Home » News » Acquisition Reform » Will We Really See Future Weapons Gutted? (Updated)

Will We Really See Future Weapons Gutted? (Updated)

by John Reed on November 16, 2011

Edwards AFB F-35A Test Aircraft

Automatic, “salami slice” cuts to Pentagon budgets may be unlikely despite recent predictions of fiscal doom for the Defense Department should the Congressional supercommittee fail to reach an agreement on debt reduction by next week.

First off, supercommittee Chairman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.) has come out and said that Congress will likely find a way to avoid salami slice cuts across the government, and especially the DoD, if no agreement is reached.

Here’s what he told CNBC Tuesday night:

a lot of people don’t realize $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction is going to happen anyway. We’d prefer to do it in a smarter fashion. And the 1.2, frankly, half of that is aimed at national security. Leon Panetta, our secretary of defense, says that will hollow out our defense. So, number one, I would be committed to keeping the 1.2. We’ve got 13 months to find a smarter way to do it. I think the cuts that are aimed at defense, frankly, go too far. But this is one–this is a very important point that you make. You know, if the 1.5 isn’t met, there’s a 1.2 backstop right there.

That year’s worth of wiggle room Hensarling refers to is the fact that the auto cuts, called sequestration, won’t go into effect until 2013. As the Congressman said, this gives lawmakers plenty of time to rework any budget cuts.

(Keep in mind that Hensarling isn’t the only one on the Hill who wants to avoid accross the board cuts to defense coffers.)

(UPDATE:) Todd Harrison, a military budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments – a think tank whose ideas often find their way into the highest levels of the Pentagon — predicts that Congress will de-fang the threat posed by sequestration.

Here’s what he told me during a phone conversation this morning:

I think the odds of sequestration being triggered are fairly high, all that requires is that the supercommittee fails or Congress doesn’t enact whatever the supercommittee comes up with; so there’s a fairly decent chance of that. But it’s a full year before sequestration actually goes into enforcement, and I think the odds of it getting enforced are pretty low. I think what they will try to do is just nullify the sequestration provision of the Budget Control Act or just delay its enforcement until 2014 or further in the future. If they aren’t able to agree on a set of cuts in the supercommittee then the cuts probably won’t happen for the time being, they’ll be pushed off into the future.

I think it’s increasingly looking like that ‘ll be the outcome but you never know what will happen at the last minute. If next Wednesday late in the night, just before the deadline they might somehow pull a rabbit out of a hat and strike a deal, who knows.

Harrison’s thoughts echo those of Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at the Teal Group, who told DT yesterday that we won’t see the Pentagon gutted:

Worst-case scenarios like Panetta’s won’t happen because the threat of worst-case scenarios will do a very good job of mobilizing support in favor of the defense budget. The Republicans will control the House and Senate, and possibly the White House. The deficit hawks of the Tea Party look set to lose big against the traditional defense hawks. That S&P debt rating downgrade resulted in lower rates, weakening the deficit hawks. With a threatening world political environment, polls consistently show strong public opposition to heavy defense cuts. Against this backdrop, sequestration cuts will not be implemented.

Interestingly, Harrison pointed out that that Panetta’s “worst case of a worst case” budget scenario might actually put less pressure on the committee to reach a budget deal by Nov. 23.

I think that him raising the rhetoric up as high as he has, may actually have the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of putting more pressure on the supercommittee to reach a deal, if you make the consequences of sequestration seem so severe and so dire that they’re no longer credible, because Congress wouldn’t let something that bad happen; so that actuallyy removes pressure from the supercommitttee to make a deal.

It gives them the incentive to say, ‘you know what, we don’t need to make a deal because even if we trigger sequestration, Congress will override it, they won’t actually let it go into effect, so it’s not that bad.’ That’s the unfortunate consequence if you raise the rhetoric too high.

Nevertheless, it may be unwise to completely ignore the threat of sequestration, according to Aboulafia:

Of course, here’s another paradox: people who regard worst-case defense budget scenarios as a bunch of hype weaken support for a firm stand against defense cuts. But objectively, yes, there’s a lot of hype here.

Still, as Aboulafia — and Phil over at DoDBuzz — note, the United States is facing a brand new set of big security challenges that center on hedging against a rising China and managing a decline in the power of its traditional allies in Europe. It’s very hard to imagine that lawmakers will allow the Pentagon to lose all the key programs like the F-35 Joint StrikeFighter that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says will be gone if the supercomittee fails.

