As with
previous April issues, this special Sea-Air-Space issue of Sea Power
focuses primarily on the vital U.S. defense industrial base, the
president's defense budget proposal for the coming fiscal year and his
longer-term defense budget plan, as well as the latest in U.S. and
allied naval/defense technology.
Secretary of
Defense William S. Cohen leads off the issue with an eloquent
explication of the administration's fiscal-year 2001 defense budget
request, and confirms the need for significant additional spending in
the outyears of the future-years defense plan, or FYDP. Perhaps the most
important point Secretary Cohen makes, in fact, is that "there
needs to be an increase in the top-line spending [emphasis added]."
This is a
breakthrough announcement, and is echoed on Capitol Hill, where the
Republican leadership is reported to be seeking $15 billion or more in
additional defense funding for the coming fiscal year, and even greater
increases in the outyears. This is a most encouraging development, and a
sign that the level of funding needed for national defense might indeed
become a major election-year issue, as it should be.
The biggest
line-item increase projected in defense procurement for FY 2001 is in
shipbuilding, for which $12.3 billion is requested. That is $5.3 billion
more than was appropriated by Congress last year, and is a positive step
in the right direction.
Whether it is
enough is still questionable, though. CRS (Congressional Research
Service) analyst Ronald O'Rourke, one of the most credible experts in
this area in or out of government, testified early last month before the
Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee and made
the following points: (1) The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review determined
that the Navy needs a minimum of just over 300 ships to carry out all of
its assigned missions; (2) Navy, Marine Corps, and JCS (Joint Chiefs of
Staff) studies carried out over the past three years strongly indicate
that the real requirement is for "a fleet of more than 360
ships"; and (3) The several annual versions of the FYDP that have
been submitted over the past seven years would support a fleet ranging
from a low of 216 ships, the worst-case scenario, to, at best, 263
ships--in other words, a fleet anywhere from 40 to 100 ships short of
minimum requirements.
O'Rourke's
analysis is strongly supported (with certain modifications and
qualifications) by a number of independent studies, by the testimony
last year and this of the Joint Chiefs, and by the Congressional Budget
Office--which President Clinton himself has praised for its objectivity.
Other FY 2001
budget accounts provide a much-needed additional pay increase for
military personnel, support a modest increase in naval aircraft
procurement, maintain the pace of modernization for the Marine Corps,
and protect the near-term readiness of all of the nation's armed
services--by, for example, providing somewhat more adequate funding for
flying hours and ship and aviation depot maintenance. All of these are
positives, but under the current budget ceiling they further constrain
the funding available for recapitalization. Again, the short- as well as
long-term answer is an increase in the current topline on defense
spending.
Two related
notes: (1) Although the focus here is on shipbuilding--because building
ships requires the longest lead time--the funding dilemma applies
equally to aircraft, weapons, sensors, and electronics/avionics systems;
and (2) The Coast Guard's FY 2001 budget request is again austere, but
if fully funded would permit the multimission service to proceed with
the first phase of its long-term Deepwater acquisition project, another
program immensely important to national defense.
Navy Leaguers
and other civic-minded citizens should be encouraged by the positive
aspects of the administration's FY 2001 defense budget request as
submitted. But there is no room for complacency. There is still much,
much more that has to be done. A substantial congressional add-on this
year would be a good first step. The real need, though, is for sustained
long-term funding for a national defense program that is based on
validated naval/military requirements and global realities, not--as in
recent years--on predetermined budget ceilings imposed for political and
economic reasons. I urge all members of the Navy League to work as
closely as possible with other patriotic organizations, with their
friends and neighbors, with the media, and--most important of all--with
their U.S. senators and representatives:
First, to get
the Department of Defense budget ceiling increased this year so that
future readiness can be maintained with new, modern, and replacement
weapons platforms and systems; and
Second, to
restore national defense to its rightful place at the top of the
political agenda this election year--and keep it there from now
on.
|
