Pentagon spending plans are spiraling out of control. From ICBMs to next-gen fighters, costs are skyrocketing while strategic benefits remain unclear. Dive into the fiscal chaos as we unpack the Air Force’s budget woes and question whether these ambitious projects truly serve national security interests.

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to Budget Watchdog All Federal, the podcast dedicated to making sense of the budget spending and tax issues facing the nation. Cut through the partisan rhetoric and talking points for the facts about what’s being talked about, bandied about and pushed to Washington, brought to you by taxpayers for common sense. And now the host of Budget Watchdog AF TCS President Steve Ellis.

Steve Ellis:

Welcome to All American Taxpayers Seeking Common Sense. You’ve made it to the right place for nearly 30 years. TCS that’s taxpayers for common sense, has served as an independent nonpartisan budget watchdog group based in Washington DC We believe in fiscal policy for America that is based on facts. We believe in transparency and accountability because no matter where you are in the political spectrum, no one wants to see their tax dollars wasted. And in the case of today’s episode, dear listeners, we’re diving into the Pentagon spending plans that even the Pentagon admits are unsustainable. While a category five political hurricane rages on the presidential campaign trail, the fiscal house the next commander in chief will inherit is decidedly not in order. Thanks to a slew of ambitious and questionable Pentagon monetization programs. And here with the latest on these plans is your friend and mine, TCS policy analyst Gabe Murphy.

Gabe Murphy:

Thanks for having me on, Steve.

Steve Ellis:

We’re glad to have you Gabe. So let’s start with the news that broke earlier this week. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told breaking defense that in the five-year spending plan they submitted to Congress. It’s clear we did something there. That’s not going to be sustainable. Now taxpayers are no stranger to unsustainable Pentagon spending, but things must be pretty bad if the head of the Air Force is saying that. What prompted this rare confession?

Gabe Murphy:

Well, Steve Secretary Kendall said that in the context of an interview about the sixth generation fighter, which we’ll get to in a bit. But to understand how we got here, we really have to take a look at the broader context, which is the Pentagon’s pursuit of modernization projects across the board from conventional forces to our nation’s nuclear arsenal. These modernization plans include Air force programs for a six generation fighter for the B 21 nuclear bomber and for the Sentinel, a new intercontinental ballistic missile ICBM among other programs.

Steve Ellis:

But it’s not just the Air Force that is buying, right?

Gabe Murphy:

Correct. The Navy is also planning its own sixth generation fighter as well as the new Constellation class frigate, the new Virginia Class attack submarine and the new Columbia class ballistic missile submarine.

Steve Ellis:

That sounds like a lot to take on, but the Pentagon has gone through modernization efforts before. Why is this time different?

Gabe Murphy:

Well, it’s different because of both the number of modernization projects underway and just the fact that virtually all of these programs are already over budget and behind schedule and not just a little bit as a prime example. Let’s start with the Sentinel ICBM in January. The Air Force announced that this program for building a new generation of nuclear ICBMs was 37% over budget just compared to cost projections made in 2020.

Steve Ellis:

So four years, 37% increase is a pretty big cost spike.

Gabe Murphy:

Yeah, it is. Steven. There’s actually a law in place to address this. The cost spike triggered a review of the program under the NUN McCurdy Act, a law that requires the Pentagon to review programs experience in critical cost overruns like this

Steve Ellis:

Right name for Senator Sam Nunn and Congressman Dave McCurdy, both of which left office about 30 years ago.

Gabe Murphy:

Sure. Anyway, under the law, the Pentagon had to assess the root causes of the cost growth and then either cancel the program or certify that it’s essential for national security, that there are no viable alternatives and that the program is higher priority than any programs that will face cuts to pay for the cost growth.

Steve Ellis:

Alright, so where does this review stand?

Gabe Murphy:

Well, earlier this month, the Air Force made all of the certifications necessary to keep this program going, but it also revealed that the restructured program is now expected to be 81% over budget compared to 2020.

