Pentagon board says cuts essential

[Falkenhayn]

The Boston Globe

Pentagon board says cuts essential
Tells Obama to slash large weapons programs

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | November 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable," and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.

The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body. It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities.

Those include rebuilding ground forces battered by multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan and expanding the ranks to wage the war on terrorism.

"Business as usual is no longer an option," according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to the Globe. "The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action."

The briefings do not specify which programs should be cut, but defense analysts say that prime targets would probably include the new F-35 fight er jet, a series of Navy ship programs, and a massive Army project to build a new generation of ground combat vehicles, all of which have been skyrocketing in cost and suffering long development delays.

Such cuts would affect the New England economy. General Dynamics builds warships and submarines in Maine and Connecticut, while Raytheon, Massachusetts' largest employer, is involved in numerous weapons programs from ships to missile defenses and satellites.

Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in.

"The forces arrayed against terminating defense programs are today so powerful that if you try to do that it will be like the British Army at the Somme in World War I," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the liberal Center for Defense Information in Washington. "You will just get mowed down by the defense industry and military services' machine guns."

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, funding has grown for both the annual defense budget and emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The latest Pentagon budget, for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, is an estimated $512 billion, not including more than $800 billion in additional war spending that has been allotted since 2001.

But a series of forces are now at play that make such large expenditures untenable, according to the Defense Business Board, the Pentagon oversight group, which includes about 20 private sector executives appointed by the secretary of defense.

The board, which meets at least four times a year, has a full-time staff and is an official government body. Because the board's report has not been made public, a Pentagon spokesman would not comment on it.

One factor is historical. Since the end of World War II there have a been four periods of significant increases in US defense spending and all were followed by significant decreases in funding from Congress, the group says.

Added pressure on the Pentagon budget comes from what the briefing calls "fiscal constraint in a tough economy" that is saddled with rising deficits and growing political support for increased government spending in other areas.

"We are all acutely aware there is a financial crisis going on," said a senior defense official closely involved in the transition process.

Exacerbating the problem, according to the advisory group, are the rising costs of military personnel, their healthcare, and overhead. The documents estimate that more than half the annual defense budget now goes to "people costs," including $60 billion a year for the healthcare of service members and retirees.

They will almost certainly grow, even with a reduction in US troops in Iraq, given that the Pentagon has said it will increase ground forces by more than 70,000 troops over the next few years.

That leaves dozens of weapons systems and other equipment under development as prime areas for cost-savings, according to Steven Kosiak, vice president of budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

"The areas most likely to get cut are acquisition and procurement," Kosiak said. "As long as the administration is committed to increasing troop strength you have to pay those people costs, and there is not a lot of flexibility when it comes to benefits."

A recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, assessed the Pentagon's 95 largest weapons programs and found that as of March 2008 they had collectively increased in cost by nearly $300 billion over initial estimates.

"None had proceeded through development while meeting the best-practice standards for mature technologies, stable design, and mature production processes all prerequisites for achieving planned cost and schedule outcomes," the GAO said in documents published last week to help guide the presidential transition.

It added: "Over the next five years, [the Defense Department] expects to invest more than $357 billion on major defense acquisition programs. Much of this investment will be used to address cost overruns rooted in poor planning, execution, and oversight."

All the branches of the military are in a similar situation. The Army plans to invest an estimated $160 billion in the coming years on a set of new combat vehicles collectively known as the Future Combat System. But their capabilities "are still early in development and have not yet been demonstrated," according to GAO.

The Navy, meanwhile, has continued to bust its budget for shipbuilding. The service's six most recent new ship designs have experienced cumulative cost growth of $2.4 billion over original estimates, according to GAO. Their delivery has also been delayed, on average, by 97 months.

The Air Force's portfolio for new equipment, meanwhile, "will demand unprecedented levels of funding," according to GAO's transition materials. Its development costs have increased nearly 50 percent above original estimates and eight separate programs have had to report cost breaches to Congress.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - designed for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the most costly aircraft procurement effort in history - "faces considerable risks stemming from its decision to reduce test assets and the flight-test program to pay for development and manufacturing cost increases," according to the GAO.

