Inside Defense
Jan. 31, 2010 -- The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review serves notice that troubled military development efforts could face cuts as the Pentagon seeks new solutions for looming capability gaps, according to a copy of the final QDR report obtained by InsideDefense.com.
The report -- slated for release with the Defense Department’s fiscal year 2011 budget request Feb. 1 -- directs changes in investment plans to address numerous potential military capability gaps uncovered during the review.
The QDR states that the Pentagon aims to rebalance the armed forces to better support six missions: defending America and supporting civil authorities on U.S. soil; succeeding in counterinsurgency, stability and counterterrorism operations; building the security capacity of partner states, deterring and defeating aggression in anti-access environments; preventing proliferation and countering weapons of mass destruction; and operating effectively in cyberspace.
But beyond directing FY-11 tradeoffs -- including the termination of the CG(X) cruiser and Net Enabled Command and Control programs -- the QDR sets the stage for DOD’s FY-12 budget review, which is under way and could decide the fate of other major programs.
Some “future operational needs” could not be met during the review process, but in those cases Defense Secretary Robert Gates “identified vectors for the evolution of the force, calling on DOD components to devote sustained efforts toward developing new concepts and capabilities to address those needs,” the QDR states.
As the Pentagon moves closer to addressing these gaps, it will again shift resources from existing, lower-priority programs, the report adds. “Assessments of future operating environments will continue, with an eye toward refining our understanding of future needs,” it states. “At the same time, the Department will continue to look assiduously for savings in underperforming programs and activities, divestiture, technology substitution, less-pressing mission and program areas, and other accounts so that more resources can be devoted to filling these gaps.”
This section of the QDR -- which was added by senior officials after they read the much-publicized Dec. 3 draft of the report -- also notes that wholly new concepts of operation will be required to meet emerging challenges in some capability areas.
“Confronting sophisticated anti-access challenges and threats posed by nuclear-armed regional adversaries will pose particularly difficult problems,” the report states. “In recognition of the dynamism of the threat environment and advances in unmanned technologies, the Department will be examining future operational needs in several capability areas, including [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance], fighters and long-range strike aircraft, joint forcible entry, and information networks and communications.”
The studies will shape DOD investment plans, according to the report. “Assessments of programmed forces in these areas will center on iterative, interactive war games, in which force planners, operators, and technical experts can explore alternative strategies and operational concepts in an environment that tests forces against an intelligent, adaptive adversary,” it states. “Insights gained from these efforts will inform future investment in research and development and, over time, will help decision makers to further rebalance future forces.”
David Ochmanek, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development and the head of the Quadrennial Defense Review analysis and integration cell, called for wholly new concepts of operation in a speech last May. When asked to elaborate weeks later in an interview with Inside the Pentagon, he noted “countries like China and Iran” are buying large numbers of ballistic missiles.
“And so we have to confront a world in which we don’t have sanctuary for our forward-deployed forces,” he said. “If you have to deploy within the range of large numbers of theater ballistic missiles you’re taking a lot more risk than you used to operationally. So, are we comfortable with that? Do we have to invest in a lot of hardening of our bases the way we did in Central Europe in the Cold War? Do we want to think about a capability for power projection that’s based on long range and give up that short-range power projection base? I don’t know the answer to that, but that’s the question that’s on the table.” -- Christopher J. Castelli
1312010_jan31a