(Flashback) Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

U.S. Business & Industry Council ^ | March 14, 2003 | William R. Hawkins

[Paul Ross]

Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

By William R. Hawkins
Friday, March 14, 2003

At the February 26 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY 2004 Defense budget, chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) questioned the wisdom of further reducing America's military strength as forces mass for war in Iraq.  He noted that the proposed integration of Navy and Marine tactical aircraft squadrons would mean a cut of 497 fighter aircraft, ten percent of the force, and the disbanding of five squadrons. The planes taken out of service will be the oldest, but production of  F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the Navy's most advanced tactical fighter, will be cut by 88 instead of being increased to bring the force back up to strength.

By 2006 the Navy will decline to 290 warships, 20 less than the minimum fleet size set in the Bush Administration's 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.  The aircraft carrier USS Constellation, which is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf for action against Iraq, is slated to be decommissioned this fall. There is a new carrier under construction, the USS Ronald Reagan, but it is not expected to be ready for deployment until 2005. The Navy believes that 15 carriers are needed to fulfill its missions around the world, but if the Constellation is taken out of service, the fleet will be down to only 11.

The Navy and Marines are the first responders in a crisis. The Navy had nearly 600 ships in the mid-1980s, including 15 carriers. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has stated that 375 ships are the minimum needed to meet current threats. A 375-ship fleet would require a build-rate of 12-14 ships per year. Even simply maintaining a 300-ship fleet would require 10 new ships a year. The current plan outlined in the FY 2004 budget averages only 7.6 ships per year for the next five years (2004-2008), a clearly inadequate number.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) the ranking Democrat on the HASC recently asked the Navy for a list of "unfunded priorities" for the new budget. The reply totaled $6.5 billion. The list included keeping the Constellation and the nuclear attack submarine Jacksonville in service; upgrading Marine tactical fighters and buying six more Super Hornets for the Navy; and improving a number of amphibious warfare ships, fleet oilers and replenishment ships. But the administration is resisting any increases in the defense budge, even though the Pentagon accounts for less than 17 percent of the total FY 2004 budget of $2.2 trillion.

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

The 21st century has opened with a bang, as the reality of global geopolitics has reasserted itself, as it always does. But the trend in future procurement is also one of falling production rates. The Navy and Marines are planning to cut their purchase of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 38 percent to a total of only 680, down from an original target of 1,089 aircraft.

Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim has called the 2004 proposal a "peacetime budget." Even though Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to offer supplemental requests to fund combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, the Pentagon budget does not redress the nearly 40 percent decline in conventional force levels that took place in the 1990s when the country relaxed in a false sense of peace and security. With U.S. forces stretched thin, adversaries are looking for weak points to exploit, tempted by the belief that at some point Washington will run out of ships, troops, or money with which to respond to aggression.

In his recent worldwide threat briefing, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet outlined the perilous evolution of a divided and dangerous world. Following his presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Director Tenet concluded, "We have entered a new world of proliferation....The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge." Biological warfare (BW) and chemical warfare (CW) capabilities are spreading fast as well. "Countries are more and more tightly integrating both their BW and CW production capabilities into apparently legitimate commercial infrastructures, further concealing them from scrutiny," warned Tenet.

At the end of February, 30 Russian ministries met under the leadership of the Defense Minister to initiate a new rearmament program committed to rebuilding Russia's defense industry and supplying its troops with state-of-the-art equipment. New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons, with mass production planned to start by 2008. And the Chinese are continuing to expand their capabilities across the board, but with a strong effort in submarines and combat aircraft.

It is against these expanding threats that defense funding must be assessed. The Pentagon says the new budget "calls for a focus on the capabilities needed to counter 21st century threats such as terrorism -- rather than on specific regional dangers or requirements." The DoD press release listed "winning the global war on terrorism" as one of three prime objectives, but the list did not mention anything about waging wars against states with WMD or meeting the threat from rising major powers. Yet, the United States is facing several emerging states with ambitions at odds with American interests. And it is states, not terrorist groups, that have the real means to upset the balance of power in a region or the world. The United States must reconstitute and expand both its military forces and the industrial base that sustains them if it is to maintain its world leadership position.

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

---

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

---

[gogogodzilla]

Isn't this 3 years old now?

[unkus]

Why was this posted?

[FreedomCalls]

New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons

Won't matter too much if they keep flying them like this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2136241946237981827

[HEY4QDEMS]

Friday, March 14, 2003

Do you know what "Breaking News" means?

[Paul Ross]

Isn't this 3 years old now?

It is. Wasn't ever posted here, however, so this rectifies that. Not much has changed since this article was written over 3 years ago. If anything, it underestimated the negative impacts as projected. We are now actually under the 290 Navy ships that were forecast...

Which makes it all the more urgent that we undertake to really educate the voters and legislators, and try and counter all the "static" of the liberal MSM...and the Administration's thin pretexts itself.

Paul Wolfowitz's (Rumsfeld's last deputy) in his last budget, before going on to a new job as head of the World Bank, classified the Navy procurement budget as Officially a "peacetime budget."

[ASOC]

Thanks for the link, pretty scary video. One cut looks like the -29 landed on top of the photog...