Share |

{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }

blight2 November 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm

The sooner the states can pick up more slack, the better.

Perhaps it might be more popular to simply pull up stakes in Europe and some stakes in Asia, unless host nations are willing to pay more. A more zealous BRAC in the states would be a good step.

Reply

TMB November 16, 2011 at 5:48 pm

Unless we shrink the size of the military, we've already BRAC'd as far as we can. Most of our military bases in the US are packed in tight and we're still spending a fortune building facilities to accommodate the relocation of units from the current BRAC.

Reply

CaptSausage November 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm

Time to be realistic and let other countries look after themselves a bit.

Reply

Black Owl November 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Time to be realistic about how much our weapons cost and which ones are actually worth their price. The JSF doesn't fit that list. However, weapons like JAGM and the Army Stryker do. Hopefully we can get more of those.

Reply

Nick November 16, 2011 at 8:55 pm

I have heard conflicting things about the stryker like getting stock in the mud/ ied problems.

Reply

mike November 16, 2011 at 7:20 pm

could you guys please give up on the whole “ready to face rising china” thing? The US and China are entirely dependent on each other. Without US demand for goods and US debt to give its banks assets, China’s economy collapses, and without China to provide cheap goods for an increasingly impoverished population, the US economic model falls apart too. (No comment on whether either of those outcomes might actually be better for China or the US.)

Even US defense programs support this– you build unbelievably expensive weapons systems out of cheap Chinese components and the markup supports the vanishingly small big-investor class.

Reply

Rob November 16, 2011 at 9:40 pm

Fact is China is warring us already. A war of economics that they were losing until now. Only because we letting them

China and Russia are both building war vehicles only meant to attack armies like our own. WHY…

Korea show no sign of resolution
Japan and China have old hatreds & a territory dispute
Russia and Japan have a territory dispute.
China supported Iran for ages. Russia supported them too.
We back Japan.
We back Taiwan.
We back South Korea.
We back anyone against Iran.
We invaded & set bases near all of their territories.
We aggressively expand our ways and forces.

They not preparing to assault us. We so unpredictable & so are our 'Allie's that they prepare for the worst. So should we. Instead media have everyone convinced our economy on collapse. It always was but its still prospering if we let it.

Find resolution to the other countries involved and it's simple. The weapons wouldn't be needed .If fail to resolve, or just watch it explode, we will regret any cuts.

Reply

Musson1 November 17, 2011 at 9:50 am

Mike is right. We fought a war against Japan and Germany and now they are our friends. The same thing can happen in China.

China is in a hurry to get rich enough to support their quickly aging population. Will they grow old before they grow rich? If so, their country will decline rapidly.

Also, Christianity is exploading in China. Soon, there will be more Christians than in the US. This can – and should – be an opportunity for friendly exchange between our countries

Reply

Kevin Smithwick November 18, 2011 at 5:11 am

Th situation is far more complex with China they are dumping our treasury bonds and buying European.On top of that they are beginning to open markets in third world, which is responsible given their labor-product cost. Although all of this will take time and in reality they are trying to protect their interest. They're working on a fall back plan if the U.S. becomes bankrupt on it's own and a possible invasion of Iran doesn't put us in a better position. As for China and Russia producing weapons that is nothing to worthy about it just means they are just screwed as us. Their're economies stuck in puerperal war mode as is ours, all of our economies are reliant on the production and sell of weapons. If we or they stop the economy will stagnate and that's how its been since WWII.Funny thing the politicians fool people in glorifying all over-priced, impractical weapon system while they collect for their campaigns and screw us over for more money.It's the same with them and us they parade the weapons around we become amazed and say a bunch of psudo-nationalistic crap its just a game to distract people while they buy-off our politicians.
I recommend people read Major Smedley D. Butler (USMC,Medal of Honor 2x)
War Is a Racket and listen to General Eisenhower's speech on the Military–industrial-congressional complex
The China-US argument is nothing more than a dick measuring contest.

Reply

Foraker November 16, 2011 at 7:48 pm

With Iraq refusing to renew our commitment, and Afghanistan in the process of doing the same, hopefully we'll see some cost savings for 2013 and beyond by returning to base for a bit. Saying that the service will be "hollowed out" by a mere $1.2T cut over multiple years is mere scare-mongering, if the government is serious about trimming the budget.

