Pentagon Scales Back Arms Plans Due To Budget Shortfalls, War Costs

[NATO AIR]

kind of depressing, the Navy needs those subs and those destroyers, we CAN lose the JFK, its a piece of shit anyway, and we're getting the George H.W. Bush in a few years regardless...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48425-2005Jan4.html

Pentagon Scales Back Arms Plans
Current Needs Outweigh Advances in Technology

By Jonathan Weisman and Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 5, 2005; Page A01

Rising war costs and a stubborn budget deficit have forced the Pentagon to propose billions of dollars in cuts to advanced weapons systems, as the military refocuses spending from its vision of a transformed fighting force to the more down-to-earth needs of its ground troops.

An internal defense budget document for fiscal 2006 shows a vivid shift of emphasis from procuring the weapons of the future to fighting the wars of the present, numerous defense analysts said yesterday. The Air Force and the Navy -- once favored by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- would have to sacrifice some of their high-tech weapons development for the humble needs of the Army, such as tank treads and armor.

"The Air Force and the Navy are paying the bills to fix the Army's shortfall in resources," said Loren B. Thompson, defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute.

The internal budget document, approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and leaked to reporters over the weekend, shows deep cuts to weapons programs once seen as the future of the military, including an Air Force advanced fighter plane, a stealthy Navy destroyer, a fleet of modernized transport aircraft and the next generation of nuclear submarines. Even President Bush's prized missile defense program would be trimmed by $5 billion. In all, cuts over six years would total $55 billion, mostly from the Navy and the Air Force.

In contrast, Army ground forces, which Rumsfeld had once hoped to reduce and de-emphasize, would receive an additional $25 billion through 2011. Those funds would be dedicated to an ongoing Army initiative to break down its large divisions into smaller, "modular" brigades that would be more mobile and flexible.

With the cutbacks and additions, the Pentagon would trim $30 billion over the next six years from its original $89 billion defense buildup, according to the budget document, which was first reported in InsideDefense.com. The total military budget is still likely to exceed the 2005 level. At the same time, the White House is preparing an emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that could total between $80 billion and $100 billion, congressional defense aides say.

White House officials last year informed all federal agencies and departments, including the Defense Department, that they would have to contribute to the president's effort to cut the budget deficit in half, as Bush has pledged, according to Chad Kolton, a spokesman for the White House budget office. At the same time, emergency requests for the war in Iraq have steadily escalated in each of the past three years.

"No one had anticipated that the cost of Iraq would continue to grow like [this]," said Dov S. Zakheim, an original member of Rumsfeld's team who retired as Pentagon comptroller last year. Now, he said, "clearly they are concerned about the deficit on one hand and Iraq on the other."

"They've suddenly realized the war in Iraq and the deficit require them to make tough choices on the defense budget," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

The internal document presents the changes the Defense Department would like to see in its long-term budget, recommendations that will now be used to draft the actual defense request for 2006 through 2010. Kolton cautioned that final decisions on the president's 2006 budget request are still about two weeks away.

Some of the cuts would fall on programs long questioned by Rumsfeld. The F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet, which critics have labeled a Cold War relic, is slated for a $10.4 billion cut through 2011. The cut would cost the Air Force 96 advanced fighters.

The Air Force originally proposed scaling back the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter instead but was overruled by Pentagon insiders close to Rumsfeld, Thompson said. "The administration is using the budget pressures as a pretext to force its priorities on the military services," he said.

Submarines, also slated for cuts, have never been Rumsfeld favorites. Under the plan, the Navy would lose three advanced Virginia-class nuclear submarines, saving $5.3 billion.

But other programs on the chopping block have been defended by the military services as vital to Rumsfeld's vision of a lighter, more agile military. The Marine Corps would lose nearly $1.2 billion for its V-22 Osprey vertical-lift aircraft. The Navy would lose two of its DD(X) destroyers, once billed by the Navy as its "pathway to transformation," saving $2.5 billion.

