Inside Defense
Jan. 30, 2010 -- The final version of the long-anticipated 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review shakes up budget plans to fix military capability gaps, outlines a new force-planning construct and downplays an earlier draft's language on China as a potential enemy.
The QDR, the culmination of a year's work, is an important step toward “fully institutionalizing the ongoing reform” at the Pentagon and reshaping the military to meet the “urgent demands of today and the most likely and lethal threats of the future,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates writes in a letter introducing the report.
InsideDefense.com obtained an advance copy of the final QDR report, which is not intended for public release until Feb. 1.
“To meet the potential threats to our military's ability to project power, deter aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners, this QDR directs more focus and investment in a new air-sea battle concept, long-range strike, space and cyberspace, among other conventional and strategic modernization programs,” Gates writes in the cover letter, which was not included in an earlier, much-publicized draft.
The assessment leading up to the report uncovered “a significant number of possible shortfalls in the capabilities and capacity of programmed U.S. forces,” the document states. “In some cases, opportunities exist to remedy these shortfalls by investing in new systems or additional force structure. In other cases, no readily available solutions are at hand but greater investments in research and development or concept exploration are warranted.”
Many of these enhancements will be costly, according to the QDR, which describes some of the tradeoffs that Defense Department leaders identified to rebalance the military's capabilities. These include the previously reported decisions to halt production of the Air Force's C-17 aircraft, delay development of new Navy command ships and terminate the Navy's CG(X) cruiser program as well as the Pentagon's Net Enabled Command and Control program.
“More such tradeoffs could be necessary in the future,” the report adds.
The final report differs in key ways from the Dec. 3, 2009, draft prepared before Gates and other senior officials provided their input. In the section on a new force-planning construct aimed at addressing a wider range of potential challenges, an added phrase -- “including two capable nation-state aggressors” -- underscores the force must still be able to fight two wars at once.
“This QDR likewise assumes the need for a robust force capable of protecting U.S. interests against a multiplicity of threats, including two capable nation-state aggressors,” the report states. “It breaks from the past, however, in its insistence that the U.S. Armed Forces must be capable of conducting a wide range of operations, from homeland defense and defense support to civil authorities, to deterrence and preparedness missions, to the conflicts we are in and the wars we may someday face.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, in his assessment of the QDR included in the back of the final report, says this construct is “properly focused on balancing capabilities to fight today's wars with those needed to counter future potential adversaries. It enables us to build a ready and agile force with sufficient capacity and capability to defeat adversaries across the range of military operations. And finally, it places priority on our ability to defend the homeland and support civil authorities.”
Managing risk under the new QDR force-planning construct requires further analysis, including new scenarios to test joint concepts of operation and force mixes as well as the development of associated operational and strategic assumptions, Mullen writes. Planning and assessment efforts will vary the size, duration and simultaneity of operations and account for associated policies and goals for force rotation, disengagement and access to the reserve component, he adds.
Unlike the draft report, the final version of the QDR states explicitly that DOD will homeport a carrier in Mayport, FL. The subject is controversial with lawmakers from Virginia, the only state that now hosts a home port for carriers on the East Coast.
The QDR's section on force structure describes the force levels required for each of the armed services. Much of this is similar to the draft, which was reported at length this past week by InsideDefense.com and others. But the final report notably calls for maintaining only eight Stryker brigade combat teams in the Army, though the draft proposed nine to 13. The total number of brigade combat teams listed is 73, as in the draft. This includes 40 infantry brigade combat teams and 25 heavy brigade combat teams.
The final report adds language stressing the importance of strengthening “key supporting capabilities” for strategic communication, which is considered “particularly essential” in counterinsurgency, counterterrorism and stability operations, “where population and stakeholder beliefs and perceptions are crucial to our success, and where adversaries often enjoy the advantage of greater local knowledge and calibrate their activities to achieve sophisticated information objectives.”
Relative to the draft, the final report tones down discussion of China as a potential threat. The draft warned Russia has sold many modern surface-to-air missiles to China, but the final version of this section does not mention China. Also gone is a section from the draft that warned Chinese military doctrine calls for pre-emptive strikes.
The final report calls for institutionalizing a rapid-acquisition capability, noting DOD must not only prepare better for threats that can be anticipated but must also build agile, adaptive structures capable of quickly identifying emerging gaps and adjusting program and budgetary priorities to rapidly field capabilities that will mitigate those gaps. In addition to acquisition improvements, DOD needs a way to quickly prioritize and quantify needs as well as to ensure the resources are available to quickly field the systems, the report states.
The QDR notes the Pentagon recognizes the value of not only the U.S. industrial base but also the industrial capacities of allies. “We will continue to value our allies' capabilities, ensure that when they bid on U.S. contracts that they are treated fairly, just as we expect our firms to be treated fairly in international competitions, and deepen our collaborative effort to innovate against 21st century threats,” the report states.
In order for the defense industry to remain a source of strategic advantage well into the future, DOD and the nation require a consistent, realistic, long-term strategy for shaping the structure and capabilities of the defense industrial base, according to the QDR. Toward this end, the Pentagon is “committed to being more forward leaning in its ongoing assessments of the industrial base -- refocusing our efforts on our future needs, not just our past performance; working much more closely with the services to foster an integrated approach to the overall industrial base; and placing transparency and dialogue with industry at the forefront of our agenda.”
The QDR also strongly advocates reform in export control, noting the current system poses a potential national security risk.
Further, the final report adds language stressing the importance of addressing national security issues in the Arctic. -- Christopher J. Castelli
1302010_jan30a