Back to news

February 12, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

How Republicans might accept a smaller defense budget

By:

WASHINGTON ― California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert is willing to meet Democratic lawmakers partway in their reported plans to trim the defense budget: cut back on civilian employees, not equipment and modernization.

“Like everything else in government, personnel is your biggest cost, and the civilian-to-uniform ratio ... is at an all-time high,” Calvert, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subpanel, said in an interview Wednesday. “Our inability to correct that trend is eating away at our military, our procurement, our readiness, all the above, and so we need to do this.”

President Joe Biden is expected to release his federal budget plan in April, but battle lines are being drawn on Capitol Hill ahead of what is expected to be a tighter military budget than in recent years.

While some key Republicans want to protect the military budget increases that came under then-President Donald Trump, or even build upon them, Calvert said he is open to “responsible reductions.” He is offering civilian cuts as an alternative to cutting end strength and weapons platforms.

“Rather than reducing [personnel in] uniforms ― and I think there's some talk about doing that, especially in the Army ― we need to look at the civilian workforce, which is at the highest ratio to uniformed service members than it has ever been,” Calvert said.

“If you're going to cut defense, are you going to cut procurement? People are arguing we need to build the Columbia-class submarine and Virginia-class submarine ― and I agree ― that we [keep the] Space Force, and [that] our satellite program is woefully behind ― and I agree. Where do you make your reductions when your overwhelming cost is personnel?”

Under Calvert's bill, the Rebalance for an Effective Defense Uniform and Civilian Employees Act, or Reduce Act, a 15 percent cut to the civilian workforce overall and a cap for the Defense Department's Senior Executive Service at 1,000 employees would have to be in place by fiscal 2025 and remain through 2029. The defense secretary would be empowered to use voluntary-separation and early-retirement incentives toward the reduction.

The legislation, which has been introduced several times before, was inspired by a 2015 study by the Defense Business Board that illustrated how the Department of Defense could save $125 billion over five years by slashing overhead.

Still, the proposal to cut civilians would face new optics this year. As civilian voices were muted in favor of uniformed leaders under the Trump administration, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a former general, committed under bipartisan pressure to “rebalance” Pentagon decision- and policy-making in favor of civilian leaders.

It's also a different tact than that of the House Armed Services Committee's new top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers, who plans to guard against cuts and would prefer a 3-5 percent increase in defense spending ― which Pentagon leaders say is required to carry out the 2018 National Defense Strategy.

It's still early in the budgeting cycle, and the two may align. But in meantime, Calvert's approach offers something to fiscal conservatives, and it tracks with past efforts from Rogers' predecessor, former Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

Even if Republicans can fend off a top-line cut or win an adjustment for inflation to keep shipbuilding and aircraft procurement on track, Calvert said he supports cutting the Defense Department's civilian workforce.

“Hey, I hope Mike's right. I mean, he is a good friend, but I think he's a realist too,” Calvert said. “I worked with his predecessor on procurement reform, I'm trying to do some personnel reform, and we need those reforms on both sides.”

For their part, Democrats swiftly rejected Calvert's legislation, making it one of the first skirmishes of the annual battle over the defense budget. The defense subpanel's new chairwoman, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said she discussed the matter with Calvert and disagrees with him.

“His proposal could lead to some of the most talented and committed DOD public servants losing their jobs,” McCollum said in a statement. “While we agree there is excess defense spending, my focus is on making smart investments that yield demonstrable outcomes by cutting waste and ending subsidies for outdated and unnecessary programs and facilities. In my view, the existing Department of Defense civilian workforce is mission critical to ensuring our national security.”

The American Federation of Government Employees has historically opposed the bill, and a spokesman said funding and defense policy legislation passed last year prohibit civilian workforce cuts “without regard to impacts on readiness, lethality, military force structure, stress of the force, operational effectiveness and fully burdened costs.”

With 768,000 federal employees working across all Defense Department components, the proposed cut amounts to 100,000 employees. Between 2015 and 2019, an average of just under 82,000 employees left DoD jobs each year.

Calvert contends his 15 percent cut could be accomplished through attrition, not firings, and target “growth in middle management,” not the supply depots scattered around the country that have political backing. Previous cuts of civilian personnel have fueled increases in contracting costs ― and Calvert said he is open to cutting those too, in partnership with McCollum.

