Defense industry advocates seem to see budget cuts coming and they’re trying to get out of the way.
The Aerospace Industries Association on Tuesday called on policy makers to start thinking about defense spending — and consider ways to make sure weapons purchases don’t get pushed aside. Operating costs and personnel are getting more expensive, the big trade group said, and the next administration will also face a host of other budget pressures. But that won’t stop the Pentagon’s airplanes and helicopters from getting older, or ease the need to replace them, the group said.
“Our country’s current path for military aerospace modernization is not viable,” AIA’s new defense modernization manifesto said. “As part of adequately funding national defense, DoD needs to increase annual procurement spending to a steady state range of $120 billion150 billion, in constant dollars, simply to modernize an aging, increasingly obsolete and potentially vulnerable force.”
The trade group said Congress needs to keep passing emergency spending bills, so that war costs don’t make modernization unaffordable. It also called for the next administration to give a little extra thought to the defense budget, so that weapons buying won’t fall to the bottom of the priority heap as military support costs rise.
“By 2013, over a 25-year period, the operations and support element of the budget will have more than doubled faster than the growth in the defense budget itself. In contrast, investment will increase by slightly more than 50 percent, well below the growth path of the general budget.
These trends suggest an ongoing, permanent change in composition of the defense budget,” the trade group said. “Continuing this trend beyond current projections will make it even more difficult for defense planners to adequately resource the investment spending upon which our military superiority and technological edge depends.”
– Rebecca Christie
...
In other words the post cold war “peace dividend” is (as some of us predicted) COSTING us big.
Not that we needed to keep cold war levels of defense spending but the cuts were TOO deep.
So what is an adequate number for defense?
“So what is an adequate number for defense?“
$Infinity
I say use the historic average for DOD 5.8% of GDP. then leave it alone.
Do we want a ready defense force or not?
there is no peace dividend if you are fighting two wars, is there … we have much worse problems in the UK, where are defence spending is barely 2% GDP (compared to 5% or so during the latter stages of the cold war) but at the same time, resource wise, we are in our most intense fighting since world war 2 (more so than korea, malaya, oman, falklands etc). the problem is not necessarily the amount of money spent, but how it is spent, with the focus seemingly on keeping industry happy … big shiny toys like eurofighters, astute submarines, fres (new medium armour), when what we need our a) more infantry b) more helicopters c) ground support aircraft d) light mrap-type vehicles to replace flimsy landrovers. at the current rate even if we pulled out completely of iraq and afghanistan tomorrow it could take us up to 10 years to recover militarily. i see a lot of parallels between the uk and usa, but fear it’s even worse for us brits …
Once the Dems get in office our miltary is screwed. They’ll slash forces again as well as bottom the budget.
Blah, blah, blah. None, I repeat NONE, of the programs and platforms which DoD wants to spend outrageous amounts of money will be useful in the time frame in which the threat will begin to increase. In fact, we will have wasted most of the money the current crop of incompetent defense planners wants to throw at wasteful, obsolescent programs. We will find ourselves in the same position Italy did during the 1930s when they invested big in the WRONG programs — outmoded, obsolete crap when they needed to use it. No, the proposed Defense budget needs a thorough top-to-bottom review and cleaning.
The current procurement problems are related to the end of the cold war, but not in the way usually assumed.
In the early 1990s, the force structure was cut by about 35–40%. This meant that all the old ships, planes, tanks and guns could be scrapped — and so they were. Moreover, since we kept the new stuff, it was all in good working order and didn’t need replacement for some years.
This made a mess of the defense industrial base though, because very little was being produced. Procurement policy came to be, in no small part, about retaining the industrial base. When the goal is to retain the industrial base, it’s a lot easier to slip pork into the budget then it otherwise is.
Meanwhile, programs were canceled or extended. There’s no reason that it took 20+ years to go from the ATF specifications to IOC for the F-22… except that 10 years ago, at the post-cold war trough in defense spending, no one wanted to spend money on new anythings.
Now, things are aging. The timeline meant that a lot of things need to be replaced at the same time. The minimal procurement for several years made the industry shrink and that drives the price of developing and producing new systems up. The increased pork in the budget distorts that production, and ends up wasting a non-trivial sum of money.
Finally, a lot of people (including most commenter’s on this site) can’t see beyond todays headlines in the newspaper. Over the next 20 years, most fighter aircraft will reach the end of their service lives. So will most submarines. So will all sorts of other types of equipment. To say “what we really need is infantry, not submarines” amounts to saying we can get out of the business of having a navy. Believe it or not, there are considerations about what kind of force you want beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you ignore those concerns, you end up with the problems the US had in the late 1970s and early 1980s… when Vietnam had sucked up all the spending, and all sorts of systems were both obsolete and in poor condition.
I agree with MichealB. We have to future wars not, then right now war. Everyone thinks that Iraq was a mistake. It was not a mistake. It show the vunarablities of the military which was left with that Clinton mindset. China and Russia had the funds and will to catch up in military might. So why are our forces degrading they way the are. Because we live in a society from the sixties that think its better to help lower income that to defense. Why would you ever cut the military just because a threat is gone? Our force level should have been the same as it was the day we left Iraq the first time. Instead they are happy to have a surplus at the end of the admin. I do fault this admin as well mostly Rumsfled. But they havent hurt the military as much as Clinton. 5–6% of GDP is sounds about right. But new weapons systems should always be keep. Missle Defense is a must, New subs is a must, aircraft is a must. Infantry can be train enroute to War.
certainly you need to always look to the future in terms of threats — the war you fight i s never the one you planned to fight — however my point is that if we are engaged in two years, right now, which have no definite end in sight, and at the same time there is a limited pot of money, what should you do? try to fund all these exotic future technologies which may be one day be needed, or pay for things which are really needed by the men women fighting and dying now? the west enjoys a militaristic superiority over potential foes that will take decades for them to catch up on — hence why we are seeing such asymmetrical tactics. remember iraq had one of the largest armies in the world, and was conventionally destroyed in a few days for instance. no, the main justification for these ridiculously expensive super weapons is to make industry richer, and get politicans votes when they bring jobs to their area. as michael says equipment is getting older — so why not build brand new f-15s (with incrementally superior electronics / radar / missiles) at $50million than f-22s at $150million (i dont know the real dollar costs before you flame me
)?
