Pentagon Unveils Crystal Ball

"What is this guy thinking!?"

That's the reaction a lot of investors had last week. After reading about Defense Secretary Gates' controversial decisions to ax the F-22, gut the Future Combat Systems program, ground President Obama's new chopper, and make numerous other cuts, it was easy to conclude that SecDef was unilaterally disarming -- and unilaterally depriving defense industry investors of their profits. (Never mind that Gates actually asked for a 4% increase in overall defense spending.)

You asked for it, you got it
Well, guess what, Fools? Following last week's bombshell, Gates did a strafing run on the survivors this week, outlining his thinking on the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (the Pentagon's quick-reaction, four-year answer to the Communists' venerable five-year plans). Opining that the military needs to start preparing for "the wars we are most likely to fight -- not just the wars we're best suited to fight," Gates mused publicly over the fate of the Navy's planned next-generation cruiser, the Air Force's need for a new stealth bomber, and other planned uber-weapons.

Tailoring his comments to his audience (officers at the Air War College at Maxwell AFB), Gates hinted that weapons systems such as Lockheed Martin's (NYSE: LMT  ) venerable F-16 and Boeing's (NYSE: BA  ) just-as-dated F-15 are fast becoming anachronisms. If General Dynamcs (NYSE: GD  ) can build an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with greater range, lower fuel requirements, and no risk of harm to its nonexistent pilot, do we really need to be spending tens of billions developing supersonic stealth fighter jets? In an Iron Curtainless world, where we more often find ourselves fighting cave-dwelling fanatics armed with AK-47s, do we really need invisible battle cruisers and robotic tanks?

Take the much-lamented Lockheed F-22 Raptor, for example. Ballyhooed by some as the best plane in the air for killing other planes -- but mocked by others as an aircraft based on 1980s technology and better suited to taking on Brezhnev's Red Army than bin Laden's followers -- Gates decried the Pentagon's habit of buying weapons "that are so costly and complex that they take forever to build and only then in very limited quantities."

Idle speculation, idled defense contractors
This is more than just bureaucratic navel-gazing, folks. What Gates says in words today may become reality in the 2011 defense budget. As such, his thoughts pose real risks to the revenue streams at the nation's defense contractors.

Gates' comments suggest a bout of Pentagon-rethink regarding concepts like the FB-22 Strike Raptor (a long-running bomber concept based on the F-22 platform) and the even more distant 2037 Bomber. His thoughts should incite worry, too, among the two teams vying to build the nation's next-generation aerial refueling tanker.

The more I listen to Gates' pronouncements, the more convinced I become that he's infatuated (and not necessarily wrongly so) with the idea of converting our Air Force from a manned force to a force comprised largely of unmanned, robotic fighter drones. Discussing the soon-to-be-restarted competition between Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC  ) and Boeing to build the KC-X refueling tanker, Gates wondered aloud whether we'll really need the full complement of 179 tankers originally envisioned. As Gates points out, our current fleet of UAVs isn't even designed for midair refueling. And if these flying model airplanes don't need midair fill-ups, that would logically diminish our need to build midair filler-uppers.

Crisis and opportunity
Here's where we make the obligatory reference to the debatable Chinese symbol that tells us that any problem can become an opportunity for profit if we look at it the right way. You see, on the surface, Gates' musing poses significant and expensive threats to the defense contractors. But investors who can read the tea leaves correctly just may find themselves capable of profiting from his pronouncements.

Yes, big-ticket defense systems may be going the way of the dodo -- but that leaves more money for companies picking the Pentagon's pockets with lower-priced alternatives, right? Take UAVs, for example. Flip over any fighter-builder at risk of funding cuts, and you'll likely find potential profit from the shift to UAVs:

  • Boeing's got the ScanEagle, Lockheed Martin the Desert Hawk, and Northrop the Fire Scout.
  • Textron (NYSE: TXT  ) owns the Shadow system for the time being, while Honeywell's (NYSE: HON  ) T-Hawk is enjoying remarkable success.
  • Meanwhile, L-3 Communications (NYSE: LLL  ) is making a name for itself in communications gear, to help all these flying robots phone home to mama.

What's true up in the air works at sea level as well. Take the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) being developed by twin teams at Lockheed and General Dynamics, for example. Hardly a speech goes by without Gates singing the LCS' praises, citing its versatility and ability to move in shallow waters where aircraft carriers and submariners fear to tread.

