Background Information

Sensible Defense Overview | Checklist | What opponents are saying | Articles
Fact Sheet: F-22 Raptor | Zumwalt Destroyer | FCS Manned Vehicles | Missile Defense

Sensible Defense Overview

Download PDF

President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates have proposed an FY10 Defense Department budget that makes tough choices and reflects a shift in security priorities.

• It cuts wasteful spending on weapons we don’t use and the commanders in the field don’t want.
• It makes increasing troop strength and supporting our troops the highest priority.
• It re-equips the military for the kind of unconventional conflicts we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the wars we will be fighting in the future.

This proposed budget has the potential to cause a fundamental shift in our defense policy. We will no longer accept weapons programs that cannot prove their value in today’s world, nor will we blindly pay for systems that, years later, have yet to produce the technology upon which they are based. These programs should be cut because they are not useful to our troops who face today’s conflicts. In a world where conflict is rapidly changing, existing programs may not continue to be appropriate and it is past time that Congress recognizes the Defense Department’s changing needs

Congress should pass the fiscal year 2010 budget for the Department of Defense as requested by President Obama and Secretary Gates.

President Obama has spoken of a new era of responsibility in government. Congress can either make tough choices based on our national priorities, or go back to out-of-control spending and business-as-usual (and prove conservatives who say that government can’t be trusted with our tax dollars right.)

The Sensible Defense campaign will hold Congress accountable for putting wasteful defense spending back into the budget. Congress responds to its constituents—YOU.

Checklist

1. Stop funding for the F-22 Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes.
2. Stop funding for DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers
3. Cut the ground vehicle portion of the Future Combat Systems.
4. Reduce the budget of the Missile Defense Agency.

Gates has preempted critics who have already begun to charge that the reorientation will hurt national defense, saying that, “every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk—or, in effect, to ‘run up the score’ in a capability where the United States is already dominant—is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable.” Such a reorientation is both wise and necessary.

President Obama put it well last November when he said, “It is said that a nation’s budget reflects its values and its priorities.” Secretary Gates’ proposal is an important—but by no means complete—move toward a more responsible rebalancing of America’s defense priorities. In the words of the secretary himself, “there have been enough studies. Enough hand-wringing. Enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.” What the secretary of defense has proposed is an action plan to begin to bring defense spending under control.

The overall funding levels for the Department of Defense have already been determined for this fiscal year, but the budget proposed by Secretary Gates and President Obama is an important first step toward shifting priorities to reflect today’s real military threats and setting the stage for an eventual reduction in the top-line defense budget.

Reducing Pentagon spending that doesn’t make us safer frees up money for other vital national interests: domestic priorities such as health care and education; building a low-carbon economy; investing in diplomacy and development, both vital for our national security; and reducing our national debt.

American taxpayers can save as much as $38.6 billion over the next four years by eliminating weapons systems designed to deal with threats from a bygone era—weapons and programs that are not useful in defending our country from violent extremists or the other threats we now face. This is Sensible Defense.

What opponents are saying

Claim: Secretary Gates is proposing to cut our defense budget while we are fighting two wars.

The Truth: The proposed budget increases the funding for the Department of Defense by $21 billion, from $513 billion to $534 billion

Claim: This budget cuts programs that we need to make our country safer.

The Truth: The only programs being canceled are those that are over cost, behind schedule, useless for counterinsurgency operations, and unneeded for the foreseeable future.

• F-22 Raptor fighter jets: Stop building them at 187 planes. This incredibly expensive plane has never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the Air Force doesn’t want any more of them.
• DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer: The DDG-51 does the same thing at a far lower cost. Plus, we need to shift to smaller more nimble ships for counterinsurgency operations.
• Missile defense: Stop spending money on systems that don’t work. Unproven programs that are unlikely to be workable in the near future, like the Airborne Laser and Multiple Kill Vehicle, should be canceled.
• Future Combat Systems vehicles: FCS vehicles would have no practical use in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And their design would make them highly vulnerable to attacks commonly used by insurgents in both countries.

“Every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk—or, in effect, to “run up the score” in a capability where the United States is already dominant—is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take.” - Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Claim: We can’t afford to lose jobs during a recession.

The Truth: These proposals will provide a net increase in direct employment in the aerospace industry.

• By the end of 2011, the F-22 program will need 11,000 fewer workers, but in 2010, 44,000 new jobs will be created in order to double the number of F-35s as requested in this budget.
• Workers building the DDG-1000 Destroyer can shift to building the DDG-51 and Littoral Combat Ships.