Steve Ellis:

I’m sorry, did you say 81%?

Gabe Murphy:

Yes, 81%.

Steve Ellis:

Well, I guess that helps explain why they’re calling their prior plans unsustainable now.

Gabe Murphy:

Yeah, it really does. Steven, beyond this just stunning cost growth, the certifications they made warrant some real scrutiny. Let’s start with the first one that the Sentinel is essential for national security. After the initial NUN McCurdy breach, we got to work on a report digging into the Sentinel, it’s ballooning costs and the strategic rationale for building this new generation of ICBMs.

Steve Ellis:

Right? I’ve read that report and Budget Watchdog AF Faithful, you can find that on our website. It’s called Ripe for Rescission, a cost benefit analysis of US ICBMs.

Gabe Murphy:

What we found was that based on the goals laid out in the most recent Nuclear Posture Review, which is a document sort of assessing the nation’s nuclear strategy and laying it out for everyone, the Sentinel was not only unnecessary to meeting those goals, but in some cases it actively undermines them. One of our central arguments in this report was that nuclear weapons deployed on our ballistic missile submarines and our nuclear bombers are more than sufficient to deter US adversaries. I mean, the combined explosive yield of those bombs is many thousands of times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War ii. It used to be the case that ICBMs were more reliable and powerful than these alternatives, but technological advances in the air and sea-based legs of the triad have really changed that.

Steve Ellis:

Yeah, the Sentinel ICBM must be one of the greatest case studies in political inertia. These weapons are far more vulnerable than submarines and bombers in the event of an attack and offer no meaningful support for the administration’s nuclear weapons goals. Yet the Air Force just certified them to be essential to national security even though they’re 81% over budget.

Gabe Murphy:

Right. I mean, a new generation of ICBMs that offer no value add and arguably increase the risk of accidental nuclear war given their ability to launch on warning within minutes of an order. It’s pretty strange. Lo Vian. Really? Gee,

clip from Dr Strangelove:

I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.

Steve Ellis:

Tain. He right. For those who don’t remember, Dr. Strangelove was a Cold War era movie about a nuclear crisis that comically examined the principles of mutually assured destruction worth a watch. One of my favorite lines, you can’t fight here. This is the war room. Alright, but I digress. So tell our budget watchdog faithful about the certification that there are no viable alternatives.

Gabe Murphy:

Well, Steve, even if you agree with the Air Force that we need ICBMs and obviously we don’t agree, the Air Force has basically refused to meaningfully consider alternatives. In 2014, it conducted an analysis of alternatives that remains classified a decade later and that found that life extending the Minuteman three, that current generation of ICBMs wasn’t feasible, but by all accounts, that conclusion was based on problematic assumptions like the necessity of maintaining 400 deployed ICBMs and the necessity of maintaining current test rates for ICBMs. In contrast, independent analysis found that by returning to a previous and lower test rate, the Air Force could life extend the Met Man three through 2050 or that just by dropping the deployed number of ICBMs to 300 instead of 400, their life could be extended to 2060. And on top of that history, Steve, in the context of the NUN McCurdy review, air Force officials have said that from the very beginning they’ve said that the result was a foregone conclusion that the Sentinel would be built and the review is going to confirm that that really doesn’t point to a serious examination of alternatives that this program deserves.

Steve Ellis:

Yeah. Once you’ve already said the answer, before you’ve really asked the questions, then it’s pretty clear that you’re really not going to do a credible analysis. So how about the certification under non McCurdy? You have to also certify that is a higher priority than programs that will be cut to cover the cost growth.

Gabe Murphy:

So this is maybe the most absurd if the Air Force’s certifications here because they made it without actually naming any programs that would face cuts. As they explain it, the cost growth for the Sentinel won’t kick in until five years or so down the road. So they said that that’s when they’re going to make those decisions. So essentially they certify that it’s higher priority than programs that will face cuts because at the moment no programs will face cuts.

