THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta last Thursday laid out plans to cut military spending (http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdf) by reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, mothballing Air Force planes and Navy ships and delaying some key shipbuilding programs.  Will our Navy and Marine Corps team, as well as our Army and Air Force forces, be left to face future contingencies with fewer physical and personnel assets. But, will any real savings be achieved?
The proposed cuts were well reported on following Panetta’s January 26 announcement. The impact on our sea services was deemed modest by some. Modest? It depends on what your definition of modest is. Here’s a recap:
• Seven of our 22 Aegis-class cruisers would leave the fleet, as would two older LSD amphibious ships. Our new Littoral Combat Ships would be trimmed by two and Joint High Speed Vessels by eight.
• Plans to build the new Trident SSBN submarines would be delayed by 2 years.
• The purchase of a new Virginia-class submarine and a new helicopter assault ship (LHA) would be delayed by a year.
• Our Marine Corps strength in 5 years would be reduced by 20,000, leaving us with 182,000 Marines on active duty, while Army strength would be cut by 80,000 to 490,000
• Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force purchases of the new F-35 stealth fighters would be slowed.
Doing more with less? Sure, just as we’ve been doing for many years. Can we maintain an effective Navy and fighting force? Sure, as long as Iran, North Korea, terrorists and other potential adversaries stay in check.
At least the strength of the Congressionally-mandated 11 aircraft carrier fleet was not placed on the budget cutting table. With the proposed cuts and new construction delays, the Navy will have fewer assets. The health of our shipbuilding industry will be negatively impacted and the survivability of subcontractors and even some prime contractors may be questionable. By letting our industrial partners sit idle, what will that do to the final cost of new ships and aircraft? Suddenly the proposed $6 billion reduction in the Pentagon’s 2013 budget will quickly vanish. Last summer’s passage of the Budget Control Act by Congress mandated that the Department of Defense identify $487 billion in savings over the next 10 years. Last week’s proposal was just a first step.
In a DoD Bloggers Roundtable on Friday, January 27, Pentagon Press Secretary (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Relations) George Little and DoD key spokesman CAPT John Kirby, USN, responded to questions from nine writers (http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/category/bloggers-roundtable/). With the proposed decommissioning and delays in ship building, CAPT Kirby reminded the group that the Navy would remain roughly the same number of ships (280) as we have today and remain the biggest, most capable navy in the world. Mr. Little emphasized that DoD remained firmly committed to the F-35 program. Both stated the importance of supporting our troops, as the proposal contained raises for our military for the next two years.
War gaming at the Naval War College and other military universities will certainly be more challenging in future years. Will we have the assets to effectively take on more than one major adversary while keeping the peace in hot spots around the world? Congressionally mandated budget reductions may cost us more in the long run. We need to maintain a strong, vibrant and effective Navy and Marine Corps team. Ships, aircraft and weapon systems cannot be developed and built overnight. Our elected officials need to be reminded how budget cuts can impact our future.