More Effective and More Efficient: Increasing Military Power with Less Money
Posted by Bill R. French
Last week’s political torrent on the national security implications of sequester was predictably unconstructive, ranging from feuds over pink slips to McCain’s “sequester tour.”
At some point, though, Congress will hopefully do its job, likely by making a deal to avoid sequester that makes modest reductions in defense spending – as it should. Arguments for reducing the defense budget tend to emphasize the numbers, like how even sequester size cuts of $55 billion per year would only return the Pentagon’s base budget to 2007 levels.
Those facts are important, but they’re only half the reason that the defense budget can be safely reduced. The other half is operational and strategic in nature: in part due to technological advances, the U.S. can employ more cost-efficient ways to develop and field its combat power directly. Moreover, many of these ways of doing more with less also better address emerging challenges.
The surface of this line of analysis has only begun to be scratched – most comprehensively by the ongoing Responsible Defense project at the Center for a New American Security. Yet, various corners of the national security community – including senior military officials – have proposed or begun to implement concepts for innovative, cost-efficient military power.
Below are four topline concepts that help to illustrate how the military can better meet future challenges while saving resources:
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Greenert has called for a shift in thinking from platforms to payloads, “We need to move from ‘luxury-car’ platforms—with their built-in capabilities—toward dependable ‘trucks’ that can handle a changing payload selection.” That is, rather than emphasizing exquisite platforms like the F-22, priced at $469 million each, the military should better leverage what he calls the “revolution in precision guided munitions” (PGMs). Standoff PGMs provide substantial cost benefits, can strike from farther away and because they can be developed faster, are able to keep closer pace with evolving technology.
On cost-savings, it’s worth quoting Admiral Greenert at length:
"A Tomahawk missile, for example, costs about $1.2 million, while a JDAM is about $30,000. To strike a single target, however, the total training, maintenance, and operations cost to get a manned aircraft close enough to deliver the JDAM is several times higher than the cost of launching a Tomahawk at the same target from a destroyer, submarine or aircraft operating several hundred miles away."
2. Networked Forces
Using information systems to coordinate actions across a battlespace is still in its infancy. Indeed, the Pentagon’s most forward-looking operational concepts push the benefits of networked forces even further. If steered in the right direction, this can serve as an engine for greater cost savings and adapting the military to future needs.
For example, the Pentagon’s hyper-expensive, hyper-capable assets can coordinate with either older platforms or relatively simple and cheap future systems – what is sometimes termed a ‘hi-lo mix.’ As a case in point, a RAND study outlined how modified B-1 bombers carrying very long-range air-to-air missiles might work in conjunction with F-22s against high-end adversaries to help compensate for inferior numbers and inadequate weapons loads. Innovations such as these allow for smaller buys of astronomically expensive platforms, like the $1.5 trillion F-35 program slated to produce over 2,000 aircraft.
3. Modularity
Modular platforms, like the Navy’s upcoming Littoral Combat Ship, are basic frames that have key capabilities ‘plugged in and out’ depending on the mission. The frame remains the same, but the ‘modules’ that contain the capabilities are different, allowing the same platform to switch to different roles as needed, rather than having to build entirely separate systems.
Modular designs benefit from decreased costs because economies of scale make its cheaper to produce larger numbers of a single platform than to produce multiple fleets of specialized systems. Importantly, designing new modules allows a platform to take on new missions or have its capabilities updated throughout its service life, building adaptability into the force as a hedge against future needs and uncertainty. This can prevent the need to design entirely new platforms, generating further savings.
4. Forward Stationing
For a Navy, where ships are stationed can matter as much as the number of ships it has. Admiral Stavridis, the Commander of European Command, testified to Congress that in some instances, a ship forward stationed near its area of operation can maintain the presence that would otherwise require five vessels. By forward stationing larger numbers of its fleet, the Navy can use what it has to better effect – especially as the expansive Asia-Pacific becomes the central focus of American security interests.
Comments