The leaders of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps gave their bleak assessments of the future of Sea Service readiness under future budget cuts in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. Read More
The following is from the Oct. 22, 2013 report, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress from the Congressional Research Service.
The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $1,083.7 million for continued research and development work on the Ohio replacement program (ORP), a program to design and build a new class of 12 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 Ohio- class SSBNs. The Ohio replacement program is also known as the SSBN(X) program. On September 18, 2013, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, testified that the Ohio replacement program “is the top priority program for the Navy.” Read More
From the document issued on Aug. 16, 2013:
A Navigation Plan draws from Sailing Directions to describe in greater detail how a ship will use its resources to safely and effectively sail to a new destination. Similarly, CNO’s Navigation Plan describes how Navy’s budget submission for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2018 pursues the vision of the CNO’s Sailing Directions. It highlights our investments that support the missions outlined in our defense strategic guidance (DSG), Sustaining U.S. Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, viewed through the lens of my three tenets: Warfighting First, Operate Forward, and Be Ready. This Navigation Plan defines the course and speed we will follow to organize, train, and equip our Navy over the next several years. Read More
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon’s No. 2 civilian agreed “the math does not add up” to meet the immediate requirements of a second round of sequestration cuts, even after adopting Department of Defense’s most drastic scenarios in its latest management review — the Strategic Choices and Management Review.
Study after study show that the U.S. military’s pay and compensation system is unsustainable. Defense experts from all across the Washington Beltway forecast a steep decline in readiness and capability due to escalating personnel costs and overall declining defense budgets. There is an urgent need for a frank discussion on pay and compensation reform throughout the ranks.
Whereas the think tanks and defense experts have offered up all manner of fiscal programs, processes and policies to the chopping block of change or disposal, the fact is military pay, compensation and benefits have received particular attention—and with good cause. The money we make, the money we are promised in retirement, the money that maintains our health care—and that of our families—is eroding our ability to do our jobs. Read More
The Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps are continuing funding future capability with a budget that places emphasis on introduction of new weapon systems like the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget submission from the Department of the Navy.
The $155.8 billion request is split between $45.4 billion for military personnel, $43.5 billion for procurement for ships, aircraft, weapons and Marine Corps spending, $16 billion for research and development and $2.3 billion for infrastructure. Read More
The Pentagon has issued a budget that hopes to sidestep mandatory sequestration cuts as part of a larger Obama administration spending reduction strategy.
The $526.6 billion budget, announced Wednesday at a press briefing at the Pentagon, is part of the larger budget proposal across government that would save $1.8 trillion over ten years. Read More
From the March 14, Congressional Research Service report: In order to encourage holistic consideration of national security issues, some members of this inchoate school have called for the use of “unified national security budgeting” (UNSB). To be clear, their goal is not to refine the U.S. federal system of budgeting, but rather to use budgetary mechanisms to drive changes in U.S. national security practices. Within this broad school of thought, various proponents call for the adoption of a number of different approaches, from a single shared funding pool for all national security activities, to mission-specific funding pools, to crosscut displays, to more strategically driven budgeting. In turn, various proponents apparently aim to achieve quite different kinds of change with their proposed remedies—from rebalancing the distribution of roles and responsibilities among executive branch agencies, to saving money, to revisiting fundamental understandings about how U.S. national security is best protected. Read More
The Joint Chiefs of Staff made another round of dire warnings about impending sequestration at a hearing Wednesday, this time telling the House Armed Services Committee who may die because of budget problems — and how.
Proceedings, November 2012
To maintain their unique capabilities, the Sea Services must master the art of navigating budgets in the Age of Austerity.
Under the authority of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and without congressional action, automatic across-the-board cuts—“sequestration”—will occur in the Department of Defense budget in January 2013. 1 The likelihood and the consequences of this event are still uncertain, but projections by the Congressional Research Service suggest total cuts to the Defense budget in the vicinity of $500 billion over the next decade; similar cuts would be made in non-Defense spending. That this would be severe is not in doubt: Employment reductions from changes in equipment procurement in California alone are projected at nearly 126,000, with national changes in employment at more than 5.8 million. 2
Austerity budgets may prove to be the most challenging obstacle the Navy and Marine Corps have seen in a generation. Yet as painful as they may be, they must be faced. And successfully facing them begins with first developing an understanding of the current macroeconomic position of the United States, and ends with developing an effective budgetary strategy. Additionally, it will be critical to remember that Defense budgets do not exist in isolation. All actions and their costs must be gauged both against the entire federal budget as well as the larger U.S. macro-economy.