Fixing the Pentagon Take II
The Pentagon is rapidly becoming a broken institution that is incapable of performing its assigned mission. It has lost focus on the mission it was designed to complete and seems to care more for keeping defense contractors in business than providing useful equipment to front-line troops. It is also very difficult to analyze the budget of the Pentagon, as there are no clear answers to basic questions like how much does a ICMB base cost to run each year. Unless one chooses to spend a lifetime studying the available information, acquiring several Ph.D.s in the process, answering that question is nearly impossible.
So, for version two of my look at the Pentagon I will skip all the development history for now and give a basic assessment of what needs to change institutionally. All the fun history can come back for version three.
The absolute first thing that must be done is clearly define a mission for the Pentagon as a whole and then see how each branch fits into the mission. Then, look at every weapons system and base to see if they are still needed for that mission. If so, keep it. If not, dump it. Finally, the process for developing weapons needs to be fixed to prevent contractors from profiting from failure. We live in a world of limited resources and cannot afford to keep this bloating military budget going.
So, what should the mission be for the United States Military? The overall mission is simple; to protect the United States from all foreign threats. That can then be expanded to include our friends and vital interests because we are stronger if our friends are stronger. With this basic mission assigned, what are the threats we must worry about? First, the threat of a large scale conflict has diminished, but hasn't gone away. Second, terrorism and long intensity conflict will be with us for some time. We need to orient toward that. Third, there are still nuclear weapons and the possibility of one falling into the wrong hands is always there. Fourth, we need to protect cyberspace as we are vulnerable to a crippling attack there. Finally, space is the ultimate high ground and we need to protect our lead there.
With these areas, large scale conventional warfare, terrorist related warfare, nuclear weapons, cyberspace, and outer space, mapped out and identified, we need to prioritize them and assign areas of responsibility to each branch. The Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force all are designed to fulfill a specific mission, but at the moment that is some overlap that is not needed and is harmful to the overall budget.
First, lets look at large scale conventional warfare. This is what the military trained to do for decades. The Army will need lots of heavy equipment, something we do have in large numbers and which is currently among the best in the world. The Air Force will need advanced fighters and bombers, as well as command and tanker support. The Navy will need carrier battle groups and support ships. The Marines may be needed as a rapid response force, but they cannot sustain operations for long.
Second, terrorist and low intensity warfare. The Army had built a air-deployed quick response force over the last 10 years and is capable at that mission. The Air Force needs a tanker force to bring firepower anywhere in the world. With a few bases on islands in key areas it can carry out missions on its own. The Navy can strike anywhere on the planet with carrier planes and is vital to this goal. The Marines fulfill some purpose here but generally will not need advanced vehicles nor should they be operating in country for long term missions like the Army.
Third comes nuclear warfare. The Army has no nukes and hasn't since the cold war. The Air Force has two thirds of the nuclear mission but ICMBs are a relic of a previous era and are costly to maintain. $60 million in FY 2011 goes toward new missiles and I can't find an estimate for maintenance of the existing ones. The Navy uses submarine based missiles that cannon be found by us, let alone an enemy. The nuclear triad (land based missiles, bombers, submarine based missiles) is outdated and needs to be modernized. Finally, the Marines have no purpose in a nuclear war at all.
Fourth, Cyberspace. A separate command has been established to protect the United States from cyber attack and it needs to be better supported considering the massive task facing it. $22 million is allocated toward cyber defense for FY 2011 which is slightly up from last year when the command was formed.
Fifth is outer space. The Air Force primarily handles this mission although the Navy and intelligence agencies do as well. The GPS network and communications network are beginning to show their age. Upgrades are needed here as well.
Looking at each branch, the Army is clearly needed. It can perform a number of missions and new equipment doesn't cost that much individually, although buys lots at a time. The primary cost of the Army is in basing, maintenance support, and payroll. In fact, $100 billion of a $143 billion Army budget does to that. By cutting overseas bases down, money can be saved. Total expendature for overseas base construction alone came to $5 billion last year.
Next is the Air Force. It can do missions no other can, that of heavy global strike. To do this, the Air Force desperately needs a new tanker and more fighter-bombers like the F-35A, a plane on budget and on time if not weighed down by the Marine version. The Air Force also deals with the nuclear mission and outer space. It can use a small network of bases around the world to support the global strike mission and with new smart weapons, can take out targets cleanly and efficiently.
The Navy has a few big ticket items and is currently producing the worst piece of garbage possible. However, it supports a number of missions and is the best forward deployed force we have. An aircraft carrier pulling up to someone's shore is the ultimate deterrent. Plus, it doesn't need bases and can move freely across the ocean. However, the Navy has lost sight of what it can do and that has resulted in the LCS and the DDG-1000. The LCS is a flawed design that may work if fixed quickly. The DDG-1000 is a disaster waiting to kill people. Canceling DDG-1000 will save the $8 billion construction cost and the many billions of dollars to be spend on R&D.
The Marines are a small niche force that is fighting for a spot at the table. It can do what the Army can do, but for more money due to all the specialized equipment it needs. It's specialized F-35B variant is threatening to drag the entire program down while the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle will cost around $25 billion for production and has cost $15.9 billion so far for development. The Marines are attempting to do every mission they can and are taking valuable resources away from the branches that actually need those resources.
In conclusion, every weapon in development needs to be examined. Nothing is sacred anymore and no project can be safe from this. They must all be judged on the following criteria. Can this weapon significantly increase the branch fielding it's ability to do the mission assigned to it and does this weapon use resources that are needed elsewhere? If either answer is no, the weapon probably needs to be canceled. Changing the way the Pentagon buys weapons will be helpful, but my suggestions in the previous post are a start. Also, the Pentagon is trying to write new contracts with a simple system. If a project goes over-budget, the Pentagon and the contractor will each pay half until it reaches 120%. Then the contractor is on the hook for everything. Finally, the Pentagon needs a way to cancel a program without having to pay even more money.
No comments:
Post a Comment