Other programs suffering from big cost increases and delays include space systems such as satellites and the national missile defense system, the largest research and development program on the Pentagon's books.

Together these programs constitute a military crisis in their own right, according to the internal Pentagon documents.

The Pentagon, one document states, "cannot reset the current force, modernize and transform in all portfolios at the same time. Choices must be made across capabilities and within systems to deliver capability at known prices within a specific period of time."

And a few cuts here or there won't do the trick, they add. "Taking cuts at the margin won't work this time, nor will pushing things off to later years."

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ugh, this is just more of the same coming from Gates desk. His logic is basically that, Iraq is a hugely unpopular difficult to win counter insurgency campaign, the likes of which the US population will not tolerate again for a long time to come. So that’s exactly the kind of war we should prepare to fight because our politicians in the future might not care how dumb it would be! Brilliant plan. He’s being pushing to kill off most high end weapons programs ever since he got the position. In fact he wants another 90,000 men added to the ground forces over the next couple years, even as we withdrawal from Iraq! I dont think anyone with the slightest sense could come up with justification for that when the ground forces already grew considerably during the war and are now suffering from a shortage of NCOs and lower ranking officers.

Some current programs do need to be killed, or totally restructured sure, but gutting the high end is just going to be disastrous. Relying on moronic GAO reports to decide this will be worse then flipping coins. The US will end still be stuck with a hugely expensive military, most of the budget is in personal and upkeep, but it will have no firepower. A force which can win a high intensity war can get along okay in COIN, it does not even begin to work the other way around.

Personally I expect F-35B will die (canceling the whole program would be a disastrous not only for the military but for relations with allies), LPD-17 will die, DDG-1000 will be finished off, and FCS, which is already strangling itself, will start killing off all the vehicles, while retaining its work on new munitions and networking gear that can be used by existing systems. Virginia class production will be stretched to the point that its virtually not feasible to build them so slowly, and don’t be surprised if a couple super carriers stop making deployments. That wouldn’t even be the worst thing ever since each one carries so few fighters now. The Army will also probably end up paying money to have MRAPs scrapped, stupider things have happened.

[Beowulf]

LPD-17 is on it's 5th ship or something like that, isn't it? Makes me doubt it'll be killed off. Not sure about the F-35B either. Killing it will kill the USMC's STOVL capability, and seriously screw with the UK RN carrier plans. FCS and DDG-1000 are probably dead as door nails though.

[Pelranius]

I think they'll go back to building Arleigh Burkes here in Maine, which is what they should have been doing all along.

Can't say I'm sorry to see the FCS go to the chopping block, even if we squandered an enormous amount of money in that unsuccessful attempt to gang rape the laws of physics and warfighting 101.

[erik_t]

LPD-17 is on it's 5th ship or something like that, isn't it? Makes me doubt it'll be killed off. Not sure about the F-35B either. Killing it will kill the USMC's STOVL capability, and seriously screw with the UK RN carrier plans. FCS and DDG-1000 are probably dead as door nails though.

Point of fact: the Royal Navy's CVF is designed such that it can be retrofitted for conventional operations.

[Cecelia5578]

Its similar to what I've been hearing liberal hawks push over the last couple of years: Yes, Iraq is hugely unpopular and the US has no business doing what its doing. Fine. So, lets overoptimize our military for COIN! Sorta a way to be anti-war while avoiding the typical liberal slur of being soft on the military.

[Sea Skimmer]

Fuck the Marines, they got along fine before they ever had VTOL pilot killing machines. We have carriers that can hold 90 fighters loaded with 50, adding another squadron of Marine aircraft would work fine as long as we don’t aim for irrational goals like we do now of the USMC and USN needing to tackle five or six crisis’s at once. The British have always had provisions for conventional catapult and arrestor gear operations on CVF, and fitting the ships for conventional operations would allow them to fly COD and real AEW aircraft too.

