The Defense Department today gave the public a peek behind the cover of its Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, releasing a report and fact sheet with some top line numbers and names of programs that either dodged or fell to the budget axe. Defense Secretary Panetta said at a press conference that DOD is balancing its books by putting “everything on the table.” But did that happen? Here’s a scorecard comparing today’s revelations with a cut list we released with the Project on Government Oversight last year.

·         Delaying procurement of the new Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines by two years. The cost of this program, known as the SSBN(X), is projected to exceed that of the Navy’s entire shipbuilding budget. Deferring development of costly next-generation weapons saves money by ensuring that we buy the most cost-effective option possible and the one best suited to our needs.

·         Moving two Army brigades out of Europe. This move, announced earlier this month, would take around 10,000 troops out of Europe –not as many as we would like, but it’s a start. We said DOD should withdraw 20,000 troops from Europe, capping routine U.S. military presence there at 35,000 troops with a commensurate reduction in force structure. This would save money through reduced personnel and operations & maintenance (O&M) costs such as military housing and transport.

·         Reforming military health care. Pointing out that military compensation and benefits consume one-third of the DOD budget, Panetta announced that DOD would increase TRICARE enrollment fees for retirees under age 65 as well as for members of the long-term version of the program. It would also increase some pharmacy co-pays and launch a BRAC-esque commission on military retirement. These changes were included in a review on military compensation we endorsed along with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

·         Curtailing missile defense spending. Though today’s report said only that DOD was “not able to protect all of the funding in this area,” we’re happy this expensive, underperforming network of programs is paying some dues. We recommended freezing development of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system until the technologies are proven.

·         Fully funding the next generation bomber. We recommended that DOD basically do what they did with the sub: Delay procurement for a few years until they figure out what they really want. The Obama administration canceled a bomber program just last year because its gold-plated design was unaffordable. The current fleet of bombers is performing well and could be upgraded to last further into the future.

·         Maintaining the aircraft carrier fleet at 11 ships and 10 air wings. We recommended cutting one of the stupendously expensive aircraft carriers and reducing Navy wings from 10 to 9. The CBO estimates that $7 billion can be saved by cutting a carrier and reducing Navy force size accordingly without compromising security.

·         Fully funding screwed-up space programs. DOD “protected” funding to upgrade the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) as well as the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite program (AEHF). Both of these are stars in the galaxy of space programs with endemic cost and schedule overruns, earning our recommendation for a funding freeze.

·         Committing to all three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. After admitting that the most expensive program in Pentagon history would slow down yet further due to development issues, Panetta and Deputy Secretary Ashton Carter iterated their support for the B and C models of the plane, which just happen to be the more expensive ones. We recommended cancelling these variants and substituting the F/A-18E/F for a savings of more than $43 billion.

A final thought: Though DOD’s FY13 budget marks a slight rollback from last year’s, the overall plan announced today represents another increase in the defense budget’s continuing climb. The Pentagon is also not preparing a budget for sequestration, i.e. the additional $600 billion in cuts required under the Budget Control Act. Considering our own military leaders have acknowledged that economic strength is as great a contributor to national security as military strength, the Pentagon could and should do a lot more. 

Contact: Laura Peterson, laura AT taxpayer.net