Not today...

Remember the F-22? After years of back and forth over its cost and utility, Congress voted in 2009 to cease additional procurement of the plane. Those that were purchased already have done little more than gather rust since their introduction into the Air Force in 2005.

Early this month, though, the aircraft were reportedly readied for action, just in case, and Gen Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, told Congress that he expected the F-22s to be employed in what was still a hypothetical operation in Libya. Certainly, if the planes have feelings their lonely hearts were aflutter at the possibility of their first big trip into the fray.

It was not to be, however. Schwartz, reporting again to Congress, said yesterday that the reason F-22 fighters have not been used to attack air defenses or counter Libyan jets is because they’re not based in the region.

Well, okay… benefit of the doubt… but there could be some other reasons, as well.

Stephen Trimble speculates that this particular battle may have come a bit too early for the Raptor:

True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.

In a statement that seems to reinforce Trimble’s speculation, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley noted yesterday that the F-22 has “some air-to-ground capability, though it is optimized for air-to-air engagements.” This would render the plane of little use in Libya, where the vast majority of operations have been focused on air-to-ground strikes. The F-15E, by comparison, has the ability to drop laser-guided bombs on moving ground targets.

According to DoD Buzz, the U.S.’ F-16, F-15E, F/A-18G, AV-8B and A-10, Britain’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado, and France’s Rafale and Mirage have appeared in Libya so far. They are joined by B-2 Stealth bombers, B-1 Lancers, and AC-130 gunships, as well as a variety of intelligence and command and control planes.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, F-22, FY 2010, Libya (all tags)

f136 (F-35 extra engine) prototype

The saga continues in the fight to fund the F-35 extra engine.  Today, the House voted 233-198 on an amendment that would cancel the program.

The vote split both Republicans and Democrats, with over 100 Republicans and around 130 Democrats voting yes.  Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) took the lead on the amendment, crediting House GOP leaders with allowing a vote on the issue despite Speaker John Boehner’s opposition.

Freshman Republicans in the House were initially hesitant to trim military spending, but have since broken ranks with their party’s speaker to include $16 billion in military cuts in the current spending bill.  Cutting the F-35 extra engine would save an additional $450 million.

House GOP leaders hope to pass the overall spending bill later this week, which would fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year, but the buck does not stop there.  The bill then goes to the Senate.  Funding for the extra engine could be among the many changes that are made.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, F-35, Extra Engine, FY 2011 (all tags)

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which begins on October 1, 2011, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $553 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD). This is $13 billion below the Pentagon’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) estimate, released last year, but represents about 3 percent in real growth over the funding the department would receive for FY 2011 under the current continuing resolution, which expires on March 4.

In addition, the Administration has requested $117.6 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a 26 percent decrease from last year’s request of $159.4 billion and represents the administration’s commitment to reduce troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and place more strict rules on what can and cannot be included in the war spending request. In the past, additional funding has been made available through emergency supplemental appropriations, when needed. This remains a possibility for FY 2012. This brings the FY 2012 defense budget request to a total of $670.6 billion.

These numbers do not include nuclear weapons related spending in the Department of Energy (DoE) or other defense related funding.

In addition to an initial $670 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Administration has requested $18 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities. This brings total non-Pentagon defense related spending (053/054) to $25 billion, an increase of about $200 million over FY 2011.

Click here for the full analysis of the FY 2012 request.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY12 (all tags)

As expected, President Obama’s address last night focused heavily on the deficit.  Most points we saw coming:

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. (Applause.) Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we've frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without. (Applause.)

(For a translation of that last part, on Defense, see Josh Rogin’s post at The Cable or mine yesterday.)

More importantly, though, in terms of the budget, the President’s speech contained lines like this:

Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12 percent of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't. (Applause.)

The bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it –- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes. (Applause.)

Today, the Congressional Budget Office raised its estimate of the budget deficit to $1.5 trillion for this year, on track to beat out the previous record of $1.4 trillion, set in 2009.

