Resurgent Defense – How New American Priorities Are Bringing Back Military Manufacturing

A Push to Strengthen the Defense of America and its Allies Has Put Small Manufacturers in the Spotlight – and Raised New Needs for Implementing Quality Management Systems (QMS)

In the years following the Cold War, American military policy realigned from the force-dominant position that helped the United States win that prolonged struggle. New policies, such as the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), suggested that a limited-force doctrine which prioritized air power and technology rather than overwhelming force availability would allow future conflicts to be resolved with fewer risks and resources. More broadly, the end of the Cold War signaled to many a hypothesized realignment of human history, in which large-scale conflicts would be replaced with global responses to small-scale insurgencies. However, the dramatic 2022 expansion of the Russo-Ukrainian War, as well as a rapid upscaling of global militarization and tension, has led to a renewal of the ‘great power’ theory of geopolitics. Current American leadership has come to view other ‘great powers’ as entities which control spheres of geopolitical influence, and which thus must be countered by resurgent rearmament of the U.S. and allied militaries. This has opened opportunities for small and mid-sized manufacturers to serve the defense sector, enabling growth which has been unprecedented since the Cold War. But as manufacturers look to take advantage, they must be aware of the strict quality management requirements of the military. In this article, the first in our military manufacturing series, we will examine the present opportunities, how and why the situation for defense manufacturing has changed, and why manufacturing companies should implement new software solutions, such as QMS2GO, to equip themselves to compete for military contracts.

(Note: As of a 2025 Executive Order, the United State Government’s Department of Defense (DoD) has been given the secondary name of the Department of War (DoW), which is sometimes used in official governmental communications. To avoid reader confusion, QMS2GO’s articles on this topic refer to the Department of Defense by its legal name, as defined by Congress. Should the legal name of the Department be changed by Congress, future articles will reflect that change.)

Table of Contents

1. Manufacturing for the Military: How We Got to Here

2. Why Modern Geopolitics Are Causing a Defense Manufacturing Scaleup

3. The Opportunity: How Small/Mid-Sized Manufacturers Can Capitalize

4. The Challenge: The Need to Implement QMS

5. References

Short on time? Watch our video summary of this article!

Manufacturing for the Military: How We Got to Here

Historically, the U.S. military has been served by a wide variety of manufacturing contractors, ranging in size from massive enterprises to small-time shops. At times of significant warfare, the government has taken temporary control of private industry and retooled manufacturing plants for defense. In general, however, the relationship between the military and its suppliers is capitalistic and complementary, with bids being awarded along a measured axis of quality weighted against cost. This has allowed small manufacturers to win contracts, particularly when nimbleness and innovation have been paramount.

However, health in the military manufacturing industry (particularly for small companies) is directly related to the broader health of military budgeting. In eras where budgets have been condensed, large defense contractors have consolidated their focus into winning the remaining contracts and protecting their teams, squeezing smaller companies out. In addition, force dominance doctrines are extremely important. Small companies tend to thrive when an overwhelming force doctrine is in effect; when lean force doctrines prevail, stockpiles of conventional military resources are scaled back, leading to immediate declines in manufacturing. Finally, stability in annual budgets and programs is critical, both from the perspective of continued contracts and for government-directed support programs which provide resources to emerging manufacturers. Thus, from a manufacturing standpoint, the DoD’s ideal position is budgetary stability, with sizable resources and a strong force dominance doctrine. However, since the 1990s, this has generally not been the case.

After the Cold War ended, legacy manufacturing programs which provided stockpiles of weapons and equipment were ended. Costly contracts were canceled, and the military adopted a lean engagement strategy that emphasized minimal force deployments. This was demonstrated during the Gulf War (1990-91), in which a limited and brief air campaign marked the most significant force deployment of the conflict. Throughout the remainder of the 1990s, other limited engagements such as the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999) emphasized use of advanced military technology and minimized the usage of conventional weapons and massive shows of force. In the 2000s and 2010s, the Global War on Terror and related engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq continued this doctrine. These approaches were predicated upon the idea that the U.S. would act in cooperation with allies (comprising the vast majority of the global community of nations), and that threats were primarily rogue and failed states, rather than fellow ‘great powers’ with sphere of influence surrogates fighting in shadow conflicts. Consequently, military manufacturing during the 30-year span from the end of the Cold War until the early 2020s favored large defense contractors and was characterized by an extreme dependence on a very small number of very high-value contracts.

