The Department of Defense
must prepare to meet the wide variety of challenges of the long war
against terrorism. As well, Congress must establish spending
priorities for the military and allocate funds accordingly. In
general, Congress should increase the portion of the defense budget
spent on acquisition, allocate funds to reduce per-unit costs, and
invest in platforms that provide the greatest range of
capabilities. Soon, Congress will decide when to begin procuring Virginia class submarines at
the rate of two per year. To make the best use of taxpayer dollars
and ensure that the nation's submarine fleet doesn't fall short, it
should authorize and appropriate funds to meet this target in
fiscal year 2009.
Realigning the Defense Budget
The military's operational and support budgets
have been outpacing the amounts invested in military modernization.
The operations and support budget, which is the sum of the military
personnel account and the operations and maintenance account,
consumed almost 65 percent of the total Department of Defense (DOD)
budget in fiscal year (FY) 2004. Meanwhile, the modernization
budget, which is the sum of the account for researching and
developing new weapons and equipment and the account for
procuring new weapons and equipment, has fallen to roughly 31
percent of the total DOD budget. (See Chart 1.) This trend raises
the question of whether the nation is sacrificing future
capabilities to pay for today's operations.

*Includes foreign
contributions to cover the costs of Operation Desert
Storm.
Source: Heritage
Foundation calculations based on data from U.S. Department of
Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2006, April 2005,
pp. 131-133 at .
Placing a greater emphasis
on the procurement of platforms that will provide greater
capabilities in the future would be a step in the right
direction.
Greater
Volumes Will Reduce Per-Unit Costs
One of the greatest
problems facing defense spending is high unit costs for weapons.
The source of this problem is the procurement holiday taken during
the 1990s. By 1997, the overall
modernization budget fell by over 50 percent in real terms from its
1985 level (see Chart 2). The procurement budget, in particular,
fell by roughly 65 percent. While there has been some recovery in
the modernization budget since 1997, it has not been
complete.

Given this history, it is not surprising that unit costs have
risen. In 1985, the Department of Defense purchased 585 aircraft,
2,031 combat vehicles, 24 ships, and 32,714 missiles.[1]
Currently, annual defense production is 188 aircraft, 190 combat
vehicles, eight ships, and 5,072 missiles.[2]
These low rates of production deprive the defense industry of the
economies of scale it leveraged in the 1980s.
The same history has driven the industry to
consolidate, primarily through mergers and acquisitions. In 1985,
there were 20 prime defense contractors with broad expertise in
defense systems.[3]
Today, there are just six.[4]
In the 1990s, it became a losing proposition for a prime defense
contractor to carry excess production capacity. The rational
alternative was to merge and strip away excess capacity in the
process. This left the Department of Defense with a less
competitive supply network, but the alternative was to allow a
series of bankruptcies and liquidations in the contractor base,
leading to an equally uncompetitive network.
Accelerating production of
Virginia class attack submarines to two per year in 2009 will
generate economies of scale-the economic condition when the
per-unit cost of producing an item declines with the number of
units made. Industry officials are confident they can meet the
Navy's goal of $2 billion per submarine if two submarines are
produced per year.
The
Best Capabilities
Nuclear attack submarines
(SSNs) provide a wide variety of capabilities, including "covert
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); covert
insertion and recovery of special operations forces; covert strikes
against land targets with the Tomahawk cruise missiles; covert
offensive and defensive mine warfare; anti-submarine warfare (ASW);
and anti-surface ship warfare."[5]
Because of their
unrivalled stealth and ability to spend much longer periods of time
on station, submarines can perform ISR missions more effectively
than any other platform. Satellite orbits, for example, are more
predictable, allowing a potential adversary to mask its activities
by hiding during periods when he is likely to be observed overhead.
Nor can satellites and spy planes remain on station for the same
length of time as submarines.
The current problem is
that nearly 40 percent of combatant commanders' requests for
submarine missions go unfulfilled.[6]
That problem is bound to get worse.
In July 2005, the Navy
conducted a study examining submarine force levels. It found 48
SSNs to be the minimum number of attack submarines needed to
maintain an acceptable level of risk at an acceptable cost.[7]
If the Navy waits to begin procuring two Virginia class submarines
per year until 2012, as it currently plans to do, the number of
attack submarines will begin a steady decline in 2014 and will
free-fall all the way to forty boats in 2028 and 2029. Furthermore,
the attack submarine fleet will fall short of 48 boats-the minimum
level necessary, according to the Navy's study-for 16 of the years
between 2007 and 2034.[8]
If the Navy begins to produce two Virginia class submarines per
year in 2009, however, the number of attack submarines will bottom
out at forty-three, three higher than the current plan allows.
Perhaps more importantly, the number of attack submarines will only
fall below the adequate level of forty-eight subs for eight years
between 2007 and 2034.[9]
(See Chart 3).

Another concern is that
operational requirements could grow in the future. China's
submarine buildup continues to proceed with a sense of purpose. At
a time when the United States has only three boats under
construction, the Chinese are building two-and-a-half boats per
year indigenously,[10]
in addition to the submarines being built at three Russian
boatyards that are working to fulfill their requests.[11]
A
Sensible Plan
For four reasons, Congress
should move up the procurement of Virginia class submarines at the
rate of two per year to 2009:
-
The Defense budget leans
too heavily in favor of the operations and support account, forcing
a decline in the modernization budget. For this reason, Congress
should increase the amount of money spent on procurement to balance
priorities within the DOD budget.
-
Accelerating procurement
will reduce per-unit costs, making it more likely that the Navy's
goal of $2 billion per submarine can be achieved.
-
The Virginia class
submarine provides an array of capabilities that no other systems
can match.
-
Without accelerating
procurement of the Virginia class submarine, the Navy will fall
below the 48 attack submarines, the minimum level needed, for 16 of
the years between 2007 and 2034.
Baker
Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security
Policy, and David D. Gentilli, is a Research Assistant, in the
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage
Foundation.
[1]Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment
Panel, "Executive Summary," December 2005, p. 6.
[5]
Ronald O'Rourke. "Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and
Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress."
Congressional Research Service, Report for Congress, updated
January 18, 2006, p.3.
[6]
Statement by Admiral Charles L. Munns, Commander, Naval Submarine
Forces, Department of the Navy. Hearing of the Projection Forces
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, March 28,
2006.
[7]
Statement by Admiral Charles L. Munns, Commander, Naval Submarine
Forces, Department of the Navy. Hearing of the Projection Forces
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, March 28,
2006.
[8]
Ronald O'Rourke. "Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and
Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress."
Congressional Research Service, Report for Congress, updated
January 18, 2006, p.17.
[9]
Ronald O'Rourke. "Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and
Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress."
Congressional Research Service, Report for Congress, updated
January 18, 2006, p.17.
[10]
"Songji Gailiang Qianjian, Haijun Weilai Zhuli, Waigou Eluosi K ji
Qianjian, Tianbu Changgui Zhanli Kongxi, Bing Jiji Yanshi Xinjian"
[Improved Song Class Submarine is main force of Future Chinese
Navy, with Russian Kilo Class, to buttress conventional force
posture in region, actively develop new vessels], New York World
Journal, June 1, 2005, p. A8.
[11]
John Pomfret, "China to Buy 8 More Russian Submarines; $1.6 Billion
Deal Would Aid a Blockade of Taiwan, Challenge U.S. Power in
Region," The Washington Post, June 25, 2002; p. A15. See
also Lyle Goldstein
and William Murray, "Undersea Dragons: China's Maturing
Submarine Force," International Security, Vol. 28, Issue 4 -
Spring 2004, pp. 161 - 196.