“There would be discretion on the part of the people running the Pentagon; there are people you don't want to lose, they're in a special category, I get it,” Calvert said. “There are probably a lot of people you wouldn't miss, people up for retirement.”

Democrats are more apt to take on nuclear modernization, which is projected to cost the Pentagon more than $240 billion in taxpayer dollars through 2028. In the balance is the contract for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, awarded to Northrop Grumman last year, to replace aging, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Politico reports that progressive lawmakers and disarmament advocates are lobbying allies in the Biden administration for a pause in the GBSD program, while the Air Force and its allies in Congress, think tanks, and defense contractors are sharpening their arguments to preserve the program.

Calvert acknowledged criticism of nuclear spending from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., but said big cuts to the nuclear triad lack the backing to succeed. (The panel rejected a funding cut for GBSD last year.)

“I know Adam has been critical of that, but there's absolute support for redundancy of the deterrent within the Republican ranks, and so I don't see that going away. What I'm hearing so far out of the administration is that they feel the same way, so I don't think that's going to happen,” Calvert said.

Austin and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks have voiced support for nuclear modernization broadly but stopped short of pledging to uphold the current nuclear modernization strategy in its entirety.

Nuclear modernization cutbacks would “weaken the United States,” Calvert argued.

“We're not just thinking about Russia; we've got China, who's rapidly militarizing space, and their missile capability is improving. Obviously we've got countries like North Korea or Iran that are building their own missile capability, so we have to have a strong deterrent to make sure we are ready for any contingency.”

Jessie Bur of Federal Times and Leo Shane III of Military Times contributed to this report.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/02/11/how-republicans-might-accept-a-smaller-defense-budget/

On the same subject

  • How the Office of Naval Research hopes to revolutionize manufacturing

    October 16, 2018 | International, Naval

    How the Office of Naval Research hopes to revolutionize manufacturing

    By: Daniel Cebul WASHINGTON — The Office of Naval Research awarded Lockheed Martin Oct. 1 a two-year, $5.8 million contract to explore how machine learning and artificial intelligence can make complex 3-D printing more reliable and save hours of tedious post-production inspections. In today's factories, 3-D printing parts requires persistent monitoring by specialists to ensure intricate parts are produced without impurities and imperfections that can compromise the integrity of the part overall. To improve this laborious process, the Navy is tasking Lockheed Martin with developing multi-axis robots that use lasers to deposit material and oversee the printing of parts. Lockheed Martin has multiple partners on the contract including Carnegie Mellon University, Iowa State University, Colorado School of Mines, America Makes, GKN and Wolf Robotics and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The contract covers what Glynn Adams, a senior engineer with Lockheed Martin, describes as the pre-flight model of the program's development. Initial work will focus on developing computer models that can predict the microstructures and mechanical properties of 3-D printed materials to generate simulation data to train with. Adams said the Carnegie Mellon team will look at variables such as, “the spot size of the laser beam, the rate of feed of the titanium wire [and]the total amount energy density input into the material while it is being manufactured.” This information helps the team predict the microstructure, or organizational structure of a material on a very small scale, that influences the physical properties of the additive manufactured part. This data will then be shared with Iowa State, who will plug the information into a model that predicts the mechanical properties of the printed component. By taking temperature and spot size measurements, the team can also ensure they are, “accurately controlling energy density, the power of both the laser and the hot wire that goes into the process,” Adams said.. “All of that is happening before you actually try to do any kind of machine learning or artificial neural networks with the robot itself. That's just to try to train the models to the point where we have confidence in the models,” Adams said. Sounds easy, right? But one key problem could come in cleaning up the data and removing excess noise from the measurements. “Thermal measurements are pretty easy and not data intensive, but when you start looking at optical measurements you can collect just an enormous amount of data that is difficult to manage,” Adams explained. Lockheed Martin wants to learn how shrink the size of that dataset without sacrificing key parameters. The Colorado School of Mines and America Makes will tackle the problem of compressing and manipulating this data to extract the key information needed to train the algorithms. After this work has been completed, the algorithms then will be sent to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where robots will begin producing 3-D titanium parts and learn how to reliably construct geometrically and structurally sound parts. This portion of the program will confront challenges from the additive manufacturing and AI components of the project. On the additive manufacturing side, the team will work with new manufacturing process, “trying to understand exactly what the primary, secondary and tertiary interactions are between all those different process parameters,” Adams said. “If you think about it, as you are building the part depending on the geometric complexity, now those interactions change based on the path the robot has to take to manufacture that part. One of the biggest challenges is going to be to understand exactly which of those parameters are the primary, which are the tertiary and to what level of control we need to be able to manipulate or control those process parameters in order to generate the confidence in the parts that we want.” At the same time, researchers also will tackle AI machine learning challenges. Like with other AI programs, it's crucial the algorithm is learning the right information, the right way. The models will give the algorithms a good starting point, but Adams said this will be an iterative process that depends on the algorithm's ability to self-correct. “At some point, there are some inaccuracies that could come into that model,” Adams explained. “So now, the system itself has to understand it may be getting into a regime that is not going to produce the mechanical properties or microstructures that you want, and be able to self-correct to make certain that instead of going into that regime it goes into a regime that produces the geometric part that you want.” With a complete algorithm that can be trusted to produce structurally sound 3-D printed parts, time-consuming post-production inspections will become a thing of the past. Instead of nondestructive inspections and evaluations, if you “have enough control on the process, enough in situ measurements, enough models to show that that process and the robot performed exactly as you thought it would, and produced a part that you know what its capabilities are going to be, you can immediately deploy that part,” said Adams. “That's the end game, that's what we're trying to get to, is to build the quality into the part instead of inspecting it in afterwards." Confidence in 3-D printed parts could have dramatic consequences for soldiers are across the services. As opposed to waiting for replacement parts, service members could readily search a database of components, find the part they need and have a replacement they can trust in hours rather than days or weeks. “When you can trust a robotic system to make a quality part, that opens the door to who can build usable parts and where you build them,” said Zach Loftus, Lockheed Martin Fellow for additive manufacturing. “Think about sustainment and how a maintainer can print a replacement part at sea, or a mechanic print a replacement part for a truck deep in the desert. This takes 3-D printing to the next, big step of deployment.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/industry/2018/10/15/how-the-office-of-naval-research-hopes-to-revolutionize-manufacturing