Reply

Nick November 16, 2011 at 8:57 pm

Africa is next.

Reply

RCDC November 17, 2011 at 1:08 am

If you receive JC as your lord, God and savior, all your worries will fade away.

Reply

PrometheusGoneWild November 16, 2011 at 7:53 pm

15 TRILLION in debt.
Lets say goodbye to the military as we know it.
Lets all study the United Kingdom model…..

Reply

Tri-ring November 16, 2011 at 9:53 pm

Yes the US is going through an exit strategy since the past US financial scheme that had been giving the US the necessary budget is fading, namely the US dollar which was once the exclusive transaction currency for natural resources is becoming irrelevant. Iran had established their own oil transaction market accepting various other currency so less money is fed into the traditional two major oil transaction markets located in NY and London. This means less cash flow to US banks meaning less money they can circumvent into the US Economy.
In short we are seeing the US Empire that was based on currency domination gradually fade away.

Reply

Guest November 17, 2011 at 7:34 am

rarely having ever read such a (completly) wrong and misleading statement.
¨
the USD is and will be the main trading currency for the foreseeable future the reason is simple. There is NO alternative. Further just because Oil is bought and sold in USD does not (!) mean that cash is flowing to US Banks. Second US Banks already have more than 3 Trillion Dollars in cash. Do they spend it? Right they don't – as long as they have the cash but are not willing to spend it – it doesn't help anybody. The whole statement with Oil, Dollar, and Cashflow to the US is absolutely irrelevant.

Reply

bobbymike November 16, 2011 at 7:59 pm

Let's just spend on programs that the Constitution allows like defense and cut everything else, Problem solved we'd not only have trillion dollar surpluses but we could also double the defense budget.

Reply

C-Low November 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm

Amen to that

Even better take those trillion dollar surpluses and let the citizenry keep more of their own money so they could I don't know buy stuff, expand their business, start a new business, help parents children friends, or do whatever they choose since they earned it.

Politicians take our money and then pretend to help us by spending our money. In that process they line their pockets through families businesses, insider trading, fraud, and kickbacks which in every profession short politic is illegal or at min a crime of moral turpitude and therefore sanctionable.

We need term limits and some serious ethics regulation for politics with real teeth (talking double digit prison yr minimums) .

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 2:50 pm

If you want a lassiez-faire economy you can skip over to the PRC. Start a small business there, and crank out melamine-laced food until enough people die that you must be punished to preserve societal harmony.

Reply

deadalready November 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm

If you mean punishment by no one buying your products….

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 4:54 pm

Do what every malicious businessman does, even here in the states. Market a product well, then get out once the government is on to you, if ever.

7 CFR 210 and 220 specify what goes into your kid's school lunches. What do you think would happen without it? School food already sucks, because you can't legislate "quality" product. You can however legislate food to minimize adulteration and increase food safety.

Laws and taxes aren't going anywhere, because without them…

Kevin Smithwick November 18, 2011 at 5:54 am

really 700 billion dollars a year is not enough considering all the dead end and redundant weapons programs. Really things are like C-Low said the politicians are bought off the only between welfare and the bloated defense budget it the final destination. Don't me wrong some of the weapons program are necessary except huge amounts of money is just being taken the US taxpayer and being redistributed to defense corps as corporate welfare. The same companies that donate campaign contributions to politicians that push their weapons programs.

Reply

Jon November 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm

1 trillion over ten years means about 100 billion per year. That is infinitely doable. The fearmongeres are saying that the US will be unable to meet its commitments worldwide if we make cuts of this magnitude. That's the point. We should take this opportunity to take a good hard look at what missions we are tasking our military to do. We could easily close all of our European bases, most of the ones in Japan and purchase upgraded versions of legacy fighters such as the Silent Eagle while maintaining a very secure homeland. Not to mention canceling unneeded toys such as the V-22 and Future Bomber programs. The military is there to repel invaders and attacks not to remake the world insure we are the "dominant player in Asia". Time for some common sense military policy

Reply

Stephen N Russell November 16, 2011 at 8:45 pm

Cut DoD procurement bureaucracy alone & save there alone.
Merge like systems.
Fund F35.
Hire new non defense vendors.
think outside the Box.
& rethink Future Bomber
Need Fast Rapid Airlift for Forces.
Need Spaceplane- see Avatar, 2010 movie.