Foolish takeaway
Truisms become so for a reason, Fools -- because they're true. Our task as investors is not to lament the Pentagon's rethinking of its spending priorities, especially when there's a fair amount of sense behind it. True, Lockheed, Boeing, and other benefactors of now-outmoded weapons systems are losers in the current round of cuts, but they also have the potential to profit from the new realities. Remember, defense spending was actually up 4% for next fiscal year. Our job is to find the best ideas, and the best companies, under the new regime -- and invest in them.

(And if you need a little help with that, feel free to grab a free copy of the latest issue of Motley Fool Rule Breakers. We never planned to become the Fool newsletter with the most intense focus on high-tech defense companies ... but as it turns out, quite a lot of them have made their way into our portfolio quite by accident. Discover them here.)

Fool contributor Rich Smith owns shares of Boeing. The Motley Fool's disclosure policy is bulletproof.


Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (11)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, JuliusCeasure wrote:

    The future has no guarantee and all good ideas have some down side. The UAV combat vehicle idea is great under limited warfare circumstances. Its two major weaknesses are vulnerability to Electronic Warfare (EW) and Cyber Warfare (CW). There is no point A in existence which can communicate with or in any way discern usable attack information to/from a UAV at point B if modern EW techniques are utilized. This I know! I theorize that our communications nets, now completely digital cyber nets, will have exploitable problems too. As I stated; I believe this is an excellent idea for certain warfare circumstances but unless we control the "high ground" - regardless of who the enemy is - all is lost. The high ground will be seized and held by superior aircraft designed for exactly that purpose - the F-22 Raptor.

    In addition I would like to point out that since there is no guarantee in life; we will never know until it is too late which other powers might join together in an effort to bring us down. With modern lead times for high tech aircraft production well into the range of decades; we must be prepared to fight any possible war that planners might envision, (or not), because what we have in the beginning of the conflict is more than likely all we will have to do the job period.

  • Report this Comment On April 20, 2009, at 9:33 PM, CrowdControl wrote:

    JC, excellent summary of the situation and good overall analysis.

    Interesting how SecDef identifies F-15/16 as anachorisms, yet vehemently swears for 1,700 USAF stealth F-35A @ avg of an estimated $140m per pop (which won't even fly under initial operational capability, as a credible upgrade variant, until 2020+) !

    Interesting how SecDef swears by and smirks over 55 LCS ships (almost the cost of a destroyer each) as a 'flexible' modern, shallow-water 'counter-insurgent' naval fleet of tomorrow, when it can only operate 2 helicopters (can hardly defend itself against any formidable modern missile/air attack) and it couldn't do a darn thing to begin with in today's Iraq and A-stan counter-insurgent missions!

    Interesting how SecDef wants to transform the future Air Force from a strategic airpower deterrent, capable of defending US's air sovereignty and that of our allies under any potential crisis, to fighting the US Army's battles for it, via attacking AK-47 packing, cave dwelling terrorists with Air Force UAV's instead of Army UAVs!!

    That is a future US Army's tactical battle to fight, with all due respect mr. SecDef, NOT the USAF's!

    Hopefully Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) will at least start to inject some reality and 'rethink' back into the defense equation this week and ignite some critical debate before catastrophic long-term commitments are set in stone.. and FWIW, I'm a pro-defense-acquisition-reform tax-payer and not associated in anyway industrial/political interests.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 878772, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/30/2014 10:18:19 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 17,022.37 -48.85 -0.29%
S&P 500 1,972.50 -5.30 -0.27%
NASD 4,486.63 -19.22 -0.43%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/30/2014 10:02 AM
BA $128.07 Down -0.70 -0.54%
The Boeing Company CAPS Rating: ***
GD $127.46 Down -0.03 -0.02%
General Dynamics CAPS Rating: ***
HON $92.99 Down -0.54 -0.58%
Honeywell Internat… CAPS Rating: ****
LLL $115.24 Down -0.02 -0.02%
L-3 Communications… CAPS Rating: ****
LMT $182.36 Up +1.00 +0.55%
Lockheed Martin Co… CAPS Rating: ***
NOC $131.40 Down -0.58 -0.44%
Northrop Grumman C… CAPS Rating: ****
TXT $36.01 Down -0.35 -0.96%
Textron, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement