By Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.)

In its mark-up of the Defense Authorization bill for Fiscal 2013, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee lauded the prior accomplishments of the Airborne Laser Test Bed program. It then went further by directing the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report by 31 July 2012 on the costs that would be involved in returning the Airborne Laser aircraft to an operational readiness status to continue technology development and testing, and to be ready to deploy in an operational contingency, if needed, to respond to rapidly developing threats from North Korea.

This Airborne Laser program, instituted in 1996, envisioned mounting a chemical laser in a modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft to destroy enemy missiles in their boost phase before they could deploy their nuclear weapons and countermeasures. After spending about $5.2 billion on the program over 16 years, the Missile Defense Agency announced its termination in February 2012, and advised that the modified aircraft would be mothballed and retired to the aircraft bone yard in Arizona. Lt. General Patrick O’Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, noted that a new generation of smaller and far more powerful unmanned solid-state lasers, capable of operating at higher altitudes, would be developed over the decade in the hope of creating an operationally effective anti-missile laser program.  

A basic problem with the Airborne Laser is that the effective range of the weapon is limited by the attenuation of the beam as it passes through the atmosphere. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on 13 May 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that “the reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane … to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire. So right now, the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to shoot down that missile in the boost phase.” The conclusion regarding its lack of effectiveness was not limited to the Iran case. The Secretary advised in conclusion that “nobody in uniform that I know … believes that this is a workable concept.”

Nor are current prospects for the Airborne Laser any brighter in combatting missiles launched from North Korea as well as Iran. In a letter dated as recently as 30 April 2012 to the chair and ranking member of the same Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee that is advocating revival of the Airborne Laser, the co-chairs of the “National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Committee on an Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives” stated that “the defense cannot be based close enough to the threat during the boost-phase to kill it, even with the most optimistic assumptions about technical performance.”  

Why, given the consistently negative evaluations, would the House Subcommittee want to revive this discredited weapons system? Hopefully, common sense will prevail, especially in this period of fiscal stringency, and we will allow the Airborne Laser 747 aircraft to rest in peace in the aircraft bone yard.

Read more

Security Matters, missile defense (all tags)

Check out my latest article responding to an op-ed by Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner on missile defense. Here's the into:

Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner’s op-ed in the Washington Times on April 23 muddled the history of ballistic missile defense when he blamed President Barack Obama for the inability of the United States to field anything more than a nascent missile defense system. The United States has been developing missile defense systems for almost sixty years without success. Without irony, his solution to persistent cost overruns and schedule delays would be to increase the missile defense budget by nearly 40%, adding an additional three billion dollars a year to an already astronomical price tag. Furthermore, Dr. Feulner approves of the United States’ abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that contributed to strategic stability for forty years by trying to argue that missile defense, if it actually worked, would improve relations between the United States and Russia despite repeated threats from Russian military officials regarding the future of missile defenses in Europe...

Read more

Security Matters, missile defense (all tags)

Check out my latest article about Ground-based Midcourse Defense on the Center for Arms Control's website.

The House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee met on March 6, 2012 to discuss the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense. One of the many topics they discussed was the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, (GMD – formerly known as National Missile Defense). Republicans on the subcommittee appeared to criticize the slow pace at which they believe the Pentagon is maturing the GMD system. Given the long and troubled history of the program, however, deploying newer technology before it is ready doesn’t make sense...

Read more

Security Matters, Missile Defense, United States, Defense Budget (all tags)

Now that budget day has come and gone, it's time to sift through and try to digest all the numbers.  Laicie got us going yesterday with her annual defense budget briefing book.  Below I've put together a chart on the FY 2013 request for strategic nuclear replacement systems (click on the thumbnail for the full PDF). Stay tuned for more in the coming days and weeks.

On nukes there weren't too many surprises.

The FY 2013 Pentagon budget does not make any cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal as future decisions about the size and structure of U.S. strategic forces will be determined by the administration’s ongoing secret review of nuclear deterrence requirements. The Pentagon has hinted that additional reductions are possible, but it remains to be seen how far-reaching they will be.

Though the big decisions about the future of the arsenal have yet to be made, as previously announced the Pentagon will delay the Ohio-Class ballistic missile submarine by two years, saving $4.3 billion from FY 2013 – FY 2017. The plans for a new long-range bomber are moving full steam ahead.  Studies on a follow-on to the Minuteman III ICBM also appear to be progressing, as they received $11.6 million and a new line item in the budget.

