New PDA report outlines a “Reasonable Defense” – Seeks to slim armed forces by 18% and Save $68 billion yearly

Washington, D.C., November 14, 2012 – The Project on Defense Alternatives released a study today outlining a new global strategy for addressing security threats that also promises to free hundreds of billions over ten years for debt reduction and economic revitalization.  Entitled Reasonable Defense: A Sustainable Approach to Securing the Nation, the report sees the principal challenge to the United States as being economic in nature rather than military.  

 

Click here to download a copy of Reasonable Defense

 

Reasonable Defense proposes focusing the US military on those missions and responsibilities for which it is best suited – traditional defense, deterrence, and crisis response – while jettisoning large national-building efforts and counter-insurgency campaigns.  It advocates more and better-balanced security cooperation with other nations, but sees “preventive security” initiatives to be largely the job of the State Department.  “Our military is a fabulously expensive tool,” said the report’s principal author, Carl Conetta, “and we can no longer afford to misuse it.”  

 

With a Reasonable Defense posture in place, the United States could adopt a national security budget similar in size to that which would result under the sequester provisions of the Budget Control Act, according to PDA co-director Charles Knight.  However, unlike that budgeting device, the proposed reductions will be introduced gradually over a period of five years.  The PDA plan sees the defense budget stabilizing at about $462 billion in today’s dollars.  Compared with President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget, this would save $550 billion over ten years.  

 

Under the Reasonable Defense plan:  

 

• The active component military would comprise 1.15 million personnel – a 19 percent reduction from the 2012 active-component military of about 1.42 million.

• The Navy will have a battle fleet of 230 vessels: 9 aircraft carriers, at least 23 amphibious warfare ships, and 160 other surface and subsurface combatants.  This would allow annual shipbuilding to fall from the current level of 9 ships per year down to 5-6 ships. 

• The United States would field 2,780 combat fighter aircraft – down from the previously planned level of 3,150.  The Navy and Marine Corps variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be cancelled in favor of additional procurement of F-16 and F/A-18s.   

 

Congressman Barney Frank joined Mr. Conetta for a press briefing today.  Congressman Frank reviewed the prospects for future reductions in US defense spending and commented, “This latest report makes the case very persuasively that we will save even more and with less stress in some ways, if we rethink our strategic posture and essentially scale back what has been a multi-decade assertion that America needs to be everywhere.  And this says, you know, the Cold War is over, and things have gotten a lot better in terms of not having a major enemy.  Let’s revise our strategic objectives to a realistic point.  And then we can save a great deal of money.”  

 

Click here to listen to a recording of the press briefing

 

As Congress returns to Washington this week, it faces a myriad of issues none more alarming than the “fiscal cliff.”  A Reasonable Defense offers a clear and credible alternative to the sequestration of defense funds and provides important guidance to those who must manage the forthcoming defense builddown.  The report also shows how to best balance the competing requirements of national security with those of national strength. 

A 250 Ship Obama Navy?

A number of Republican leaders and naval experts have recently been suggesting that the Obama administration is leading the nation toward a battle fleet of just 250 ships.  Immediately following the last presidential debate, Rep. Randy Forbes (R –VA) and Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) held a press briefing in Virginia and stated that the Obama Navy is on a path to reduce the number of ships in the battle fleet from the current 284 to below 250.  This was reported by The Hill and the Daily Press of Hampton Roads, VA.

We were unfamiliar with the 250 number associated with any current Navy planning, so we wondered where did this 250 number come from?  

First, we can report that it is not an official number.  The Navy’s official fleet plan is found on pg. 4 Table ES-2 “FY2013-2042 Naval Battle Force Inventory” of Naval Operations’ “Annual Report to Congress on Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2013.”  The table shows a low of 276 ships in FY15 and a ten year high of 300 ships in FY19.

So, if the notion of a 250 ship Navy is not official, where did it come from?

 
Its origin appears to be verbal testimony provided by Eric Labs, CBO Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons, before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces on 9 March 2011.  Mr. Forbes serves on the Subcommittee.

