Military Budget Cuts on Modern American Airpower

"The Cold War is over, and we won. The Soviet Union no longer exists and there is no other comparable superpower now in existence or on the horizon. So why is the United States still spending over $250 billion a year on defense? With no real enemies right now in the world, there is no need to spend this much money. But the Republicans in Congress continue to cry about the need to increase defense spending. Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan each spend one-eighth the amount per year on defense that we Americans do. What are our potential enemies spending? Based on 1994 figures, Russia tops the list at $47 billion, followed by China ($21.8 billion), Iraq ($8.6 billion), North Korea ($5.1 billion), Iran ($4.3 billion), Libya ($1.8 billion), and Cuba ($1.3 billion). Add their budgets together, and it is still a third of what the United States is spending."

The United States has a total active-duty military force of about 1.5 million people. If that doesn't sound like a lot of people, consider that only 54,000 people - less than four percent of the active-duty force - is now deployed on the various peacekeeping missions, such as Bosnia and Haiti.

"This country is one of the few industrialized nations that spends more on its military than on education. We spend about two-thirds of our federal research and development money on the military, mostly for weapons development. Japan spends five percent on military research and development while Germany spends about fifteen percent. We make great missiles and bombers, but power in the post-Cold War world now rests with countries like Japan and Germany that invested in education and civilian industries instead of weapons-building and maintaining a global military presence."

After reviewing the preceding quotes, please capitulate the following based on figures from the year 2000:

*Military budget request for fiscal year 2001 (budget authority):
$305.4 billion ~ $12.1 billion increase from fiscal year 2000

*Projected military spending for fiscal year 2001 (outlays):
$291.2 billion ~ $.6 billion increase from fiscal year 2000

*The military budget continues to rise, from $293 billion in fiscal year 2000 budget authority requested $305 billion in fiscal year 2001, and increase of $12 billion. Republicans say they will add more this year. The Administration projects an increase to $368 billion in fiscal year 2009.

*The five-year Pentagon request from fiscal year 2001 - 2005 comes to $1.6 trillion.

*Despite controversy last year over the F-22 fighter jets, when they initially cut out procurement funds, it is full speed ahead in fiscal year 2001, with the President asking for $4 billion for ten planes plus continued research.

*The Pentagon has reached its long-stated goal of $60 billion for the procurement of new weapons systems. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Department of Defense will need $90 billion a year to fund all its weapons programs. The new budget makes no attempt to cut back unaffordable weapons: current Pentagon plans call for spending $440 billion for five aircraft programs: Joint-Strike Fighter ($250 billion), F-22 ($63 billion), F/A-18E/F ($47 billion), Comanche helicopter ($43 billion), and V-22 ($36 billion).

*The Pentagon requested a 3.7% pay increase for the military.

Most Expensive Weapons Systems - Total Program Costs

$250.0 billion JSF Navy - Air Force - Marine Joint-Strike Fighter - 2,852 planes

$62.7 billion F-22 Air Force advanced tactical fighter - 341 planes

$47.0 billion F/A-18E/F Navy Super Hornet - 548 planes

$44.9 billion C-17 Air Force airlift aircraft - 134 planes

$44.4 billion B-2 Air Force bomber - 21 planes

$43.0 billion RAH-66 Army Comanche helicopter - 1,192 helicopters

$36.2 billion V-22 Navy Osprey - 458 planes

Potential Cuts in the Military Budget

*Divert the $5 billion in pork spending that Members of Congress insist on each year.

*Abandon the requirement to prepare for two major wars almost simultaneously.

*Cut force levels by at least 200,000. Between active-duty, reserve, and Pentagon civilians, the Pentagon will still have almost three million personnel.

*Close unnecessary military bases to save $3 billion a year.

It is obvious that we Americans spend a great deal of money caring for and augmenting our nation's military force, but we clearly have the most formidable air power on the face of the Earth; not to mention the other military forces. The reason that our nation is a free nation and we have the wonderful rights that we do is because we have the capability of defending those rights to the fullest extent. After capitulating the quotes at the beginning of this essay, it is obvious that many believe that we are spending too much on our military power; again, the reason we are the great nation we have become is because we can afford to develop these wonderful, destructive toys, and they do cost money, folks.

In the words of the great Napoleon Bonaparte, "Great operations...require speed in movements and as much quickness in conception as in execution...We require therefore unity of thought - military, diplomatic, and financial." Napoleon realized the importance of finances in researching and developing a military force, so it seems that it should not be so difficult to understand that we should do the same. Not that this is an imminent problem anymore, but it is worth mentioning. At the epoch of Adolf Hitler's attempt at dominating Europe, Germany's supreme military development obviously took the world by surprise, and was at such an advanced stage that America was required to quickly begin a frantic mass-production of war supplies. Had America been unsuccessful in its production efforts, the outcome of the war may have been much different. We really don't have to worry near as much these days about being outdone militarily, but the idea is to stay prepared for any possible event that could transpire. America was obviously taken by complete surprise by the September 11, 2001 attacks, so enemies clearly still have the capability to strike with considerable destruction.

As far as state-of-the-art advances in military technology are concerned, we clearly don't have many near competitors. I will select probably the best readily-available examples: the Sukhoi (SU) - 37 Super Flanker or the Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) - 29 Fulcrum. The jets, which are developed by Russia, are nearly identical and probably offer the greatest challenge to America's finest fighter jets. Both systems feature powerful pulse-Doppler radar systems, rearward-facing radar systems, helmet-mounted optics, and what is known as thrust-vectoring supermaneuverability. As compared to two of America's finer examples, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 Hornet, either of the Russian jets stands little chance of success. Both the F-16 and F/A-18 feature Block 60 avionics, an up-front control system, a larger heads-up display, a 1.1 to 1 thrust-to-weight ratio, and the all-new forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system featuring Low-Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) technology. LANTIRN was developed for one simple reason: so a pilot flying at night could navigate and deliver weapons as if he were flying during the day. It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of systems such as this. While this may seem as nothing more than a hodge-podge of enigmatic technical jargon, this information indicates one highly important advantage: an aircraft that cannot deliver its weapons at night cannot properly defend its country. By comparison, even during daytime, either the F-16 or F/A-18 will defeat the SU-37 or MiG-29 in the range of 7 of 10 engagements, depending on the dogfight specifics. These numbers jump to an awe-inspiring 10 of 10 if incorporating into the equation the newly-developed United States Air Force F-22 Raptor (redesignated Lightning), which has not quite been released for duty as of yet. These aircraft yield technologies that are reminiscent of futuristic science-fiction aircraft.

The justification for this information is this: yes, America spends a great deal of money on national defense and military presence, but the technology and capability clearly correspond with the funds expended. It is not as if we are wasting money here. We can directly compare each nation's military force and namely, air power, to those funds provided to the cause, all the way down the list. A nation cannot expect to spend nominal fees and present a formidable force. With the sudden increase in actions against terrorist nations and the imminent actions from those nations, now more than ever, we should be prepared. In closing this essay, I would like to quote President Ronald Reagan from his address following the 1980 bombing of Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi - "Today, we have done what we had to do...he counted on America to be passive...he counted wrong." Without the dominating military force of America, statements and actions such as these would not be possible.

Bibliography

*Global Beat: Fiscal Year 2001 Military Budget at a Glance; http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/CLW020700.html.

*Napoleon on the Art of War; Luvaas, Jay; Touchstone, New York; 1999.

*Vipers in the Storm: Diary of a Gulf War Fighter Pilot; Rosenkranz, Keith; McGraw - Hill, New York; 1999.

*Why Not Cut the Defense Budget?, http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut26.htm.