23 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

COVID-19′s fiscal impact might ironically strengthen national defense

By: Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis (ret.)

As Congress and the White House cope with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic by passing multitrillion-dollar stimulus packages, many are already grappling with the thorny problem of how we'll eventually pay for the spike in spending. While no one ever wants to be a bill-payer, the defense industry is predictably first out of the blocks seeking immunity from any future cuts by trotting out its favorite weapon: fear.

Don't be fooled by this tried-and-true tactic: The claim that any cuts to the defense budget will imperil defense is gravely mistaken. Without changes in the foreign policy we enact — and a rational reform of how we spend our defense dollars — our national security will continue to decay.

First, the cold, hard economic reality: The damage done to our economy by the necessary measures federal and state governments have enacted to safeguard American lives has been breathtaking in its scope and severity. Some estimates suggest gross domestic product will contract this year by as much as 40 percent, and unemployment could balloon to 30 percent. To help stem the tide, Congress has already passed a $2 trillion stimulus package, with more yet to come.

With an already massive national debt of $24 trillion, the combination of government spending and the loss of tax revenue is going to place serious pressure on future budgets for years to come. These bills will eventually have to be paid, and no area of the budget will be free from scrutiny — including defense.

Though the Department of Defense should be funded to whatever level is required to ensure the ability of our armed forces to deter and, if necessary defeat any adversary that may seek to deprive our citizens of life or liberty, not all aspects of the status quo are helping keep us safe.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr recently co-wrote an article arguing that regardless of the financial strain imposed by the coronavirus stimulus bills, defense spending should be exempted. The reason, he says, is that the military today remains in a yearslong “free-fall” which “can't be fixed in a year or even four.”

The last thing America's leaders should do when responding to the financial constraints imposed by the coronavirus, he concludes, is to “weaken the military.” His implications that military readiness has been in free fall because of inadequate spending and that any reduction in defense spending weakens the military are beliefs held by many — and are inaccurate for several key reasons. Clinging to forever wars might be the biggest.

The DoD has to spend hundreds of billions annually to fight, maintain and prepare for subsequent deployments fighting the forever wars we've been waging for the better part of two decades.

Congress has allocated more than $2 trillion in direct outlays since 9/11 to fight so-called emergency requirements of overseas contingency operations, or OCO, and we have incurred an additional $4 trillion in associated and long-term costs. For fiscal 2020 alone, we will spend upward of an additional $137 billion on these OCO wars.

What is critical to understand, however, is that the perpetual continuation of these wars not only fails to improve our security — these fights negatively impact our ability to focus on and prepare for fighting adversaries that could one day pose an existential threat to us. The implications of this reality are considerable — and potential remedies can be of great help to our country.

If President Donald Trump were to order an end to some or all of our unnecessary forever wars, we could instantly save more than $100 billion a year without cutting anything else in the defense budget. If we then conducted prudent and necessary reforms in how we manage research and development, procurement, and acquisition, and in shedding unnecessary or outdated expenditures, tens of billions of additional savings could be realized.

Perhaps more importantly we could redirect much more focus and resources on training and professional education, which would enable the armed forces to better deter — and if necessary defeat — major opponents. Those two major changes alone would end the weakening of our military and materially contribute to strengthening its key capabilities — while lessening pressure on the federal budget.

The financial pressures this coronavirus is already placing on our nation's finances is real, and its effects will be felt for years. We will have to make hard decisions in the days ahead on where we spend our limited resources. If we are wise, we can reduce how much we spend on defense while simultaneously increasing our military power.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities. He retired from the Army in 2015 after 21 years in service that included four combat deployments.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/22/covid-19s-fiscal-impact-might-ironically-strengthen-national-defense/

Sur le même sujet

  • The coronavirus threatens NATO. Let’s move to protect the alliance.

    14 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    The coronavirus threatens NATO. Let’s move to protect the alliance.