During this hearing Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) asked Mr. Labs, “…if the Navy remains at its currently planned levels of funding, how many ships do you believe the Navy will be short of its 313-ship planned procurement?”   Mr. Labs response was, “…if the Navy is stuck with the historical average of $15 billion, in other words they must cut substantial numbers of ships out of their program, would depend very much on the composition of those cuts. If they choose to cut very expensive ships, you could end up having a force not of 313 or 322, but maybe somewhere around the force we have today of 280. If you cut more of a mix of less expensive ships, it could range anywhere from 200 to 250 ships in the fleet. It would depend very much on what whoever would be the deciding authority, whether it would be the Congress or the Navy, what they decide to remove from the shipbuilding plan in order to bring that overall budgetary level over the next 30 years into sort of an historical average line.”

 
The idea of the Navy shrinking to 250 ships next surfaced in an op-ed by Robert Kaplan appearing in the Financial Times on 29 November 2011.   In it, he wrote: “The US navy’s current strength is 284 warships. In the short term that number may rise to 313 because of the introduction of littoral combat ships. Over time, however, it may fall to about 250, owing to cost overruns, the need to address domestic debt and the decommissioning of aging warships in the 2020s.”

Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security joined Robert Kaplan in a January 2012 report called “Cooperation from Strength: The United States, China and the South China Sea” (Chapter 1, p.6) writing:  “The United States should strengthen its naval presence over the long term by building toward a 346-ship fleet rather than retreating to the 250-ship mark that the United States faces due to budget cuts and the decommissioning of aging warships in the next decade.” They go on to say (p.8) that: “Whereas the Reagan-era U.S. Navy boasted almost 600 warships, the number presently stands at 284. Although the Navy’s goal is to expand to 313 warships, current defense budgets, coupled with production delays and cost overruns, do not support that goal. Furthermore, with budget cuts in the offing, as well as the mass decommissioning of warships in the next decade because of age, the United States faces the prospect of a Navy with 250 ships or fewer.”  Cronin and Kaplan don’t source their “250 ships or fewer”, but it seems quite likely they picked this up from Labs’ testimony.

John Lehman, Gov. Romney’s naval adviser and champion of a 350 ship Navy, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April 2012 that “…It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.” 

Eric Labs makes some cogent points about the choices the Navy and Congress have for living within a constrained shipbuilding budget.  These insights have been ignored by advocates for a 346-350 ship Navy in their eager use of his “250 ships” phrase.

If the Navy retires and does not replace some high-end ships during the next twenty years it can manage its shipbuilding money so as to buy more ships that cost less.  Obvious candidates for cuts are aircraft carriers and strategic missile subs.  Cutting a couple carriers and reducing the strategic missile submarine fleet to seven will save tens of billions which can help pay for less expensive destroyers and attack subs. In the middle range of cost the LCS is steadily edging its way toward being a failed system (especially in terms of cost-effectiveness) and is more than twice as expensive as the retiring frigates it replaces.  There are modern frigate designs that can built for a fraction of the cost of an LCS.  These are just a few of the economical choices that the Navy and Congress can and will need to make to sustain the battle fleet.

Eric Labs also said that the size of the future fleet depended on choices of the “deciding authority… the Congress or the Navy.”  In this regard it is notable that the Congress has denied the Navy’s request this year to retire three (expensive to operate) cruisers that the Navy wanted to decommission in order to, in part, free up resources for new shipbuilding.  

[The Project on Defense Alternatives is an independent defense analysis ‘think tank’.  In this campaign season it seems important to state that we prize our nonpartisan stance.  We are skeptical of statements made by ‘experts’ aligned with both Democratic and Republican parties.  We are proud to contribute quality information providing citizens with the wherewithal to make independent judgments.]

PDA Update - August 15, 2012

A Reasonable Alternative to Sequester of DoD Funding

How should the U.S. defense posture and budget change as the war in Afghanistan winds down? This is a critical question for the nation, especially considering the growing fiscal pressures on the Federal government.

Unfortunately, the current panic about the pending "sequester" prevents clear thinking about the options before us. The January 2013 sequester of $55 billion in security spending will result in a precipitous reduction for the Pentagon. The Budget Control Act will trim the Pentagon in one stroke to a level close to its budget of 2007. This cut has been called "draconian" and "devastating" for the armed forces. A consensus has been growing in Washington that the Budget Control Act (BCA) must be amended or suspended in order to prevent sequestration.