On the NNSA side, the budget request provides $7.58 billion, an increase of $363 million over the FY 2012 enacted level but a reduction of $372 million below the projected level outlined in the Section 1251 report. As previously reported, the budget defers the new plutonium production facility at Los Alamos for five years, saving an estimated $1.8 billion over the next five years.

Due to the Budget Control Act, funding levels for weapons activities will not keep pace with the 1251 report.  But the FY 2012 appropriation and the FY 2013 budget request provide major increases for nuclear weapons programs. By way of additional comparison, the FY 2013 request is a $710 million increase over the FY 2011 enacted level and an increase of $1.2 billion over the FY 2010 enacted level! NNSA will still be provided with more than enough money to maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear warheads.

Of course if sequestration is implemented all bets are off and funding for nuclear modernization activities at the Pentagon and NNSA will take a big hit. As budget analyst Todd Harrison rightly observes, "The budget request and new strategic guidance are of little consequence until this uncertainty is resolved."

Our message on all this remains the same: The U.S. should prioritize scarce dollars on the weapons we need for current threats and spend less on unaffordable nuclear programs with diminishing strategic relevance – with our without sequestration.  The decision to delay the Ohio-class replacement program and defer the new plutonium facility at Los Alamos are good first steps, but there is ample room for more cuts.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Security Matters, Congress, nuclear weapons budget, SSBN(X) (all tags)

Click here to see the whole Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Spending Request Briefing Book.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, which begins on October 1, 2012, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $525.4 billion.  This represents a $5.1 billion, or approximately 1 percent, decrease from the FY12 base budget approved by Congress.  

In addition, the Administration has requested $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to continue to fight the wars overseas. This is $26.6 billion decrease from the amount enacted last year, $115.1 billion, and brings the FY13 defense budget request to a total of $613.9 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 $613.9 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Administration has requested approximately $17.7 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7.2 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities.

This brings total Pentagon defense related spending to approximately $639 billion, a nominal decrease of about $30.7 billion below FY12, largely due to savings from the war in Afghanistan and the end of the war in Iraq.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY13, nuclear weapons budget (all tags)

The concept of delivering a conventional warhead anywhere in the world within an hour has been discussed since the Bush administration. Conventional prompt (formally global) strike may help reduce the role of nuclear weapons, acting as a substitute against some targets where existing conventional forces are incapable of attacking quickly but nuclear weapons are inappropriate. It is intended as a niche capability to be deployed only in extraordinary circumstances.

Congress ended one such proposal, designed to replace the nuclear warheads on Trident D5 missiles with conventional munitions, by cutting all funding for the Conventional Trident Modification program in the Fiscal Year 2007, 2008, and 2009 budgets.  

At a press conference previewing the Fiscal Year 2013 defense budget request, Secretary Panetta announced plans to move forward with a similar plan that would use intermediate-range (1800-3500 miles) ballistic missiles without allaying the concerns which left previous efforts dead in the water. We will not know for certain how much the Department of Defense plans to allocate to this new program until the budget is released in another week.

Read more

Security Matters, Conventional Prompt Global Strike, Ballistic Missiles (all tags)

But there's an obvious contradiction in the conservative position, because the same people who want to preserve the current, robust level of military outlays also want to reduce the budget deficit without raising taxes. That just doesn't add up in an economy that is struggling to reach three-percent growth annually. We can have higher taxes and continue generating nearly half of all global military outlays; or we can keep taxes where they are and bring federal outlays down to the level that current tax receipts would sustain. But there is no third option if we are intent on reducing the deficit.

Some conservatives contend that this all can be reconciled by simply paring back the welfare state. But you could wipe out the entire Social Security program -- over a quarter of the federal budget -- and Washington would still be running a sizable budget deficit. Since there is little evidence voters would stand for cuts to Social Security or the major healthcare entitlement programs, opponents of military cuts have some explaining to do. So let's hear it AEI, Heritage, et. al. -- what's your plan? Do you want to raise taxes or just keep borrowing money from China? If you don't want to do either, inquiring minds want to know how you propose that a country with five percent of the world's people and 25 percent of the world's economic output can continue generating nearly half of global military expenditures.

Loren B. Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates, a for-profit consultancy, January 30, 2012.   For those of you unfamiliar with the Lexington Institute, it's a pretty hawkish, pro-defense outfit.