LPH-17 has nine ships in the water or being built, but its supposed to have 12 units total. For the last several years it was dubious they’d be built, now its pretty well certain. LHA 6 may well end up as a one ship class, that will be almost certain if F-35B or the entire F-35 program was canceled, since it pretty much invalidates the point of the ship.

[Guardsman Bass]

Personally I expect F-35B will die (canceling the whole program would be a disastrous not only for the military but for relations with allies), LPD-17 will die, DDG-1000 will be finished off, and FCS, which is already strangling itself, will start killing off all the vehicles, while retaining its work on new munitions and networking gear that can be used by existing systems. Virginia class production will be stretched to the point that its virtually not feasible to build them so slowly, and don’t be surprised if a couple super carriers stop making deployments. That wouldn’t even be the worst thing ever since each one carries so few fighters now. The Army will also probably end up paying money to have MRAPs scrapped, stupider things have happened.

Didn't we have a discussion a while back about how the latest navy ship was an abomination? Stuart weighed in heavily on that one. It's a horrific waste of money to finally kill it, but perhaps you could take some of it and apply it to a better program.

Same goes for the FCS.

Well, they didn't call for cancelling the F-22, at least.

[Darth Wong]

The funny thing about America's military is that it's mostly used for economic reasons. The traditional purpose of a military organization has been to defend the borders and (if so desired) to expand them. But America is virtually immune to conventional invasion for reasons of geography, and it has recently taken the position that it has no business trying to conquer foreign territory. At most, it would "liberate" or "secure" foreign areas, generally for reasons of economic security.

So in this context, a very expensive military undercuts its own reason for existence.

[Ma Deuce]

Well, they didn't call for cancelling the F-22, at least.

What's the point? They're almost to the end of the currently authorized production run. However, it also makes it unlikely the Air Force will ever get enough Raptors to replace the F-15C, which I think should definitely be done as soon as possible.

I think they'll go back to building Arleigh Burkes here in Maine, which is what they should have been doing all along.

That's the plan; After DDG-1000 was cut back to 3 ships, they ordered at least 8 more Burkes past DDG-112, which was originally intended to be the last ship of the class.

[K. A. Pital]

FCS and DDG-1000 must die. They were worthless and stupid programs anyway - much has been said about the "value" of LCS, Zumwalt and NLOS-C and other FCS crappy little ground vehicles. It would be better if heavier, "ordinary" vehicles were developed instead, and more powerful AEGIS ships instead of poor attempts at a "new generation" of self-defeating systems which take so long and so much money to come online. Hell, from recon copters to large naval aquisition programs the US military seems to have embarked on a series of self-killing programs which are killed either by the inability to complete at all, skyrocketing cost leading to cancellation, or just poor design.

In fact considering that the US only fights foreign wars, not on their homesoil - usually consisting of bombing foreign nations to rubble - I really care little if it guts it's military. I think it's about time, and it would be beneficial to all other armies since they would have time to develop their high-end counters to the latest generation of US tech. US territory isn't threatened conventionally at all, and if the US military gets the raw deal, other nations will not be threatened by a weak-army US once the proliferation of high-end European/Soviet/Chinese weapons reaches them.

Moreover, the less is the United States capable of holding the world oceans in the grip of it's uber-Navy, the less weight it's words will have on everyone. Couple that to the US' shaken position as a financial "mentor" due to the recent crisis. The world will become more multipolar, world politicians will stop looking behind their shoulder to see what "Uncle Sam" might say about it.

[Guardsman Bass]

In fact considering that the US only fights foreign wars, not on their homesoil - usually consisting of bombing foreign nations to rubble - I really care little if it guts it's military. I think it's about time, and it would be beneficial to all other armies since they would have time to develop their high-end counters to the latest generation of US tech. US territory isn't threatened conventionally at all, and if the US military gets the raw deal, other nations will not be threatened by a weak-army US once the proliferation of high-end European/Soviet/Chinese weapons reaches them.