This is not a choice between sequestration and no further cuts for DoD, however. There are ways to apply additional cuts to the Pentagon base budget that avoid both institutional disruption and most of the economic pain associated with deep cuts to government spending – a matter of some concern while the economy remains weak and struggling to recover. An illustrative option is the “Reasonable Defense” plan formulated by the Project on Defense Alternatives. It would ratchet back the base budget to the level of 2006 (corrected for inflation), but do so gradually in stages that the Pentagon and armed services could readily accommodate.

The table and chart that follow illustrate the first five years of the Reasonable Defense plan, comparing it with the Budget Control Act "sequester" budget, Administration's 2013 plan, and the actual 2012 spending level carried forward with increases for inflation. The first three years of Reasonable Defense cuts would be considerably smaller than what the BCA sequester entails. Then in 2017, when the post-recession economic recovery should be complete, the cuts would exceed those dictated by the BCA, eventually plateauing at a level about equal to the 2006 budget, which is somewhat lower than the sequestration level. 

Alternative DoD Discretionary Spending Paths (billions nominal dollars)

Total for five years 2013-2017

2012 level + inflation          2,792

2013 DoD request              2,728

Sequestration Level           2,452

Reasonable Defense plan    2,528

The proposed reduction from today’s level would be quite modest by historical standards – about 14% in real terms compared to the 35% reduction that followed the end of the Cold War. And, because the reduction would occur gradually over four years, the annual steps down would be comparable to those successfully absorbed by the Defense Department during previous periods of adjustment.

What does this proposed level of funding mean?  In inflation-adjusted terms, the 2012 Pentagon base budget is 38% higher than the 2001 budget, which was enacted before today’s wars had begun. While the Reasonable Defense plan would roll the base budget back to its 2006 level (adjusted for inflation), a fair portion of the spending increase would remain. The 2006 budget was 20% above the level of 2001, in real terms. 

The Ten Year Perspective

The Reasonable Defense budget for ten years would cost $560 billion less than the 2013 plan submitted by the White House.

Over the course of ten years the White House plan is to provide the Pentagon with $5.76 trillion.The Reasonable Defense budget would provide the Pentagon with $5.2 trillion over ten years. The Budget Control Act would cap defense at about $5.18 trillion.

The full details of the Reasonable Defense national security posture are forthcoming from the Project on Defense Alternatives in September of 2012. The addendum that follows gives some details of the plan.

Addendum: Prospectus for a Reasonable Defense

The PDA “Reasonable Defense” plan would reset America’s defense posture in light of new strategic challenges and circumstances. Based on a more realistic and cost-effective defense strategy, the new posture would enable a sustainable balance between military power and other elements of national strength. The new strategy would:

• Refocus America’s armed forces on those missions and tasks for which they are best suited: crisis response, defense, and deterrence.
• Prioritize those threats that pose the greatest danger of harm to ourselves and our allies: terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons. 
• Assume a more cooperative approach to achieving security goals – one in which responsibilities, burdens, and authorities are proportionately shared among allies and the broader community of nations.
• Tailor conventional war capabilities and modernization efforts to a realistic assessment of current and emerging conventional military challenges.
• Hedge against an uncertain future by renewing economic strength, maintaining a strong foundation for force reconstitution as well as a proportionately larger Reserve component, and continuing support for research, development, and the prototyping of new military technologies. 
• Reduce by 40% our routine peacetime military presence overseas and put greater emphasis on surging military power forward when and as needed. 
• Refrain from protracted counter-insurgency operations and armed “nation building” efforts. 
• Take a significant step toward a “minimal deterrent” nuclear posture, redouble efforts at strategic arms control, and adopt a no-first-use nuclear policy.

Following from these strategic precepts, the Reasonable Defense plan would reduce the size of the active-component military from more than 1.4 million troops today to 1.15 million by the end of 2016 – 19% reduction in military personnel over four years. Combat troops and units would be reduced by only 17%, however – more for the ground forces, less for the air forces. The reduction in National Guard and Reserve personnel would also be less: only 11%.

Once the drawdown to a Reasonable Defense level is complete, the annual Defense Department base budget would stabilize at approximately $455 billion (2012 dollars), which is 14% below the Fiscal Year 2012 budget.

