A joint op-ed by Linda Hudson, president and CEO of BAE Systems Inc., and Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers, reinforces efforts to keep the Bradley industrial base strong.
Published yesterday by Politico, the two said in the op-ed that they are concerned that unique skills in the Bradley manufacturing base would be permanently lost, part of a larger loss of manufacturing jobs and companies potentially leading to “a very real risk that we will permanently lose the skills required to make much-needed equipment for the U.S. military and will need to look overseas for suppliers.”
BAE has been working on several fronts to keep attention on the Bradley industrial base. For example, Hudson, the leaders of four unions–including the United Steelworkers–and 35 suppliers Oct. 1 wrote about disagreements with a preliminary industrial base report to the Army Secretary, John McHugh. The interim report said there was more capacity than demand for Bradley and Abrams, and demand wouldn’t pick up until the end of the decade. The group disagreed, and wrote of concerns about worker skills, risks to suppliers, and the characterization of redundancies (Defense Daily, Oct. 1).
The Bradley fighting vehicle is an example of the danger to economy and national security they write, as the vehicle’s “advanced aluminum armor and weapons systems are produced by 7,000 skilled workers in 586 businesses.”
 |
| Bradley Fighting Vehicle Photo: U.S. Army |
Army funding removed from the Bradley industrial base forces closure of the production and supply chain as early as 2014, as part of the land service’s effort to modernize the vehicle. There would be a three-year hiatus in production before it starts up.
In September BAE revealed it would close its Bradley Lemont Furnace plant in Pennsylvania after nearly 20 years as work runs out (Defense Daily, Sept. 9).
However, the op-ed points out, business won’t be able to keep skilled workers, some will move to other fields, and their skills will atrophy or become obsolete.
“As a result, our armed forces may end up going into harm’s way without equipment manufactured in America and ready for today’s battlefield,” Hudson and Gerard wrote.
The Army could alleviate some of the problem by spending “the $288 million provided last year to allow industry to perform its requirements, which ensure that older vehicles are upgraded with the latest technology…”
In the long term, they wrote that the Army should work with industry to “ensure our troops can meet the missions they might face, while providing industry with the stability to sustain the skilled jobs needed to respond to future threats.”