Of course, that might entail Europe and other various countries re-arming heavily, which won't necessarily be to your country's benefit. Do you really want an unrestrained China next door, for example?

Moreover, the less is the United States capable of holding the world oceans in the grip of it's uber-Navy, the less weight it's words will have on everyone. Couple that to the US' shaken position as a financial "mentor" due to the recent crisis. The world will become more multipolar, world politicians will stop looking behind their shoulder to see what "Uncle Sam" might say about it.

That's not going to happen short of sheer, unfathomable stupidity on the US's part (which is possible, as of late). Even during the heaviest isolationist periods, the US didn't give up on naval development and power; witness the aircraft carrier program. It's been the core of our national security for a long time (although we weren't always the most powerful; Great Britain could have probably beaten our navy pretty solidly back in the 19th century).

[Guardsman Bass]

To add:

". . . unrestrained China next door, for example? They have more money than you, and more people - technological parity in military affairs is only going to help them."

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, that might entail Europe and other various countries re-arming heavily, which won't necessarily be to your country's benefit.

Why? It is to our benefit. A Europe that is capable of excising it's independent will, in the Middle East and elsewhere, sounds definetely better for partnerships than the current one.

Do you really want an unrestrained China next door, for example?

You aren't really restraining them at all when it comes to us, face it. You won't go apeshit about China messing in Middle Asia because Middle Asia is a sphere of land borders where Chinese and Soviet/post-Soviet interests clash, neither now nor in the future, and suddenly fit the Russian airforce with F-22 Raptors or give us your newest weapons to fight the Chinese. A Chinese outright invasion of Russia is not considered, them messing in Middle Asia is the worst scenario.

You are restraining them when it comes to Taiwan and SEA nations, by giving Taiwan hot military shit and all that. But Russia cares jack for Taiwan (besides, the Chinese mini-arms race with Taiwan is a major factor in their Army upgrade). You're the restraint of China in the wrong place, sorry.

Even during the heaviest isolationist periods, the US didn't give up on naval development and power

I know you competed with Britain and France heavily in the XIX and pre-WWII XX century (after WWII both nations slowly ceased to be major naval powers and major powers at all). But you weren't always the dominant one in that play, during the 1920s Britain was arguably stronger. And definetely it does not need to make the United States totally toothless. A slow degradation of your naval abilities while other nations build their Navies up is also perfectly viable and will serve the same end result, less US "gunboat authority" versus other nations, like Russia, China, India for example.

[Sea Skimmer]

Moreover, the less is the United States capable of holding the world oceans in the grip of it's uber-Navy, the less weight it's words will have on everyone. Couple that to the US' shaken position as a financial "mentor" due to the recent crisis. The world will become more multipolar, world politicians will stop looking behind their shoulder to see what "Uncle Sam" might say about it.

And that’s all a good thing? The world used to be very multipolar, and it had massive wars between the great powers on a regular basis because of it. Since WW2… no war, not even the worst times in Vietnam, has even begun to approach to scope and devastation of the conflicts that came before it, and this is directly resulting from the enormous military supremacy of the US, and for a time USSR. A bipolar world isn’t bad, makes things simple and balanced, multipolar is doomed to new conflicts when numerous nations are placed in a position in which they can gamble on a war and hope to win. Don't expect alliances and nuclear bombs to keep the peace once the world hits 9+ billion people and overtaxes every one of the earths resources.

[K. A. Pital]

And that’s all a good thing?

For the national interest of my nation, yes.

The world used to be very multipolar, and it had massive wars between the great powers on a regular basis because of it.

Yeah. The world also did not have nuclear weapons. Shep is right, the more those weapons proliferate in large numbers along with means of delivery, the less likely is their use in a conventional war ever.

Since WW2… no war, not even the worst times in Vietnam, has even begun to approach to scope and devastation of the conflicts that came before it, and this is directly resulting from the enormous military supremacy of the US, and for a time USSR.