Reply

mpower6428 November 16, 2011 at 8:48 pm

told ya……… and i got -22 votes for saying so on the previous post.

this guy "aboulafia" sounds pretty confindent about republican control of all three branches when the cuts (if any) begin to take effect.

Reply

Cranky Observer November 16, 2011 at 9:23 pm

>> And the 1.2, frankly, half of that is aimed at national security.

Half of that is aimed at military spending, to be sure. Whether that spending promotes "national security" or helps ensure that no one takes a drink of water from the Ohio without our permission is a very cogent question. But not one I expect to hear any real discussion about.

Reply

Rob November 16, 2011 at 9:52 pm

Iraq warred Kuwait mostly over a 80 bil debt.

Why wouldn't China do the same for 1 Trillion?

In the year 2000, the average worth of all US households was $44 trillion

They won't use military unless our side starts. If china aggressively attack us, the globe would slip into total chaos. The concept of mass warfare would disrupt everything, that all of the world has created, to give it the economy of today.

If really concerned I'd recommend making friends to as many chinese you can. Stop giving them reasons to hate us.

Reply

TMB November 17, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Don't sniff at that $80 billion disagreement. That was a lot of money in 1990, especially for the size of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti economies.

Reply

TMB November 17, 2011 at 5:03 pm

Which I should qualify has nothing to do with our economic relationship with China. It's not like they're going to invade us and cash in their chips. They know they're going to get their money back from us.

Reply

jamesb November 16, 2011 at 11:46 pm

I'm STILL laughing at some people here on Panetta's BS threat on
the F-35…..

THINK PEOPLE!
That system IS TOO BIG to FAIL!!!!!

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 12:27 am

Too big to fail, but not too big to fail to not get shrunk into irrelevance.

Reply

TMB November 17, 2011 at 12:38 am

James, the original order for the F22 was 800 planes. The original order for the B-2 was 130 planes. The F-35 is supposed to replace pretty much every F-15, -16, and -18. It's entirely conceivable that we only buy enough -35s to replace the oldest of the bunch and all 4 aircraft fly together for another decade or two.

Reply

Lance November 17, 2011 at 4:54 am

The F-35 was to replace F-16 and 18 NOT the F-15 that was the F-22s job now thats gone.

Reply

TMB November 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Which it failed to do, so that job now falls to the F-35.

Reply

Sanem November 17, 2011 at 3:35 am

too big to fail?
I'm sure that's what they said about Lehman Brothers

Reply

Lance November 17, 2011 at 4:54 am

The F-35 gone no I doubt that nore will new Navy ships. but worthless programs like the Army's GCV or Carbine competition come on cut them out.

Ohh if the committee fails President Obama said he will veto any change in budgetary rule to keep the cut in place Republicans can dream of saving the day but it may have no choice till after next years election.

Reply

Lance November 17, 2011 at 4:58 am

By the way this whole article is one sided to cuts its all written by BIG spending hawks and want to run the USA into oblivion with military spending.

Reply

Mark November 17, 2011 at 7:06 am

Now, if we could recover the BILLIONS and BILLIONS owed to the tax payer from GM after their costly bailout, that money could be used elsewhere to help eleviate some of the budget problems.

Reply

Harrier 78 November 17, 2011 at 8:43 am

I think that the politics are getting in the way of hoarse sense. we have half of the troops and twice as many generals than during WWII. Also fielding the JSF would reduce our logistics footprint by 1/4. That is worth a billion plus. Also lets let foreign countries that want us there pay their share.
The biggest drain on this country is the welfare system and if we do not get that undercontrol then we will loose this great nation or be forced to fight another revolution.

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 9:06 am

I guess the elderly can be patriots and renounce SS/Medicare?

Reply

Christian November 17, 2011 at 10:56 am

Harrier said nothing about getting rid of the welfare system. Just that it needs to fixed. So elderly renouncing SS/Medicare has nothing to do with it.

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm

"The biggest drain on this country is the welfare system and if we do not get that undercontrol"

The problem is "cost". You fix it by cutting "costs". And if you are a Constitutionalist, you believe the government has no business administering either.

