Posts Tagged ‘Defense Spending’

Boeing Bid Beats Europe for Tanker .

Friday, February 25th, 2011

The Pentagon awarded Boeing Co. a contract worth more than $30 billion for aerial refueling tankers, closing a chapter in a tortured bidding contest, but potentially launching a fresh trans-Atlantic political controversy.

The award preserves Boeing’s decades-long position as supplier of refueling aircraft to the Air Force, and shores up its standing as a U.S. national champion. The Pentagon’s move is also likely to feed perceptions in European capitals that the U.S. defense market—the biggest in the world—remains largely closed to European defense suppliers. The losing bidder was EADS North America, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.

Past efforts by the Air Force to replace its tankers have been upended by scandal, and industry observers said a protest could stall delivery of the aircraft. Ahead of the announcement, the governors of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana sent a letter to President Barack Obama in support of the bid by EADS, which proposed building its tanker at a new facility in Mobile, Ala.

In a written statement after the news broke, Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), said he was “disappointed but not surprised,” blaming “Chicago politics” for tipping the scales in favor of Boeing, which is headquartered in the Windy City.

A Boeing handout image shows a photo illustration of Boeing’s NewGen Tanker.
TANKERSS05

TANKERSS05

EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby called the news “certainly a disappointing turn of events, and we look forward to discussing with the Air Force how it arrived at this conclusion.” Pentagon officials said that both firms would have to wait for a formal debriefing before any protest could be filed with the Government Accountability Office.

In announcing the award, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn emphasized the Pentagon’s new focus on cost savings. The contract, he said, “favored no one but the taxpayer and the war fighter.”

The Defense Department said the first phase of the deal, worth $3.5 billion, calls for delivery of 18 aircraft by 2017. Overall, the contract is worth more than $30 billion, according to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

EADS’s proposal is built around the Airbus A330 jet. Boeing forwarded a design built around its 767 commercial aircraft.

Boeing’s victory promises to breathe new life into its 767 wide-body aircraft, which entered service in 1982 but has seen commercial orders dwindle in recent years. Boeing has 50 orders remaining for the twin-engine jet, a long-haul workhorse for airlines around the world. The tanker win lets Boeing keep building the jets at its huge Everett, Wash., factory and could help the company attract new commercial orders.

Thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs are at stake. Boeing proposed to build its tanker at existing facilities in Washington and Kansas, and said the program would support around 50,000 total U.S. jobs and hundreds of suppliers around the country. EADS said its tanker would keep 48,000 Americans employed, and bring jobs to the depressed Gulf Coast region.

The KC-X refueling tanker is an effort to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135 tankers, which began flying under President Dwight Eisenhower. But the KC-X came to symbolize a highly politicized military procurement process. Previous efforts to pick a winner collapsed amid protests and procurement scandals. This latest award marks the Air Force’s third major attempt to replace its tanker fleet.

Plans to replace the KC-135 began nearly a decade ago, when the Air Force initially considered leasing a fleet of Boeing 767s. That deal was blocked in part by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who unearthed evidence of inappropriate dealings between Boeing and Air Force procurement officials. That led to the conviction of a senior Air Force official and a top Boeing executive for violating federal conflict-of-interest laws, and the lease plan was ultimately scrapped.

The Air Force subsequently launched a competitive procurement process, awarding a contract in 2008 to a Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS team. Boeing appealed to the GAO, which overturned the award, citing “significant errors” in the management of the acquisition.

After the Pentagon restarted the bidding, Northrop and EADS complained the guidelines favored Boeing’s smaller aircraft. Northrop ultimately withdrew last year.

The current contest was also marred by a bureaucratic snafu, which might provide grounds for an appeal. Last year, the Air Force disclosed that procurement officials mistakenly sent discs with information from the scoring process to both Boeing and EADS. The Air Force dismissed two officials over the mistake, but said the clerical error didn’t compromise the contest. The service said there was no pricing data on the discs.

Representatives of both firms said during the competition the Air Force had labored to conduct the competition by the book.

This latest round of bidding sparked a price shoot-out that saw both Boeing and EADS submitting what they described as extremely competitive bids.

“While we will view the win as positive for whichever company is the victor, enthusiasm about a win [or concern about a loss] should be tempered by the fact that we expect pricing to be tight in a fixed-price contract for which each competitor is bidding aggressively,” said Wall Street research firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in a recent report. “In addition, the competition may well not be over, given the likelihood of a protest and political challenges still to come.”