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/140812bm56-Defense-Sequester.pdf

PDA Update - August 1, 2012

50+ Congressional Staff Briefed on 
Defense Savings Options

Yesterday, July 31, 2012, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, Ben Friedman of the Cato Institute, and Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress, presented options and arguments for defense savings to a standing-room-only meeting of more than fifty Congressional staff in the Rayburn House Office Building.   The meeting was moderated by Laura Peterson of Taxpayer for Common Sense and sponsored by the offices of Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and John Campbell (R-CA).

A central concern of participants was options for Fiscal Year 2013 defense appropriations and the likely amendment of the Budget Control Act.

Laura Peterson reviewed the debt and deficit challenge as well as the efforts to date to achieve significant defense savings. She noted that the defense industry has mounted a strong defense of current levels of spending, but that recent bi-partisan cooperation on defense budget restraint showed hope for greater savings.

Carl Conetta proposed a goal of reducing National Defense spending for FY 2013 by $15 billion to $18 billion, which would imply a top line of about $535 billion.  Drawing on recommendations outlined in the Defense Sense report, he suggested significant savings could be realized by accelerating personnel reductions, reducing strategic weapon modernization, and selectively cutting conventional weapon programs.  He pointed out that, despite the nation’s fiscal woes, the national defense budget had declined by less than 5 percent in real terms since 2010.

Ben Friedman challenged the notion that defense budget reductions, even at the level implied by sequestration, would imperil the economy or hobble the armed services.  The impact of reduced budget authority in any one year would be spread over several years of outlays, he said.  Greater budgetary restraint would encourage the armed services to compete and find new efficiencies.  And the overall economic effect of debt and deficit reduction would be positive over the long-term.  Funds removed from the Pentagon account would not simply disappear, he said, but could re-enter the economy in ways more conducive to growth.

Reinforcing the point about the delayed impact of cuts, Lawrence Korb pointed out that the Defense Department now holds $80 billion in unspent authorized cash from previous years.  Korb also criticized making defense policy decisions based on industrial interests, noting that the Navy does not really want the F-35, on which it will spend more than $1.8 billion in FY 2013.  Korb also challenged the assertion that significant budget reductions would bring disaster to the Pentagon, recalling that much deeper cuts had been enacted between 1985 and 1994.

Looking to the future, meeting participants saw the recent victory of the Mulvaney-Frank amendment as heralding more bipartisan cooperation in achieving defense savings. And they saw the post-election period – when the sequester threat would loom – as presenting a renewed opportunity for real progress toward a more sensible level of defense expenditure.

PDA Update - July, 2012

It now appears quite likely that following this year’s election the Budget Control Act will be either suspended (“kicked down the road”) or amended in order to avoid the $110 billion sequester of discretionary budget funds, half of which will come out of national security accounts, mostly from the Department of Defense.  The intensive political negotiations on Budget Control Act amendment will begin in November with $50+ billion in DoD budget cuts on the table under current law.  Of course, the composition of future budgets and any fiscal compromise will depend on who is President in 2013 and the balance of power in Congress.

 

Although Pentagon boosters are fond of calling the 9-10% budget cut in the current law “draconian” and “dangerous” it does not amount to much when put in context of what our enemies and potential opponents spend.  A new PDA summary of global military spending called USA and Allies Outspend Potential Rivals on Military by Four-to-One: America Carries Much of the Defense Burden for its Allies tells the story. 

 

 

A $50 billion reduction in U.S. defense spending results in a ratio of 3.8 to 1 (between the U.S. and allies to the un-allied set of current and potential opponents.)  A 4 to 1 spending superiority is extraordinary overmatch, and a 3.8 to 1 overmatch is also extraordinary.  We might want to return attention to this matter when and if the overmatch is merely 2 to 1.  Meanwhile we can continue to make judicious cuts to the DoD spending for quite some time. 

 

When an amended Budget Control program is negotiated later this year and early next PDA believes there should be no less than $12 billion (2.3%) in additional DoD cuts in FY13.  With concern about the still weak economy we favor phasing-in deeper cuts over the next four years.  We think the Pentagon should be trimming back to circa 2006 levels as quickly as the services can reasonably be expected to adapt and the economy can absorb the decline in Federally supported jobs.  

 

The specifics of a readily available set of program cuts worth $17-20 billion in 2013 are listed in PDA's Defense Sense.  

 

Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) has introduced an amendment to the FY13 House Appropriations bill cutting DoD’s budget by $19.2 billion.  This is an appropriate and reasonable cut for the coming year.