Common Themes
By AMY L. WITTMAN, Editor in Chief
As a special feature for this
issue, Seapower asked
executives of some of
the top defense companies in the United
States about the challenges ahead as fiscal,
political and strategic
priorities shift. In
their responses, a
few common themes
emerged.
Top concerns for BAE Systems’
Walter P. Havenstein, Boeing’s James
F. Albaugh, Lockheed Martin’s Robert
J. Stevens, Northrop Grumman’s
Ronald D. Sugar and Raytheon’s
Daniel L. Smith appear to be the lack
of stability in program funding, unrealistic schedules and ever-changing
requirements.
“It’s difficult to execute a program if funding and requirements
are susceptible each year to change,”
Smith says in one response.
Stevens notes that it is difficult
to accurately estimate system development costs “when changes in
requirements and funding streams
occur.”
Albaugh says the defense acquisition process must be “built
around realistic and achievable
requirements.”
Havenstein concurs, advocating
working closely with the customer
to create “realistic schedules” and
“enduring requirements.”
By “decreasing program volatility,” industry would then be able to
be more accurate, more realistic, in
its own longer-range planning,
Sugar says.
These executives also voiced concern about the looming brain drain
from the industry in
the coming decade,
as many of those
working in the science, engineering
and technical fields
retire. They note that
as college enrollment
in these fields continues to decline, the
competition for the
talent to replace
these people will be fierce.
Some have begun programs
aimed at inspiring youth and generating interest in math and science at an early age.
Also important to the viability of
the U.S. industrial base are international partnerships. All of these
firms operate in other countries
and with foreign industry partners
because it is imperative to remain
competitive in the marketplace.
While all agreed that the priority is to protect U.S. national security technology as well as U.S.
interests, the executives said the
industrial base cannot be isolated
in this global economy and still be
expected to offer the best products
to our military services.
Stevens points out that the “U.S.
defense industrial base does not
have a monopoly on the best technical solutions.”
And without competition, Sugar
says, “capabilities will decline and
costs will rise.”
Turn to “For the Common Defense” on page 25 for more industry
insights.
SEAPOWER
THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES
Volume 51, Number 6, June 2008
PUBLISHER
J. Michael McGrath
ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
Stephen R. Pietropaoli
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Amy L. Wittman
DEPUTY EDITOR
Peter E. Atkinson
MANAGING EDITOR
Richard R. Burgess
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Matt Hilburn
ASSISTANT EDITOR
John C. Marcario
DIRECTOR OF ADVERTISING SALES
Charles A. Hull
PUBLICATIONS MANAGER
Kerri Carpenter
SEAPOWER CORRESPONDEN TS
Patricia Kime
Amy Klamper
Megan Scully
Roxana Tiron
PHOTOGRAPHER
Lisa Nipp
PROOFREADER
Jean B. Reynolds
DESIGN AND PRODUCTION
Pensaré Design Group Ltd.
SEAPOWER
2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201-3308
TEL: 703-528-1775 — editorial
703-528-2075 — advertising
FAX: 703-243-8251
E-MAIL: seapowermail@navyleague.org
COMMUNICATIONS BOARD
CHAIRMAN: Craig Quigley
NATIONAL OFFICER: J. Michael McGrath
MEMBERS: Merritt Allen, Randy Belote,
Gail Cleere, Guy Hicks, Marge Holtz,
Douglas Kennett, Chuck S. Larabee,
Timothy Letzkus, Neil D. Ruenzel
EX-OFFICIO: Stephen R. Pietropaoli,
Amy L. Wittman, Janet A. Mescus,
Patricia DuMont, Pamela K. Ammerman
