It’s another election year, and we’ve all seen it: the politicians emerge like cicadas in suits. They pop up in swarms every election season— the winning party will make noisy campaign promises, claim domination over the opposer, and quickly push their policies through. The losing party will return underground to hibernate for four years until they are given the chance to emerge victoriously. Then the cycle starts all over.

Whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, Department of Defense (DoD) related businesses often feel the immediate impact when political leadership changes. One year spending may surge, and the next, it could decline sharply with a transfer of power. But should this really be the case? Should DoD planning be limited to just a four-year horizon, and is such a short time frame even realistic?

The Defense Industrial Base (DIB) has endured decades of repeated surges and contractions, and the Submarine Industrial Base (SIB) is no different. If small-to-medium sized businesses cannot realistically plan labor growth or capital expenditure on a four-year cycle, why are we expecting these large companies that deal with thousands of employees and suppliers to do so? Skilled tradespeople capable of delivering high-quality products on time and on budget require at least 5–7 years of experience. Not to mention, “Green Labor”—the undeniable catch-all excuse/explanation for underperforming suppliers and Shipbuilders over the past three decades—thrives on these constant fluctuations. This Industry does not have the time nor the money to waste.

Trillions of dollars are spent on defense, and far too much of it is wasted on catch-up efforts. It’s no surprise that current submarine fleets are aging and will need to be replaced to maintain US strong position. Given the industry’s limited ability to rapidly adapt and scale during demand surges, maintaining a steady workload benefits not only the Navy and Shipbuilders but also the broader DIB and SIB—where roughly 80% of companies are small- to medium-sized businesses.

Demand forecasting has consistently ranked among the top five challenges reported by suppliers in recent readiness assessments. Their inability to predict workloads has hindered proper staffing and equipment sourcing, making it difficult to meet schedules. Allocating more time and funding to level-load, regardless of which party is in power—would reduce the need for consulting firms and marketing campaigns aimed at quickly ramping up the workforce to meet sudden surges.

So how does the industry alleviate itself from crisis mode? Common sense; not the changing beliefs of whatever political party is in power. Prioritizing stable, long-term defense

planning based on strategic needs would create a steady workflow that reliably meets—and even exceeds—the nation’s defense needs.

Another lesson learned from watching this cycle repeat for three decades…