Beltway prognosticators warn that the military’s priciest procurement programs will be the biggest casualties of the looming Pentagon budget wars expected to erupt following the drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Among the Pentagon’s largest weapons procurements, and one that is sure to be closely watched is the Joint Strike Fighter.
The ultimate fate of the $300 billion jet fighter will not be known for at least several years. But the JSF, indeed, will serve as a test case for the broader budget dilemmas that the Pentagon will face.
A projected withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq beginning next year — and a subsequent transition to a new administration — undoubtedly will reopen a major debate about future defense spending and, specifically, the outlook for many of the Pentagon’s big-ticket weapon procurements.
The prospect that the huge defense buildup of the past five years is coming to an end is setting the stage for what could be tough questions about how the Pentagon will afford expensive weapons systems such as JSF while its budget is stretched by soaring personnel and health care expenses, and by costly maintenance and repairs of aging equipment.
The JSF, more than any other Pentagon weapon system, symbolizes the unsurpassed military might of the United States and the American way of war that is dominated by air power. The program includes nearly 2,500 high performance fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Navy, in addition to several other countries that have made tentative commitments to buying it.
But it is no secret that the military services already are drawing up contingency plans in anticipation of potential cutbacks — or even outright cancellation — of JSF procurements. Just because the program is called “joint” does not mean the services are united behind it. So far, the Air Force appears to have the strongest chance of getting JSF off the ground and into full production. The Navy is said to be giving serious consideration to canceling the program or at least delaying it until it can afford it. While the Air Force’s version of JSF already is in the prototype stage, the Navy’s still is in the early phases of design. The Marine Corps’ variant — a vertical takeoff jet that also is being funded by the United Kingdom — has seen a major redesign and is far from reaching production.
While both Navy and Marine Corps officials have stressed that JSF is their desired aircraft, both services are seeking funds to shore up their fleets of Super Hornet attack fighter aircraft, which the JSF was intended to replace.
But in the context of a $500 billion defense budget (not including war emergency spending), even the cancellation of JSF would hardly make a dent. A study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated that the Pentagon would save $3.7 billion a year if it terminated JSF. One could make a strong case that the nation can afford JSF given the current affluence in the Defense Department, but the reality is more complex because JSF faces tough competition for funds within the defense budget.
“The services understand this is a major affordability issue,” said Stephen Kosiak, a CSBA budget analyst and one of the authors of the study. Another rub is that the program is made up of three distinct aircraft, each funded by individual services with different agendas. “They all don’t have the same perspective on the JSF,” said Kosiak. The Air Force, which plans to buy 1,700 aircraft, could afford to scale back the quantities and still salvage the program. The Navy and the Marine Corps already have reduced their expected buys to approximately 350 aircraft each, so they may be financially better off canceling the program than funding a production line for such small orders, said Kosiak.
If history is any guide, things will get tough for JSF because the Defense Department, predictably, will do what it normally does when it tries to squeeze too many mega-dollar programs into a tight budget.
According to Kosiak, tactical aircraft programs historically have accounted for 10 percent of all Defense Department spending on new weapon systems. If the Pentagon reaches its projected $100 billion annual procurement budget, it could easily afford JSF. But the most likely scenario is that procurement will fall short of the $100 billion goal, Kosiak said. The Pentagon for years has consistently made overly optimistic assumptions about its procurement spending. That means JSF will be competing for funds with other tactical aviation programs such as the Super Hornet, and the Air Force’s F-22 and F-15 aircraft.
The procurement budget as a whole will be targeted to pay for personnel costs, health care and the repairs of war equipment. The next administration also will be looking at an eight-year deficit reduction plan for the federal budget, Kosiak said.
It is too early to make definitive predictions on JSF or any sizeable program. No major decisions will be made until the next administration, said Barry Watts, who co-authored the CSBA study. Politically, the program stands on strong ground, he said. “The cancellation of JSF sends the wrong strategic message that the Americans are on the decline. That’s a reason for not pulling the plug.”
Please email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org