A Grand Bargain? You Show Me Yours…

Friday, February 18th, 2011

Showing a little leg on deficit reduction is a highly risky proposition these days: display the scantest hint of skin and you risk losing a limb. The ink was still drying on the final edition of the Wall Street Journal’s Thursday story detailing a grand bipartisan plan for deficit reduction when the angry missives began. Grover Norquist fired off a letter to the three Republican senators participating in the talks – Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, Idaho’s Mike Crapo and Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss – accusing them of treachery. “I urge you to reject this so-called ‘deal’ which is little more than a transparent attempt to hike taxes and put off the spending restraint the country so clearly called for in the 2010 elections,” Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, wrote.

Just hours later, the trio responded with a defense the negotiations. “Proposals that simplify the tax code, broaden the base, lower all individual and corporate tax rates, and make our corporate tax code more competitive for U.S. business will create a surge in economic growth,” they wrote.

The gang of six – Coburn, Crapo and Chambliss along with Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Illinois’ Dick Durbin and Mark Warner of Virginia — have actually been meeting for months, but the episode shows how hard it will be for both sides to join hands and jump together into a public debate. If Social Security reform is the most politically radioactive issue in American politics, then overhauling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense budgets, discretionary spending and taxes all at once is akin to throwing oneself into a nuclear reactor. If you come out glowing, it’s rarely in a good way.

Looming deficits will take drastic action to fix and the sacred cows, entitlements and defense chief among them, will have to be slaughtered. A successful grand bargain will require both parties to expend their combined political capital. Success promises mutual benefit, while failure ensures mutual destruction.

Earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said “entitlement reform will not be done except on a bipartisan basis with presidential leadership,” a signal that he’s unwilling to take action without President Obama making the first move. But the President has taken a wait-and-see attitude as well, declining to mention serious entitlement reform in his 2012 budget. When asked about this, Obama said: “This is not a matter of ‘You go first’ or ‘I go first.’ This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over. And I think that can happen.”

Yet within Obama’s inner circle, there is little interest  in putting out a fixed proposal for entitlement reform only to to see it criticized from the left and picked apart by Republicans. Instead, the President is hoping for a repeat of the backroom negotiations that led to a tax break deal in December of last year. And most important of all, Obama’s aides want to make sure that the President comes out of debate over entitlement reform as one of the adults in the room, someone who is willing to compromise and willing to work hard to solve problems, even if he is not urgently driving the process.

That leaves Congress in the driver’s seat for the time being. The process split is in two. House Republicans have said they plan on including entitlement reform and deficit reduction measures in their 2012 budget that is due out in April. “Our budget will lead where the President has failed,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a joint statement with GOP leaders. “It will include real entitlement reforms so that we can have a conversation with the American people about the challenges we face and the need to chart a new path to prosperity.”

In the Senate, Conrad is leading his gang of six. The group is hoping to circulate a draft of their proposals next month to more than 40 senators who have expressed interest in the talks. According to a senior Democratic Senate aide, they are considering two legislative options. One is to attach the deal to a bill to raise the debt ceiling expected at the end of April or early May. The other option is to add whatever deal is reached to the budget, as is his prerogative as chairman of that committee. If Conrad and Ryan, who are personal friends, can hammer out an agreement between the two budget committees on deficit reduction, the package could be passed in the Senate with just 51 votes under a privileged budget resolution process called “reconciliation.”

Though the White House has been careful not to get too involved in the process, they have drawn a few lines in the sand. The administration would prefer not to see any agreement attached to the debt ceiling measure, Office of Management and Budget director Jacob Lew told reporters Thursday. And it wants to see Congress deal with Social Security separately. “It is essentially a parallel issue and it’s important for it not to be confused with either contributing to the problem or a central part of the solution,” Lew said.

Negotiators in Congress are looking at Bill Clinton’s 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which was negotiated with then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act as models. Both passed under reconciliation and both included triggers, measures that impose specific austerity measures when a predetermined spending level is reached. But both pieces of legislation were later criticized by some fiscal conservatives for including tax hikes. This time around, Conrad and Ryan are looking to the blueprint left in December by the deficit reduction commission on which they both served. The commission recommended an overhaul of the tax system that would bring in $180 billion in new revenue over the next 10 years, a bitter pill for the Tea Party set to swallow, and $1.7 trillion in spending reductions that would be equally hard for Democrats to stomach. Bringing about those major changes would take not only Conrad and Ryan, but Obama, McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner to show a great deal of good faith. It remains unclear who will be willing to make that display first.

House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

The House Appropriations Committee proposed on Wednesday to cut funding for scores of politically sacred programs, from NASA and Amtrak to assistance for local police forces and even the FBI.

The proposed cuts are not always as big as they seem, because they are reductions from President Obama’s never-enacted budget proposal for this year.

But the partial list details 70 proposed cuts as part of a House GOP proposal to fund the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year.  The cuts include a $600 million reduction from President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget request for the Community Oriented Policing Services program and a $758 million cut from food assistance to low-income women, infants and children. 