  • Stop buying Turkey’s F-35 parts, lawmakers tell DoD

    July 8, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Stop buying Turkey’s F-35 parts, lawmakers tell DoD

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of lawmakers is urging the Pentagon to more quickly stop buying F-35 fighter jet components from Turkey. Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Thom Tillis, R-N.C.; and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., complained in a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper on July 6 that the Pentagon's plans to buy parts from Turkey into 2022 undercuts U.S. pressure on the country over its purchase of the Russian S-400 Triumf air defense system. The U.S. formally removed Turkey from the multinational program in 2019 over the S-400 deal, and it ended training on the jet for Turkish pilots. Furthermore, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act barred the transfer of F-35 aircraft to Turkey. The U.S. has warned that Turkey's use of the S-400 could compromise the stealthy F-35. But Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord told reporters in January that it would allow prime contractor Lockheed Martin and engine-maker Pratt & Whitney to honor existing contractual obligations with Turkish manufacturers for F-35 components. That means Lockheed would receive Turkish parts through the end of Lot 14, with those planes set to be delivered to customers in 2022. Turkish manufacturers were involved in building more than 900 parts for the F-35, and Pentagon officials said in November that it had found replacement suppliers for nearly all of them. Moving production from Turkey to the U.S. was projected to cost more than $500 million in nonrecurring engineering costs. The lawmakers pointed to Turkey's authoritarian drift under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and to human rights violations in Syria and Iraq. Though it wasn't mentioned in the letter, CNN broke news last month that Erdogan had pressed U.S. President Donald Trump in frequent phone calls for policy concessions and other favors, worrying Trump's national security advisers. The lawmakers argued to Esper that continuing to buy parts violates the 2020 NDAA and its “clear diplomatic message to Turkey about the consequences of moving forward with Russian defense systems and technology.” “Based on recent revelations, it is clear that the Pentagon is not following its own timeline or the intent of Congress in this matter,” the letter read. “We encourage you to reexamine the present approach and take action to ensure an expedited removal of Turkey from the manufacturing line as required by law.” Valerie Insinna contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/07/07/stop-buying-turkeys-f-35-parts-already-lawmakers-tell-dod/