No. This is a direct result of nuclear deterrence between superpowers. You should be insane to openly attack one of those in a large war of conquest since nukes will pour on your head and kill you. That's all. If there had been no nukes, WW III and maybe even IV, and huge massive land wars would have happened numerous times.

The dual poles of power also prevented local conflicts from spinning out of hand, since both powers knew any proxy war should not really be expanded (and those who considered general superpower war were shunned away from their positions, see MacArthur). Now the balance is broken, the US considers itself the sole power. It's power will erode anyway with the dual failure of foreign policy in Iraq and a failure of domestic policy with the economic crisis, one way or other and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.

Don't expect alliances and nuclear bombs to keep the peace once the world hits 9+ billion people and overtaxes every one of the earths resources.

Hahaha. Are you saying the US will keep that powder keg from exploding? That's funny. But no, thanks. Nukes are the only real deal which stops old-style wars of conquest. Until nukes suddenly become defunct, major wars between major world powers are unlikely.

As for proxy wars, those will continue as they always did and regulary occur in various contested shitholes. It bears no relation to the greater picture.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There is nothing much we can do to stop a multipolar world from forming some 20-50 years down the road. India and China themselves represent a significant percentage of the world's population, and as they slowly, but surely catch up with the West in terms of technology, they will definitely be one of the two pillars of power in the world.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The funny thing about America's military is that it's mostly used for economic reasons. The traditional purpose of a military organization has been to defend the borders and (if so desired) to expand them. But America is virtually immune to conventional invasion for reasons of geography, and it has recently taken the position that it has no business trying to conquer foreign territory. At most, it would "liberate" or "secure" foreign areas, generally for reasons of economic security.

So in this context, a very expensive military undercuts its own reason for existence.

Can't say that. Every last program and dollars spent MIGHT be needed to save freedom. But of course you cannot make the same argument with the opportunity cost of slashing social programs that could improve the quality of life in the United States.

[Surlethe]

It's a horrific waste of money to finally kill it, but perhaps you could take some of it and apply it to a better program.

Actually, money and resources already spent are sunk costs. It's regrettable, but we can't get the money back, so it is only rational to ignore it in decision-making. It would be better for the USN to just cut the project now and spend the rest of the money allotted to it on more Arleigh-Burkes or development of a decent warship. The problem is its irrational expectations: it embarked on the project expecting to actually be able to design a ship that is so awesome it shoots semen and runs on booze, so it had no problem pouring money down a hole in pursuit of that goal.

[Shroom Man 777]

So America is an un-threatened nation that spends copious amounts of money to have the world's most powerful military that intervenes elsewhere, at the cost of human lives, to secure themselves economically. Not because their lands or their people are threatened, but because they want to keep their commodities and luxuries.

All the while, other people - some of whom live in the places where America's intervention is directed at - are literally fighting for their lives, or are impoverished, dirt poor, diseased and powerless while they see this big boy just shove them around.

Mmm, that certainly puts things into perspective. Other first-world nations have less problems with foreign aggression and terrorism than the USA, and that's because they don't stick their noses into business that aren't theirs. Maybe the USA should apply that business model and see how it works for them.

[Samuel]

The funny thing about America's military is that it's mostly used for economic reasons. The traditional purpose of a military organization has been to defend the borders and (if so desired) to expand them. But America is virtually immune to conventional invasion for reasons of geography, and it has recently taken the position that it has no business trying to conquer foreign territory. At most, it would "liberate" or "secure" foreign areas, generally for reasons of economic security.

So in this context, a very expensive military undercuts its own reason for existence.

You remember how some people thought Iraq war was going to be a net gain from the oil money?

So America is an un-threatened nation that spends copious amounts of money to have the world's most powerful military that intervenes elsewhere, at the cost of human lives, to secure themselves economically. Not because their lands or their people are threatened, but because they want to keep their commodities and luxuries.