CArlos,
You think the moderate budget cuts that Clinton enacted have had a more detrimental effect on the military (particulalry the US Army and USMC) than the current pace of operations? The current pace of operations are eroding the readiness of of military and wearing out out equipment at a much higher rate than previously planned. Not to mention retention rates and eviceration of any military leadership with the audacity to disagree with Rumsfeld.…yes I know he’s gone but the damage is still done.
Iraq was a HUGE mistake and the treatment of the military under this administration borders on contempt.
Carlos: “Missle Defense is a must, New subs is a must, aircraft is a must. Infantry can be train enroute to War.“
———————
Not smart Carlos. Missile defense is only effective against rogue states and even that is uncertain. Do it, but don’t depend on it.
Airpower is a must but the threats we realistically face have few numbers of the best systems. Our F-22/F-35 force would annihilate them, to include China, in short order. Our ground forces would have a tougher time with China.…but irrelevant since we are unlikely to fight them anyway. That MADD thing, remember. Taiwan just voted the way China wanted, as well.
Airpower cannot FIND hidden enemies, enemies using decoys, and enemies embedded in the civilian population. If they can find the latter, ROE prohibit engagement in many cases. Only ground power can route out the hidden enemy so that joint air and ground power can defeat them. Only ground power can win hearts and minds during Stability ops through daily interaction with the populace.
Naval power cannot come ashore. Marines can but they are ground power traveling around on ships. Naval power is necessary, but they too can make greater use of unmanned sea vessels. A few big subs with lots of unmanned sea vessels counters lots of small manned diesel subs everytime.
Infantry that don’t train prior to coming to war, die in war. Korea taught us that. The bad guys don’t wait for us to train. Future Combat Systems embeds training in manned ground vehicles so that you have a mobile simulator for Soldier training. Other services should embrace simulation to a greater degree as well.
Today we also expect infantrymen to be jacks of all trade and play peacemaker, nation-rebuilder, and disaster assistance provider. Gets back to who do we need more of…and the answer is always more grunts and more grunt equipment.
Cole,
What specifically is it that the army needs and isn’t getting? These conversations always seem to involve “The Air Force doesn’t need ABC and the Navy doesn’t need XYZ” and darn little “the army needs more money for CDEF and G”. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making sure the army gets what it needs — but that doesn’t seem to be what you want to talk about.
Does FCS need more money? Are we not spending enough on MRAPs? Is RESET of army vehicles not being funded sufficiently? Let’s talk about that then. I can’t tell whether you’re really concerned about what the army needs, or what the navy doesn’t…
It’s Vietnam all over again! The Iraqis have thrown down their weapons, put on civilian clothes, and ran from battle. They refuse to fight. Military Justice in the Iraq Army is a joke. They will not even punish them! Why should we shed our life blood when they don’t even give a damn? At least the English were grateful we were in their country and they fought and died like hell in WWII. So did the South Koreans. Let them fight their own civil war. Enough is enough!
The 2008 elections will be the pivot point for each branch of the military. If the Democrats win, Hillary or Obama are not qualified nor schooled enough to know what it takes to have our country protected as it need to be. The USA is the policeman of the free world and we must always be prepared to respond at a moments notice anywhere in the world where our assistance is needed.
As our technology advances so does our weapon systems and their capability. We are able to do more with less. We do not need as many F-22
Just a couple of comments.
Cole, amen. I am an old (retired) grunt with two sons in the service. Over time, we have forgotten the role of the other services (and the budget and spending show it). The ground forces are the ones that take and hold ground (in other words win the wars, unless you nuke the enemy). The last time the Air Force won a war, we nuked Japan (but it was the Army Air Corps then). Unless we plan on using nukes, we need to cut the Air Force and Navy Subs. If we ever find Osama, do you think it will a grunt or Airman?
Rob, you said “Once the Dems get in office our miltary is screwed. They’ll slash forces again as well as bottom the budget.” Correct English aside, if you are a ground pounder, you are already screwed with the current administration. I might note that the last time the US won a war, we had a Democratic president. Bottom line, your “dems” argument is hollow.
I think we do need a Navy and an Air Force (and Coasties), but they do not need all the expensive toys. We need grunts with the best equipment and best support we can give them.
“…the defense of our country will be a grave risk due to their inexperience and lack of knowledge world politics“
F-22, do you mean to say that this administration has exhibited a clear understanding of the power structures at work in the Middle East (tribal, etc.) and exhibited any real understanding of the underlying causes and getting at the root of Islamic extremeism?
Seems to me it is our ground forces engaged in Iraq (pat on the back to the USMC and US Army) that have taken the initiave and figured out that engaging the tribal leaders in Iraq reaps enormous dividends.…this administration seems to lack even the rudimentary understanding of the region and how to fight the extremeists.