c-17 slidedeck november 2018 powerpoint

BIS/OTE C-17 Aircraft Supply Chain Impact Assessment

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation. UNCLASSIFIED

U.S. Air Force C-17 Aircraft Supply Chain Impact

Assessment

Final ResultsNovember 2018

1

U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and SecurityOffice of Technology Evaluation



2

• Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE)

Mission: OTE is the focal point within BIS for assessing the capabilities of the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and the effectiveness of export controls

• Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)

Mission: Advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership

Develops export control policies Issues export licenses Prosecutes violators to heighten national securityDevelops and implements programs that ensure a technologically

superior defense industrial base

Who We Are:



OTE Industry Surveys & Assessments Background:

3

• Under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Executive Order 13603, ability to survey and assess:Economic health and competitivenessDefense capabilities and readiness

• Data is exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests

• Enable industry and government agencies to:Share data and collaborate in order to ensure a healthy and

competitive industrial baseMonitor trends, benchmark industry performance, and raise

awareness of diminishing manufacturing and technological capabilities



4

OTE/OEA C-17 Project Overview

• Partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), and in coordination with the City of Long Beach, to conduct a comprehensive survey and assessment of the C-17 aircraft supply chain industrial base

• Three Phase Project:• Phase I: C-17 Excess Tooling and Equipment Transfer Completed - 2015 • Phase II: Survey Development and Industry Deployment• Phase III: Survey Compliance and Final Results



5

Achievements of the C-17 Program• The C-17 Globemaster III is the most flexible cargo aircraft to enter

the airlift force• The C-17 flew half of the strategic airlift missions in the Kosovo and

Operation Allied Force• The C-17 was awarded U.S. aviation's most prestigious award, the

Collier Trophy, in 1994

C-17 Aircraft Program

• The first C-17 production model was delivered to Joint Base Charleston, S.C. on June 14, 1993

• The USAF capped its C-17 fleet at 223 aircraft; its final delivery was on 12 September 2013

• Notable C-17 MissionsOperation Allied ForceOperation Iraqi FreedomOperation Enduring Freedom

What is the C-17 Globemaster III Aircraft?

2010 Earthquake Humanitarian Relief

2011 Pakistan Flood Relief



C-17 Aircraft Production by Year

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Num

ber o

f C-1

7 A

ircra

ft

USAF Royal Air Force(UK) Royal Australian Air Force

Canadian Armed Forces Qatari Emiri Air Force NATO Strategic Airlift Capability

UAE Air Force Indian Air Force Kuwait Air Force

Boeing Storage



7

• Survey Development and Outreach• Develop survey data collection topics such as production, employment, financials, R&D, and

competitive outlook

• Conduct initial site visits to better understand the impact of the loss of C-17 aircraft sales on the industrial supply chain

• Design, develop, and circulate the draft survey template for feedback from select organizations

• Survey Approval • Formally field test final version of C-17 aircraft supply chain survey

• Obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) C-17 aircraft survey approval

• Survey Deployment• Format and code approved survey template

• Distribute survey to all identified C-17 aircraft suppliers

• Conduct respondent compliance to ensure quality and timely data analysis

Phase II: Survey Development and Deployment



• Organization size was established based on sales from C-17 related products manufactured in the U.S.• Small: Under $10M in annual sales• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales• Large: Over $50M in annual sales

• BIS received responses from over 420 organizations, representing 544 facilities. Organizations were categorized by business type:

• Distributor• Engineering Firm• Holding Company• Laboratory• Manufacturer

8

Methodology - C-17 Aircraft Assessment

• Non-Profit• Research & Development Firm• Service Provider• Testing Facility



Methodology - C-17 Aircraft Assessment

• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to organizations with U.S. operations that supported the C-17 program

• OTE used a list of suppliers provided by the prime contractor and combined it with an internal list, which was accumulated through previous Defense Industrial Base studies and other suppliers identified by C-17 supplier organizations

• Survey exemption requests were handled individually and The Boeing Company was consulted on some cases

• If Boeing and the USAF was not a customer since 2012 and the respondent’s products/services were generic, an exemption would be provided

• Respondents that had Boeing and/or the USAF as a customer since 2012 but were unaware of specific C-17 support were NOT provided an exemption generally

9



10

QRP, A1 376 Respondents

Type of Supply Chain Support Self-Identified Support of C-17 Program by Type and Time Period (1991-2018)

36

47

38

37

78

58

12

17

53

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Current

Former

BothFormer and

Current

# of Respondents

Tim

e Pe

riod

of S

uppo

rt (1

991-

2018

)

Direct Only Indirect Only Both Direct and Indirect

149 Total

142 Total

85 Total



Primary Customer: USAF or BoeingPrimary Customers for Known Support of C-17 Program

6

39

46

291

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

US

AF

Onl

yO

ther

Both

Boe

ing

and

US

AF

Boe

ing

Onl

y

# of Respondents

Prim

ary

Cus

tom

er

11


10% of respondents did not list Boeing or USAF as a primary customer



Respondent ProfileType of Support to USAF or Boeing

63

91

95

47

7

17

1

17 2

4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Bot

h D

irect

and

Indi

rect

Indi

rect

Dire

ct

# of Respondents

Type

of S

uppo

rt

Boeing Only Both Boeing and USAF Other USAF Only

12




Respondent ProfilePrimary Customers of Suppliers to Boeing and USAF

6

19

71

251

0 50 100 150 200 250

USAF

Other

Both

Boeing

# of Respondents

Prim

ary

Cus

tom

er

72% of all primary customers surveyed were suppliers to Boeing

13




Support of C-17 ProgramSuppliers of USAF or Boeing with C-17 Support

71, 17%

82, 19%

78, 19%

189, 45%

Former

Current

Has Never Supplied toUSAF or BoeingBoth Current andFormer

14




Respondent ProfileInvolvement with the Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul of C-17

Program by Time Period and Primary Customer

23

31

38

283

14

12

2

2

8

3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Form

erC

urre

ntB

oth

Cur

rent

and

Form

erN

ever

Invo

lved

with

MR

O

# of Respondents

Tim

e Pe

riod

of In

volv

emen

t

Boeing

Never Involved with MRO

Both

Other

USAF

15




Small Business QualificationsDoes Your Business Qualify as any of the Following Types?

