News

There’s not going to be an immediate “procurement shopping spree,” agreed Katherine Blakely of the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. Instead, the Mattis plan takes time to develop more advanced capabilities, particularly in the repeatedly-mentioned area of “lethality.” What does that mean? Future adversaries may be markedly more deadly, Blakeley says, which force the US to make its forces more lethal to match. Greater lethality also argues against over-investing in a small number of expensive, “exquisite” superweapons that can be taken down with a few good hits. (Think of the Death Star in Star Wars for the extreme example). The crucial “leading indicators” to watch, she said, will be whether the forthcoming budget emphasizes upgrading the lethality of existing systems — new missiles for old ships, for instance — and whether funding is forthcoming for the high-tech experiments of Carter’s Strategic Capabilities Office and Third Offset Strategy — Bob Work being the principal architect of offset since the start.

Experts say the new threats in the Bab-al-Mandab is putting the Navy in a situation familiar to the Army and Marine Corps in recent years: operating under the constant threat of attack.  "It makes the Navy very concerned, and it reminds them that ships are vulnerable," said Bryan Clark a retired commander and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "They are easy to identify and they operate in close proximity to threats. "It puts a premium on being able to defend yourself on very short notice.  The Navy has invested money in self-defense for years, however, and regularly trains to meet both small boats and missiles. The rising threat of attack in the Bab-al-Mandab is going to test whether those investments are going to pay off, Clark said.

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), told USNI News today that the FY 2017 budget amendment could fund things like fuel and supplies for operations, some procurement of systems already in production, or additional maintenance periods that can be planned and placed on contract before Sept. 30. “This would enable the Navy, for example, to increase steaming days and flying hours to improve readiness of non-deployed forces in the ‘sustainment’ phase of the [Optimized Fleet Response Plan]. It could also enable the Navy to more fully complete its planned maintenance this [fiscal year] and buy ahead some systems it needs for modernization that will occur next year,” he wrote in an email. On the acquisition side, the amendment could add money to completely fund an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that was already partially paid for but still requires about $433 more, or it could buy more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets – which are already in production – to help address the Navy’s fighter shortfall.

Ross Babbage, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, argues the US and its allies (including Australia) need to implement a solid strategy to counter China under the lead of the Trump administration. 

Many Republicans want to increase defense spending above the current budget caps in place. Fiscal conservatives might only want to raise it by $100 billion over 5 years, while major defense hawks -- like Sen. John McCain -- may push for increases north of $400 billion, according to Katherine Blakeley, research fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.

Thomas Mahnken, the president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, agreed that readiness and modernization have suffered in recent years, but counseled against opening a floodgate of new funds before it was clear how the Pentagon would effectively spend them. “Improving readiness and modernizing the force will require additional resources beyond those permitted by the Budget Control Act, but we need to keep in mind that the Defense Department’s capacity to absorb an infusion of resources is limited,” he said. “The Pentagon today is a lot like a person who has been slowly starving for years; there are limits to how effectively it can spend a large infusion of cash. One byproduct of our neglect of modernization over the past decade and a half is that there are few programs that are ready right now to accept new funds. Rebuilding the American military will take time.”