Concerns over the potential shutdown of the Bradley production line and what it means to the heavy vehicle industrial base has led the CEO of BAE Systems, Linda Hudson, the leaders of four unions and 35 suppliers to send a letter airing their concerns over an interim industrial base report to Army Secretary John McHugh.
 |
| Bradley Fighting Vehicle Photo: U.S.Army |
At issue is a preliminary Army report to Congress, “M1 Abrams Tank Upgrade and Bradley Fighting Vehicle Industrial Base Study Preliminary Findings.”
The authors told McHugh they question the “initial observations and its implications on the Army’s short-and long-term plans for the Bradley Industrial Base.”
The work, contracted to AT Kearney, will go to Congress by Dec. 15. The preliminary document said capacity exceeds demand for newly-built heavy manufacturing for Abrams and Bradley vehicles and the demand wouldn’t move back up until late in the decade. That would also be predicated on whether more modern vehicles, such as the Ground Combat Vehicle, survive sequestration and budget cleavers.
“The Bradley Industrial Base, led by BAE Systems, includes more than 7,000 employees including members of the United Steelworkers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and nearly 600 suppliers across the nation,” the Sept. 19 letter said.
The Army report was required by Congress to explain how the service plans to keep a viable Bradley Industrial base, and “is very concerning as it clearly underestimates the value of our network and its impact on our nation’s defense and economy,” the letter said.
Particularly, industrial base leaders disagree in three areas of the report: “the evaluation of workers’ skills, the perceived risk to supplier companies and the characterization of redundancies in the industrial base.”
Those disagreements lead them to be concerned about the final recommendations and Army plans for the Bradley over the next five years and beyond.
Last month, BAE revealed plans to shut down its Bradley Lemont Furnace plant in Pennsylvania, after nearly 20 years as work runs out (Defense Daily, Sept. 9).
For the greater part of the year, Bradley suppliers and prime contractor BAE have made their concerns known to members of Congress as the Army’s funding plans would shutter Bradley production for three years, starting in 2014.
Specialized jobs would be lost or skills become obsolete, firms would likely close down or move to other sorts of manufacturing, the letter said. While the report says maintaining a small number of skilled workers is a manageable risk, it “grossly underestimates” the critical value of workers, for example, failing to address Bradley turret test and integration specialists, the letters said.
Another report finding was that suppliers will have mitigated the revenue impact with other work. Letter writers found few Bradley suppliers were contacted for the report, and many small manufacturers who supply critical components have spoken out about the impact. And while some find other work, it is often outside the defense sector. Also, private companies have the “flexibility, expertise and resources to design, test and build the innovative technologies” of the future.
Yes, letter writers claim, there is significant excess in the machining capacity in the heavy ground combat manufacturing network, but they question how to move forward in addressing the issue. Most companies are working to adjust. That’s why those who signed the letter requested a meeting to work out how to sustain the “critical capabilities of the combat vehicle industrial base.”
The letter points to the fact that “the defense manufacturing base lost approximately six million jobs and 57,000 manufacturing facilities between 1998 and 2010.”
To date, no meeting has been set.