16

Q1a, C 414 Respondents

217, 52%

197, 48%

Yes No

Types of Business

Small Business 194

8 (a) Firm 4

HUBZone 17

Minority-owned 26

Woman-owned 48

Veteran-owned/service-disabled veterans 15

Several respondents qualified for more than one of the drop downs

194 out of 420 respondents identified as a small business



C-17 Facility SupportNumber of Facilities That Have Supported C-17 Program By State

8

8

11

11

14

14

15

17

21

21

21

21

22

29

191

0 50 100 150 200 250

Oklahoma

Michigan

Connecticut

New Jersey

Illinois

Arizona

Kansas

Ohio

Florida

Georgia

Texas

New York

Washington

Missouri

California

# of Facilities

Stat

e

17

Q1b, B420 Respondents

Out of 518 facilities, 191 or 45% of C-17 Facilities are located in California

Most respondents had at least 1 facility that supported the C-17 Program



Business Functions With C-17 SupportNumber of C-17 Respondents By Type of Business Function

18

Q1c, B 420 Respondents

5

12

18

27

52

57

69

238

9

4

9

7

16

39

4

3

15

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

HoldingCompany/Headquarters

Laboratory

Research & Development

Testing Facility

Service Provider

Distributor

Engineering

Manufacturer

# of Respondents

Bus

ines

s Fu

nctio

n

Both Other Aircraft Only C-17 Only



Types of Company Restructuring per YearMergers, Acquisitions, and Divestitures from 2012-2017

2

1

3

1

1

1

16

21

33

15

8

10

8

8

9

5

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2008-2012

# of Financial Activities

Year

Mergers Acquisitions Divestitures

2015 accounted for 30% of all recorded restructuring

19

Q2, A & B 420 Respondents



Acquisitions, Divestitures, and MergersPrimary Objectives

49 48

40

1812 12

54 3 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of

Fin

anci

al A

ctiv

ities

Objective

20

Q2, A 420 Respondents

“Other” responses include buyouts, equity restructuring, and portfolio shaping



Joint Ventures Per YearJoint Venture Activities from 1999-2017

2

3

2

1

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

1999-2012

# of Joint Ventures

Year

0

80% of those with joint ventures with Chinese companies were classified as distributers

27% of joint ventures werewith Chinese companies. The majority of these respondents’ joint ventures were to expand customer base andseek new business opportunities

21




Products and ServicesTop Products and Services Provided

67881010131623

4664

141

3137423730

4199

2650

3427

3325

5958

0 50 100 150 200 250

I: Auxiliary Power Unit SystemsC: Horizontal Stabilizer

D: Vertical StabilizerK: Landing Gear, Braking System and Loadmaster System

S: Environmental and Oxygen SystemE: Engine Build-Up Assembly and Nacelle

B: Airframe - WingsT: Cargo Compartment and Crew Accomodations

X: Aircraft Servicing, Repair and OverhaulF: Fuel Systems

G: Hydraulic SystemsW: Testing, Evaluation and Professional Services

V: Material Processing/FinishingA: Airframe - Forward, Center, and Aft Fuselages

U: Raw Materials and Purchased Parts

# of Respondents

Prod

uct a

nd S

ervi

ce C

ateg

ory

Primary Business Line Additional Business Line

Respondents had 24 choices (A-X) to list their product and services

22




Primary Business LinesTop 5 Out of 24 Business Lines

31

80

249

401

405

48

73

26

24

22

38

24

33

36

71

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

X: Aircraft Servicing, Repair andOverhaul

V: Material Processing/Finishing

B: Airframe: Wings

A: Airframe: Fuselages

U: Raw Materials/Purchased Parts

# of Respondents

Prod

uct a

nd S

ervi

ce C

ateg

ory

Product Service Both

23

Q3, C-E 420 Respondents



Program ParticipationNumber of Federal, State, and Local Programs Supported Since 2012

23

59

34

35 5

2737

61

175

3 45

38

74

9 3 3 20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >51

# of

Res

pond

ents

# of Federal, State, & Local ProgramsLarge Companies Medium Companies Small Companies

24


30% of respondents support more than 10 Federal, State,

and Local programs

0



Program ParticipationRevenue Attributable to Federal, State, and Local Programs

2719

1117

12 11

37

19

615

6 42

62

2113 12 10

40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50%

# of

Res

pond

ents

% Revenue

Small Companies Medium Companies Large Companies

25

Q4, B2 420 Respondents

Nearly 60% of respondents noted that Federal, State, and

Local programs account for 20% or less of total revenue

00



Program ParticipationTop Federal, State, Local Customers Since 2012 by Support Type

5

2

41

122

155

4

6

30

98

136

1

8

11

25

50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Intelligence Community (non-DoD)

State/Local Government

Non-Defense USG

U.S. Air Force

All other DoD Operations

# of Respondents

Cus

tom

er T

ype

Indirect Support Both Direct Support

26


84% of respondents supported DoD related

programs

16% of respondents supported Non-DoD

related programs



USG Programs SupportTop 10 Products/Services Supported through USG Work

49

51

54

57

69

76

78

82

83

170

0 50 100 150 200

U19 - Switches

U1 - Aluminum Sheet/Plate/Rod

M4 - Other Guidance, Navigation and Control

U9 - Connectors

V6 - Other Material Processing/Finishing

U4 - Castings and Forgings

G4 - Other Hydraulic System

F4 - Other Fuel System

U11 - Fasteners

U24 - Other Purchased Part

# of Respondents

Prod

ucts

and

Ser

vice

s27

Q4, C 420 Respondents

“Other” responses include Searchlights, Control

Actuation, and Hardware Consumables among other

miscellaneous products

769 Total Products and Services



USG Program SupportTop 10 DoD Programs Supported

91

95

97

101

132

136

139

140

155

156

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Sikorsky Helicopter (MH-53E Sea Dragon, Black Hawk, etc.)