All of this changed in 2022 with the rapid and unexpected increase of hostilities in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Suddenly, not only was a U.S. ally directly involved in conventional warfare, but a high demand for continuous resupply was established. More importantly, this war brought to the fore the resurgence of the ‘great powers’ theory, pitting large global players against one another as they competed for spheres of influence. In effect, the Cold War had resumed, but was now hotter than ever. Newfound awareness of these challenges, as well as a desire to protect defense industrial development from foreign influence, have led to new economic opportunities for large and small defense contractors alike.

The effects of these changes have been widespread, particularly in regions that have long suffered from economic decline. For example, Camden, Arkansas was once the home of the Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot, a vital manufacturing center during World War II. During the Cold War, the property was spun off into the private Highland Industrial Park, which was occupied by defense contractors large and small that produced vital supplies of rocketry and conventional ordnance. At the end of the Cold War, however, many of these companies disappeared, and the entire area fell onto very hard times. Economically, Arkansas sank to one of the least prosperous states. A contributing cause for this decline, in the area and indeed the entire state, was the cessation of key weapons replenishment programs at Camden. Cold War-era warheads and missiles no longer fit into the lean force doctrine, and so programs and contracts were ended. Most of the missiles made in Camden were considered relics. But the sudden demand from Ukraine meant that, overnight, production had to be restarted. A shortage of workers and manufacturing solutions hampered this ability in the early months of U.S. involvement in the war. But the resurgence has meant that, for Camden, an economic reawakening has occurred, elevating the prospects of the Highland Industrial Park and opening avenues for small businesses to capitalize.[1]

These benefits have not been limited to Arkansas. In Pennsylvania, the mid-sized city of Scranton has hosted the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant since 1953. This historic government-owned and privately-operated military installation has been responsible for manufacturing millions of artillery shells. Still, by 2022, output at the venerable plant had fallen to just 14,000 shells per month; barely enough to cover mandatory replacements for the American military due to munitions age and regular training use. In particular, the critical 155mm shell type, used in nearly all long-range artillery, had a nationwide production of only 3,250 shells per month. Even at regular usage rates prior to the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War, this was a barely-sustainable rate to provide for minimal replacement and training purposes. And once shells started being shipped to Ukraine, the national stockpile began to dwindle rapidly.[2] To offset this risk, the DoD began to surge production of the 155mm and other artillery shell types, driving a massive boost at the Scranton plant. Within months, production went from the pre-war 14,000 shells-per-month total to 36,000 shells per month. This resulted in massive increases in jobs, spending, and associated contractor opportunities around Scranton. Today, the greater Scranton area is home not only to the Plant (operated by General Dynamics), but also to facilities operated by RTX (Raytheon) and Lockheed Martin.[3] Nonetheless, even with the surge of production, it is estimated that it will take six years to rebuild the 155mm shell stockpile to its pre-war level. And for the explosive new 155mm Excalibur precision artillery shell, the situation is even more pressing. At the peak of weapons shipments, the United States was sending 1,000 of these shells to Ukraine each month. And yet, nationwide production is only 1,000 shells per year, and as of January 2023, only 15,000 of the shells had ever been manufactured. At this rate, it will take many years to achieve even basic replacement ability, much less replenish the former stockpile.[2] This problem extends throughout the military supply chain, and also encompasses newly-developed and emerging technologies, such as those which have historically been funded through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and related programs. The only solution is for more small and mid-sized companies to enter this aggressive peacetime military economy – and to do that, these companies will need to be ready for meeting the military’s quality management standards.

Why Modern Geopolitics Are Causing a Defense Manufacturing Scaleup

As noted above, the present global situation is driving the rapid rise in defense manufacturing. Although America is currently at peace, many of our national allies find themselves enmeshed in terrible conflicts that will define their future and ability to survive. Now more than ever, there is a need to support these allies – and the ability to do this comes down to the ability of the American military, and its contractors, to meet the present worldwide need.

In addition, there are rising regional tensions in parts of the world which are not at war. The period of quiet and stability which began at the end of the Cold War has been replaced by a new emphasis on spheres of influence and hegemonic control, as evidenced by the politics and actions of the former Cold War powers: Russia, China, and indeed the United States itself. As early as a decade ago, in 2015, Marco Rubio (who was serving as a Senator at the time) warned that America was “barreling toward a second Cold War” and urged a scale-up in military assistance to Ukraine and other American allies.[4] Rubio’s comments were hardly partisan or unique to his own views; Jeremy Shapiro of the centrist Brookings Institution wrote in 2017 that a return to a state equivalent to the Cold War was “the inevitable result” of global political trends,[5] while former President Joe Biden emphasized throughout his term that while he desperately sought to prevent a second Cold War from beginning,[6] the post-Cold War era was “definitely over” and in need of the resurgent strength of rearmament.[7] In both the first and second administrations of President Donald Trump, foreign policy has been defined in the Cold War language of ‘great power conflicts,’[8] and consideration of Russia and China’s desires for spheres of influence has informed Trump-era politics of engagement, concession, and coercion.

