I worked for 8 years for a company that produced military armored vehicles, The M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, M113 APC, and LVTP7 Amphibious Landing Vehicle among others. The supply base strategy was designed to used suppliers in as many different states and congressional districts as possible, to maximize political support to ensure continued funding of the programs. When the Military is forced to make choices on what equipment purchases and maintenance to keep going forward. The pork barrel is going to be echoing the screams of the congressmen who live in it.
This is about not only reduction in spending but re-direction and transition of what spending remains to the best uses. These are normal changes that occur over time in business and government and it spawns some dislocations that don't result in the same people with the same skills in the same companies having jobs and making money. Re-directing money, even if it's less than the amounts previously in the defense budget, to productive things that we actually do need, such as domestic infrastructure improvements is the right thing to do despite the protests and rationalization from congressmen, constituents, and companies whose particular vested interests are adversely affected.
.
If the supply base isn't exercised for a few years, some of it does go away, and it will take more time and effort to re-start it, if and when the need arises. That's true. Is it worth it to spend money just to keep that supply base on ready status even if the military doesn't need or want the materiel? I think not. There's enough built and in usable condition right now to fight 3 wars at once for years. This is all about keeping the money flowing into the same pockets at the same rate or higher.