Boeing P-8 Poseidon

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Boeing KC-46

Boeing F-15 Eagle

Lockheed C-130 Hercules

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) F/A-18 Hornet

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Boeing Helicopter (Chinook, Apache, etc.)

# of Respondents

USG

Pro

gram

28




USG Program SupportTop 3 Primary Products/Services Supported by DoD Program

8

7

12

7

11

9

13

9

12

17

6

5

7

7

9

7

6

5

7

7

5

6

5

7

7

5

5

7

6

0 10 20 30 40

Sikorsky Helicopter (MH-53E Sea Dragon,Black Hawk, etc.)

Boeing P-8 Poseidon


Boeing KC-46

Boeing F-15 Eagle



Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) F/A-18Hornet



# of Respondents

USG

Pro

gram

U24 - Purchased Part

F4 - Fuel System

G4 - Hydraulic System

U11 - Fasteners

U4 - Castings and Forgings

U9 - Connectors

M4 -Guidance, Navigation andControl

A6 - Center FuselageOther/Boeing Part Numberstarting with 17B2, 17N2 and 17P2

29




USG Program SupportTop DoD Programs Supported and C-17 Termination Impact

82

85

82

86

111

115

115

121

132

131

4

5

7

9

12

10

11

11

12

15

5

5

8

6

8

7

12

7

11

7

2

1

1

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Sikorsky Helicopter (MH-53E Sea Dragon, Black Hawk,etc.)

Boeing P-8 Poseidon


Boeing KC-46

Boeing F-15 Eagle



Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) F/A-18 Hornet



# of Respondents

USG

Pro

gram

No Change Unknown Negative Impact Positive Impact

30




Sales and CustomersAverage Sales Per Year 2012-2016

$38.8

$41.5

$44.0

$42.6

$44.0

$36

$37

$38

$39

$40

$41

$42

$43

$44

$45

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Mill

ions

Year

Average total sales increased by 13.5% from 2012 to 2016

31




Sales and CustomersAggregate Sales Per Year: 2012-2016

$153.9

$173.7$183.4 $181.0 $185.7

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Bill

ions

Year

32


Total sales increased by 20% from 2012 to

2016



Sales and CustomersAggregate U.S. and Non-U.S. Sales: 2012-2016

$19.8 $23.0 $24.7 $24.8 $25.9

$134.1

$150.7$158.7 $156.2 $159.8

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Bill

ions

YearNon-U.S. Sales U.S. Sales

33

Q5, A-B 396 Respondents

Between 2012-2016, Non-U.S. sales grew by 31%

U.S. sales grew by 19%



Average Percentage of Attributable SalesBroken Down By Category: 2012-2016

6% 6% 5% 3% 3%

13% 13% 13% 14% 14%

37% 37% 36% 36% 35%

63% 64% 64% 64% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% o

f Sal

es

YearC-17 Non-US Defense Aircraft

34

Q5, B-E 420 Respondents

Revenue streams can be accounted for in more than one production category



Sales and CustomersEstimated Direct Customers Per Respondent: 2012-2016

• 420 respondents supported an estimated 433,000 direct customers

• The average respondent supported 182 direct customers

• Only 77 respondents reported over 1,000 direct customers• 57% (44) of these respondents were categorized as

distributers

35




Type of Customer SupportedNumber of Respondents By Type of Customer 2012-2016

Commercial, 2585, 87%

Government Defense, 325,

11%

Other Customers, 39, 1%

Government Non-Defense,

13, 1%

Other, 52

36

Q5, B 420 Respondents



Type of Aircraft SupportedNumber of Customers By Aircraft Supported: 2012-2016

Other aircraft only, 2328, 73%

Unknown, 503, 16%

C-17 and other

aircraft, 320, 10%

C-17 only, 42, 1%

37


1.3% of identified customers were

exclusively involved with C-17 production



Sales and CustomersTop 15 Non-U.S. Customers by Country 2012-2016

7

7

8

8

8

11

13

13

16

23

26

26

59

70

91

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mexico

Netherlands

Taiwan

Turkey

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Sweden

South Korea

Japan

Brazil

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Canada

# of Respondents

Cou

ntry

38


Out of 445 Non-U.S. customers, 35% or 156

are attributable to European Union members



C-17 TerminationImpacts Due To The Termination of The C-17 Program 2012-2016

39


No Effect/Neutral, 349, 83%

Lost Customers,

63, 15%

Gained Customers,

8, 2%

15% of respondents lost customers due to the termination of the C-17 program



Pre-Termination Business ModelRespondents’ Most Recent Year of C-17-Related Activities

716 15 16

37 30

51

208

30

50

100

150

200

250

Pre 2000 2000-2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

# of

Res

pond

ents

Year

The spike in 2017 can be attributed to spare parts, repairs, maintenance, and

repurposing for foreign orders of the C-17 aircraft

Domestic production of the C-17 aircraft ended in 2013

40

Q6, A1 420 Respondents



C-17 Production by Company SizeWhat type of businesses were involved in the C-17 Aircraft Supply Chain?

41


Large, 158, 38%

Medium, 132, 31%

Small, 130, 31%

Approximately 30% of companies involved in C-17

aircraft production were small businesses



C-17 Termination NotificationWas your organization notified in advance of the C-17 aircraft program

termination?

Yes, 185, 44%

No, 102, 24%

Unknown, 133, 32%

42


25% of respondents were not notified of the termination of the C-17 program



C-17 Termination NotificationSource of Notification of the Termination of C-17 Production

Boeing, 155, 84%Other, 29, 16%

USAF, 1, 0.54%

43


“Other” - respondents commonly indicated they were notified by

either lower-tier customers or the media



C-17 Termination Business TransitionDid the termination of the C-17 program change your organization's involvement

in the defense industry?

Yes, 56, 13%No, 343, 82%

Not Applicable, 21, 5%

44

Q6, B1

How was your participation in the defense industry affected?

Reduced Involvement in Defense 49

Increased Involvement in Defense 3

Left Defense Industry 4

Total: 56

420 Respondents



C-17 Termination Business TransitionDid the termination of the C-17 program change your organization's involvement

in the aerospace industry?

Yes, 33, 8%No , 364, 87%

Not Applicable,

23, 5%

45

Q6, B2

How was your participation in the aerospace industry affected?

Reduced Involvement in Aerospace 24

Increased Involvement in Aerospace 7

Left Aerospace Industry 2

Total: 33

420 Respondents



C-17 Termination Business TransitionDid your organization substitute your C-17 sales with a new or different

program?

Yes, 193, 46%

No, 109, 26%

Haven't Tried/Don't Know,

118, 28%

46

Q6, B3

Platform for C-17 sales substitutionsUSG 21

Commercial 60

Both USG and Commercial

112

Total 193

420 Respondents



C-17 Termination Business TransitionCommercial Platforms Used as Substitute for C-17 Program

30

58

66

78

149

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Other Transport Aircraft (Illyushin ll-96, Bombardier Cseries,etc.)

Other Commuter Aircraft (Bombardier DHC-8, Embraer 145,etc.)

Other Small Aircraft

Airbus Commercial Jets/Aircraft

Boeing Commercial Jets/Aircraft

# of Respondents

Com

mer

cial

Pla

tform

s

47


“Even still, these platforms haven't been much of a

substitute. We don't do near the volume we did with C-17.”

-Small Business



C-17 Termination Business TransitionTop 15 DoD Platforms Used as Substitute for C-17 Program

799

131314

1620

27272728

3335

76

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye

Other - Cargo/Transport

Other - Drone

Sikorsky Helicopter (MH-53E Sea Dragon, Black Hawk, etc.)

Bell Helicopter (AH-1 SuperCobra, UH-1, etc.)

Boeing P-8 Poseidon

Boeing KC-46

Boeing F-15 Eagle



All Other DoD

Boeing F/A-18 Hornet



# of Respondents

USG

Pla

tform

48


The top 15 out of 37 categories

accounted for 28% of total substitutes



C-17 Termination Lessons LearnedDid your organization adjust its business plan in response to the C-17 Aircraft

program's termination?

Yes, 57, 14%

No, 319, 76%

Not Applicable, 25, 6%

Unknown, 19, 4%

49

Q6, C1A 420 Respondents

14% of organizations adjusted their business plans due to the C-17 programs termination



C-17 Termination Lessons LearnedLeading Actions Used for Business Plan Alterations After C-17 Termination

7

7

14

18

18

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Increased Investment

Liquidation of High Value Assets

Repurpose of Equipment

Retraining of Employees

Reorganization

Other

# of Respondents

Stra

tegy

50

Q6, C1B 420 Respondents

“Other” frequently included laying off employees and adding more facilities in foreign countries



C-17 Termination Lessons LearnedSelf-Scoring of Organizations’ Response to C-17 Termination

20

60 70

236

0

50

100

150

200

250

Managed with significantdifficulties

Managed with only minordifficulties

Handled Moderately Well Handled Well

# of

Res

pond

ents

Organization Responses

16%18%

61%

51

Q6, C2 386 Respondents

Many companies were unaware of project

termination while working on the C-17 program

5%



C-17 Termination Lessons LearnedLeading Advice for Vendors Experiencing the Loss of a USG Program

7 32 41

301

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

IncreaseMinimum Buys

Other ReduceDependency

on USG

Diversify

# of

Res

pond

ents

Leading Advice

52


“Less concentration of customers and products offers less risk.”

-Small Business

“Try to implement a balance of commercial work with multiple defense programs.”

-Large Business

“Find other programs, sell, sell, sell.”

-Small Business

Other responses include: providing transition

assistance, and providing earlier notice of termination



C-17 Termination Lessons LearnedSupplier Advice for Government and Defense Prime Contractors when Handling

the Closure of a Major Program

206187

60 53

2514

0

50

100

150

200

250

Assist with theidentification ofnew substitute

programs

Providemore/earlier notice

Other Provide TransitionAssistance toMRO phase

Facilitate/aid inrequalification

Recognition/Awardfor Service

# of

Res

pond

ents

Leading Advice

53


“Consumables bought for one government aerospace program should be able to be

used on others.”- Large Business

“Due to the lead times for raw materials, earlier notice of the

cancellation would have prevented us from buying raw material for the C17

Program.”-Medium Business



Full Time Equivalent EmploymentAverage Number of FTE Employees Reporting at the Corporate and Division

Level from 2012-2017

248 244 246 252 254 254

85 91 95 92 92 90

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of

Em

ploy

ees

YearBusiness Unit/Division FTEs Corporate/Whole Organization FTEs

54

Q7a, A 420 Respondents

64% of respondents reported FTE Employment at the Corporate/Whole

Organization level



Full Time Equivalent EmploymentAverage FTE Employment by Company Size

55


213 223 237 226 236 240

671 691 694 711 699 69473 73

71

68

6564

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# O

f Em

ploy

ees

(Sm

all B

usin

esse

s)