In such times as these, there will clearly be no quick end to the production of both legacy weapons and cutting-edge technologies. And that means that the time has never been better for small, regionally-focused manufacturers to jump in, support America, and make a name for themselves in the defense industry.

The Opportunity: How Small/Mid-Sized Manufacturers Can Capitalize

Now more than ever, the American military and defense industries need smaller upstart companies to enter the market and deliver results. Manufacturing companies, as well as science-focused developers of new technologies, are particularly critical for achieving the necessary results. If your company is already adjacent to a major defense manufacturing area, such as Scranton or Camden, then the opportunity is obvious. But even if you are located further away, there are still many chances to get involved right now.

First, let’s focus on manufacturing companies. Interested firms should examine what major current contracts already exist in their state or region. Once you know the key players, try reaching out and seeing if they could utilize subcontractors or assistance on their projects. Be prepared to demonstrate past relevant manufacturing experience; if the job involves tooling metal parts, for example, past contracts which involved similar metals/alloys or high-demand applications will be useful. Don’t be discouraged simply because your company is small, and your potential partner is large. Many layers of subcontracting are supported by substantial military projects, and you may be surprised to learn how many small companies serve as suppliers of individual sub-components of larger systems.

For example, California Machine Specialties of Chino, CA is a small precision machining shop which specializes in heat-sinks, assemblies, and bonding. As a small firm, they have just a few dozen employees. But nonetheless, they serve a vast number of large defense contractors, including Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and L3Harris.[9] Contract manufacturers like this firm have long served as the under-recognized engine behind the biggest defense companies, and military contracts have long been seen as highly desirable, given that they provide both outstanding growth opportunities and stable long-term projects.[10] And while larger contract manufacturers capture a majority of these assignments, smaller companies can compete and win as well. It’s primarily about proving yourself, ensuring you have proper certification, and creating a compelling pitch about how your firm can integrate into the prime contractor’s workflow.

Another worthwhile approach is investigating what large government procurement centers may be located in your area. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is one of the primary players in this respect, with major branches for Aviation (in Huntsville, Alabama and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and Land (Warren, Michigan) serving as key potential contact points for new contract awareness and opportunities. The Army’s Contracting Command (ACC) is another avenue of approach; they have main locations at the Tobyhanna Depot (Coolbaugh Township, Pennsylvania) and the Detroit Arsenal (Detroit, Michigan). The Navy’s NAVSEA Warfare Centers (11 locations centered on the East Coast, West Coast, and Indiana) offer numerous other opportunities.[11] Additional opportunities also exist; researching locations relevant for your specialty area is of critical importance and can lead to point of contact, who can then direct you accordingly.

Manufacturers should also avail themselves of the substantial online resources provided by the government and the DoD for finding contracts. The primary website for this is SAM.gov, which lists contract opportunities valued above $25,000 on behalf of all federal offices (not just the military).[12] The SAM.gov website is run by the General Services Administration (GSA), which is tasked with handling most federal contracts. If your company secures a contract through the GSA, you will be listed on the GSA Schedule (a compendium of approved companies for further future contracts), which will be of great assistance in securing additional projects. Besides the GSA, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is a terrific resource for finding contracts tailored to smaller-scale companies. The SBA runs the Small Business Search online resource, which allows companies to quickly identify potential partners. Listing your company on the Small Business Search website will enable you to be discovered, so it’s very important to provide complete and detailed information that might help you appeal to partners.[13] The SBA also runs the SUBNet website, which is a listing of subcontracting opportunities; this resource can connect your company with other firms which are seeking partners.[14] Lastly, various branches of the government (including the military branches) have small business offices which specialize in identifying contract opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses. Researching and contacting these branches may yield further opportunities.

For technology development companies, the SBA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs are by far the most important avenues for winning contracts. These longstanding programs, established during the Reagan Administration, have provided tens of billions of dollars of support to tens of thousands of innovative American companies, and have directly led to commercial and scientific successes. In 1980, the SBIR program provided early funding to Qualcomm, which later became an industry leader. In 2001, the developers of the lasers used in Lasik eye surgery also received support. And in 2020, the Mars Perseverance Rover was equipped with 8 different SBIR-backed technologies.[15] As a result of the 2025 government shutdown and subsequent political developments, the SBIR and STTR programs have been identified for review and potential adjustment; companies should continue to monitor this situation closely if considering application to these contract routes. It is expected, however, that the programs (or any successors which may arise from future political negotiations) will continue, as they have long enjoyed substantial bipartisan support.