Claim: If you support this budget, you aren’t supporting our troops.

The Truth: This budget increases our troop strength, provides our troops with more support in the field, and takes better care of them and their families when they get home.

• Growing the size of the Army and Marine Corps will make us stronger and give service members needed respite between deployments to rest and retrain.
• Troops will get the equipment, vehicles, armor, and weapons they need in the field to do their jobs more effectively and safely.
• The proposal will also provide a substantial increase in funding to better care for service members upon their return home, with significant investments in treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, traumatic brain injuries and other battlefield injuries.
• Funding will be increased for improvements in child care, spousal support, lodging, and education for military families.

End Procurement of F-22 Raptor at 187 Planes

The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air Force inventory and an excellent air-to-air fighter. Yet the F-22 has only limited air-to-ground attack capabilities, which makes it inadequate for today’s wars. It has an internal payload of just two 1,000-pound satellite-guided bombs and is less capable at ground attack role than the now-retired F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter.

The F-22 was designed to fight next-generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and as Secretary Gates has noted, it is nearly useless for irregular warfare. Ending F-22 production after 187 planes will leave the Air Force with a strong silver-bullet force to meet any conventional contingency, while freeing it up to prepare for current and future needs. There are 91 F-22s in service, and the last fighters currently appropriated are scheduled to roll off the assembly lines in 2011. After that, it’s time to stop.

As an alternative to the F-22, the Defense Department should continue development of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, but not start full-scale production until flight tests have been completed to confirm functionality of projected capabilities. The F-35 is better suited for air to ground combat than the F-22; it can be used by all branches of the military, not just the Air Force; and it offers interoperability because it will also be made available to U.S. allies.

Key points:

• The F-22 has never been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The F-22’s strength is air-to-air combat; it has limited utility in today’s counterinsurgency operations.
• The Air Force no longer supports continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz have publicly withdrawn support for unneeded weapons platforms saying, “the time has come to move on.”
• The F-22 has no known enemy. It is the most advanced fighter plane in the world, and there is nothing that could threaten its supremacy in air-to-air combat.
• We already have a sufficient fleet. The United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order, which is more than enough to cover any contingency.
• The F-22 is unduly expensive. F-22s cost nearly $150 million per plane—twice as much as was projected.
• Ending procurement of the F-22 will not affect jobs. Lockheed Martin employs 24,000 workers in producing the F-22. This number will be reduced to 11,000 by the end of 2011 when the economy is expected to be on more stable ground. These losses will be dramatically offset by jobs created by the increase in F-35 production.

Cancel the Zumwalt-Class DDG-1000 Destroyer

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a new class of guided-missile destroyer that incorporates a host of new technologies, including stealth, a new power system, and advanced computer networks. It is a multimission destroyer and was designed with two 155-millimeter Advanced Gun System cannons to provide naval fire support to ground forces during amphibious landings. It is also far larger than the Navy’s current surface combatants, displacing roughly 15,000 tons compared to the Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser’s 9,500 tons.

Costs for the Zumwalt-class have skyrocketed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the first two ships of the class, which are already authorized by Congress, will cost $5 billion a piece, and subsequent ships would cost an average of $3.6 billion each. The Navy planned originally to buy seven DDG-1000s, but last summer Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead stated in testimony to Congress that the Navy wants to cease DDG-1000 production at the two ships currently authorized and restart production of the already in-service Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) destroyer. CBO estimates that the Navy can procure eight DDG-51 destroyers for slightly less than $18.5 billion.

Truncating the Zumwalt-class’ line and procuring DDG-51s in lieu of DDG-1000s would serve both conventional and irregular strategies. On the conventional side, the DDG-1000 has 80 VLS tubes that are slightly larger and more heavily armored but today’s “Flight IIA” DDG-51s have 96 Vertical Launch System tubes for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon antiship missiles, and SM-2 and -3 antiaircraft and antiballistic missiles. Cutting the DDG-1000 program after two ships will allow the Navy to purchase a greater quantity of ships, which will benefits high-density missions such as anti-piracy operations.

Key facts:

• Cost of the DDG-1000 destroyer has skyrocketed. The first two DDG-1000 destroyers are expected to cost $5 billion each, and subsequent ships will likely cost $3.6 billion each. This is almost twice the cost of the DDG-51, which is preferred by the Navy.
• The DDG-1000 is best suited for conventional warfare. The DDG-1000 has a larger size and heavier weapons better-suited for conventional warfare, while the DDG-51’s smaller size and weapons make it a better choice for unconventional warfare.