# O

f Em

ploy

ees

(Med

ium

and

Lar

ge B

usin

esse

s)

Year

Medium Large Small



Full Time Equivalent EmploymentAggregate FTE Employment by Company Size

20,31020,643

21,09020,590 20,561

20,356

19,65819,877

21,230

21,75722,087

22,4323,189

3,1743,156

3,136

3,080

3,016

2,900

2,950

3,000

3,050

3,100

3,150

3,200

3,250

18,000

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

22,000

22,500

23,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# O

f Em

ploy

ees

(Sm

all B

usin

esse

s)

# O

f Em

ploy

ees

(Med

ium

and

Lar

ge B

usin

esse

s)

Year

Medium Large Small

56




FTE Employee Work DesignationsAverage Percentage of Defense, Aircraft, and C-17 Related Employees from

2012-2017

41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%

65% 65% 66% 67% 67% 67%

10% 10% 9% 8% 7% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

% o

f Rel

ated

Em

ploy

ees

Year% of Defense Related Employees % of Aircraft Related Employees % of C-17 Related Employees

57


Employees can be categorized by more than one field



Full Time Equivalent EmploymentPrimary Business Line Full Time Employment Averages 2012-2017

935 930 935 927979 998

482 506582 582 568 587

404359 360

500450 442

773 782 762 744 755 752

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of

Em

ploy

ees

Year

Manufacturers Distributors Services Engineering

58

Q7a, B 420 Respondents



Workforce OperationsPrimary Business Operation Lines of Employment

44.2

52.3

43.8

28.6

15.3

15.6

18.2

25.7

6.4

5.5

7.7

30.3

15.9

10.5

13.5

6.3

9.6

11.1

12.3

10.9

4.2

2.4

2.6

2.6

2.2

3.4

2.7

3.3

2.0

1.6

2.2

2.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Engineering

Manufacturing

Services

Distributor

% of Employment

Bus

ines

s O

pera

tion

Machinists Admin Marketing Engineers Testing/Support Design Facility/Maintenance IT

59




Difficulties Hiring and Retaining WorkforceWorkforce Difficulties Stratified by Occupation

21 18

54

17 1825

60

35

169 10 9 6 6

1115

2420

48

2116

21

66

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

# of

Res

pond

ents

Workforce Difficulties

Hiring Retaining Both

60




Impact of C-17 Termination on WorkforceRespondent Self-Identified Impact Severity on Workforce

Change Un-Related to C-17, 41, 10%

Minimally Negative, 47, 11%

Negative, 42, 10%

Neutral/No Impact, 290, 69%

61

Q7b, A1 420 Respondents

Respondents indicated layoffs, reduction in benefits, reduction in overtime, and forced time off as the leading workforce impact they experienced

Some large companies indicated that the C-17 termination allowed them to reallocate resources to new business opportunities, and to develop new technological advancements to replace losses in employment



Workforce Preservation PlanDo you have a workforce preservation plan for the post C-17 environment?

Not Sure, 71, 17%

Yes, 133, 32%

No, 216, 51%

“We have additional contracts to sustain the workforce.”-Large Company

62


“Headcount is adjusted commensurate with sales volume to maintain profitability required by our investors.”-Large Company

“[We implemented] redeployment to project work for other customers, including non-aerospace customers.”-Large Company



Implemented Workforce ModificationsChanges Made In Response to C-17 Termination

14

12

9

43

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Repurpose Other Retraining Reduction in USGTrained personnel

Automation Outsourcing

# of

Res

pond

ents

Workforce Modifications

63


“Other” included layoffs of personnel

92 of 420 respondents indicated they made changes to their workforce



Loss of Critical Skills/CapabilitiesBroken Down by Product or Service Line

374, 89%35, 8%

5, 1%4, 1%

2, 1%

No Loss UnknownYes - Aircraft-related Yes - BothYes - Non-aircraft-related

64


Product or Service Losses Indicated

Airframe: Forward, Center

and Aft Fuselage3

Testing, Evaluation and

Professional Services1

Engineering Expertise 1

Flight Control Systems 1

Fuel Systems 1

Machining 1

Unknown 38

Total 46



Developmental Work With Outside InstitutionsRespondents’ Indication of Work with Outside Institutions on

Development/Training

No, 232, 57%

Yes, 178, 43%

“[We] work with local colleges on employee skills training.”- Large Business

“We visit classrooms, host interns, host MFGDAY, contribute to school programs and equipment.”-Medium Business

65

Q7b, B1 420 Respondents

“[We conduct] thorough outreach of Colleges, Trade Schools, High Schools and Veterans/Disabled/Minority groups.”-Large Business



Developmental Work With Outside InstitutionsParticipation Broken Down by Business Size

Small, 37

Medium, 53

Large, 88

66


Total Participation With Outside Institutions

56% of Large Businesses

40% of Medium Businesses

28% of Small Businesses

42% of all businesses participated



Workforce Development ProgramsParticipation in Workforce Development Programs

225

182

149128 127

107

7151

2 10

34

7 8 11 4 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

# of

Res

pond

ents

Workforce ProgramsCurrent Participation Past Participation

67




Workforce Development ProgramsDevelopmental Programs Deemed Most and Least Useful Among Respondents

