The Coming End of the Defense Spending Party, Or The Next “Last Supper”?

The Coming End of the Defense Spending Party, Or The Next “Last Supper”?

Strategy advisors at every major defense company have been crunching numbers and producing white papers for almost a year, looking at what most of them assume will be a significant drop in defense procurement spending in the next administration.

One company analyst told me several months ago that his company expected to see a substantial whack of as much as a 20 percent cut in procurement spending by the second budget of the next administration.

Now one of the top defense consultants has published an analysis of what this may mean internationally. “The end is in sight. Which companies will survive the downturn in spending? Which strategic changes will be generated by the new Administration? Which industrial players will prove best positioned and most agile in making the transition?” asks Robbin Laird in the June issue of the Royal United Services Institute’s Defence Systems publication.


The short version of Laird’s piece: companies that make systems — not platforms — will probably be most agile as governments increasingly buy modular systems to place on several platforms, instead of designing systems exclusively for a platform, Laird argues. Consolidation may well accelerate, leaving an even smaller number of companies to compete for government money. John Young, the Pentagon’s top buyer, and even the avatar of consolidation, Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, have voiced doubts about whether further whittling down the number of companies is effective policy and in the country’s national interest. Augustine, who attended what became known as the Last Supper where then-Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Perry told executives that the country could not afford half of the defense primes that did business in 1993, spoke at a lunch hosted by the Aerospace Industries Association recently and made clear his unease with further consolidation.

And Congress will play an important role in all this as it weighs what legislation will be needed and how far consolidation should proceed.

Laird believes commercial companies stand to gain increased business as cyber warfare grows in importance, along with what would normally be considered homeland security threats. Key to managing all of this turmoil, Laird argues, will be government policies that allow companies to act “in a cost-effective and timely manner.”

That was a central concern after the Last Supper and we may be seeing a less drastic, but still significant, reordering of the defense industry over the next five years.

Share |

Join the Conversation

I served in the military circa 1968, I support our military;however I believe defense spending has gotten out of control. We need an effective battle rifle not a target rifle for target shooters. We need more access to firearms ranges on all military bases NOT more golf courses.

We need less expensive platforms for all services. We don’t need super expensive hard to maintain and expensive to maintain planes,ships,or any other hardware system.

We need redundant systems on our planes, electrical optical camera,infrared and radar all tied to the targeting system.

Carriers in for overhaul stay 3 years…how is a handful of super carriers super expensive NOT a target for a large number of oil rich socialist countries who can arm themselves with numbers of supersonic cruise missiles,600 knot torpedoes ‚emp weapons,lasers aircraft and ship and submarine platforms. We put a helicopter turbine engine in a tank…The German Army has developed a lightweight diesel engine with virtually the same speed ability but with the added positive of a less combustible fuel especially for vulnerable fuel bowsers, longer range, and lower fuel consumption. Why aren’t we seeking the same advantage???

The enemy could lose a whole lot, yet if even one of our carriers was sunk or seriously damaged it would cause us grievous harm.

As weak as our domestic oil supply and refining capacity is what would we do if oil tankers were blocked or sunk or credibly threatened and prevented from sailing

Russia under communist dictators had a bankrupt economy and could not keep up with President Reagans pershing missile and star wars and other weapons systems, and collapsed because they tried and could NOT produce and stay competitive.

Now we seem to be doing the same to ourselves, most immediate threats appear to be asymmetrical,guerilla, hit and run terror operations.

Yet we build 122 million dollar fighters, 6 billion dollar carriers and the next generation carrier is slated to cost 15 billion, 2 billion dollars submarines,billion dollar bombers.

Yet we give our troops a rifle that jams and an ineffective 9mm pistol round. We provide sleeping bags that are NOT warm and smart troops that can afford it buy Wiggy’s products.

We should regroup, get back to basics,sound training,sound affordable equipment,and use as much off the shelf gear as possible.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement