{"id":2635,"date":"2018-02-05T09:10:48","date_gmt":"2018-02-05T12:10:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nachodelatorre.com.ar\/mosconi\/?p=2635"},"modified":"2018-02-05T09:10:48","modified_gmt":"2018-02-05T12:10:48","slug":"exodo-en-el-sector-industrial-para-la-defensa-en-eua","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/?p=2635","title":{"rendered":"\u00c9xodo en el sector industrial para la defensa en EUA"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/u>De acuerdo a un estudio elaborado por el \u201cCenter for Strategic and International Studies- CSIS\u201d, aproximadamente 17.000 empresas estadounidenses fabricantes y proveedoras del sector defensa de ese pa\u00eds, han abandonado el citado mercado entre 2011 y 2015, generando alarma acerca del sostenimiento futuro de las capacidades militares. Seg\u00fan el informe, la causa del \u00e9xodo de esa mayor\u00eda de peque\u00f1as y medianas empresas, ser\u00eda su incapacidad de autofinanciarse\u00a0 para soportar escenarios de incertidumbre presupuestaria, como los que han afectado en los \u00faltimos a\u00f1os a los proyectos del sector.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"\"WASHINGTON \u2014 A large number of American companies supplying the U.S. military may have left the defense market, according to a study announced Thursday, raising alarm over the health and future of the defense industrial base.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Center for Strategic and International Studies study said the number of first-tier prime vendors declined by roughly 17,000 companies, or roughly 20 percent, between 2011 and 2015.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The full study, due to be released in January, was authored by CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group Director Andrew Hunter, Deputy Director Gregory Sanders and Research Associate Rhys McCormick. It was sponsored by the Naval Postgraduate School and co-produced by the Aerospace Industries Association, which released an executive summary on Dec. 14, the day of its annual aerospace and defense luncheon in Washington.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The authors, who used publicly available contract data, write that it\u2019s unclear \u2014 due to the limitations in the subcontract database \u2014whether the companies have exited the industrial base entirely or still perform work at the lower tiers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThere is no doubt that a huge portion of the recent turbulence in the defense industrial base has taken place among subcontractors, who are less equipped to tolerate the defense marketplace\u2019s funding uncertainly and often onerous regulatory regime \u2014 yet it remains extremely difficult to determine the real impact of these conditions on subcontractors,\u201d the authors conclude.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Further details may yet be revealed by the Trump administration\u2019s ongoing review of the resiliency of the defense-industrial base. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis\u2019 assessment is due to President Donald Trump by mid-April 2018.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The CSIS summary links 2011 Budget Control Act caps, subsequent short-term budget agreements, and Congress\u2019 \u201cunpredictable and inconsistent\u201d appropriations process to the \u201clost suppliers, changes in competition and market structure, and other turmoil\u201d it found. The years 2011-2015 are considered a period of defense drawdown and decline.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The authors, rather than focus strictly on the total decline of defense contract obligations over the entire period, chose to chart the \u201cwhipsaw\u201d effect that struck certain sectors of the industrial base amid the imposition of sequestration in 2013 and subsequent budget caps.<\/p>\n

Though the defense budget had been declining in the years leading up to the Budget Control Act, the implementation of an across-the-board sequestration budget cut in 2013 \u201cmarked a severe market shock that had a considerable impact on the defense industry,\u201d the authors say.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Compared to the pre-drawdown fiscal 2009-2010 period, the start of the drawdown in fiscal 2011-2012, average annual defense contract obligations dropped 5 percent. When sequestration was triggered in fiscal 2013, defense contract obligations dropped 15 percent from the previous year. Average annual defense contract obligations fell 23 percent during the so-called BCA decline period, fiscal 2013-2015.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Army, which has a checkered modernization history, bore the brunt of the decline. Average annual defense contracts dropped 18 percent at the start of the drawdown, then 35 percent during the BCA decline period.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Missile defense contract obligations actually gained 7 percent at the start of the drawdown and then dropped only 3 percent under budget caps. During his presidency, Barack Obama reversed course from early cuts to missile defense to spur the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson reacted to the internally circulated findings earlier this month, saying budget cuts are responsible for the industry being \u201cmore fragile and less flexible than I\u2019ve seen it, and I\u2019ve been in the industry many, many years.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cWhat we\u2019ve seen in the industry, I\u2019ll give you an example at Lockheed Martin: At the outset of budget cuts we were about 126,000 employees; today we are at 97,000 employees,\u201d Hewson said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California. \u201cOur footprint has shrunk dramatically. We see some of our small and medium-sized business, some of the components that we need, there\u2019s one, maybe two suppliers in that field where there were many, many more before.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Budget cuts have squeezed the Defense Department to unduly prioritize low-cost contracts over innovation and investment. Cost \u201cshootouts,\u201d she said, are endangering the military\u2019s plans to grow in size and lethality.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

AIA Vice President for National Security Policy John Luddy said companies have coped through a variety of \u201chealthy efficiencies,\u201d such as mergers and acquisitions, consolidating facilities, exploring shared services, and offloading certain contracting activities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cOur companies have done an amazing job of managing the downturn, they\u2019ve pulled all kinds of levels to make it work, they\u2019ve shown the ingenuity of the American free market system,\u201d Luddy said. \u201cNonetheless, the uncertainty of the budgeting process has become a huge challenge for us.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Army Secretary Mark Esper, formerly of Raytheon, warned lawmakers at a Senate hearing Dec. 7 that uneven funding is driving small suppliers \u2014 \u201can engine of innovation\u201d \u2014 out of the defense sector.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cIf you\u2019re a small mom and pop shop out there, and I\u2019m referring to my industry experience, it\u2019s hard for them to survive in the uncertain budgetary environment,\u201d Esper said. \u201cAnd we risk losing those folks who may over time decide that they\u2019re going to get out of the defense business and go elsewhere. So that\u2019s a big threat to our supply chains.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

But the CSIS study found that small vendors either increased their share of platform portfolio contract obligations or held steady, while large and medium vendors were most harmed by the market shock from sequestration and the defense drawdown.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Fuente:<\/strong>\u00a0https:\/\/www.defensenews.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

De acuerdo a un estudio elaborado por el \u201cCenter for Strategic and International Studies- CSIS\u201d, aproximadamente 17.000 empresas estadounidenses fabricantes y proveedoras del sector defensa… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[37,29],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2635"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2635"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2635\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}