[Paul Ross]

Why was this posted?

Did you read it?

[Paul Ross]

Do you know what "Breaking News" means?

Didn't post it under "Breaking News"

[FreedomCalls]

pretty scary video

I just stumbled across it last night. I've never seen it before, and frankly, it's the most scary video I've ever seen. I couldn't imagine being at an airshow and seeing that big out-of-control aircraft coming straight at me like that.

One of the comments at the link says he thinks the pilot blacked out from the g-force of the maneuver just before the crash, and that makes sense as it looks like he is in a pretty severe stall prior to impact.

[operation clinton cleanup]

New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons, with mass production planned to start by 2008.

Looks like we will have to do another 1980's buildup again after 2010.... Unless Hillary gets elected in 2008.

[cva66snipe]

Neither the DEM's nor the GOP are interested in increasing our defense readiness nor are they genuinely earnest in such. Empty promises nothing more. To them it's trading partner buddies and back room deals. If Europe becomes a supplier of our military aircraft Hip Hip Yeppie they shout.

I mean what sense does it make for a nation to be self sufficient or self reliant in providing for and manufacturing it's own defense needs? It's far better to OUTSOURCE to a nation far far away who can use them contracts for diplomatic Blackmail and extortion from the producing nation to dictate our foreign policy./sarcasm

We need some planners in DC and I don't mean the status quo bunch who on both sides have been in a race to see who can shut down our national defense the quickest. We are indeed in a downturn and all we have is pie in the sky promises that neglecting upkeep on systems today will fund the equipment of the next decade. And let's not forget our most favorite nation trading partner China.

Isn't 17 years of downsizing quite enough? Don't blame it all on the Dems and don't give the GOP from 1989-present atta boy's either. Both parties are guilty in this. The number one responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense of this nation.

[Centurion2000]

Watch some of the other ones .... impressive. Especially the lady that looks like she can fly a rubber dog turd better than an Iranian in a top of the line fighter.

[rbg81]

I agree. Left to their own devices, the lighter-leaner-more lethal crowd will downsize and outsource our military till well have one division equiped with one tank, one aircraft, and one battleship.

[El Gato]

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

Funny they don't mention which administration this "procurement holiday" most took place under. FWIW, we called it being Clinton-sized, when we were laid off from our Arsenal of Democracy positions.

But as the author's indicate, the Bush years have been pretty lean in the force modernization and procurement arena as well. They also canceled important *Army* weapons systems, which would have been very handy, such as the Crusader SP Artillery and the Comanche helicopter. They did continue the under armored Stryker program. The Mobile Gun System version is said to no longer flip over when the 105mm (Abrams tank uses 120 mm) gun is fired to the side, but I remain skeptical about that.

[El Gato]

I agree. Left to their own devices, the lighter-leaner-more lethal crowd will downsize and outsource our military till well have one division equiped with one tank, one aircraft, and one battleship.

The tank will have wheels instead of tracks, it will need "cow catcher" add on slats to be able to ward off 50 year old RPGs. The aircraft will not be able to talk to the ground troops and will have a single air to air missile for self defense. The battleship will be a destroyer escort in all but name.

[Fee]

The problem is this current generation of bureacrats think in the digital age where production base is not important because we can build it overseas, depots are not needed because we can rely on the private sector and just in time inventories approach to logistics, and technology which increases the fire power of the soldier three folds means you can reduce the infantry squad by two thirds. The principles of war have not changed. Numbers count, stockpiling is important, manufacturing base is important and producing huge numbers of simple but effective weapons are needed during wartime. You do not need a very fancy aircraft carrier to provide a floating airbase against Iraqi insurgents, nor a CGX and DDX surface combatant. Just build losts of what we currently have.

[Paul Ross]

Isn't 17 years of downsizing quite enough?

Bump. Agreed. I think Hawkins framed it best when he asked this rhetorical question:

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

[Jeff Head]

F22 is being rolled back in numbers, DDX cancelled/put off, JSF rolled back, B1Bs down to 67 units, B2s only have 20 units, S3 ASW capability removed/retired from CVNs, Spruance Class DDs retired 10-15 years early, no AIM-54 Phoenix replacement ALRAAM missile developed for CVN protection, Tarawa class LHAs being retired and sunk (with service life left in them), etc.

The list from the last five years is becoming fairly exhaustive regarding our continued roll back/downsizing in numbers and capability. And this at a time when the WOT is expanding and the Red Chinese threat is growing at an alarming rate. Not a good thing at all IMHO. Alarming actually as far as I am concerned.

[Paul Ross]

Funny they don't mention which administration this "procurement holiday" most took place under. FWIW, we called it being Clinton-sized, when we were laid off from our Arsenal of Democracy positions.

Because there is no need to belabor that obvious well-proven fact (which the author has previously demonstrated on innumerable occasions). Indeed, he proceeds from it as an axiom, the GOP, the serious party (formerly under Reagan anyways) is the one that needs to be looking at the issue...and it is a subject of immense consternation that he has to call it...and this particular administration which had run as "pro-defense" to task, when he makes this rhetorical point (which I again reiterate):

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?