 “Never before has Congress undertaken a task of this magnitude,” said House Appropriation Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., in a statement.  “The cuts in this CR will represent the largest reduction in discretionary spending in the history of our nation.”

The spending bill will also include cuts to several of Congress’ sacred cows: a $379 million cut to the NASA; a $224 million cut to Amtrak, and a $256 million cut in assistance to state and local law enforcement. The FBI would receive $74 million less than the president requested for it.

And that’s just the start.  The Treasury Department’s budget would be reduced by $268 million.  Funding for university agriculture research would drop by $246 million, and Rural Development Programs would decline $227 million.

The total spending cuts in the CR will top $74 billion, including $58 billion in non-security discretionary spending reductions. 

House Republicans last year campaigned on reducing non-security discretionary spending to fiscal 2008 levels, a roughly $100 billion cut,  and the CR is a down payment on that promise – a point Rogers stressed in a presentation to the GOP caucus this morning.

“While making these cuts is hard, we have a unique opportunity to right our fiscal ship and begin to reduce our massive deficits and debt,” Rogers continued.  “We have taken a wire brush to the discretionary budget and scoured every program to find real savings that are responsible and justifiable to the American people.” 

 “Make no mistake, these cuts are not low-hanging fruit,” Rogers said.  “These cuts are real and will impact every District across the country – including my own.  As I have often said, every dollar we cut has a constituency, an industry, an association, and individual citizens who will disagree with us. But with this CR, we will respond to the millions of Americans who have called on this Congress to rein in spending to help our economy grow and our businesses create jobs.”

Here is the list of proposed cuts, all compared to President Obama’s FY11 budget request:

·         Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies   -$30M

·         Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy   -$899M

·         Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability   -$49M

·         Nuclear Energy   -$169M

·         Fossil Energy Research   -$31M

·         Clean Coal Technology   -$18M

·         Strategic Petroleum Reserve   -$15M

·         Energy Information Administration   -$34M

·         Office of Science under the Energy and water spending bill   -$1.1B

·         Power Marketing Administrations   -$52M

·         Department of Treasury   -$675M

·         Internal Revenue Service   -$593M

·         Treasury Forfeiture Fund   -$338M

·         GSA Federal Buildings Fund   -$1.7B

·         ONDCP   -$69M

·         International Trade Administration   -$93M

·         Economic Development Assistance   -$16M

·         Minority Business Development Agency   -$2M

·         National Institute of Standards and Technology   -$186M

·         NOAA   -$336M

·         National Drug Intelligence Center   -$11M

·         Law Enforcement Wireless Communications   -$52M

·         US Marshals Service   -$10M

·         FBI   -$74M

·         State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance   -$256M

·         Juvenile Justice   -$2.3M

·         COPS   -$600M

·         NASA   -$379M

·         NSF   -$139M

·         Legal Services Corporation   -$75M

·         EPA   -$1.6B

·         Food Safety and Inspection Services   -$53M (FY10)

·         Farm Service Agency   -$201M

·         Agriculture University Research   -$246M

·         Natural Resource Conservation Service   -$46M

·         Rural Development Programs   -$237M   

·         WIC   -$758M  

·         International Food Aid grants   -$544M

·         FDA   -$220M

·         Land and Water Conservation Fund   -$348M

·         National Archives and Record Service   -$20M

·         DOE Loan Guarantee Authority   -$1.4B

·         EPA ENERGY STAR   -$7.4M

·         EPA GHG Reporting Registry   -$9M

·         USGS   -$27M

·         EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance   -$5M

·         EPA State and Local Air Quality Management   -$25M

·         Fish and Wildlife Service   -$72M

·         Smithsonian   -$7.3M

·         National Park Service   -$51M

·         Clean Water State Revolving Fund   -$700M

·         Drinking Water State Revolving Fund   -$250M

·         EPA Brownfields   -$48M

·         Forest Service   -$38M

·         National Endowment for the Arts   -$6M

·         National Endowment for the Humanities   -$6M

·         Job Training Programs  -$2B

·         Community Health Centers  -$1.3B

·         Maternal and Child Health Block Grants  -$210M

·         Family Planning  -$327M

·         Poison Control Centers  -$27M

·         CDC   -$755M

·         NIH   -$1B

·         Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services   -$96M

·         LIHEAP Contingency fund   -$400M

·         Community Services Block Grant   -$405M

·         High Speed Rail   -$1B

·         FAA Next Gen   -$234M

·         Amtrak   -$224M

·         HUD Community Development Fund   -$530M

(An earlier version of this story, based on a press release from the House Appropriations Committee, mistated the proposed cuts for the Treasury Department, Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development Programs.  Those numbers have been updated.)

Defense spending in Virginia: How deep will cuts be?

