SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
March 1, 2010
Exclusive: Inadequate Budget Support for Air and Naval Power
Last week, the civilian service secretaries and the uniformed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on the 2011 defense budget authorization. Nowhere in the prepared statements of the Air Force and Navy was there any mention of China. Beijing’s military buildup is aimed squarely at countering American air and sea power, the core of U.S. strength in Asia. Yet, America’s military leaders acted as if the threat did not exist. Details were provided about weapons systems, procurement plans, and operational capabilities. What was lacking was the larger strategic context in which to place the military programs being funded beyond the immediate desire to win the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obviously, victory in the Middle East conflicts must be top priority, but the plan is to turn over the bulk of security missions to local forces. While American and coalition troops are necessary to overthrow hostile regimes and stabilize dangerous situations, in the long run only local forces can control insurgencies and combat terrorism. America should be prepared to aid local efforts with intelligence and training, and occasional interventions by special forces and air support, but it has broader challenges to meet as well.
The main purpose of U.S. forces is to maintain the high-end capabilities needed to deter rival states or defeat their armed forces which are the main threats to the international balance of power. China is the rising “peer competitor” with the manifest intent to overthrow American “hegemony” in world affairs. Beijing also stands behind rogue states in every region whose ambitions clash with U.S. interests. So why the silence?
On February 23rd, the Air Force offered a joint statement by Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, Air Superiority was set as the first priority. The F-22 Raptor was given prominent mention in providing this essential capability, but production of this fifth-generation fighter has been capped at 187 aircraft by the Obama administration. The USAF leaders say the F-22 will be supplemented by existing F-15C/D Eagles, which were first built in 1985. As Richard D. Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center recently noted in a very detailed paper comparing U.S. and Chinese air capabilities, “F-15C air superiority fighters have been regularly bested in exercises with Russian and Indian Su-27s and Su-30s” which China is acquiring and copying. Beijing’s production version of the Su-27 is called the J-10.
The USAF testimony mentioned that “several” countries are working on fifth generation fighters. It does not mention that China is one of them. Beijing’s fifth generation fighter may enter service by the end of the decade, and it is safe to predict that more than 187 will be built. By then, the F-22 production line will have been shut down.
The USAF is putting all its eggs in the F-35 Lightning II basket, a fifth generation “multirole” fighter-bomber. Its ability to contribute to air superiority is mentioned in the Air Force testimony, but in the precision strike section, not the air superiority section. The F-35 is not designed to have the advanced air combat capabilities of the F-22.
On another issue of strategic importance, HASC Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) complained, “I see we’re back to square one on building a new bomber….As I understand it, the direction is now to reconsider where to go with this program.” The last bomber program resulted in the B-2 Spirit, a marvelous stealth aircraft far ahead of anything flying elsewhere, but that program was capped at 21 planes by the Clinton administration. The argument was that with the Cold War over, there wouldn’t be a need for a long-range, heavy strike force capable of penetrating enemy defenses. But military history did not end in the 1990s, nor will it end in the 21st century.
The day after the Air Force testified, it was the Navy’s turn, with statements from bothSecretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, The CNO set out the fleet’s overall plan,
“I have stated that our Navy requires a minimum of 313 ships to meet operational requirements globally. This minimum, a product of our 2005 force structure analysis, remains valid. We are adjusting our requirement to address increased operational demands and expanding requirements, as outlined in the QDR, for ballistic missile defense, intra-theater lift, and forces capable of confronting irregular challenges. Our shipbuilding plan addresses these operational needs by growing our Fleet to 315 ships in 2020 and peaking at 320 ships in 2024.”
A 320-ship fleet is about half the 600-ship fleet that was built in the 1980s during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Have the oceans grown smaller or the need to control them grown less important since then? Is the U.S. economy smaller than it was 30 years ago? Or is it just that the vision of America’s leaders and their desire to maintain preeminence has waned?
Three weeks earlier, Chairman Skelton had stated in regard to the just released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), “although the QDR should not be budget constrained, the plain fact is that resources are not unlimited. Ultimately Congress will need to make prudent trade-offs to meet fiscal realities while buying down strategic risk.” The Obama administration is running unprecedented budget deficits to stimulate the economy. It is looking for infrastructure programs than create jobs while meeting national needs. So why is it that the defense industry is being “constrained?” Less money will be spent on Navy shipbuilding during the 2011-2020 period than the $182 billion given to the AIG insurance firm to bail it out its finances!
Ranking HASC member Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA) complained,
“We’re building two Virginia class attack subs per year starting in Fiscal Year 2011. This is largely due to Congressional action, not the Department’s. But even building two per year, we fail to meet our minimum requirement for submarines. The requirement is 48. With the 53 we have today, we cannot meet our Combatant Commander’s critical and high priority requests. Yet the shipbuilding plan we just received has our force falling to 39 by 2030, leaving our Combatant Commanders worse off than they are now.”
China is expected to build 30 or more submarines and purchases eight or more Russian subs this coming decade. Beijing will be replacing old submarines with new boats on a one-for-one basis, whereas the U.S. will be reducing its undersea fleet. By 2020, China will deploy more submarines than the U.S. by a roughly 3-2 margin. Though the USN will still have the qualitative edge, its outnumbered boats will be deployed around the world whereas the Chinese fleet will be concentrated in Asian waters across vital trade and oil routes. America needs a fleet larger than what its rivals can deploy.
Rep. McKeon also raised the issue of sea-based missile defense. Secretary Mabus stated,
“In our cruisers and destroyers, the Navy has built a strong ballistic missile defense force. These multi-mission ships routinely deploy to the Mediterranean, the Arabian Gulf, and the Western Pacific and extend an umbrella of deterrence. Across the Future Years’ Defense Program we will expand this mission and operationally implement the President’s decision in September 2009 to focus on sea-based ballistic missile defense.”
McKeon pointed out; however, “the budget provides no more surface combatants to take on this new mission.” Indeed, the surface fleet will be downsized as destroyers are used to replace cruisers and most of the new construction will be of littoral combat ships which are smaller than destroyers. The number of aircraft carriers will drop to 10 between 2013 and 2015, and even when increased to 11 thereafter, it will be a smaller force than the 15 carriers deployed during the Reagan era.
The post-Cold War era is over. Another cycle of international rivalry has started. New powers are arising around the world. Some are regional powers like Iran. Some are like China, desiring to be a Great Powers vying for global leadership. The United States needs to prepare for much more menacing challenges than terrorism and accept that the world is a dangerous place characterized by persistent conflict. As large as the present defense budget is, it still does not provide forces on the scale that the U.S. fielded a generation ago and will need to field again.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