Steve Ellis:

Well, maybe the Air Force is heading to Paris because that’s some Olympic quality gymnastics that they use to contort themselves with some legal acrobatics to Dodge basic question about the program on a technicality.

Gabe Murphy:

And aside from that Dodge, it’s also looking more and more like other programs are in fact already facing cuts to pay for the Sentinel, at least unofficially

Steve Ellis:

Like which,

Gabe Murphy:

Well, this brings us to another piece of the modernization puzzle. The sixth generation fighter, the Air Force and Navy are currently in the early stages of two separate programs for what they call a family of systems approach to a six gen fighter, which at least originally was expected to include a manned fighter aircraft, unmanned autonomous drones to accompany these fighters and sort of fly by their side as wingmen and a new command and control infrastructure. So now those plans are very much in flux.

Steve Ellis:

Okay. Well, before we get into how the plans are shifting, tell us more about the sixth gen fighter concept. If I recall, you’re working on a new report right now about these programs that assess them in the context of all that went wrong with the fifth generation fighter, AKA, the F 35. And as our listeners know that fighter, the F 35 has been one of the most calamitous programs in Pentagon history. It’s years behind schedule and projected to cost taxpayers over $2 trillion $1.4 trillion more than originally projected. And for all that time and money, its full mission capable rate. The percentage of time it can fly and perform all of its missions is only 30%. And now the Pentagon wants to build six generation fighter with autonomous drones by its side.

Gabe Murphy:

Yeah, I was worried too, Steve, but the Air Force and Navy have promised that they won’t repeat the mistakes of the F 35, so clearly there’s nothing to worry about. In all seriousness, though, we really should be worried. I mean, even the Air Force is worried. Secretary Kendall has said these next gen fighters could cost up to $300 million a piece about three times the cost of an F 35, which is not a cheap plane. As Secretary Kendall said himself, and he’s also said that each fighter could be accompanied by anywhere from two to five autonomous drones, what they’re calling collaborative combat aircraft or CCAs. These CCAs are expected to cost 27 million a piece at least.

Steve Ellis:

So even more expensive than the F 35. Geez. Cost with this next gen fighter is clearly a concern. But is the Pentagon actually taking any lessons from the F 35 in reality?

Gabe Murphy:

I mean there are some signs that they are, according to Secretary Kendall, the Air Force at least is opting for less concurrency between development and production, which was a huge problem for the F 35. And they’re also moving forward with an open system architecture that at least in theory, should allow more competition on future upgrades to the platforms and help prevent some of the monopoly prices that Lockheed Martin was able to charge. That said, there’s still plenty of opportunity for wasteful spending and cost growth,

Steve Ellis:

And you start out with these promises and then you sort of backslide on these promises. Certainly that’s what I’ve seen with the Pentagon and certainly you mentioned concurrency, and that’s where you’re both developing and producing the aircraft at the same time, which is something that as you start falling behind, schedule becomes more and more attractive that, okay, here’s a way that we can try to stay on schedule. So it’s something that I think bears very close watching. And I guess moving to the more fundamental question, what about the strategy, Gabe? I mean, do we really need a six generation fighter?

Gabe Murphy:

Well, Steve, these programs are highly classified, so we really don’t have all the answers, but it’s clear that Congress should be asking tough questions before the Pentagon races ahead with these programs to ensure that they are actually the best approach to meeting our national security needs.

Steve Ellis:

Alright, Gabe, you’re a smart guy. So what are some of these questions?

Gabe Murphy:

Thanks, Steve. I mean, I try, but the rationale for developing a six gen man fighter I think needs to be examined. It really rests largely on two assumptions that we need a six generation fighter in order to project air superiority deep into enemy territory and that we need a six gen fighter to hold targets deep in enemy territory at risk, but with advances in air defenses, some analysts are questioning whether achieving air superiority deep in enemy territory is the right goal, let alone a viable one. If the idea is to defend US or allied forces from enemy aircraft investing in ground-based air defenses may suffice. And if the idea is to be able to strike targets deep and enemy territory, long range fires and standoff cruise missiles that can be launched from aircraft outside of any air defenses could be a better, more affordable alternative. Also, there’s the question of whether this aircraft actually needs to be, man.

