Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FY2012 Defense Spending Request Briefing Book
FY2012 Defense Spending Request Briefing Book
Laicie Olson
More importantly, though, the initiative was meant to stave off the inevitable reality that
eventually, due to rising deficits and increasing pressure on the budget, the Pentagon might have
to actually reduce its budget below prior year levels..
In the following months, it became clear that Gates’ $100 billion efficiencies initiative would not
be enough. Multiple deficit reduction plans, including the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction
Commission, detailed large cuts to the Pentagon’s budget beyond those Gates had planned.
Eventually, the Administration informed Gates that he would need to trim an additional $150
billion. Moreover, this time the Defense Department would not be allowed to keep the savings.
Gates eventually negotiated the $150 billion figure down to $78 billion. On January 6, 2011 he
announced that only $72 billion of the original $100 would be reinvested, but that an additional
$78 billion would be cut, for a total $178 billion. $28 billion of the original $100 billion would
be used over the next five years by the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to deal with
higher than expected operating costs including health care, pay and housing allowances,
In Gates’ proposed cuts, the Pentagon’s base budget will not go down at any point in the next
five years (as opposed to spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is finally
declining as the U.S. withdraws its troops from Iraq). DOD’s budget will continue to grow at a
slower rate than it has in the past. This is considered a reduction only because the budget will
eventually stop growing with the rate of inflation, so further programs will have to be cut. The
“gusher” will be reduced to more of a trickle, but will be far from turned off.
In delivering his announcement, Gates made clear that, “This plan represents, in my view, the
minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the complex and unpredictable array
of security challenges the United States faces around the globe,” and called various deficit
reduction plans, “math, not strategy.” Gates did not address the potential threat posed by the
rising deficit, something Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called
“our biggest national security threat.”
Over the next year, as attention continues to focus on deficit reduction, the entire budget will
come under increased pressure. At 19 percent of US federal spending and about 56 percent of
discretionary spending, the defense budget is unlikely to escape at least some of the spotlight.
Whether or not one agrees with such scrutiny, the fact is that in a time of intense economic
pressure, the really tough choices have yet to be made.
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.
Note: This number does not include any additional FY 2012 supplemental funding to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Overseas Contingency
Operations
DoE and Other Defense
Related Funding
800
700
600
500
OCO Funding
400
Non-War
300 Supplemental
Base Budget
200
100
* Figures for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are estimates based on the President’s requested funding and do not included any additional
supplemental funding to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Pentagon has attempted to cut a second engine for the F-35 every year since FY 2007, but
has been blocked by Congress. It has yet to be determined if the same will happen in FY 2011.
Ideally, the f136 extra engine, developed by General Electric and Rolls Royce, would eventually
save money by driving down the price of the original engine, Pratt & Whitney’s f135.
Another program that has previously been unsuccessfully slated for cuts is the C-17, a transport
aircraft designed to carry large and heavy military cargoes over long distances. Congress
provided unrequested funding for 10 C-17s in the FY 2010 defense spending bill at a cost of $2.5
billion, $2.2 billion for eight planes in the FY 2009 supplemental spending bill, and $2.4 billion
for 10 planes in the FY 2008 defense spending bill. Cancellation of the C-17, manufactured by
Boeing, would equal an estimated $3 billion in savings each year.
The Navy’s CG(X) Cruiser, envisioned as a multi-mission ship with an emphasis on air and
ballistic missile defense, encountered increasing delays and rising costs to the point of
unaffordability. Rather than procure more CG(X), the Navy will instead build an improved
version of the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer called the Flight III version.
Rather than continue the 3GIRS program, the administration will focus on upgrading a missile
detection satellite that is currently in development, the Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS).
Technology being developed for the 3GIRS program will be incorporated into
future
deployments
of
SBIRS.
The
NECC
was
cancelled
because
it
was
unlikely
the
program
would
be
completed
on
time.
Rather,
DOD
will
upgrade
its
current
command
and
control
capability
-‐-‐
the
Global
Command
and
Control
Systems
(GCCS).
In
FY
2011,
the
administration
proposed
a
delay
in
the
procurement
of
the
Navy’s
LCC-‐R
beyond
2015.
The
LCC-‐R
would
have
replaced
the
two
command
ships
that
the
Navy
currently
operates.
Rather,
the
Navy
will
extend
the
service
life
of
the
current
command
ships
to
2029.
This
delay
will
save
approximately
$3.8
billion
in
procurement
costs
over
five
years.
In
FY
2011,
the
administration
proposed
a
delay
in
the
procurement
of
the
EFV
for
one
year,
while
maintaining
planned
EFV
research,
development,
test
and
evaluation
(RDT&E)
funding.
On
January
6,
2011
Secretary
Gates
announced
the
Pentagon’s
plans
to
cancel
the
EFV
program
altogether.
The
EFV
would
cost
an
additional
$12
billion
to
build.
Originally conceived in 1995, the EFV was supposed to be a high-speed amphibious assault
vehicle that would speed through water at 25 knots and over land at 45 miles an hour. In
addition to its unpredictability and rising costs, however, the flat hull that allows the EFV to
skim over water also makes it extremely vulnerable to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). In
addition, since system development began in 2000 the EFV has had severe cost growth and
technological problems. The Pentagon has proposed its cancellation in FY 2012.
Once again, the Pentagon has not requested additional funding for the f136, an alternative
engine option for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Administration notes that the extra engine
program began as an effort to reduce technical risk. However, since the main engine program is
progressing well, it is no longer needed.
The Pentagon also has not requested additional funding for the C-17. A total of 223 C-17s have
now been ordered with the budgetary resources provided up to and including 2010.
The
largest
RDT&E
and
DOD
acquisition
overall,
the
JSF
is
an
ambitious
program
to
build
three
related
but
slightly
different
aircraft
for
the
Air
Force,
Navy,
and
Marine
Corps.
It
is
more
cost-‐
effective
to
produce
the
new
JSF
platform
than
to
upgrade
older
systems,
which
need
to
be
replaced.
Due
to
large
delays
and
cost
overruns,
however,
Secretary
Gates
announced
on
January
6,
2011
that
the
Marine
Corps’
version
of
the
F-‐35
would
be
placed
on
a
two-‐year
probation.
If
testing
problems
cannot
be
resolved,
the
Pentagon
will
recommend
the
variant
be
cancelled.
To
fill
the
gap
created
by
this
slip
in
the
JSF’s
production
schedule,
the
Pentagon
will
purchase
more
Navy
F/A-‐18s.
TRICARE
Secretary Gates announced on January 6, 2011 that he would propose modest increases to the
military’s TRICARE medical program. The FY 2012 request proposes to shift future enrollees
of the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan into Medicare and the TRICARE-for-Life
The Pentagon has proposed the cancellation of the EP-X program, a new surveillance and
intelligence gathering aircraft, because the strategic need for the program has not yet been
determined.
The Navy first introduced the SM-2 Block IIIB in 1999 as an evolutionary improvement to the
previous versions of the SM-2. Due to the planned transition to the more capable SM-6 Block I
missile, however, the program has been recommended for cancellation.
Office of the
Administrator
Naval Reactors
Defense Environmental
Cleanup
Annual war costs peaked at $179.7 billion in FY 2008, with the height of troop deployments to
both nations totaling 194,000.
In the past, additional funding has been made available through emergency supplemental
appropriations, when needed. This remains a possibility for FY 2012.
$0 Military Construction
$0 Family Housing
$117,842 Million Total War Funding (Overseas Contingency Operations) Request for
FY 2012
* Numbers may not add due to rounding.