President Joe Biden’s second defense
spending request in light of war in Eastern Europe and raging inflation was a
budget bloodbath. The headlines are not kind:

• “Biden budget would mean smallest Army since WWII“
• “Marines will have to wait at least until 2025 for light amphibious warship“
• “Navy wants to add 9 new ships but decommission 24 in FY23 budget request“
• “Air Force would cut 150 aircraft, including A-10s, buy fewer F-35s in 2023 budget“
• “Real growth in Army budget? ‘It’s more complicated than it sounds’“
• “Navy fleet size shrinking in FY-23 budget despite topline increasing“
• “Army seeks to cut end strength, procurement in FY-23 budget“

The reason is because at face value, the White House’s $773
billion budget defense request appears generous. Perhaps in an environment with
2 percent inflation, it would be. Unfortunately, at 7.9 percent inflation — the
highest since 1982 — the budget has few winners. The
topline barely surpasses the recently
passed omnibus bill which Congress passed with lower inflation
for 2022 in mind.  

The White House and Congressional Budget Office’s long-term
inflationary assumptions seem low. The
result is a White House budget for 2023 that trims military readiness while
further shrinking and aging the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Examples of zero-sum choices underneath the topline squeezing the
troops are plenty. The Air Force has cut its
planned purchase of Joint Strike Fighters while doubling its buy
of F-15EXs in this budget. But these are two different fighter capabilities
that meet separate requirements. Buying more of one tactical fighter doesn’t
“free up” one mission for another.

There are too many dogs that don’t bark in the new defense budget.
Beyond retiring an eye-popping 150 Air Force aircraft alone, in some cases the
follow-on or replacement capability is stalled or delayed. This creates a gap
in combat power at a time when there are no gaps in global threats.

Take the always-busy AWACS airplane. The Air Force wants to retire
half the fleet of 31 aircraft this year. But, leaders said there will be “a capability gap as new capabilities . . .
are being developed.”

That same approach of giving away an important
capability permanently today in the hopes of something coming along a few years
from now are littered throughout the Biden defense budget. Congress should
soundly reject these shortsighted risky gambits until the new capabilities are
fully ready and reject endless ‘gaps’ in combat power for the military.

Similar trends hold true for the Navy. The White House is asking
for just nine new battle force ships. Meanwhile, the Administration wants to
retire 24 ships next year — including nine Littoral Combat Ships, some cruisers,
and a dock landing ship.

Capability matters alongside mass and sheer quantity. The Navy has
over 120 ships at sea today with sailors and Marines forward patrolling the
high seas. Relentless global demand is one reason the Navy has, for years, pleaded
for a larger fleet to bolster capability, enhance readiness, and
take care of troops.

Cutting the size of the services to continue endless research and development roads to nowhere puts troops at risk. Investments in R&D are important to maintaining military superiority, but actually buying equipment is at a record low point in comparison — especially in this inflationary environment.

The post Defense budget masquerades as generous while shrinking the armed forces appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.