House majority leader Eric Cantor, House budget chairman Paul Ryan and others have echoed the president’s insistence that the entire budget be on the table.  It has yet to be seen what, if anything, will come of these statements.  No doubt, cuts are coming.  The question is where.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, fy11, fy12 (all tags)

By now, you’ve probably heard that the theme of tonight’s State of the Union will undoubtedly be the economy.  The President is expected to propose a five year freeze on non-security discretionary spending (déjà vu?) and a ban on earmarks, while Rep. Paul Ryan, who is no doubt practicing his best Reagan impression in front of the mirror as we speak, is gearing up to deliver the Republican response.

Meanwhile, House Republicans hoping to go into the evening with a little extra rhetorical firepower spent the day working to pass another bill because they said they would.  The measure, passed 256-165, would permit Rep. Ryan to reduce all non-security discretionary spending to fiscal 2008 levels or below, but it is another hortatory exercise that is not going anywhere.

Left or right, though, one thing is certain, most proposals have been carefully crafted to exclude “security spending”: Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs.

CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller reports via Twitter that the President will call for $78 billion in defense cuts over the next five years.  One would assume this means he will echo Secretary Gates’ recent announcement citing the same numbers.

The problem here is that the term “cut” is used very loosely in Gates’ plan for the defense budget.

Last year’s $100 billion efficiencies initiative was never meant to reduce the Pentagon’s budget, nor contribute to deficit reduction.  Rather, it was meant to reduce Pentagon waste and boost more important mission-critical projects, since the entire $100 billion would be reinvested in DoD.  More importantly, though, it was meant to stave off the harsh and inevitable reality that eventually, the Pentagon may have actually to reduce its budget.

Unfortunately for Gates, the Obama Administration was not satisfied.  When Jacob Lew took over as the new director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), he directed Gates to trim $150 billion more, and would not allow the Defense Department to keep the savings.

Gates eventually negotiated the $150 billion figure down to $78 billion, the same $78 billion President Obama is expected to discuss tonight, but as Gordon Adams points out in his remarks to The Cable, the math is a little fuzzy:

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, fy11, fy12 (all tags)

A new New York Times/CBS News poll, based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 15-19 with over a thousand US adults, contains some interesting statistics on the priorities of the American public.  

It is clear from the numbers that the deficit is a major concern, and Americans would, not surprisingly, prefer the deficit be addressed through spending cuts, rather than higher taxes.  When asked what they would cut, however, that preference seems to disappear.  Nearly two-thirds of Americans chose higher payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security over reduced benefits in either program.  And when asked to choose among cuts to Medicare, Social Security or military spending – all programs that have grown exponentially over the past decade – 55 percent said cut the Pentagon.

By the way, the House is set to vote this week on a measure that would reduce all non-security spending to fiscal 2008 levels or below.  Clearly, Congress has been listening.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, fy11, fy12 (all tags)

The Senate today approved the fiscal 2011 National Defense Authorization Act by unanimous consent, removing a provision that would have provided reparations to war survivors in Guam.  The bill now goes back to the House for final approval.  

Interestingly, no single Senator took the time to demand the reading of the new, over 900 page, bill, nor complain about a lack of time for debate, and neither Kyl nor DeMint complained that the bill was “jammed” through so close to Christmas.

The stripped down defense authorization came after House and Senate Democrats agreed to remove “controversial” elements, such as “don’t ask don’t tell” and a provision that would have allowed privately funded abortions in military hospitals.  But even without those controversial provisions, the measure packs a punch.

The bill provides for $725 billion in defense spending, well over the President’s $708 billion request, including $158.7 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike in previous years, the House passed the defense bill Friday with almost no debate on Afghanistan, despite a recent White House review suggesting that tough combat in Afghanistan would continue for years and troop withdrawals in 2011 would be small.

The bill contains $75 million to train and equip Yemeni counterterrorism forces; $205 million for a program with Israel to develop its "Iron Dome" defense system; $11.6 billion for Afghan security forces; and $1.5 billion for Iraqi security forces.

In addition, the bill will provide for a 1.4 percent pay raise for troops and guarantee health care coverage for children of service members up to age 26.  It would also continue restrictions on the Defense Department's ability to close Guantanamo Bay, including prohibiting the transfer of detainees to the U.S.