For many years, the military has sought to expand contract availability to small firms (particularly in the technology and new product development categories), but progress has been in fits and starts. In 2023, the American Homefront Project (a public media initiative focused on military issues) highlighted these challenges and noted that developing points of contact within the DoD branches was essential for learning about opportunities and getting the right feedback on how to win contracts. The report suggested that companies consider ‘open topics’ (where the firm can propose solutions beyond the standard military requirements), and highlighted the importance of following all military procedures (such as certifications, compliance, and conformance). Finally, the importance of having outside consultants and guidance was emphasized; it is very difficult for small companies, especially those that are new to the government contracting process, to know how best to proceed and prepare proposals.[16] Having advisement on contract structuring, quality management, and proper quality management system (QMS) certifications, are all extremely important steps to prepare companies to compete.

Finally, for both manufacturers and technology companies, gathering information on previously-awarded contracts and suppliers is a great way to prepare for application. Knowing what has been funded can help you choose a focal area that is likely to have continued high demand. And knowing who has been doing the work can help direct you to potential partners or prime contractors who may sub-contract your firm. There are two key resources to utilize for these checks. The first is the GSA’s Federal Procurement Data System website, which lists data for all federal contracts valued at $25,000 or more. This website shows which companies have contracts with which agencies and branches; it is the best resource for a deep dive into contractor data, but requires a fair amount of time to examine.[17] The second resource is the USASpending.gov website, which tracks all government spending on all government contracts. This website is especially helpful for identifying overall trends in spending (what the military needs at specific moments) as it is grouped by agency, industry, and region; this may help your firm identify future opportunities.[18]

The Challenge: The Need to Implement QMS

It is clear that small manufacturers and technology development companies have ample opportunities to compete for valuable military contracts. It is equally clear that the demand is there, perhaps more than at any point since the Cold War. But how can companies which are new to the defense contracting landscape improve their chances and meet the requirements that the DoD and prime contractors require?

First and foremost, companies wishing to compete in this space must have a quality management system (QMS) in place. The reasons for this are obvious: military technology and equipment are high-risk, with significant dangers associated should the products fail. The lives of servicemembers depend on contracts being fulfilled properly, efficiently, and safely. Therefore, the military and its contractors require that suppliers abide by common QMS standards, such as ISO 9001 (a general QMS which covers many industries) and AS9100 (a derivative of ISO 9001 which focuses on the specific safety rigors of the aerospace industry). And while many small manufacturers and technology companies already follow a QMS, far stricter requirements of compliance and conformance are imposed on military subcontractors. In short, there is no room for error, and no half measures in implementation of a QMS when it comes to the military. It’s all or nothing, and if you have nothing, your firm won’t get a contract.

With that all said, implementing or updating a QMS is a daunting task for many smaller companies. They may only have one or two quality management staff, and resource allocation is often minimal. Some companies question why QMS standards are necessary, since they’ve managed to compete in lower-risk fields without them in the past. To address these needs, QMS2GO offers its low-cost, high-return quality management software as a potential solution.

QMS2GO is an AI-powered quality management assistant which is trained on all major QMS standards, including ISO 9001 and AS9100. The software provides quality managers with a means of rapidly generating and checking reports and documentation, achieving compliance with company best practices, and ensuring the overall system is in conformance with international quality management standards. Unlike most other generative AI programs, the software works in a compartmentalized way, ensuring that only internal company data is accessed when performing evaluations. This is an essential feature as it minimizes the risk of dangerous ‘AI hallucinations’ which cause data to be misinterpreted, or even worse, manufactured by the AI to provide an answer (even if it’s the wrong one). These hallucination problems have plagued modern generative AI tools and led to costly errors; within a military supply setting, this danger could have lethal consequences. That’s why QMS2GO uses only two sources of information: your company’s data, and the QMS standard itself. Being isolated from external information sources also protects proprietary data and maintains security, both of which are crucial for military contracting work. When it comes to compliance and conformance, QMS2GO covers both by generating compliance documentation to ensure your company’s quality manager is performing all necessary steps, and cross-checking generated documents against the QMS standard to identify any non-conformances. The conformance module of QMS2GO is further partitioned from the rest of the software; this protects AI independence and prevents your data from inadvertently biasing the conformance check results. Finally, QMS2GO provides alerts and referrals to human auditors when they are needed, providing additional support, assurance, and peace of mind to your company’s quality management team. QMS2GO may be AI-powered, but it’s not a replacement for your staff; rather, it’s a productivity and protective tool that lets you step into new competitive fields with confidence, while supporting your quality management team with the high-performance software that can bring their results to new heights.