Read more

Security Matters (all tags)

Those seeking further details on changes in the Pentagon budget received some satisfaction today in a briefing delivered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Secretary Panetta revealed that the budget, expected to be released in full detail on February 13, will contain $525 billion in base spending for fiscal 2013.  This excludes funding for the wars as well as nuclear-related activities at the Department of Energy, and represents a $6 billion decrease from the fiscal 2012 base budget approved by Congress.  Congress’ final number for fiscal 2012 was rolled back by $22 billion from the administration's original proposal in order to comply with the Budget Control Act.  

In addition, the Pentagon will request $88.4 billion in funding for the wars overseas, approximately $27 billion less than fiscal 2012 due to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The Pentagon’s stated “hope and plan,” according to Secretary Panetta, is to grow the base budget (PDF) to $567 billion by fiscal 2017.  Although the budget would decrease slightly this year, 2.3 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, it would see a real increase of about a half a percent over the remainder of the next five years.

The Pentagon has taken a hard look at its priorities and scaled back some of its most pie-in-the-sky projects, but its actions have not impacted the country’s ability to fight a war.  "This budget is a first step — it's a down payment — as we transition from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges," said Dempsey, "This budget does not lead to a military in decline."

In fact, the Pentagon document, titled “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices,” notes that “Even with these reductions, the Army and Marine Corps will be larger than they were in 2001.”

If anything, the debt debate has provided the Pentagon with a long overdue opportunity to reexamine its priorities and reevaluate its strategy in light of ongoing and realistic threats.  The last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) punted on the subject, recommending that the Pentagon choose to prepare for everything short of a zombie invasion.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, Panetta, Dempsey, SSBN(X) (all tags)

The Center released the following statement in response to the Pentagon's new strategic guidance and remarks by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation today applauds the Pentagon’s decision to scale back Pentagon spending in a way that best provides for the strength and security of our country, but labeled the move “only a step in the right direction.”

“After an unfocused Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon has come together to provide a cohesive look at the military we will need long after the current wars come to an end,” said Laicie Olson, Senior Policy Analyst, “Further reductions, if similarly strategy-driven, could be made while fully protecting the United States from military threats."

While the full details of the plan will not be released until the Pentagon presents the Fiscal Year 2013 budget to Congress,  the President outlined their direction today, stating that “over the past ten years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace.  Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow... In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration.”

Olson adds that “The proposed cuts are still modest compared to drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.”

The question now is whether the Pentagon will eliminate a host of outdated and unnecessary programs that still exist.

“President Obama was right to note that our national security will be better served by getting rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future,” said Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. “To avoid excessive cuts to essential programs, the Pentagon must cut the bloated U.S. nuclear weapons budget, which is irrelevant to emerging 21st century security priorities such as terrorism, cybersecurity, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.”

The new Pentagon strategy document states, using italics for emphasis, “it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

Added Reif: "Further reductions in U.S. nuclear forces and scaling back planned investments in new strategic nuclear weapons systems and warhead production facilities make both strategic and economic sense”

The Center anticipates the release of full budget details, and awaits a significant adjustment in both strategy and savings.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending (all tags)

Late last night (about 11:40pm) House Republicans introduced a $915 billion spending bill in a power play that would keep the government in operation beyond the weekend.  The maneuver comes as a response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attempt, in conjunction with the White House, to put off movement on nine unfinished 2012 appropriations bills until Congress has agreed upon a separate package to extend a payroll tax break and jobless benefits.  

Senate leaders fear, with good reason, that the House will simply pass its version of key measures and adjourn for the year, leaving the Senate a take-it-or-leave it choice.

The White House has asked Congress to pass a stop-gap spending bill to provide more time to work out a compromise on some controversial provisions included in the spending package, but Republicans have not indicated they would advance such a bill.

Despite some controversial provisions, however, including those on travel to Cuba, the measure is understood to be relatively close to the expected conference agreement.

"We've got an agreement between appropriators in the House and the Senate - Democrats and Republicans - on a bipartisan bill to fund our government. We believe that the responsible thing to do is to move this," said House Speaker John Boehner.

The defense bill advanced by House Republicans would provide $518.1 billion for the Pentagon base budget, an increase of $5.1 billion over fiscal year 2011 (fy11) and a reduction of $20.8 billion below the President’s request.  Senate Appropriations Committee-approved language would provide $513 billion, a number achieved largely through the shifting of funds from the base account to the war account.

In addition, the bill would provide $115.1 billion for ongoing war operations largely in Afghanistan, $2.8 billion below the President’s request and $43 billion below fy11 appropriations.  The Senate Appropriations Committee would fund the wars at $117.5 billion.

A final agreement is expected in the coming days.

Read more

Security Matters, FY12, Defense Spending (all tags)