Steve Ellis:

All good questions. But back to cost for a minute. It sounds like the Pentagon is already pairing back their plans, at least in part to pay for the cost of the sentinel, the ICBM we were talking about.

Gabe Murphy:

That’s certainly what it looks like to me. I mean, the news that the Air Force’s six Gen fighter program might be scaled back a bit, started coming out a month before the Air Force certified. The Sentinel Program and more specifics have come into focus since then. It started when Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allen was asked if he still thought the Air Force could do their six gen fighter program or if it was something that would have to turn over every couple of years as technology advances. His reply was that we’re going to have to make those choices, make those decisions across the landscape.

Steve Ellis:

It’s a pretty unsatisfying answer. And also kind of brings the question, the idea of we’ll take this now and once we get the ICBM way down the line, then we’ll come back and try to get the six generation fighter once we’re already too far ahead and then we have to have that as well. Anyway, as I said, that’s a pretty unsatisfying answer.

Gabe Murphy:

Yeah, I think it is. And that’s clearly what the press thought too. I mean, this answer led to a firestorm of questions and more vague answers in the weeks that followed, culminating in an interview with Secretary Kendall where he called the five-year spending plan. They submitted to Congress unsustainable and suggested that the next gen fighter might in fact be unmanned instead of mant. And in the interim, there were a bunch of other comments, vague comments that were coming out, but one of them was Secretary Kendall suggesting that they may look at scaling back the size and complexity of the engine as well as other cost saving measures. So he was actually asked at one point what an acceptable price for the fighter would be, and he said he’d love to get it down to the price of the F 35. Again, still a very expensive claim, but it’s far from clear that they’re going to be able to achieve that even if they do opt for a more affordable unmanned fighter

Steve Ellis:

Secretary Kendall, he was a weapons buyer before and procurement guy before he became Air Force Secretary, and so he certainly understand some of the issues here and so I’ll give him a little bit of credit and the chief of staff for at least airing some of these concerns and even saying that a five year spending plan that they submitted to Congress, that they submitted to Congress is unsustainable. Alright. Bringing this full circle, it’s not just the Air Force. The Pentagon’s modernization plans are unsustainable and they know it, but they’re committed to buying a new generation of ICBMs that we don’t need and can’t afford. They also want taxpayers to pay for not one, but two programs, air Force and Navy for six generation fighter jets that might be manned, might be unmanned, but we’ll definitely have autonomous drones flying by their side. Do I have all this correct, Gabe?

Gabe Murphy:

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, Steve. I would just add that while some people are going to call for a massive increase in military spending to pay for these unsustainable plans, that would be unsustainable too. We’re nearly $35 trillion in debt and interest payments on that debt are set to surpass military spending this year, which is approaching a trillion dollars. We really can’t have national security without fiscal responsibility. I’d say the bottom line is this, Congress needs to take a serious look at the strategic underpinning for all of these programs as well as their costs and risks before committing taxpayers to a new generation of fiscal and strategic calamities.

Steve Ellis:

All righty then, Gabe Murphy, TCS policy analyst, thanks for giving us the initial scoop on this Pentagon spending calamity.

Gabe Murphy:

My pleasure, Steve.

Steve Ellis:

Well, there you have it. Podcast listeners from New ICBMs to Next generation fighters, Pentagon. Plans are unsustainable and Congress needs to step in. This is the frequency market on your dial, subscribe and share and know this taxpayers for common sense has your back America. We read the bills, monitor the earmarks, and highlight those wasteful programs that poorly spend our money and shift long-term risk to taxpayers. We’ll be back with a new episode soon. I hope you’ll meet us right here to learn more.