Abstract
The RMA may represent a fundamental shift in US forces’ strategy based on technological advances and a changing security environment. It could be little more than a fad — the ‘flavour of the month’ that quickly passes as a new buzzword seizes national attention. The degree of change will affect domestic firms profoundly and will extend to European companies operating in US markets now and in the future. If the complete vision underlying the Revolution is implemented, it will alter not only the way in which firms deal with the US DoD, but also the participants themselves.
The views expressed here are those of the author. Publication does not suggest endorsement by TASC, Inc.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and references
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to the President and the Congress 1999, chapter 10. See http://www.dtic.mil/execsec/adrl999/ chapl0.html
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. See also http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jv2010/jvpub.htm
The long awaited Bottom-Up Review ended up grandfathering in most Cold War weapons systems’, according to one assessment. See A. R. Markusen and S. S. Costigan (eds), Arming the Future: a Defense Industry for the 21st Century (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1999) pp. 19, 39–40.
H.R. 3230, ‘National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104–201, Title IX — Department Of Defense Organization And Management, Sec. 923,’ Quadrennial Defense Review/ See http://www.defencelink.-mil/topstory/quad_leg.html
US Department of Defense, Report for the Quadrennial Defense Review (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, May 1997).
H.R. 3230, ‘National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104–201, Title IX — Department Of Defense Organization And Management, Sec. 923,’Quadrennial Defense Review’, p. 110, STAT. 2625; Sec. 924, National Defense Panel. See http://www.defencelink.mil/topstory/qua-d_leg.html
National Defense Panel, Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, Report of the National Defense Panel (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, December 1997).
US General Accounting Office, ‘The Results Act: Observations on DOD’s Draft Strategic Plan’ (5 August 1997), GAO/NSIAD-97-219R, pp. 4–5.
GAO/NSIAD-97-219R, pp. 7–9.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (OUSD (A&T)), Acquisition Practices, Milspec Reform: Results of the First Two Years, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, June 1996) p. 5. Available at: http://www.dsp.dla.mil/documents/accm%5Frpt.doc
Just over 1900 proposals were submitted, including duplicates. The total of 1845 eliminates duplicate proposals.
Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Perry directed the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition and Technology (OUSD (A&T)) to examine the cost penalties associated with various military standards and specifications. A contract team conducted an audit of contractor activities using activity based costing (ABC) methods between March and October 1994 to determine the value of the requirements associated with satisfying the most demanding milspecs/milstds identified by industry. Based on a sample of major contractors, the study team concluded that the ‘top ten’ military specifications and standards on average resulted in an 18 per cent cost premium in weapons systems. See TASC, Inc. and Coopers & Lybrand, ‘The DoD Regulatory Cost Premium: a Quantitative Assessment’ (December 1994). Available from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
FY 1996 sales figures and industry structures are used because of the starting date for the Single Process Initiative. Industry consolidation that has taken place since 1996 is not reflected in the table.
TASC, Inc., Acquisition Reform: Industry and Government Perspectives (31 October 1998). Copies are available from the author at mwchinworth@tasc.com. The survey was completed as part of a broader analysis of defence industry consolidation and acquisition reform trends completed under contract to the SPRU, University of Sussex for the European Commission, Directorate-General III, Tender No 111/97/35 (’study on the standardization systems used in the defence industries in the EU Member States and the USA’).
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, ‘Section VIII: Achieving a 21st Century Defense Infrastructure’ (May 1997). See http://www.defencelink.mil/pubs/qdr/sec8.html
‘Consultant’s Advice to COTS Vendors: Quit Whining’, Military & Aerospace Electronics, 8,10 (1997) 1.
V. Muradian, ‘Analysts: DoD Shares Blame for Companies Troubles on Wall Street,’ Defense Daily (November 5, 1999). (www.defencedaily.com).
C. Clark, ‘Hamre to Reveal Strategy for Globalization,’ Defense News, 14, 43 (1 November 1999) 1, 27. At this writing, the Defense Science Board, a group of industry advisers to the Department of Defense is examining the issue of the Pentagon’s globalization strategy and is expected to release its report in the very near future, ‘designed to lay the foundation for how to handle globalization’, according to Clark. According to press treatments of leaked draft versions, the report recommends, among other things, a clarified DoD position on cross-border mergers, the creation of a transnational oversight board for mergers and acquisitions, modernization and streamlining of various US export rules and regulations, simplified DoD procedures for direct foreign investments into the US, and more flexible rules governing employment of non-US nationals in defence companies.
Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology (A&T) Jacques Gansler noted as recently as 2 August 1999 that global purchasing is a cornerstone of the Revolution in Military Affairs in a speech to the National Defense University in Washington, DC. See ‘Gansler: Globalization, Interoperable Tech Keys to Future’, Armed Forces Newswire Service (2 August 1999). (http://www.phillips.-com)
Global purchasing also raises issues surrounding US firms’ access to other markets. Security rules and regulations may also be in need of re-evaluation if international firms assume a larger presence in the US defence industrial and technology bases. For example, US regulations require the creation of proxy boards to govern firms purchased by non-US interests with membership comprised solely of US citizens. This restricts, in the view of some analysts, European interest in major mergers (See Clark, op. cit., p. 27). Finally, DoD may need to establish a more consistent and comprehensive policy governing foreign acquisitions of US defence firms if it wants to realize global procurement goals. 23. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Acquisition Reform, op. cit., pp. 3, 8–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2001 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chinworth, M.W. (2001). The RMA: a US Business Perspective. In: Matthews, R., Treddenick, J. (eds) Managing the Revolution in Military Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294189_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294189_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41841-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29418-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)