19 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Huge Deficit = Defense Budget Cuts? Maybe Not

The congressional calendar and strategic inertia may come together to keep the defense budget relatively high. The calendar helps because the fiscal 2021 defense budget will likely be passed while Congress is in a free-spending mood.

The current Washington consensus sees deep defense budget cuts in the face of soaring deficits driven by the emergency legislation to stabilize the American economy as it reels from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It may be wrong. The congressional calendar and strategic inertia may come together to keep the defense budget relatively high. The calendar helps because the fiscal 2021 defense budget will likely be passed while Congress is in a free-spending mood. The next administration — Republican or Democratic — will develop budgets beyond that, but the constraints of long-standing strategy will prevent major changes to force structure and acquisition that would drive deep budget cuts.

The Challenge

The conventional narrative holds that the defense budget will be squeezed as the debt level rises, and the public focuses inward on rebuilding the country's health and economic position. These are reasonable concerns.

The deficit in fiscal 2020, initially projected to be about one trillion dollars ― itself getting into record territory without emergency spending― is now projected to be $3.7 trillion, and Congress is not finished spending. Debt held by the public will rise to 101 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II. Even if the world is willing to take US debt, rising interest payments will squeeze the rest of the budget.

Simultaneously, the electorate is likely to focus inward. The pandemic is already the leading popular concern, not surprisingly. The economic devastation caused by restrictions on normal commercial activities has produced the greatest downturn since the Great Depression.

It would be reasonable to put these factors together and project a substantially reduced defense budget. However, the congressional calendar and the inertia of a long-held strategy will likely mitigate any downturn.

The Calendar

The calendar will help because Congress is likely to pass the 2021 appropriation this fall, when the government will still be operating under emergency conditions. Congress has already passed four bills for pandemic response and economic stimulus and is developing another in the multi-trillion range. There are a few voices for fiscal constraint, but they are overwhelmed by a sentiment to “do more.”

Indeed, some lawmakers and commentators are proposing increases to the defense budget to stimulate the economy, enhance deterrence of China, or protect the defense industrial base. Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has indicated his reluctance to do more than protect the industrial base, but a future stimulus bill could include such enhancements as part of a bipartisan deal.

Finally, last year's bipartisan budget agreement set levels for defense and domestic spending in fiscal 2021. Undoing that agreement would be a major lift, requiring a bipartisan consensus that does not seem to be occurring. Even if the Democratic left wanted to make such cuts, defense hawks in the House and Senate could block them.

Thus, in the near-term proposals for enhancements seem to be offsetting thoughts about cuts. As both the House and Senate consider their authorization acts, they seem to be aiming at roughly the level of the president's proposal and the bipartisan budget agreement.

Strategic Inertia

The United States has had some variation of the same national security strategy since the end of the Second World War (or perhaps more accurately, since the Korean War and publication of NSC 68, which enshrined a long term competition with the Soviet Union). That strategy involves global engagement, forward-deployed forces, alliances to offset global competitors, and commitment to maintaining an international system of free trade, human rights and secure borders. Scholars can argue about the details and how well the United States has implemented such a strategy, but the major elements have been constant.

President Trump has chafed at many of these elements but has generally gone along, however reluctantly. One would expect such reluctant continuity in a second Trump administration, should that occur

One would also expect strategic continuity in a Biden administration. Biden was, after all, vice president during the Obama administration, which, after the shocks of 2014, laid out a strategy of confronting five threats: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. One would expect Biden to implement something like that strategy if he were in office. That does not mean that a Biden administration would do everything a Trump administration would do. The left-wing of the Democratic party would push some level of cuts, perhaps 5 percent, and take aim particularly at nuclear modernization, foreign arms sales, and Middle East conflicts.

But this longstanding strategy of global engagement will put a floor on defense cuts. Remaining engaged with NATO, supporting our Asian allies like Japan and South Korea, and maintaining some presence in the Middle East, even if scaled back, takes a lot of forces. These need to be at a relatively high level of readiness to deploy globally and be credible. The all-volunteer force needs to maintain compensation and benefits at a sufficient level to compete for labor in a market economy. Competing with China and Russia requires investment in a wide variety of high technology―and costly―new systems, as well as the R&D foundation to support these innovations.

