Four of the nation’s top national security think tanks projected what kind of forces and strategy the U.S. military could sustain if sequestration remains in full effect for the next decade, and the results were chilling.
Although the think tanks’ views may not affect actual defense policies, their separate analyses showed how damaging the deep cuts from sequestration could be.
“To cut this much money, you have to do a lot of things that are dumb,” said David Berteau, an authority on defense budgets at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
In order to cut more than $300 billion from expected defense funding over 10 years, as sequestration would require, all of the armed services would have to reduce personnel, units and equipment substantially, with the Army taking the biggest hit on all four projections.
Although all of the teams that did the study, released Feb. 5, saw the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps as best suited to deal with the chaotic global security environment expected in the future, including the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, they too would lose thousands of personnel and much of their current array of weapon systems.
The Navy, for example, would lose two or three of its 10 active aircraft carriers, some of its older surface combatants and a lot of its legacy tactical aircraft.
The Marine Corps would be stripped of much of its heavy weapons and tank and artillery battalion, which the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) said was necessary to shed the “second land army” force structure it accumulated during 12 years of land conflict. But a leaner and lighter Corps would retain and, in several proposals gain, its expeditionary and amphibious capabilities.
All allowed short-term drops in combat readiness to allow some investments in future capabilities.
CSIS would cancel the short take-off, vertical-landing version of the F-35Lightning II joint strike fighter that the Marines are getting, but another said the Air Force also should buy the F-35B so it could operate in crude air fields closer to conflict areas.
None of the teams advocated scrapping the entire F-35 program.
All urged deep cuts in defense headquarters, civilian workers and contractors and a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process to cut excessive infrastructure.
But to carry out the different strategies the teams thought would be necessary to deal with an uncertain future, they all proposed to invest some of the limited funds in particular capabilities.
High on most of the lists for added capacity were cyber, space, communications, long-range strike, undersea warfare assets and greater mobility to respond to rapidly developing crises.
The Navy should accelerate development and increase the range and strike payload of its planned Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Strike and Surveillance (UCLASS) jet, maintain or expand its attack submarine fleet and its combat logistics force and develop unmanned underwater craft.
To help meet the need for more forward presence with fewer large combatants, most of the think tanks supported the Littoral Combat Ship program and one suggested buying more than the 10 planned Joint High Speed Vessels.
The exercise, organized by CSBA, asked all of the institutions to propose alternatives to the fiscal 2015 defense budget the Pentagon is expected to release March 4, which would include projections out five years — the future years defense plan (FYDP), and to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that could be released later this month.
The budget drill would consider the impact of the full sequestration cuts for the next two FYDPs. They also were to look at the effect of only half the sequestration cuts, which obviously produced less drastic reductions in forces.
Participating in addition to CSBA and CSIS were the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
AEI, generally considered more conservative than the other three, was particularly gloomy in its analysis of the full sequestration, arguing that it “means American decline, increased global instability,” and warning “we’ll all be dead by 20YY.”
Its strategy was labeled “patrol, hold, hope,” calling for patrolling in the Middle East and East Asia, hold a threat in one theater with air power while deploying forces from the states and “hope that nuclear deterrence buys time for restoring conventional strength.”
It prioritized air and naval forces.
CSBA stressed allied help in facing the likely future threats and a shift to a “global deterrence/denial force” that would emphasize combat strike power that could punish any potential adversary.
It urged more undersea, land and surface naval-based long-range strike, including UCLASS, greater undersea warfare capabilities and an expanded naval logistics fleet. And it would preserve more of the Marines active duty combat units, but eliminate all Marine Reserves combat forces.
CNAS said America should remain a global power, rebalance to the Pacific, remain engaged in the Middle East but reduce engagements in Europe, Africa and South America. It would cut all short-range tactical aircraft, including the planned buy of F-35s; retire all Navy cruisers, five destroyers and one carrier, and cut six Marine combat battalions.
CSIS emphasized homeland defense, using National Guard and reserve forces; a shift to the Pacific, relaying on the naval logistics fleet, not bases, and more help from allies. It would cut one of the Corps three Marine Expeditionary Forces but support small Marine unit deployments.