in Post C -17 Transition

35

1816

14 13 1210

4

1915

11 1115

7

12

7

2521

23

1012

9 8 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

# of

Res

pond

ents

Developmental Programs

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful

68




Critical Vendors & SuppliersTotal Supplier Support

• 1,307 unique suppliers supported 420 respondents

• The top 15 most cited suppliers only accounted for 7% of all supplier support

• 97% (1,267) of all identified unique suppliers are considered domestic

69




Critical Vendors & SuppliersSuppliers by Country

11111

2222

333

55

67

89

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CameroonIreland

MalaysiaSouth Korea

SpainChina

SingaporeSwedenTaiwan

IndiaMexico

SwitzerlandIsrael

JapanGermany

FranceUnited Kingdom

Canada

# of Suppliers

Cou

ntry

70


420 respondents were supported by a total of 62 Non-US suppliers



Critical Vendors & SuppliersSuppliers by Top 15 State

24

25

25

25

27

31

34

46

47

49

52

60

61

66

459

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Michigan

Arizona

Georgia

Massachusetts

New Jersey

Connecticut

Florida

Texas

Missouri

Illinois

Washington

Ohio

New York

Pennsylvania

California

# of Respondents

Stat

e

71


An estimated 1,307 unique suppliers supported 420 respondents

California accounts for 35% of all identified vendors and suppliers

Respondents could list multiple suppliers



Critical Vendors & SuppliersTop 10 Supplier Input Categories

16

17

18

22

23

28

28

56

259

1,113

0 500 1000 1500

Communication and Recording Systems

Landing Gear, Braking System and Loadmaster System

Flight Control Systems

Fuel Systems

Electrical Power System

Aircraft Servicing, Repair and Overhaul

Airframe: Forward, Center and Aft Fuselage

Testing, Evaluation and Professional Services

Material Processing/Finishing

Raw Materials and Purchased Parts

# of Respondents

Inpu

t Cat

egor

y

Over 70% of identified suppliers provide raw materials and purchased parts

72




Critical Vendors & SuppliersTop 5 Supplier Input Product/Service Areas

87

103

118

181

360

0 100 200 300 400

V1 - Coating and Painting

V6 - Other Material Processing/Finishing

U1 - Aluminum Sheet/Plate/Rod

U23 - Other Raw Material


# of Respondents

Prod

uct/S

ervi

ce A

reas

73


Other Purchased Parts include Hydraulic Systems, and Switches

Other Raw Materials include Castings & Forgings, and Composites



Supplier Association With C-17 ProgramNumber of Respondent Suppliers Associated With C-17 Program

C-17 Specific, 127, 8%

Unknown, 637, 38%C-17 and other aircraft, 897, 54%

74


8% of 1,661 identified suppliers were exclusively involved in C-17 specific operations



Supplier ImpactsImpact of C-17 Termination On Domestic Supplier Shut Downs

Only one respondent indicated that one or more of their suppliers ceased operations following the termination of the

C-17 program. Both suppliers were located in California. Both sold raw materials and purchased parts.

“Less income. Had to lay off long time employees.”-Small Business

75




Operating Profit MarginAverage Operating Profit Margin Across Small, Medium, and Large Businesses

2012-2016

13.1%12.6%

11.6%

9.8%

15.4%

14.3% 14.2%

12.7%

7.4%

13.7% 13.9%

12.7%

11.5%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ope

ratin

g Pr

ofit

Mar

gin

YearSmall Business Medium Business Large Business

76

Q9 396 Respondents

The average operating profit margin was 12.7% across all business sizes in 2015



Financial Risk LevelsNumber of Companies and Financial Risk Level

357 356 362 350 341

45 49 42 5467

5 6 12 10 913 10 4 6 30

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of

Res

pond

ents

Year

Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated RiskHigh/Severe Risk Insufficient Data

77

Q9 420 Respondents

Financial Risk calculation based primarily on profit margins, debt levels, liquidity

Reasons for lack of measurement:

Source data mismatches (e.g. reporting income statement data at the facility level and balance sheet data at the corporate level)

Unavailable or missing data (e.g. no assets or sales listed, newly formed business)



117

31

0

10

108

13

29

93

26

5 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data

# of

Res

pond

ents

Large Medium Small

78

Q9 420 Respondents

25% of all respondents were financially categorized as moderate/elevated or high/severe risk

Financial Risk LevelsCompany Sizes for Overall Financial Risk Status 2012-2016



Financial ImpactsSelf-Assessed Financial Impacts Experienced Due To The End of C-17 Program

79


3

48

102

267

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Positive Impact

Unknown

Negative Impact

No Change

# of Respondents

Fina

ncia

l Im

pact

3 respondents indicated that the C-17 program’s closure had a positive effect on their business

Negative Impacts:

“Loss of revenue and jobs.”-Medium Business

“Stock (inventory) became obsolete.”-Small Business

“Unable to pay back loans.”-Small Business



Financial Risk Level vs. Financial ImpactFinancial Impact Due To Termination of C-17 Program According To Financial

Risk Levels

0 1 208

34

6

26

63

1

34

218

0

50

100

150

200

250

High/Severe Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk Low/Neutral Risk

# of

Res

pond

ents

Financial RiskPositive Change Unknown Negative Impact No Change

80




Financial Risk Level vs. Financial ImpactHigh/Severe Risk and Moderate/Elevated Risk Companies

High/Severe Risk, 7

Moderate/Elevated Risk, 69

81


High/Severe Risk Commonalities:

6 out of 7 Respondents have known C-17 support and all production is aircraft-related

Primary business line is manufacturing

Locations in different states, Only 2 are in California

Majority small businesses

Moderate/Elevated Risk Commonalities:

Majority large businesses

44% stated C-17 termination had a negative impact on their business



82


Capital Expenditures ReportingNumber of Respondents with Capital Expenditures 2012 - 2016