The measure was sold as having been stripped of all controversy and is being lauded for its broad bipartisan support, but perhaps the Senate is simply busy playing politics elsewhere?

Read more

Security Matters, fy11, Defense Spending, NDAA (all tags)

Friday, after successfully stripping the fiscal 2011 National Defense Authorization Act of all controversy, the House sent their shiny new and simplified (over 900 pages worth of simple) version of the bill to the Senate.

Gone, but not lost, from the measure is a provision to repeal “don’t ask don’t tell,” the same provision that prevented the House’s original bill from moving forward earlier this year.  Also missing is a Senate Armed Services provision that would have allowed privately funded abortions in military hospitals.

The bill’s effect is limited, since programs are funded by individual appropriations bills, but it still packs a considerable punch.

The $725 billion measure would authorize a 1.4 percent pay raise for troops starting next month, extend Tricare coverage for military dependents to age 26, create a counter-IED database to assist with troop-protection efforts, and direct the development of better lightweight body armor for ground forces, among other provisions.

The bill fails to provide guidance either way on the F-35 extra engine, neither preventing nor providing for the program.  It would, however, require the troubled F-35 program to adhere to a new set of management guidelines under which decisions to commit to specific levels of production would be linked to the program’s progress in meeting specific milestones.

Now we wait for the Senate, which was expected to follow suit immediately, but remains bogged down in the details.  If the Senate amends the bill it will be sent back to the House, and days are limited.

Read more

Security Matters, fy11, Defense Spending, NDAA (all tags)

This week, Americans for Tax Reform released a letter, signed by a strong coalition of conservative leaders, asking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) to reject, “the notion that spending cuts can be avoided in certain parts of the federal budget.”

From the letter:

Proponents of a larger Department of Defense budget have argued that security outlays should be weighed against mandatory spending levels, suggesting that explosive entitlement growth serves as an appropriate metric for defense spending. This not only ignores the unsustainable nature of entitlement spending but also the reality of defense spending, which has increased by 86 percent since 1998.

[snip]

And yet, defense spending continues to enjoy protected status. The Pentagon is slated to spend $6.5 trillion over the next ten years – equal to the current projected deficit spending in the same time period. Ignoring the burden military spending places on the taxpayers promotes the same reckless spending ethos that led to failed “stimulus” policies, government bailouts and a prolonged economic recession.

[snip]

True fiscal stewards cannot eschew real spending reform by protecting pet projects in the federal budget. Any such Department of Defense favoritism would signal that the new Congress is not serious about fiscal responsibility and not ready to lead.

This is a serious statement from the likes of Grover Norquist, Brent Bozell, Richard Viguerie, and others.

The full list of names is after the jump…

Read more

Security Mattters, Defense Spending (all tags)

CQ Today reports that Senate and House appropriations panel aides have completed an informal conference of the fiscal 2011 Defense spending bill.  The agreement is set to be included in a Senate omnibus proposal that Senate Democrats hope to pass as early as next week.  At the same time, Democratic appropriators are hard at work on Plan B: a long-term continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through the entire fiscal year.

At this point nothing is certain.  Senate Republicans oppose an omnibus and could block the proposal, and in that case, even a yearlong CR is not assured.  In the end, Congress could choose to pass a short-term CR and defer any decisions to the next Congress, effectively wiping the slate clean and throwing out any progress that was made this year.

Another approach, supported by Susan Collins of Maine, would be to pass a “minibus,” that covers only the bills dealing with the Defense Department, veterans’ programs and Homeland Security.  Collins said yesterday that she opposes bringing an omnibus to the Senate floor.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also said that he opposes the omnibus approach, but Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye said Tuesday that the chances of securing GOP support for the omnibus are “beginning to look good.”

Whatever the case, the current CR is set to expire December 3, so the House is reportedly preparing to vote this week on a second CR that will fund the government through December 17.  After that, it’s anybody’s guess.

Read more

Security Mattters, Defense Spending, CR, House, Senate (all tags)