From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: Focus on Defense Industrial Base
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:39:02 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

Focusing on Defense Industrial Base

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Information Service

     The end of the Cold War means a stiff reduction in all aspects
of defense.  In the future, there will be fewer soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines.
     There will also be fewer weapon systems.
     But what if a global foe appears or reappears?  The United
States has a plan for rebuilding personnel strength, but how about
the weapon systems they will use?  These systems and the attendant
production facilities are the sinews of American warfighting.
Ensuring the defense industrial base remains capable is of utmost
concern to Pentagon planners.
     "We need to be sure enough industrial capability exists
country to produce the goods and services our military will use,
whenever that capability is needed," said Nicholas M. Torelli Jr.
He is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for production
resources.
     Defense industries have already been hard hit by cutbacks.
Most aerospace and defense firms have announced many layoffs.  DoD
has canceled or delayed numerous weapon systems and will continue
to do so.  DoD will conduct research on potential new weapon
programs, some of which will go into production.
     "The hard fact is the defense budget is getting smaller," said
Torelli.  "Experiences have shown the weapon systems we are
fielding today are better than those of any likely foe."
     Defense officials say with the condition of the world today no
one is capable of challenging U.S. global power for at least the
next five years.  The concern is not now, however, but the future,
Torelli continued.  No one disputes that DoD should cancel weapon
systems.  Industries will try to convert to civilian-oriented work.
A plant capable of turning out a seeker for a military missile, for
example, should be able to convert that technology into a
civilian-oriented product.
     "We are encouraging industries to transition to civilian
markets," Torelli said.  "And we're trying to help that along by
moving away from detailed military specifications and toward
performance specifications where it makes sense.  This should help
us take advantage of good commercial practices, processes and
products."  But where an industrial capability is unique to
defense, DoD will take special action, he noted.
     Determining what industries and processes are important to
defense is the next hurdle.  "The bottom line is how do we downsize
the defense industrial base without losing critical technologies or
processes," Torelli said.  "To figure this out, we need data:  How
much lead time is needed before production can start?  Just what is
a critical technology?  If a plant has to close, is there a way to
do it `smarter' so the lead time to start it back up won't be so
long?  Many questions have to be answered before decisions can be
made."
     Torelli said the structure for making these decisions is
already in place.  "We've had the methodology (for gathering the
data) for a long time; it's really common sense.  Industry uses
this same type of methodology to downsize themselves," he said.
"Getting industry and the services to cooperate is harder, but
we're making progress.  Most data are easy to get, but some
proprietary and financial data are harder.  Industry has to
recognize that we need this up front.  We're not in business to
pillage industry.  We're here to see the drawdown is done in a
sensible manner -- in a manner that if we need something later, we
can get it."
     He said it is important a disinterested party handle the
evaluation.  "We've found that people almost always overestimate
the time it would take to reconstitute an industry," he said.
"Also, there is a disagreement between factions over how far to
take an industry down.  Our contention is that to get a good
evaluation, you have to assume going right to cold iron, then
estimate the time and cost of bringing the plant back to
production.  Going that seemingly painful step gives you the full
range of options so that legitimate cost analyses can be
performed."
     DoD will take special action where it finds capabilities that
are essential and unique to department needs.  First, officials ask
if the requirement for a system is valid.  That is, do fighting
forces really need it?  Then they ask if it is an industrial base
concern.  Does not having the system impact the defense of the
United States?   Is a unique capability involved?  Is a unique
technology, skill, process or facility involved in the production
of the item?  Are there no alternatives out there -- either other
products or similar processes that could be adopted?
     "If the answers to these questions are `yes,' then the company
or industry is a candidate for special action," Torelli said.
     Special action does not mean DoD will keep buying unneeded
equipment to keep an industry or company afloat.  It means
performing cost benefit analyses of relevant alternatives and then
taking action.  The last resort is to keep a production line open
building things we don't need, Torelli said.
     "It could mean getting a company something as simple as a
change to a specification or an exception to a regulation," he
said.  "It could entail a shift of work from the public sector to
private industry."
     Technology really is a key driver in the evolution of the
defense industrial base.  Any evaluation has to consider
technological advances.  The M-1A1 Abrams main battle tank is the
best in the world today, but say production stops cold for 10 years
and then the United States needs tanks to combat a new threat.
Today's Abrams may be of little use at that time.
     "We have to consider how to insert new technologies into
existing systems where we can, but we must always consider
technology `leaps,' " Torelli said.  "In tanks, there may be a new
type of lighter and better armor that comes along.  The questions
asked are, how much does the armor weigh, how much does the tank
weigh, and do I really need all this weight anymore when what I
really want is fast, survivable firepower?  And always, how much
does it cost?"
     Officials must consider industrial processes as well.
Computer-aided designs and logistics support hold great promise for
the future.  They may be able to show the path to shortcuts in
rebuilding by using digital, three-dimensional data at any step in
the design, manufacturing and support processes, he said.
     Finally, DoD must evaluate systems and identify areas where
"technology pull" will be decisive.  Torelli used submarine reactor
cooling pumps as an example.  "You can't run a reactor without
cooling pumps, and they are about the noisiest thing aboard a
nuclear sub," he said.  "Yet there might be promising technologies
out there that could make these pumps quieter, or, maybe, eliminate
the need for them.  The technology pull is when we go to industry
and fund these promising technologies.
     "All of this fits into the defense industrial base and into
production," he said.  "We're getting science and technology people
together with the manufacturing, test and reliability people as we
go through the design and production processes.  The synergies
gained really reduce the risks of programs going to production and
working in the field."
     Finally, cost effectiveness fits into the defense industrial
base picture also.  "There's a fine line we must tread in this,"
Torelli said.  "We frankly don't have the money to fund everything.
We have to chose where the money will go and ensure it's spent
wisely.  If building a system is not cost-effective, then we simply
will not produce it.  The Cold War is over.
     "We're still going to produce the hardware we need," he said.
"The procurement budget is going down 30 percent -- that's not a
cliff but a down slope.  We will be replacing hardware reaching the
end of service life, we'll do technology insertions into existing
systems and we'll extend the service life in others.  We want to
get to a smaller industrial base with high quality design,
manufacturing and support capabilities."

--
     __________________________________________________________________
    |            Air Force News Agency (AFNEWS)                        | 
    |           Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA                       | 
    |               bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil                            |  
    |__________________________________________________________________|  



Newsgroups: sci.military