Reply

halcyon_ November 17, 2011 at 11:39 am

@Harrier 78

I completely agree Politics are the dominant force here– well said.

Programs like the F-35 will not be canceled on their lack of ability they will be cancel on perceived cost and benefits in the short term. I don't know if the F-35 will ultimately be cheaper to operate but if it isn't cheaper right now watch out. It will be on the chopping block.

Reply

Morty November 17, 2011 at 10:55 am

The JSF Is worth the money its just that we cant always help other country's we need to worry about our self's more

Reply

Jerry November 17, 2011 at 11:38 am

I like the assumption by Aboulafia how Republicans controlling the White House, the Senate, and the House would fix the defense budget and the deficit. If memory serves, it was a six years of Republican control (2000-2006) that got the United States into this mess in the first place. Not that the Democrats have done any better in the past five, mind you.

Reply

tiger November 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm

NO since 2006 they racked up even more debt.

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 8:09 pm

What makes more sense than itemizing by years is doing it by party. How much of the 2006-2008 debt went to entitlements, and how much to war-related expenses? Who sat on the committees that approve spending bills, and what was their voting record.

I'll leave it to dear readers to check thomas.loc.gov

Reply

Uranium238 November 17, 2011 at 12:10 pm

F-35s and F-22s for Food Stamps, Unions and entitlement programs… That is just how this administration thinks. Ridiculous.

Reply

tribulationtime November 17, 2011 at 1:36 pm

Hi Someone knows if in the F35B variant the cover of forward lift fan plays a role in keep the attitude of the plane when she take-off conventional from a deck?. Thanks

Reply

tiger November 17, 2011 at 8:06 pm

yes.

Reply

tribulationtime November 18, 2011 at 6:56 am

Thanks

Reply

Tony C November 18, 2011 at 7:21 am

Dump $1.5 trillion more debt on China, start a war over Taiwan, then we don't have to repay as a combatant nation. Seems to be the game plan in DC these days.

Reply

cnb November 18, 2011 at 8:29 am

DoD is collateral damage in the drive to power. You support the drive to power, you support the damage.

Reply

RCDC November 20, 2011 at 12:57 am

If the country's spending is more lesser than the earnings (GNP), it is very possible there is growth in earnings, economy, good future advancement in science and etc .

Reply

nonito cabato November 20, 2011 at 1:10 am

stop permanently pentagon bureaucracy reduce personnel in the pentagon
mothball all legacy fighter jet, they are expensive to maintain which are over 25 years
buy 650 F-22 block 35 version
buy 1500 F-35, which 500 are F-35B
buy 300 next generation bomber
demobilize all F-15. F-16 & B-52 and B-1 bomber

Reply

RCDC November 20, 2011 at 2:01 am

Here is a better one: stop permanently pentagon bureaucracy reduce personnel in the pentagon mothball all legacy fighter jet, they are expensive to maintain which are over 25 years

Sell all F-15, F-16 B-52 and B-1 bomber to freindly nations
buy 1000 F-22 block 35 version
buy 1500 F-35, which 500 are F-35B
buy 1000 next generation bomber

Reply

bobby928 November 21, 2011 at 8:14 am

Cut the entitlement programs make government smaller and if it produces saving and the US gets in a healthy economic state bring some of these programs back but under stricker guidlines where by they don't become a crazy money pits. Some on the left would think that if these programs are deleted and people have to work that they will lose their power because one people get use to handouts they become dependant on them to survive.

Reply

Infidel4LIFE November 21, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Yah, just blame Obama. No mention of the jackazz who put us in this position. You guys forget pretty easy.

Reply

Infidel4LIFE November 21, 2011 at 12:24 pm

1 war 2 fronts paid for with loans from the chicoms. Something wrong wit this picture?? While we were away Wall St and other leeches raped this country. Banks got bailed out we got sold out. Thank u very little..

Reply

blight2 November 17, 2011 at 8:43 pm

They make fair money selling items (to include game currency) to suckers in MMORPG's.

Reply

Lance November 18, 2011 at 5:06 am

Never fly with no tax Republicans.

Reply

Infidel4LIFE November 21, 2011 at 12:21 pm

And we will once we vote all the GOPPERS outta office. Swine all of them. Feed the poor EAT the wealthy!! LMAO..

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: