Back to news

May 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Will defense budgets remain ‘sticky’ after the COVID-19 pandemic?

By: Eric Lofgren

Congress' unprecedented fiscal response to COVID-19 has many in the defense community wondering whether belt tightening will hit the Pentagon. On May 19, the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote a letter arguing for substantial defense budget cuts to support additional spending on the pandemic. Nonprofit progressive supporters have been asking to cut a much larger $350 billion each year from the Pentagon in their “Moral Budget” proposal. What the progressives perhaps do not fully appreciate is the “stickiness” of defense budgets.

In economics, stickiness refers to rigidity in the movement of wages and prices despite broader economic shifts pushing for new equilibrium. The phenomenon is apparent in defense budgets as well. Most expectations are that the fiscal 2021 budget will remain over $700 billion.

Consider an analogy: the 2008 financial crisis. Lehman Brothers collapsed just a couple weeks before fiscal year 2009 started, leaving that $666 billion defense budget largely beyond recall. The following years' budgets were $691 billion, $687 billion, $646 billion and then finally in FY13 a more precipitous 10 percent fall to $578 billion. It took four years for the Pentagon to really feel the squeeze of the financial downturn.

The uninitiated may believe COVID-19 happened with enough of lead time to affect the FY21 budget. Congress received the president's budget in February 2020 and has until the start of October to make targeted cuts without encountering another continuing resolution.

The defense budget, however, represents the culmination of a multiyear process balancing thousands of stakeholder interests. It reflects a vast amount of information processed at every level of the military enterprise.

The Pentagon's work on the FY21 budget request started nearly two years ahead of time and includes a register of funding estimates out to FY25. Moreover, defense programs are devised and approved based on life-cycle cost and schedule estimates. Cuts to a thorough plan may flip the analysis of alternatives on its head, recommending pivots to new systems or architectures and upsetting contract performance.

Not only are current budgets shaped by many years of planning, but they get detailed to an almost microscopic level. For example, the Army's FY21 research, development, test and evaluation request totaled $12.8 billion, less than 2 percent of the overall Pentagon request. Yet the appropriation identifies 267 program elements decomposing into a staggering 2,883 budget program activity codes averaging less than $10 million each.

Congressional staff is too small to understand the implications of many cost, schedule and technical trade-offs. To gather information on impacts, the Pentagon is thrown into a frenzy of fire drills. More draconian measures, like the FY13 sequestration, leading to indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts can sidestep hard questions but comes at a significant cost to efficiency.

Targeted cuts at a strategic level, such as to the nuclear recapitalization programs and other big-ticket items, can expect stiff resistance. First, there is real concern about great power competition and the damage that may be wrought by acting on short-term impulses.

Second, targeted programs and their contractors will immediately report the estimated number of job losses by district. Before measures can get passed, a coalition of congressional members negatively impacted may oppose the cuts. Resistance is intensified considering the proximity to Election Day. Budget stickiness is built into the political process.

The FY22 budget is perhaps the first Pentagon budget that can start inching downward. More than likely, severe cuts aren't in the offing until FY23 or FY24 at the very earliest. That gives time for policymakers to reflect on the scale of the rebalancing between defense and other priorities.

In some important ways, congressional control of the Pentagon through many thousands of budget line items restricts its own flexibility. For example, continuing resolutions lock in program funding to the previous year's level until political disagreements can be resolved. The military cannot stick to its own plans, much less start new things. If budget lines were detailed at a higher level, such as by major organization or capability area, then the Pentagon could make more trade-offs while Congress debates.

Similarly, if the Pentagon had more budget flexibility, then Congress could more easily cut top lines and allow Pentagon leaders to figure out how to maximize with the constraint during the year of execution. Congress could gain the option to defer the hard questions that can make cuts politically difficult.

The Space Force recently released a proposal for consolidating budget line items into higher-level capability areas. It reflects the idea that portfolio-centric management is an efficient method of handling rapid changes in technologies, requirements or financial guidance resulting from economic shocks. Until such reforms are pursued, expect defense budgets to remain sticky.

Eric Lofgren is a research fellow at the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. He manages a blog and podcast on weapon systems acquisition. He previously served as a senior analyst at Technomics Inc., supporting the U.S. Defense Department's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/26/will-defense-budgets-remain-sticky-after-the-covid-19-pandemic/

