But in an era when domestic spending is skyrocketing, it is disturbing that defense spending for future scenarios is taking such a hit:
Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.
Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.
Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.
"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure 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," Gates said.
I'm actually fine with capping the F-22 given our aerial superiority, although I wouldn't have minded a two-wing force with sufficient extra craft for training and loss replacement. The F-35 fights in such a novel manner that I worry about the plane a bit in the air-to-air role. I hope current transport models are sufficient if purchased in adequate numbers.
The FCS asked for this by trying to cram an Abrams-capable system into a 30 ton hull (and originally a 19-ton hull). So now we must live with the aging--but updated--Abrams as our main battle tank for decades to come. Which isn't all bad in the near term, but it is an aging platform. How long can we update it and remain competitive? And does getting rid of all armored systems mean the new self-propelled artillery system is cancelled?
Downgrading missile defenses is just bizarre in this day and age.
Ships for close-to-shore operations makes little sense to me. Small craft can be risked there, but don't send expensive ships like the LCS to coastal waters where they are vulnerable to small craft and land-based threats like artillery, aircraft, missiles, and armed drones. Carriers aren't mentioned but I've heard we'll drop 2 and go with 9 carriers. I have mixed views here. Heavy carriers are on the way out, I think, and as long as we have sufficient carriers until carriers are obsolete, this is no problem in theory. We have lots of missile-armed ships and subs and we also have quite the stealth carrier fleet. I want numbers for the Navy in order to contest the blue waters and not stick our necks out in the littorals with expensive ships.
Money for special forces is fine, but don't over-expand them at the expense of quality.
I guess we're placing our bets on not needing to face heavy armor, ballistic missiles, or quality enemy air power. I hope we aren't establishing a new ten-year rule.