All the while, other people - some of whom live in the places where America's intervention is directed at - are literally fighting for their lives, or are impoverished, dirt poor, diseased and powerless while they see this big boy just shove them around.

Mmm, that certainly puts things into perspective. Other first-world nations have less problems with foreign aggression and terrorism than the USA, and that's because they don't stick their noses into business that aren't theirs. Maybe the USA should apply that business model and see how it works for them.

Bread and Circuses. It doesn't make sense for overall social good, but decisions aren't made that way. Besides, America sees itself as special and different than every country on Earth. You know, beacon of democracy, city on a hill, all that? Is there any other country that thinks the rules that bind everyone else don't apply to them? Not law, but things like "just because it works/doesn't work there doesn't mean the same is true here" type attitude?

[Guardsman Bass]

And that’s all a good thing?

For the national interest of my nation, yes.

A multi-polar world wasn't exactly good for Russia the last time it came around, now was it (i.e. pre- and during World War 2)? What makes you so confident, particularly since the technology to counter nuclear delivery systems (like ABM) is advancing quite rapidly as well?

The world used to be very multipolar, and it had massive wars between the great powers on a regular basis because of it.

Yeah. The world also did not have nuclear weapons. Shep is right, the more those weapons proliferate in large numbers along with means of delivery, the less likely is their use in a conventional war ever.

You think so? I think it's the opposite, since the means of stopping those weapons is proliferating as well (ABM technology). Although no nation really wants to be the first one to re-open the use of nuclear weapons, once one of them actually does it (even on a small scale), you could see small ones being used tactically.

Since WW2… no war, not even the worst times in Vietnam, has even begun to approach to scope and devastation of the conflicts that came before it, and this is directly resulting from the enormous military supremacy of the US, and for a time USSR.

No. This is a direct result of nuclear deterrence between superpowers. You should be insane to openly attack one of those in a large war of conquest since nukes will pour on your head and kill you. That's all. If there had been no nukes, WW III and maybe even IV, and huge massive land wars would have happened numerous times.

What about the period from 1945-1960, when we had pretty much overwhelming nuclear superiority? Sure, you might have been able to lob what you had at an army, but that's it - and you'd be squashed from the US's nukes in the process.

It's power will erode anyway with the dual failure of foreign policy in Iraq and a failure of domestic policy with the economic crisis, one way or other and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.

Despite all the talk about this being a severe economic crisis, we have yet to reach the point here where it even approaches the severe recessions of the late 1970s and early 1980s, much less a Great Depression. Hell, even Iraq hasn't exactly broken us; Vietnam was much worse in terms of US casualties and damage to morale, and we recovered.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

A multi-polar world wasn't exactly good for Russia the last time it came around, now was it (i.e. pre- and during World War 2)? What makes you so confident, particularly since the technology to counter nuclear delivery systems (like ABM) is advancing quite rapidly as well?

I think one could argue that it was relatively better to have it multi-polar. There wasn't a monolithic bloc back then, and the US wasn't so keen in getting involved in European spats. If anything, the only problem was France crumbled like paper, and the British were keen to have the communists and Nazis kill each other, until the Nazis turned their attention to them as well.

[Guardsman Bass]

A multi-polar world wasn't exactly good for Russia the last time it came around, now was it (i.e. pre- and during World War 2)? What makes you so confident, particularly since the technology to counter nuclear delivery systems (like ABM) is advancing quite rapidly as well?

I think one could argue that it was relatively better to have it multi-polar. There wasn't a monolithic bloc back then, and the US wasn't so keen in getting involved in European spats. If anything, the only problem was France crumbled like paper, and the British were keen to have the communists and Nazis kill each other, until the Nazis turned their attention to them as well.

I suppose that's true. Still, if you're thinking in terms of cost of human lives, it was bloodier than today.

[Guardsman Bass]

Actually, on second that, I'll take that last comment back. It may actually be more bloody post-World War II, from all the various conflicts that don't fall into convenient conventional war categories.