Other strategies are certainly possible. Members of the Democratic left and Republican right, as well as some elements of the academic and think tank community, have proposed strategies of “restraint”, whereby the United States would significantly scale back overseas engagements. Such strategic change would produce a substantial cut in the defense budget. However, neither major candidate has supported such a change, and the national security policy community (aka “the blob”) is adamantly opposed.

Despite this relatively optimistic assessment, the future is still cloudy. The president's budget proposal forecasts a level budget in constant dollars. That meant that the defense buildup was over, even if Republicans continued in office. Such budgets do not come close to the 3 to 5 percent real growth that defense officials had talked about to implement the National Defense strategy and would entail choices between readiness, force structure and modernization.

A Democratic administration, with a notional 5 percent cut in the defense budget, would not constitute the deep cut that a Sanders or Warren administration might have entailed, but the $35 billion that a 5 percent cut would entail is still a lot of money. Forces would get smaller, likely wiping out all the recent force expansion, and new programs would be delayed.

Bottom line: Defense may not be heading into a budget hurricane, but it is not heading into sunlight either. It faces the friction that occurs when expensive plans collide with constrained resources.

Mark Cancian, a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors, was a Marine colonel and senior official at the Office of Management and Budget before he joined CSIS.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/huge-deficit-defense-budget-cuts-maybe-not/

Sur le même sujet

15 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial

European States Plan For Hypersonic Defense
Tony Osborne The complex nature of intercepting hypersonic weapons may predicate air-breathing propulsion technologies to provide additional range, speed and energy. European countries have linked arms to develop a counter to the emerging threat of hypersonic weapons and enhance their ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The Timely Warning and Interception with Space-based TheatER surveillance (Twister) project, led by France and supported by Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, is one of 13 new multinational programs that were given the backing of the EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) initiative in November. It says it aims to develop a European system that can “detect, track and counter” more complex missile threats and give member nations a “self-standing ability to contribute to NATO's ballistic missile defense.” Currently, only a handful of European nations can counter ballistic missiles, including European users of the Raytheon Patriot (Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain), as well as France and Italy with the Eurosam SAMP/T. But none of those systems is ready to deal with the new generation of threats emerging from Russia and China, including hypersonic gliders, hypersonic and high-supersonic cruise missiles, and maneuverable next-generation combat aircraft. The U.S. has also begun examining technologies through its Regional Glide-Phase Weapon System (RGPWS), disclosed by Aviation Week in December, and the Hypersonic Defense Weapon System. “We have seen the hypersonic threat coming,” says Rainer Stockhammer, team leader for Twister at European missile manufacturer MBDA. “Over the last five years we have performed studies into these new threats, which are new in terms of both novelty and maneuverability, and now we are in a position to answer this PESCO call.” MBDA is now positioning itself for a role in developing the endoatmospheric interceptor that could be the backbone of the wider Twister system in the 2030s, describing the future system as “disruptive” and “technologically demanding.” The company will not discuss what architecture it is studying for the future interceptor, but Stockhammer says MBDA's experience with the Aster family of vertically launched surface-to-air missiles and the Meteor air-breathing, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile has given it a “good position . . . to be able to develop a solution.” The company's artist's impression depicts a missile clearly equipped with air intakes, which would suggest the use of a ramjet like on the Meteor. Use of a ramjet would provide not only more range and speed, but also more energy in the final stages of an engagement to maneuver against hypersonic gliders and other maneuverable reentry vehicles. “We know what kind of accuracy and range we need from the sensing part,” says Stockhammer. “Now we will look at a way to manage the unpredictability and look at engagement planning. . . . This is where we are investing.” MBDA has also been looking at the command-and-control mechanisms required for such a system and how it would interface with existing and future sensors. Individual governments will ultimately decide how they will equip with the future interceptor, but MBDA expects it to arm ships and a ground-based air defense system, with the expectation the system may have to squeeze into existing launch boxes and vertical launch tubes on surface ships. Securing the nod from PESCO is a major step forward for the program. The next step will be for the five nations to begin hammering out a concept and a high-level requirement. MBDA officials say they are working toward a timeline of the 2030s to produce an operational system. By working through PESCO, the five nations are hoping this will enable them to secure development funding from the European Defense Fund (EDF), which is expected to provide €13 billion ($15 billion) to support collaborative defense projects in 2021-27. It is unclear how much a program such as Twister could receive from the fund. Money will also be provided by national governments involved in the Twister program. Although MBDA lobbied in France for European nations to pursue an evolution of European BMD capabilities, prompting Paris to take a lead in what became Twister, the company is unlikely to be the only player in the program. The interceptor will be just one component of Twister. The PESCO initiative also calls for space-based early warning, but no details have emerged about the European industry approach to this yet. PESCO and EDF rules call for cooperation between industry, particularly small and medium-size enterprises, as well as between member states. “We would need to build an industry consortium that is clear, but it is too early to talk about how this might look,” notes Stockhammer. The PESCO initiatives allow for additional nations to join and observe the programs, although it remains unclear whether the EU will allow so-called third countries, which will include the UK after Brexit, to participate in such projects. Denmark, Malta and the UK remain outside of PESCO. Twister is the second missile initiative pursued by PESCO. The other is for a beyond-line-of-sight development of MBDA's MMP man-portable guided missile, a program proposed by France and supported by Belgium and Cyprus. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/european-states-plan-hypersonic-defense
17 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial

UK fighter concept emphasizes stealth, next generation sensors
BY TOM RISEN Britain wants to build a twin-engine stealth fighter jet that the Defense Ministry says would enable the United Kingdom to stay competitive in air-to-air combat technology and maintain its domestic fighter industry. U.K. Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson unveiled a full-scale model of the Tempest at the Farnborough Airshow in July as a commitment that Britain would remain “a world leader in the combat air sector.” The U.K. contractors chosen to design the plane must first present a business case for the fighter to the ministry by the end of the year to begin the approval process for funding. The ministry has promised to draw 2 billion pounds ($2.6 billion) for the Tempest over several years from the ongoing Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative enacted in 2015 that ends in 2025 to develop a successor to the twin-engine Eurofighter Typhoon. Team Tempest, the name for the government agencies and companies working on the project, shared limited details about the design in progress beyond the concept they showcased. With their near diamond shape, the Tempest wings resemble those of the YF-23 stealth fighter demonstrator built in 1990 for the U.S. Air Force by Northrop and McDonnell Douglas, notes Adam Routh, an aerospace researcher at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C. The YF-23 was flown in 1990 but lost the competition for the Air Force contract to what became the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which ended mass production in 2011. The F-22 engines include thrust vectoring to maneuver the plane around enemy aircraft at close range, which the YF-23 lacked. Thrust vectoring engines were not presented as part of the Tempest concept, possibly because “next generation stealth and guided missiles may undermine the benefits of maneuverability by allowing planes to attack from a significant distance,” Routh says. Pilots of future air-to-air combat won't often find themselves in dogfights won with maneuverability, Routh says, because guided missiles and stealth “will allow aircraft to engage opposing aircraft from a significant distance.” Full article: https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/uk-fighter-concept-emphasizes-stealth-next-generation-sensors
26 octobre 2022 | International, Aérospatial

Space Force expects budget growth into 2024 amid 'tremendous need'
The service expects to require more resources as it looks to make its systems more resilient and expands certain missions, like space domain awareness.

Toutes les nouvelles

Huge Deficit = Defense Budget Cuts? Maybe Not

The congressional calendar and strategic inertia may come together to keep the defense budget relatively high. The calendar helps because the fiscal 2021 defense budget will likely be passed while Congress is in a free-spending mood.

Sur le même sujet

Space Force expects budget growth into 2024 amid 'tremendous need' The service expects to require more resources as it looks to make its systems more resilient and expands certain missions, like space domain awareness.

Space Force expects budget growth into 2024 amid 'tremendous need'
The service expects to require more resources as it looks to make its systems more resilient and expands certain missions, like space domain awareness.