Observing the Influence of Loren Thompson

Dr. Loren Thompson is what I would call a Defense Industry Analyst, I read his perspective as shaped by and for the defense industry. That is not an insult, although I could see how some will read it that way. His recommendations root in industry, not strategy, so when he gives a warning about industry related problems, the problems are real.

Lex recently noted that back in December, Dr. Thompson gave some interesting advice to the Aerospace industry.

The second step is to show some imagination in leveraging any insights you have about how relevant audiences get their information.

If you don't sponsor blogs then maybe you should, and if you do sponsor blogs maybe you should upgrade them, or make more of an effort to attract people to them.

Do you have a network of people who respond to internet postings about the sector, or do you just let postings get answered on an ad hoc basis where misconceptions are often allowed to go unchallenged?

Do you have a mechanism for pitching ideas on a regular basis to cable outlets, or think tanks, or organized labor -- the kind of mechanism that builds up relationships over time?

You get my point -- you need a campaign that is something more than the same old ideas.

I was reminded of this when I noticed advertising from the aerospace industry on Dailykos. Good for Dr. Thompson, good for the AIA, and good for Kos. By definition blogs are where people go to get 'more' information on a specific subject, and the kos folks specifically are not exposed very often to legitimate information about the defense industry. The reasons are both many and legitimate, but mostly it comes down to few on the left side of politics in this country spending much time researching the subject until recently.

I note it is encouraging this pattern is changing. I have no idea if the AIA advertising will make a difference, but I do think it is interesting. Manufacturing in the US is in steep decline, and the economic stimulus package in discussion in Congress will not curb that decline. Most Americans want to see our country make stuff, but it isn't easy to see how to turn things around.

Upgrading our shipyards and supporting the industries like aerospace that are having success is step one in keeping a status quo. The defense side of manufacturing is one of the only aspects of manufacturing keeping manufacturing in the US from drowning, but with defense cuts coming it is unclear how much of that industry will survive long term.

These are real challenges for Congress, and explains why the DDG-1000 survived FY09 when by any measure other than industry, it shouldn't have. DDG-1000 has become a Congressional jobs program more than a Naval surface combatant program. With almost a million jobs having some touch to the DDG-1000 program in all 50 states, not to mention the program being critical to the only two shipyards able to build large surface warships, something has to give. The same scenario applies to the F-22 program, which is getting momentum for more money in Congress.

The question is, what should we do when major defense programs become major job programs from the perspective of Congress, and during rough economic times, make it prohibitive for the services to plan and spend reduced budgets wisely with Congress forcing the services to pay for these programs?

I think Congress and the Obama administration missed a real opportunity with the stimulus package bill. By shifting these big money defense items that are essentially job programs to the stimulus bill, the administration could then reduce the budgets of the services without creating a crisis with the defense industry. The F-22 and DDG-1000 are really good systems, no question they are beyond anything competitors have, but they are tremendously expensive and tied to too many jobs to effectively cancel outright. The Army and Marines have similar programs, but which to move is for someone else to suggest. Such a move would address the real challenge involved with reducing the defense budget, which is dealing with the reality it takes long term planning to do because radical change leads to shockwaves thus massive layoffs, which is always bad both economically and politically.