Cut the Ground Vehicle Portion of Future Combat Systems

The Army’s Future Combat Systems—the service’s core modernization program—consists of 14 major manned and unmanned ground and aerial vehicle systems, including updated versions of some of the Army’s current workhorses, such as the Abrams tank. These are all connected together by integrated radio and computer networks. The driving principle behind this program is that technological superiority and increased situational awareness could increase survivability and allow the system’s components to be lighter and more easily deployable.

FCS was first proposed in 1999, but the program has been plagued by cost overruns, and its capabilities have been overtaken by events. Specifically, the program’s manned vehicles sit too close to the ground, without the ‘V’ shaped hull that allows the heavier Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to help our troops survive attacks with improvised explosive devices.

What’s more, each FCS vehicle is now projected to weigh 32 tons, which is 12 tons more than originally planned. This means that FCS vehicles would have to be transported by C-17 cargo aircraft, rather than C-130s. The C-17 is a larger plane than the C-130, which would prevent FCS vehicles from being deployed as quickly as planned to the kinds of isolated areas where the United States is currently fighting.

The high-tech FCS program would ensure superiority over a similarly equipped enemy, but an FCS force would have only limited advantages in counterinsurgency or other tasks for unconventional warfare. Some of the system’s unmanned components, such as small unmanned aerial vehicles that can scout ahead of troops in dense environments, could prove helpful and should be integrated into counterinsurgency operations when they become available.

It makes sense to cancel, re-evaluate, and if necessary re-bid the $87 billion vehicle portion of the Future Combat Systems program. It will save U.S. taxpayers money by ending investment in a program that is over budget and not delivering the capabilities our troops require. And will enable the Army to pursue alternatives that are better suited to today’s counterinsurgency operations.

Key facts:

• FCS’ ground vehicles are not suited for unconventional warfare. FCS’ manned vehicles are highly susceptible to improvised explosive devices because they sit low to the ground and lack a ‘V’ shaped hull.
• The ground vehicles will be difficult to transport. The vehicles are now projected to weigh 20 tons more than initially projected, which means that they will have to be transported by larger aircraft, which will make it difficult to get them to isolated areas where fighting is taking place.

Reduce funding for missile defense

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ proposed FY10 defense budget refocuses our missile defense on programs that work while decreasing overall funding. It increases funding for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and Aegis ballistic missile defense programs, which Secretary Gates has called, “our most capable theater defense missile systems.” And it supports research and development on promising programs to defend against long-range missile threats that might one day emanate from Iran and North Korea.

The budget cuts the Airborne Laser, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs. Unlike THAAD or Aegis, these programs are either technologically dubious or militarily impractical. They will require more funds and more time, and in the end may not work at all.

The new defense budget saves money by focusing missile defense resources on what works and eliminating expensive and unrealistic programs

Key facts:

• Gates’ budget invests in proven capabilities that will help against near-term missile threats. Aegis and THAAD have both been successfully flight tested under operationally realistic conditions. The budget would increase the number of Aegis-equipped ships to 24. Aegis missile defense comes from the existing Aegis air defense system and is already capable of providing coverage to U.S. allies and deployed forces against near-term ballistic missile threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea.
• The budget invests in promising antimissile systems to defend against the missile threats of tomorrow. The budget supports ongoing efforts to improve the Aegis system, including a new interceptor by 2015. Three Aegis ships armed with this interceptor and supported by forward-based radars would provide nearly comprehensive coverage for Europe against Iranian ballistic missile threats.
• The budget cuts funding for programs of dubious technological and strategic feasibility. The Airborne Laser envisions mounting powerful chemical lasers on modified Boeing 747s to take out missiles during the minutes-long boost phase of missile flight when the missile’s rocket motors propel it into space. Boost-phase missile defenses are inherently difficult to engineer, and the complexity of the Airborne Laser only compounds technical problems. Given the laser’s short range, the $2 billion aircraft will have to fly only a few hundred kilometers from a potential launch site, making it easy prey for enemy air defenses. This costly and unfeasible program—along with other similarly questionable programs—has been cut in Gates’ budget.

Articles

Ending Unneeded Weapons Programs: Some Programs Are Not Necessary for National Security, May 4, 2009

Fact Sheet on Proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Budget : Proposed Budget Focuses on Key Priorities, April 9, 2009

Getting the Defense Budget Under Control: Analysis of Gates’ Proposed Defense Budget, April 9, 2009

Defense: Hachigian on Why Gates' Budget Will Make Us Safer, April 8, 2009