Defence Industrial Policy

844 WordsFeb 2, 20183 Pages
It is only a matter of time before industrial suppliers loose investor support grow weary of budget cuts. Resolving this gap with defense industrial policy will give a safeguard to the industrial base by providing industrial suppliers the necessary reassurance for their stakeholders. At the very least, suppliers require guidance to re-orient resources as priorities shift and programs are cut. It is yet to be seen if this present pattern of business will insure a suitable industrial base in the future without addressing this issue. A case in point, SecDef Hagels recently declared six priorities for the Defense department include maintaining a lead in emerging technologies, such as: space, cyber, special operations forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance without pointing to any industrial guidance to achieve these requirements. This leaves industrial suppliers gambling over which programs to invest resources without the risk of being cut. For instance, Space programs such as: GPS Positioning ($1.3 Billion) and Planned purchase of extremely high frequency satellite programs ($652.5 million) do not have any order of preference from the department. From the defense supplier’s point of view, without any preferences, allocating resources and investing in technology is problematic. As publicly traded companies, defense suppliers are bound to stakeholders, and must proceed with caution for projects at risk of being cut. The lack of guidance only adds to their
Open Document