A Washington think tank is calling on the Pentagon, during these uncertain fiscal times, to identify specific changes to the way it does business such as using more unmanned weapon systems.
The non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) recommends in a new eight-page brief that that the Department of Defense (DoD) develop a menu of budget-cutting options, including some that “change the way it does business” through efficiencies and “change the business it does” through strategy shifts. CSBA offers three examples: relying more on unmanned systems and reforming military compensation to increase efficiency, and scaling back global responsibilities to change strategy.
Report authors Todd Harrison and Evan Braden Montgomery argue that the Pentagon should be proactive in crafting options for budget cuts during this time of budget uncertainty, when even the defense cuts for the current fiscal year 2012 have not been decided. The Budget Control Act of 2011, approved in August, cuts what the Pentagon interprets as $450 billion from its 10-year spending plans. If the new congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction and Congress can’t agree on a plan for trimming $1.5 trillion more in federal spending, a sequestration process will automatically cut roughly $500 billion more from the longterm defense budget. The Pentagon’s FY ’13 budget could range from roughly $524 billion if no additional cuts are imposed by the committee to $472 billion under sequestration, according to the CSBA report.
“Cuts under sequestration would be messy, inefficient, and uninformed by strategy,” it says. “Rather than waiting and hoping, the (Defense) Department should get ahead of the curve and develop its own set of targeted budget options, such as those proposed (in the report), that can be rolled out quickly in the FY 2013 budget request, or in a budget amendment, in order to keep the request within the budget caps in effect at the time and avoid sequestration.”
Harrison and Montgomery say the options for changing how the Pentagon does business–including relying more on drone weapons–should top the budget-cuts menu.
“Such cuts can reduce costs without reducing military capabilities, although they may require politically difficult decisions,” they write.
The report cites benefits of using unmanned aircraft during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have provided persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) coverage and loitering strike capabilities that could not be given on the same scale by manned aircraft. CSBA further notes cost advantages for using unmanned systems, which typically have lower personnel and training requirements than their manned counterparts.
“One way DoD could achieve long-term cost savings would be to change the way it does business by relying more on unmanned systems where technology and missions allow–effectively substituting technology for labor to achieve operational efficiencies,” the report says.
Its authors compare the costs associated with two nearly identical aircraft, one manned and one unmanned, that provide ISR capability similar to that provided by the RQ-4 Global Hawk. In the example, the total lifecycle cost of the unmanned plane is less than half the cost of the manned alternative because of savings related to buying fewer aircraft, needing a smaller number of personnel, and flying fewer hours.
The CSBA report says similar savings may be gleaned from other types of drone systems, including underwater and ground vehicles.
“However, current technology in unmanned systems limits their application to relatively permissive operating environments,” the report states. “For example, while both manned and unmanned aircraft can be made stealthy to evade air defenses, unmanned aircraft remain critically dependent on communication links for command and control and thus are vulnerable to jamming. Advances in autonomy and resilient communications, however, could expand the applicability of unmanned systems in contested environments, making these important areas for investment even in a constrained budget environment.”