A restructured missile defense program, once the top defense priority of the administration, would be cut by $5 billion. And the Navy would lose 63 next-generation C-130 transport planes, at a savings of $4.9 billion.

Some of cuts appear to be a prudent acceptance of reality, said Robert Work, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The Navy's fleet of surface ships and submarines is unchallenged, he said. Some defense experts have raised alarm bells about China's intention to ramp up its submarine fleet, but for now, China's four nuclear submarines and 53 conventional subs -- many of them decrepit -- are no match for the Navy's 58 nuclear submarines, he said.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed cuts reflect a more seasoned Pentagon leadership that is ready to tackle the political difficulty of canceling or reducing expensive, prized weapons programs.

"The Bush administration has ingratiated itself with parts of the defense community" and is publicly considered strong on defense, he said. "That makes it easier for [Bush] to argue that we have to do some things differently. They have created the sort of legitimacy necessary to make these arguments and have people take them seriously."

But other defense experts say the budget request appears to lack any coherent vision. An extensive defense buildup has pushed military spending from $291 billion in 2001 to $437 billion in 2004, but it has yet to fundamentally replace the aging weaponry of the military services, said Andrew F. Krepinevich, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' executive director. Cutting future weapons purchases now would lock in what he called "a hollow buildup."

"If this is transformation, it's reactive transformation," he said. "What are these cuts saying beyond 'We've got a budget problem' ?"

Without doubt, Rumsfeld will face political challenges to his request. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) has singled out a proposal to retire one of the Navy's aircraft carriers.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), whose district includes giant shipmaker Bath Iron Works, went further. "It's truly mystifying and disturbing," she said. "What is their vision of the future that would suggest that America could live with a much-reduced Navy? We couldn't even anticipate where we are today . . . let alone looking 10 or 20 years down the road."

But, ultimately, Congress may have little choice but to go along, said Gordon Adams, a George Washington University defense expert who helped craft defense budgets for the Clinton White House. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had produced a surge in spending for war and weapons, obscuring an earlier fight between Rumsfeld and the uniformed services over funding priorities.

But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have dragged on far longer -- and proved far more expensive -- than anticipated. Likewise, the burgeoning budget deficit -- which totaled a record $413 billion in 2004 -- has put pressure on the entire federal government.

Now, Adams said, Rumsfeld will no longer be able to "have his budgetary cake and eat it, too."

 

[drowe]

The Marine Corps would lose nearly $1.2 billion for its V-22 Osprey vertical-lift aircraft.

Actually the 1.2 Billion is going to be deferred until the later years of the V-22 program (I work on the program). We are going to sell the same amount of aircraft but over a longer period of time.

I think most of the weapon systems and programs mentioned may be handled much in the same way.

 

[NATO AIR]

thank you for the information drowe

 

[drowe]

thank you for the information drowe

No sweat.
Yes it's good for the Corps and AFSOC both. The Air Force has indicated that even if the Marines withdraw from the program (VERY unlikely) that they would still acquire V-22's...They have more money than the Navy!

 

[Merlin1047]

No sweat.
Yes it's good for the Corps and AFSOC both. The Air Force has indicated that even if the Marines withdraw from the program (VERY unlikely) that they would still acquire V-22's...They have more money than the Navy!

What the hell does the Air Force want with an Osprey? I can't think of any aspect of their extremely limited VTOL mission requirements where a V22 would be superior to a helicopter.

 

[drowe]

What the hell does the Air Force want with an Osprey? I can't think of any aspect of their extremely limited VTOL mission requirements where a V22 would be superior to a helicopter.

Air Force Special Operations Command.

AFSOC's VTOL mission is very similar to the mission of the Army’s 160th (they both fall under SOCOM). AFSOC is looking to replace their old H-53 PaveLow airframes with V-22’s (about 50 aircraft total). The V-22 can get in and out faster and go farther. It's much quieter when it’s in airplane mode too, you can hardly hear it inbound.

I am a former Chinook guy myself but I've been playing V-22 for the past six years and the V-22’s capabilities are very impressive.