Americas Defense Meltdown - IT Acquisition Advisory Council

Thomas Christie • 197the five years when adjusted for inflation, it did not account for the administration’spractice of submitting substantial supplemental requests (well over $100 billion in FY2008) to fund the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the annual Departmentof Energy funding of $15 billion to $20 billion for nuclear weapons researchand maintenance. In any event, there is good reason to question whether these budgetlevels can be sustained in the future with all the other growing demands on the federalbudget and the consequences of huge federal deficits yet to be addressed. Among themore disturbing aspects of these budget figures is the fact that they incorporate hugeplanned increases in spending on weapon systems – $104 billion in FY 2009 growingto $125 billion in FY 2013, an increase of 11 percent in real, inflation-adjusted terms.Such unrealistic planning only adds to the procurement bow-wave and puts off thetough decisions needed to prevent the coming train wreck.It should be noted that Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England issued fiscalguidance in March 2008 that directed the services’ FY 2010 spending blueprints,spanning FY 2010 to FY 2015, assume zero real growth compared with the FY 2009-2014 budget plan under consideration by the Congress. 2 That guidance at a minimumwould allow the defense budget to increase to account for inflation and, according toa Pentagon official involved in the process, might allow for medical and fuel cost risesas well. However, it appears to preclude previously hoped-for significant increases infunding for major weapon systems or other priorities. Obviously, such budget projectionsshould force some tough decisions with respect to major acquisition programsprojected to require substantial increases in their research, development, testing andevaluation (RDT&E) and procurement funding over the next several years.Unrealistic Budget Plans Plus Continuing Modernization ProblemsMean Tough Decisions AheadThe make-believe world of defense budgeting, however, must eventually confront thereal world of weapons development and procurement, a world where hardly a weekpasses without some acquisition horror story emanating from the Pentagon. Newsystems critical to the services’ modernization plans for their aging forces encountercost overruns, serious technical challenges and schedule slips that call into questionthe affordability and realism of service plans for growing and/or sustaining theirpresent force levels and structures. The following discussion provides but a few examplesof the cost, schedule and performance problems associated with key servicemodernization programs.The Army Banks on the Future Combat Systems (FCS)as its Key to ModernizationThe Army faces daunting challenges as it looks to the future. As mentioned above,in the immediate future, the Army will require significant funding above what is