Capital Expenditures,

310, 74%

No Capital Expenditures,

110, 26%

26% (110) of respondents had no capital expenditures

Over 50% (55) with no capital expenditures were small businesses



Capital ExpendituresAverage Capital Expenditures 2012-2016

$949

$1,139$1,239

$1,300

$1,462

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Tho

usan

ds

Year

83


Average Capital Expenditures increased by 54% from 2012 to 2016



Capital ExpendituresAverage Capital Expenditures Broken Down By Allocation

2.7% 2.4% 2.5% 1.7% 1.4%

26.1% 26.8% 26.7% 26.2% 26.9%

50.5%53.0%

55.0% 53.9% 54.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% o

f Cap

ital E

xpen

ditu

re

YearC-17 Related Defense Related Aircraft Related

84




Average of Attributable Capital ExpendituresBroken Down By Allocation

$25 $27 $30 $23 $20

$248$306 $331 $341

$393

$479

$604

$681 $700

$799

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Tho

usan

ds

YearC-17 Defense Aircraft

85




Reduction of USG Defense SpendingImpact of Reductions In USG Defense Spending on Capital Expenditures

Not Impacted, 298, 71%

Unknown, 88, 21%

Negatively Impacted,

34, 8%

86


16 of the 34 respondents who were negatively impacted are small business enterprises.

“We had no reason for growth. We just needed to survive, and we have so far.-Small, Moderate/Elevated Risk Business

“From 2013 through 2015, there was little need for more equipment as government procurement was flat.”-Medium, Low/Neutral Risk Business



Use of 3D Printing for ObsolescenceNumber of Respondents Utilizing 3D Printing To Manage Obsolescence Issues and

Aircraft Program Applicability

No, 289, 69%

No Obsolescense

Issues, 54, 13%

Not Aircraft Related, 9, 2%

General Aircraft Related, 68, 16%

Other, 77

87




General 3D Printing CapabilitiesNumber of Respondents With 3D Printing Capabilities 2012-2016

No33379%

Yes65

16%

Unknown225%

88


Only 7 of the 65 respondents with 3D printing capabilities experienced a decline in aircraft-related capital expenditures due to a reduction in USG defense spending

None of the 65 respondents who have 3D printing capabilities are classified as high/severe risk companies



3D PrintingTop 10 3D Printing Product/Service Categories

2

2

3

4

4

4

4

9

12

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Airframe: Forward, Center and Aft Fuselage

Emergency Systems and Fire Detection

Flight Control Systems

Engine Build-Up Assembly and Nacelle

Propulsion Systems

Fuel Systems

Communication and Recording Systems

Material Processing/Finishing

Raw Materials and Purchased Parts

Testing, Evaluation and Professional Services

# of Respondents

Prod

uct/S

ervi

ce

Respondents were asked to list up to two products or services which have 3D printing capabilities

89




3D PrintingTop 5 3D Printing Product/Service Areas

2

2

2

2

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

L6 - Other Communication and Recording

F4 - Other Fuel System

W10 - Other Testing Service

W9 - Engineering Services


# of Respondents

Prod

uct/S

ervi

ce A

reas

90


Other Systems/Services listed cover a wide array of product and service areas

Examples include:

Flight simulators, interior lighting systems, aircraft and engine level fuel components, component testing, and prototyping



58%

33%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Large

Medium

Small

% of Respondents

Com

pany

Siz

e

18 respondents

43 respondents

91 respondents

91


152 of the 420 respondents (36%) indicated that they conduct research and development

Research and DevelopmentPercent of Respondents That Conduct R&D



Research and DevelopmentWould Your Organization Conduct R&D if the U.S. Government Provided Funding?

44%

41%

30%

51%

58%

66%

5%

2%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Large

Medium

Small

% of Respondents

Com

pany

Siz

e

Yes No Yes but not aircraft-related

92




$721

$978$1,046

$1,218

$1,058

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Tho

usan

ds

Year

Small Business R&D Expenditures have increased by 47% from 2012 to 2016

93


Research and DevelopmentAverage Small Business R&D Expenditures 2012-2016



$4.0

$4.9 $5.1

$6.7

$5.2

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Mill

ions

Year

94


Research and DevelopmentAverage Medium Business R&D Expenditures 2012-2016

Medium Business R&D Expenditures have increased by 29% from 2012 to 2016



$92.4

$93.1$92.9

$93.7

$96.7

$90

$91

$92

$93

$94

$95

$96

$97

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ in

Mill

ions

Year

95


Research and DevelopmentAverage Large Business R&D Expenditures 2012-2016

Large Business R&D Expenditures have increased by 5% from 2012 to 2016



Research and DevelopmentAverage Annual R&D Expenditure By Area of Research 2012-2016

2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

34% 34% 34% 34% 35%

63%60%

64% 65% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% o

f R&

D E

xpen

ditu

res

Year

C-17 Defense Aircraft

96

Q11, B2-4 152 Respondents



Research and DevelopmentAverage R&D Expenditure By Area of Research and Company Size 2012-2016

97

Q11, B2-4 152 Respondents

40% 41%

6%

32%

70%

33%

64%

2%

45%42%

2%

36%

74%

31%

63%

2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% o

f R&

D E

xpen

ditu

res

2012 2016

DefenseDefenseDefense Aircraft C-17 Aircraft C-17 Aircraft C-17

Medium Businesses

Small Businesses

Large Businesses

0% 0%



Research and DevelopmentTop R&D Funding Sources 2012-2016

14

12

135

1

1

2

5

17

14

16

49

0 50 100 150 200

Non-U.S. Investors

Universities

State and Local Government

Other USG

Other

U.S. Industry

DoD

Internal/Self-Funded

# of Respondents

R&

D F

undi

ng S

ourc

e

Primary Funding Source Secondary Funding Source

98


“Our equipment can be applied to commercial as well as military aircraft part construction, so our R&D efforts are equally applicable to both segments.”-Large Business



Research and DevelopmentTop Aircraft-Related R&D Funding Sources 2012-2016

3

9

98

11

12

27

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

U.S. Industry

DoD

Internal/Self-Funded

# of Respondents

R&

D F

undi

ng S

ourc

e

Primary Funding Source Secondary Funding Source

Approximately 72% of respondents that conduct R&D utilize their primary source of funding for aircraft-related activities