On the same subject

  • Bell-Boeing Delivers First CMV-22B to Navy for COD Mission

    February 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval

    Bell-Boeing Delivers First CMV-22B to Navy for COD Mission

    By: Sam LaGrone The first of a new generation of carrier onboard delivery aircraft delivered to the Navy, the service announced on Friday. Manufacturer Bell-Boeing turned over a CMV-22B Osprey to the Navy in a ceremony at its Texas assembly facility after four years of design and production. “There is nothing more important than delivering capabilities to the fleet with speed,” James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said in a statement. “I am proud how the program and industry team have leveraged non-traditional approaches such as using existing MV-22 testing data to shrink the time in the CMV-22 acquisition cycle.” The delivered aircraft is now assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (HX) 21. “The first operational squadron, Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron (VRM) 30, is scheduled to receive the aircraft this summer,” the Navy said. The first flight of the aircraft was in December, reported USNI News at the time. The delivery comes ahead of an aggressive testing and fielding schedule for the new COD that is anticipated to deploy next year in parallel with the first deployed squadron of F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70). Vinson is currently in a drydock availability undergoing upgrades to field the F-35Cs. The CMV-22B will be key to the deployment as the new COD will be able to carry the engine power module for the F-35s, a key logistics requirement for any JSF deployment. The new Ospreys are based on the Marines existing MV-22B with key differences. “The CMV-22B will be capable of transporting up to 6,000 pounds of cargo and/or personnel over a 1,150 nautical mile range. This expanded range is due to the addition of two new 60-gallon tanks installed in the wing for an additional 120 gallons of fuel and the forward sponson tanks were redesigned for additional capacity,” read a statement from the Navy. “The CMV-22B variant has a beyond-line-of-sight high-frequency radio, a public address system for passengers, and an improved lighting system for cargo loading.” The tilt-rotor will replace the 1960s era C-2A Greyhounds used for the COD mission. The Navy is getting 39 Ospreys as part of a $4.2-billion contract modification with Bell-Boeing the Pentagon announced in July 2018. https://news.usni.org/2020/02/08/bell-boeing-delivers-first-cmv-22b-to-navy-for-cod-mission

  • The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

    December 16, 2019 | International, Land

    The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

    By: Valerie Insinna SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. — With no end in sight to the demand on the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force is actively seeking agreements with defense contractors for aerial refueling services. On Dec. 17, Air Mobility Command will hold an industry day at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, in the hopes of better understanding how it can contract for commercial air refueling services to supplement tanking missions performed by the Air Force's KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-46s. “We do think that this is an opportunity that needs to be pursued,” Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, the command's deputy chief, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News on Dec. 10. “If we can find a viable, clear path with industry, we should do it.” The Air Force believes there are a certain set of aerial-refueling missions conducted in a uncontested environment that could provide a predictable stream of business, Thomas said. Through the industry day, the service is hoping to better understand how companies might be able to fulfill those requirements. “There are several providers ... that would propose that they have their own tanker that's already flying and doing great work for other air forces,” he said. “That's fascinating to us. There's another vendor that has procured boom-equipped tankers from a foreign air force that is a proven capability. There are some others that may be doing the same thing with a different foreign air force. So I would say that they're out there and they're committing to the idea that if the Air Force is serious, we're serious about this, too.” There are a number of parameters that industry would have to address, such as meeting the Air Force's aircraft certification standards and the Federal Aviation Administration's demands for refueling in U.S. airspace. Companies must also be able to refuel aircraft using a boom — a requirement that may hinder certain tankers that use a probe and drogue for refueling. “Right now, all commercial aerial refueling services are drogue only. It has to be a boom aircraft for the U.S. Air Force to be able to really leverage it in any meaningful way,” Thomas said. Although Thomas declined to talk about specific vendors that could provide air refueling services, Lockheed Martin and Airbus — which joined forces in 2018 to pitch a fee-for-service model for Airbus's A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport — have been vocal about courting the U.S. Air Force as a customer. Michele Evans, head of Lockheed's aeronautics business, told reporters in June that the companies are in discussions with the U.S. military about A330 sales, leasing or a fee-for service construct, and that U.S. Transportation Command in particular showed interest. “We've really been able to show them what we think is capable, feasible,” she said. “You can never have enough tanking capability. As you look at the challenges of the battlespace and the threat and capabilities, having to be standoff farther and farther, it's a great opportunity for them to go revisit their capabilities versus capacity.” Still, Evans acknowledged there is much to be determined, including the exact nature of the business partnership between Airbus and Lockheed, should a contract emerge, and how the company would structure a fee-for-service contract with the Air Force or other potential customers. One possible construct would involve associating a cost for each gallon of fuel delivered. If the Air Force decides not to move forward with purchasing aerial refueling services, it still has a number of options for augmenting the tanker force. In the near term, Air Mobility Command can retain some KC-135s that were slated to be divested as the KC-46 comes online, Thomas said. In March, Transportation Command chief Gen. Stephen Lyons told Congress that the Air Force was considering keeping as many as 28 KC-135s. The Air Force is currently debating 14 KC-135s as part of the fiscal 2021 budget, Thomas said. “We'll see how the president's budget goes over. I really hope that it will allow us to retain some additional capacity. I don't know if it will,” he said. “But that's our first lever that we can pull." Another option is increasing the KC-46 program of record, which currently stands at 179 tankers. However, Boeing is still in the process of making extensive changes to the aircraft's remote vision system, which the aircraft uses for refueling, and Air Mobility Command won't be able to consider a production increase until those fixes are made, Thomas said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/

  • Legal battle over Army vehicle highlights contracting barriers

    December 21, 2022 | International, Land

    Legal battle over Army vehicle highlights contracting barriers

    A court battle amid an Army vehicle competition is highlighting the hurdles and struggles non-traditional companies face trying to break into the industry.

All news