    By: Sophia Becker , Christian Mölling , and Torben Schütz The global fight against COVID-19 has devastating economic consequences which might soon be felt in the defense sector. First estimates by OECD and national institutions conclude that the initial economic impact of the measures to fight the virus will by far exceed that of the 2008 financial crisis. The severe socio-economic consequences may tempt European governments to prioritize immediate economic relief over long-term strategic security and defense considerations. The good news is: there is no automatism – it remains fundamentally a political decision. If European governments do decide to slash defense spending as a result of the current crisis, it would be the second major hit within a decade. Defense budgets have only just begun to recover towards pre-2008 crisis levels, though capabilities have not. Nationally, as well as on an EU and NATO level, significant gaps still exist. European armies have lost roughly one-third of their capabilities over the last two decades. At the same time, the threat environment has intensified with an openly hostile Russia and a rising China. With European defense budgets under pressure, the United States might see any effort to balance burden-sharing among allies fall apart. A militarily weak Europe would be no help against competitors either. The US should work with allies now to maintain NATO's capabilities. Improve coordination to avoid past mistakes Europe's cardinal mistake from the last crisis was uncoordinated national defense cuts instead of harmonized European decisions. In light of the looming budget crisis, governments could be tempted to react the same way. This would be the second round of cuts within a decade, leaving not many capabilities to pool within NATO. If domestic priorities trump considerations about procurement of equipment for the maintenance and generation of military capabilities the system-wide repercussions would be severe. NATO defense, as well as the tightly knit industrial network in Europe, will suffer. Capabilities that can only be generated or sustained multinationally – like effective air defense, strategic air transport or naval strike groups - could become even more fragile; some critical ones may even disappear. If Europeans cut back on capabilities like anti-submarine warfare, armored vehicles of all sorts and mine-warfare equipment again, they could endanger the military capacity of nearly all allies. Ten years ago, such capabilities for large-scale and conventional warfare seemed rather superfluous, but today NATO needs them more than ever. This outcome should be avoided at all costs, because rebuilding those critical forces would be a considerable resource investment and could take years. Europe would become an even less effective military actor and partner to the US, resulting in more discord about burden-sharing. Uncoordinated cuts would also affect the defense industry, as development and procurement programs would be delayed or cancelled altogether – hitting both European and American companies. Moreover, their ability to increase efficiency through transnational mergers and acquisitions and economies of scale is limited due to continued national sentiments in Europe. Companies might decide to either aggressively internationalize, including massive increase of defense exports, or leave the market as national armed forces as otherwise reliable clients drop out. Technological innovation would suffer from a shrinking defense industrial ecosystem and duplicated national research and development efforts, risking the foundation of security for the next generation of defense solutions. To safeguard NATO's strategic autonomy, lean on lead nations In order to prevent the loss of critical capabilities and infrastructure within NATO, the US should immediately start working with its European partners to preemptively plan for increasingly tight budgets. NATO should take stock of existing capabilities and offer alternatives for consolidation. Based on a coordinated effort to redefine NATO's level of ambition and priorities, it should offer plans for maintaining the military capacity to act while retiring unnecessary and outdated resources. Such a coordinated effort should include close cooperation with the European Union. Building on the NATO Framework Nations Concept, the United States should work with a network of larger member states, better equipped to weather the economic shock of the current crisis, to act as lead nations. These countries could safeguard critical defense capabilities and provide a foundation of essential forces, enabling smaller partners to attach their specialized capabilities. Such an arrangement allows for a comparatively good balance of financial strain and retention of military capacity. Additionally, NATO should look beyond the conventional military domain and build on lessons learned from hybrid warfare and foreign influence operations against Europe. The way ahead is clear: As ambitions for European strategic autonomy become wishful thinking in light of the current crisis, allies should focus on retaining NATO's strategic autonomy as a whole. For the foreseeable future, both sides of the Atlantic have to live by one motto: NATO first! The authors are analysts at the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/09/the-coronavirus-threatens-nato-lets-move-to-protect-the-alliance/