With QMS2GO, manufacturers and technology development companies that haven’t previously worked in defense can now begin to familiarize themselves with the relevant QMS standards. If you’ve previously used other standards, you can integrate the new requirements into your firm’s workflow with ease. And if you’ve never used a QMS before, QMS2GO can bring you up to speed on the efficiency, safety, and cost-savings benefits you’ve been missing. QMS2GO’s software-as-a-service model won’t break the bank, allowing your company to integrate the software and experiment with it without risk or disruption. Finally, QMS2GO can help your firm achieve or maintain certification for your QMS; without certification, it will be nearly impossible to win military contracts. Think of it this way: for a small monthly or annual cost, QMS2GO will open up an entirely new competitive field for your company – one which is lucrative, growing, and filled with demand and opportunity.

Now is the time to step up – and to help America succeed. Contribute to the country’s defense and national security – and aid the causes of freedom and democracy around the world. Now is the time for your company to become a defense contractor – with the help of QMS2GO.

Learn how we can serve you. Reach out and schedule a call today.

Author

Nicholas R. Zabaly is the Editor-in-Chief of QMS2GO’s research and knowledgebase operations. An experienced researcher and technical writer, he has worked closely with the company since its foundation and serves as its lead article writer.

Additional References and Resources

[1] Politico – “The Struggling Arkansas Town That Helped Stop Russia in its Tracks” (Bryan Bender, September 9, 2022) – https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/09/ukraine-war-arkansas-weapons-00055124

[2] Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) – “Rebuilding U.S. Inventories: Six Critical Systems” (Mark F. Cancian, January 9, 2023) – https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems

[3] National Public Radio (NRP) – “Inside the U.S. City Churning Out Ukrainian Weapons” (Mansee Khurana, September 16, 2024) – https://www.npr.org/2024/09/15/nx-s1-5090966/scranton-munitions-factory-ukraine-war-russia-howitzer-rounds

[4] USA Today  – “Rubio: U.S. ‘Barreling Toward a Second Cold War’” (Mackenzie Ryan, October 3, 2015) – https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/10/03/rubio-us-barreling-toward-second-cold-war/73288022/

[5] Real Clear World – “Reordering Europe?” (Jeremy Shapiro, January 11, 2017) – https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/01/11/reordering_europe_112169.html

[6] U.S. Government White House – Archives of the Biden Administration – “Readout of President Joe Biden’s Meeting with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China” (November 15, 2023) – https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/11/15/readout-of-president-joe-bidens-meeting-with-president-xi-jinping-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-2/

[7] Politico – “Biden Administration Declares Post-Cold War Era ‘Definitely Over’” (Alexander Ward, October 12, 2022) – https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/12/biden-post-cold-war-00061428

[8] U.S. Government White House – Archives of the Trump Administration – “National Security Strategy of the United States” (December 2017) – https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

[9] California Machine Specialties – “Welcome to Calmachine” – https://www.calmachine.com/

[10] Military + Aerospace Electronics – “Contract Manufacturing: There When You Need It” (January 1, 2017) – https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16709898/contract-manufacturing-there-when-you-need-it

[11] U.S. Navy NAVSEA Warfare Centers – “Doing Business with NAVSEA Warfare Centers” – https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Warfare_Centers/Doing%20Business%20with%20WC%202025.pdf?ver=eoVckYC11oV3MFyOxYkHpw%3d%3d

[12] U.S. General Services Administration – SAM.gov – “Contract Opportunities” – https://sam.gov/opportunities

[13] U.S. Small Business Administration – “Small Business Search” – https://search.certifications.sba.gov/

[14] U.S. Small Business Administration – “SUBNet Subcontracting Opportunities” – https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-guide/prime-subcontracting/subcontracting-opportunities

[15] U.S. Small Business Administration – “America’s Seed Fund: SBIR·STTR” – https://www.sbir.gov/

[16] American Homefront Project – “The Military Wants to Contract with More Small Businesses, But the Process Can Be Overwhelming” (Eric Schmid, May 26, 2023) – https://americanhomefront.wunc.org/news/2023-05-26/the-military-wants-to-contract-with-more-small-businesses-but-the-process-can-be-overwhelming

[17] U.S. General Services Administration – Federal Procurement Data System – “FPDS.gov Main Page” – https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/

[18] U.S. Government – USASpending.gov – “USASpending.gov Main Page” – https://www.usaspending.gov/