99




Security ExpendituresAverage Aircraft-Related Physical and Cyber Security Expenditures

$1.3 $1.4 $1.6 $1.6 $1.5 $1.7

$1.0

$1.6 $1.5 $1.5 $1.7$1.8

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

$ in

Mill

ions

Cyber Security Expenditures Physical Security Expenditures

100




Security ExpendituresAverage Small Business Cyber and Physical Security Expenditures

$2.1

$2.8

$3.4$3.6

$4.1

$5.8

$0.7 $0.8 $0.7$0.9 $1.0

$0.7

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

$ in

Tho

usan

ds

YearCyber Security Expenditures Physical Security Expenditures

101




Security ExpendituresAverage Medium Business Cyber and Physical Security Expenditures

$4.8

$7.8

$10.0

$12.2

$18.1

$23.9

$2.5 $2.4 $2.6 $3.0 $3.8

$6.1

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

$ in

Tho

usan

ds


102




Security ExpendituresAverage Large Business Cyber and Physical Security Expenditures

$56.0

$159.3

$238.6

$280.2 $288.7

$324.1

$69.9 $73.0 $69.8 $66.6$86.5

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

$ in

Tho

usan

ds


103




Cyber Security PoliciesCyber Security Policies in Place for All Respondents

35.2%

60.7%

67.6%

77.1%

78.1%

78.8%

96.0%

Two-Factor Authentication

Annual Cybersecurity Training Requirement

Written Protocols for Security Breach

Maintain, Monitor, and Analyze Audit Logs

Inventory of Authorized and Unauthorized Devices

Inventory of Authorized and Unauthorized Software

Restrict IT Priviliges to Specific Employees

% of Respondents

Secu

rity

Polic

y

104




Cyber Security Policies Cyber Security Policies in Place By Company Size

24%

36%

43%

55%

65%

62%

89%

0% 100%

Two-FactorAuthentication

Annual CybersecurityTraining Requirement

Written Protocols forSecurity Breach

Maintain, Monitor, andAnalyze Audit Logs

Inventory of Authorizedand Unauthorized

Devices

Inventory of Authorizedand Unauthorized

Software

Restrict IT Priviliges toSpecific Employees

Small

105


33%

56%

67%

80%

80%

86%

98%

0% 100%

Medium

46%

85%

89%

93%

87%

87%

99%

0% 100%

Large50-75%Under 50% 75-100%

% of Respondents

Cyb

er S

ecur

ity M

easu

res



Cyber Security Policies Cyber Security Policies in Place By Company Size

27%

34%

44%

54%

71%

0% 100%

Encrypt CSI TransmittedInternally

Encrypt CSI in Storage

Encrypt CSI TransmittedExternally

Data ExfiltrationSafeguards

Restriction Against NonU.S. Storage of CSI

Small

106


34%

50%

64%

67%

80%

0% 100%

Medium

56%

53%

77%

71%

80%

0% 100%

Large50-75%Under 50% 75-100%

% of Respondents

Cyb

er S

ecur

ity M

easu

res



Outreach and AssistanceEffectiveness of Assistance from Outside Organizations

41

4

8

3

2

2

43

14

3

4

1

15

9

4

5

1

2

3

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Industry

Non-Profit

Both Government and Industry

Other

State and Local Government

Federal Government

# of Respondents

Type

of O

rgan

izat

ion

Very Effective Somewhat Effective Neutral Not Useful

107




108


8.8%

10.0%

10.7%

11.7%

12.9%

13.3%

13.3%

17.6%

17.9%

19.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Design for Manufacturability

Technology Acceleration

Vendor/Material Sourcing

Quality Management and Control

Supply Chain Organization

Export Licensing (ITAR/EAR)

Government Procurement Guidelines

Contrinuous Improvement/LeanManufacturing

Cybersecurity

Market Expansion/Business Growth

% of Respondents

Gov

ernm

ent P

rogr

am

ITAR: International Traffic in Arms RegulationsEAR: Export Administration Regulations

Outreach and Government ProgramsTop 10 Government Programs selected by Organization’s Interest



Organizational ChallengesTop 15 Organizational Challenges

464349

4360596873

6590105108

124118

144

4461

3860

5061514774

5145

5849

5255

114

2513

115

824

1823

2328

4766

43

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Export Controls/ITAR & EAREnvironmental Regulations/Remediation

Government Purchasing VolatilityCybersecurity

Qualifications/CertificationsGovernment Regulatory Burden

Reduction in USG DemandAging Equipment, Facilities, or Infrastructure

TaxesForeign Competition

Aging WorkforceWorker/Skills RetentionLabor Availability/Costs

Domestic CompetitionHealthcare

# of Respondents

Org

aniz

atio

nal C

halle

nge

Other Ranked Concern Unranked Concern Primary Concern

109

Q14 420 Respondents



110

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityHCHB 1093, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Northwest

Washington, D.C. 20230http://www.bis.doc.gov/DIB

Brad BotwinDirector, Industrial Studies

(202) [email protected]

Erika MaynardSpecial Projects Manager

(202) [email protected]

Trade and Industry Analyst: Moriah PhillipsResearch Fellow: Jean Thompson

Intern Support: Andrea Garcia, Caela Mandigo, Christopher Whittle, Emily Festa, Fahmiya Ismail, Ian Kearns, Lily Shultz, Ormond Derrick, Sagar

Sharma, William Helfrich

BIS/OTE Contact Information

Alexander WernerResearch Fellow(202) 482-4615

[email protected]

Marina GayedResearch Fellow(202) 482-7980

[email protected]

c-17 slidedeck november 2018 powerpoint

Documents