  • Shipbuilding suppliers need more than market forces to stay afloat

    May 21, 2020 | International, Naval

    Shipbuilding suppliers need more than market forces to stay afloat

    By: Bryan Clark and Timothy A. Walton The U.S. Navy's award this month of the contract for its new class of frigates starts the very necessary process of rebalancing the U.S. surface fleet, but the competition also highlighted the U.S. shipbuilding-industrial base's increasing fragility. If they lost, two of the four shipyards bidding on the frigate were at risk of either going out of business or joining the underemployed ranks of U.S. commercial shipbuilders. Due to specialization, only one or two yards construct each class of Navy combat ship with workforces, equipment, and infrastructure that would be expensive and difficult to adapt. A decision on any single ship class, as with the frigate, can shut down a shipyard and send its workers to the unemployment line. Specialization is also a problem when orders increase. The Navy's two submarine shipyards, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News division, shrank the time needed to build subs by 20 percent during the past decade while increasing production to two per year. The rising sophistication of Virginia-class submarines has now reversed this trend, however, and submarine builders' challenges are only increasing. They recently started a new contract to build up to 10 of the larger Block V Virginia submarines and are in negotiation with the Navy on a block-buy contract for the first two Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. Supplier challenges abound U.S. shipbuilders may be fragile, but their suppliers are on life support. After decades of being whipsawed by changes to shipbuilding plans and budget uncertainty, a shrinking number of suppliers are able and willing to stay in business. The Navy's recent initiatives to improve supplier production capacity and resilience don't go far enough to address its rising dependence on sole-source suppliers, which now provide more than 75 percent of submarine parts. For example, when problems with Columbia missile tubes led the Navy to seek new suppliers, it replaced the existing, sole source — BWXT — with another — General Dynamics — that will assemble tubes at the same facilities that are constructing parts for the Virginia and Columbia submarines. Last year, the Trump administration used the Defense Production Act to establish new suppliers for military missile fuel. The Navy should build on this effort to identify sole-source items for which an additional supplier is appropriate. In selecting additional suppliers, the Navy should prioritize attributes other than cost. Sole-source items by definition are important enough to justify seeking out or creating a single supplier rather than adapting the ship's design to use an existing item. Therefore, the Navy should emphasize the provider's track record in conducting similar or other challenging engineering; its ability to adjust to what will likely be variable demand and changing specifications; and the likelihood of quality production that avoids rework. Planning for resiliency The Department of Defense could help address the shipbuilding-industrial base's fragility with its current study of the number and mix of ships needed in the future fleet. Although the primary goal of this analysis should be determining the most effective fleet possible within likely budget constraints, it must also ensure the industrial base can build and sustain the future Navy. Industrial base considerations are not new to Navy force structure planning. During the last decade, the Navy or Congress added amphibious ships, submarines, destroyers and auxiliary vessels to maintain hot production lines or keep a shipyard afloat until the next order. Each of the Navy's new combatant ships are expected to cost more than $1 billion to build, constraining the Navy's ability to spread ship construction to other qualified shipyards to fill production gaps or extend classes to keep a shipyard in operation. The Navy could better support shipbuilders by rebalancing its fleet architecture to increase the number of smaller vessels such as corvettes or tank landing ships, and reduce the number of larger destroyers and amphibious warships. Smaller, less-expensive ships could be built in larger numbers per year, providing more flexibility in shipbuilding plans to stabilize the workload for shipbuilders and providing more scalability to align shipbuilding expenditures with changing budgets. Smaller ships could also be built at a wider range of shipyards, including those that only build commercial vessels and noncombatant government ships like Coast Guard cutters and oceanographic research vessels. These “dual-use” shipbuilders suffer today from a lack of coordination between commercial and government shipbuilding, which creates a feast-or-famine cycle of orders. The Navy and nation depend on a healthy shipbuilding-industrial base. To foster the industrial base in the face of natural and man-made challenges, the Navy should change its fleet design and shipbuilding plans, while investing to establish and qualify new suppliers. Without deliberate action, the U.S. shipbuilding industry will become increasingly fragile, limiting the Navy's ability to build the ships it needs and respond when today's competitions turn to conflict. Bryan Clark is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, where Timothy A. Walton is a fellow. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/20/shipbuilding-suppliers-need-more-than-market-forces-to-stay-afloat/

All news