  • Navy Rushes To Get F-35s on USS JFK; Other Ford Carriers Wait Their Turn

    23 avril 2020 | International, Naval

    Navy Rushes To Get F-35s on USS JFK; Other Ford Carriers Wait Their Turn

    The service's aircraft carrier boss says the COVID economic slowdown hasn't effected building new carriers -- yet. By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON: The Navy's rushed effort to retrofit its newest aircraft carrier to operate the F-35 will create a testbed for the service's other Ford carriers — which have not been built to fly the fifth generation aircraft — as the Navy juggles work on the remaining three big decks. The $11 billion USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) was designed and christened without the capability to fly the 5th generation fighter because of cost caps and the aircraft's infamously delayed development. Those schedule slippages forced the Navy to design and build the ships while the messy F-35 was still undergoing development. In the 2020 NDAA Congress indicated it had had it's fill of delays to the carrier and ordered the Navy to get to work refitting the Kennedy before it sets sail in 2024, forcing the Navy to improvise and refit the just-christened ship. Speaking with reporters today, Rear Adm. James Downey, head of the Navy's carrier programs, said those changes are forcing him to hold off on some early work on the forthcoming USS Enterprise (CVN 80), the third Ford-class carrier, and the USS Doris Miller (CVN 81) to ensure the Kennedy retrofits are done correctly before incorporating them on the other ships which have just started their build cycles. Downey said he's working to accelerate the integration of the F-35 on the JFK and prove out the upgrades in operational testing before doing similar work on the next Ford carrier to be built, the USS Enterprise. That way, all of the bugs will be ironed out on the JFK. The original plan to incorporate the F-35 on the four Ford-class ships was to phase the capability in after the ships were declared operational, and then to refit them as they came into port for overhaul. But Congress, frustrated that the nation's newest class of carrier couldn't operate the nation's newest fighter plane, told the Navy to speed things up. The namesake of the class, the $13.2 billion USS Gerald R. Ford, is currently acting as a training asset off the East Coast, where air wings get carrier certified as the ship continues to iron out remaining issues with its weapons elevators. Simply put, the Ford won't fly the F-35 for years to come. Those electromagnetic elevators have been one of the biggest issues plaguing the ship over the past two years, as the Navy installed them without first testing the new technology ashore, resulting in a ship that had no functioning weapons elevators. And what use is a warship without weapons? It's been slow progress to get them up and running, but the Navy recently certified that just the fifth of eleven elevators is now up and running. The working lifts have logged more than 8,000 cycles over the past several months of operational testing as the Ford acts as the Navy's East Coast training platform to certify pilots. The Ford has been operating one month at sea and one pierside for the last several months, and has launched 2,300 aircraft in that time. Downey said the Ford is keeping to its schedule, and that impending supply-chain issues the services are dealing with as the COVID-19 crisis shutters the global economy shouldn't have any near-term impact on the program overall. “We don't have any real significant concerns right now; we know where the suppliers are,” he said. “Prior to this, we had increased some of our procurements for spares and various materials so we had a pretty steady demand signal.” While the Ford class ships wait for the F-35 upgrades, the 36-year old USS Carl Vinson is undergoing a $34 million refit in Bremerton, Wash. so it can begin flying F-35s by 2021, making the veteran ship the first carrier in the Navy to fly the 5th generation aircraft even before the JFK. While both Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers can operate with F-35Cs aboard, significant modifications are required for both classes to fly and sustain the aircraft for extended periods. Also, the ships will need the capability to push and fuse all the data the F-35s can generate, along with building additional classified spaces, new jet blast deflectors and other refits. Room also needs to be made for Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, which will replace the Navy's C-2A Greyhound fleet that are unable to haul the F-35's heavy engines out to the ship. The USS Enterprise is slated to deploy in 2028 and the USS Doris Miller will be ready to sail in 2032. In January, the Navy awarded Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding a $24 billion contract for the two ships, compared to a predicted cost of $28 billion if the sea service had purchased them separately. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/navy-rushes-to-get-f-35s-on-uss-jfk-other-ford-carriers-will-wait

  • Space Force awards $88 million in contracts for launch system prototyping

    29 septembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

    Space Force awards $88 million in contracts for launch system prototyping

    The contracts will help launch providers develop transformational capabilities, according to the Space Force.

Toutes les nouvelles