is that the money is not there anymore,” says Lambert. “We need to get our factories leaner. We need our industrial base leaner and more efficient.” That applies to government-owned industries, too. Congress has resisted closing military bases, and the Defense Department remains saddled with unneeded infrastructure that drains funds from investment accounts. “That’s money that we can’t use to support the war fighter,” says Lambert.

Budget battles aside, the Pentagon has to pay attention to what happens in the supplier base, he says. “The Pentagon has options to sustain critical and fragile programs — if we know that industrial problems exist before it is too late to reverse them.”
Reader Comments

Re: Should the Pentagon Rescue Ailing Suppliers?

The defense industry's responsibility is to supply the military --- not the other way around.

The reason the US defense industry is ailing is because it's no longer competitive, and that in turn is because the establishment they're asking to bail them out has made them that way. It's not a money problem, because the annual US defense budget is more than twice that of all the rest of the world combined. If anything, the industry has absorbed so much money already that if they were able to manage it responsibly, everything the US military had acquired in the last 10 years would have been developed, created, and delivered free of charge.

Part of the problem is the DoD itself. For one example, the DoD has demanded from the industry that it develop weapons so technologically advanced, they are either unaffordable in any other nation, or too dangerous to allow to proliferate. Case in point; the F-22 Raptor. There have been many sales of F-16s and F-18s abroad since 2000, but few requests by any nations for the F-22. Nor would the revenue from and would-be exports of the F-22 have done much to fill the now-permanent $100 Billion+ void in the US economy, that resulted from developing, buying, and endlessly RE-developing the F-22.

Further compounding that issue is the fact that these weapons are so expensive and/or classified, that their development ends up eating most of the time, money, and effort that the most powerful companies in the defense industry have. Also, because ultra-giants like General Dynamics and Boeing are increasingly becoming the only companies that are capable of meeting the DoD's demand for ever-more-complex and expensive weapons, all other US firms are forced to either merge with the biggest companies, quit the defense business, sell exclusively abroad, scrounge to sell their increasingly-unwanted (in the US) wares to the DoD, or simply fold altogether.

The DoD would be wise not to bail-out the industry, because rewarding incompetence only breeds more incompetence. They caused this problem, and throwing more money at this problem --- which was caused in part by spending too much money to begin with --- will only have the effect of trying to douse a raging fire with gasoline. That would begin a trend of increasingly paying (and thus, encouraging) the industry to produce nothing at all.

In short, a problem caused by writing a blank check won't be fixed by writing a new one.

Blacktail on 05/09/2014 at 22:07

Re: Should the Pentagon Rescue Ailing Suppliers?

Once again the view from 10,000 feet is different then the reality on the ground. The mention of body armor is the perfect example of extreme pain and suffering for the soldiers on the ground while the leadership failed to plan ahead and now fails to plan for the future by sustaining what they have. All the hand ringing and recriminations on the fielding of body armor are long forgotten by the current leadership. Development, design and mass, high rate manufacturing does not happen over night and certainly not when you get the call at "midnight" with a request for soldier protection equipment that simply does not exist. History tells us that warriors no matter how brave will be at risk till industry can catch up to the new and changing threats. There is no expectation that IR&D will occur if there is no production at some level to support it. Offers on how to keep the base functioning, developing and producing inside the current restraints have been ignored / rejected by a DoD who was not there in 2003 when mothers and fathers were buying body armor from any vendor willing to make it available and shipping it to Iraq along with the cookies from home.

The article says:“Our market-based approach has served DoD well,” says the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on industrial capabilities. The underlying theme of the report is that, except for a handful of unique components and materials that only the U.S. military buys, there is ample manufacturing capacity in the United States and abroad that the Pentagon can tap.

The reality is once a manufacturing base is gone it is gone and I do not believe that Chinese Body Armor, which is manufactured for sale globally will meet the needs of our warfighters in the future. Lambert is right and the Department needs to recognize what it needs to do to be better prepared for the next war.

Marc A. King on 04/17/2014 at 12:39

Re: Should the Pentagon Rescue Ailing Suppliers?

DOD and the IC should outline those technology areas and the materials that are high priority must have, and then lay out contracts with multiple companies to maintain a certain level of capability to manufacture or provide ready made parts according to our war plans and critical needs.

LTC S Winebrenner on 04/17/2014 at 08:09

Submit Your Reader's Comment Below
*Name
 
*eMail
 
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
*Comments
 
 
Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.
*Characters
  
*Legal Notice

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 
 
  Bookmark and Share