Sunday, February 6th, 2011

War has been good to Hampton Roads. Last year, more than $12 billion in contracts fed the region and helped make Virginia the No. 2 state for defense spending. But defense cuts loom, and contractors and economists are concerned about what that could mean for Hampton Roads.

A block south of the busy auto dealerships and fast-food franchises on Military Highway in Chesapeake, an 80,000-square-foot building sits on a side street in an industrial park.

Most people looking for a new car or a burger, a minute away, would never suspect it’s there, much less what goes on inside.

Small Navy patrol boats, Humvees and black, armor-laden SUVs, like those in movies, are brought by tractor-trailer into the hangar-like facility. There, BAE Systems Inc. installs and tests prototype communications devices in them for U.S. special operations forces, the Navy and an array of other government agencies.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the facility has grown from a handful of employees to nearly 250.

Many are former military personnel who may have once used equipment similar to what they now help perfect. Others are engineers or programmers, busy at work stations adorned with coils of wire and assorted electronics gear.

BAE Systems, one of the world’s largest defense contractors, is one of thousands of such firms operating in Hampton Roads. The region is so thick with contractors it’s known by some as “Pentagon South.” They’re vying for contracts that are part of a requested Pentagon budget worth $708 billion . Virginia – along with California and Texas – is one of the Big Three states for Department of Defense expenditures. In 2009, it was No. 1 in the nation in total defense spending, surpassing even California.

In terms of defense-contracting dollars, Virginia ranked second only to California. Quite naturally, Hampton Roads gets its share.

The four congressional districts that represent South Hampton Roads were awarded more than $12.5 billion in defense contracts in 2009, federal figures show.
But the defense landscape is shifting.

In a speech last spring, Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out his case for why business-as-usual at the Pentagon must end.

“The attacks of Sept. 11 , 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade ,” he said. “… Given America’s difficult economic circumstances and parlous fiscal condition, military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.”

In early January, Gates called for $78 billion in defense cuts; later the same day, President Barack Obama signed off on the closure of the Norfolk-based Joint Forces Command, which will mean a loss of roughly 1,900 jobs.

“The canary has died,” said E. Dana Dickens III, president and CEO of the Hampton Roads Partnership, a regional economic development organization.
When the partnership was founded in 1996, military/federal spending accounted for roughly 26 percent of the local economy. Today, he said, it’s “north of 45 percent.”

“There’s a wake-up call, that the region needs to diversify our economy,” Dickens said.

****

Defense contractors and their facilities are so much a part of the local landscape as to seem virtually invisible.

“It’s like the layers of an onion,” said Chris Philbrick, vice president of marketing at ADS Inc., or Atlantic Diving Supply Inc., a roughly $1 billion-a-year defense-contracting firm based in Virginia Beach. “For every large defense contractor, there are hundreds of small ones.”

They range in size and service from huge, well-known companies such as Northrop Grumman Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. to a Norfolk-based unit of Flowers Foods Inc., which makes bakery and cereal products, and Jo-Kell Inc. of Chesapeake, which supplies shipboard electrical systems. Even Landmark Media Enterprises LLC, owner of The Virginian-Pilot, publishes base newspapers under a defense contract.

Together, defense contractors pack an economic wallop.

Procurement contracts in the region totaled more than $8.3 billion in fiscal year 2009, according to the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. Toss in other defense spending in the area, including salaries/wages as well as retirement/disability payments, and the Pentagon’s contribution to the local economy came to nearly $14.5 billion.

Of course, not all that money stays in Hampton Roads. When a contractor such as Northrop Grumman, for example, gets a large award for work on an aircraft carrier, its expenditures will be spread across a number of years and will include purchases of services and materials from companies outside of the region and the state.

Tracking defense contracting isn’t easy. An array of sources offer information , and their numbers don’t always align .

Since its launch in 2007, however, USAspending.gov has become the government’s showcase for user-friendly, publicly accessible federal spending data.
It presents a good picture of how many defense-contracting dollars have been committed to the region and how that spending has grown in recent years.
Defense contract awards for work performed in Congressional Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4 – which cover Hampton Roads but extend elsewhere in Virginia – grew 32-fold between fiscal years 2004 and 2008, from $421.7 million to more than $13.5 billion.

In the past two years, the totals began to slide – to $12.6 billion in 2009 and $11.8 billion in 2010.

****

ADS is one company whose revenues soared as defense-contracting dollars poured into the region.

Its roots go back to the 1980s, when it began as part of Lynnhaven Dive Center. “SEALs were coming in and buying their own stuff,” Philbrick said.

The company soon began to compete for – and win – defense contracts.

ADS was spun off as a separate company in 1997. Its CEO is Luke Hillier, whose father, Michael, founded Lynnhaven Dive Center. Its business has grown at a nearly incomprehensible rate, climbing from $18,380 in contract awards in 2005 to $1.08 billion in 2010, according to USAspending.gov data.

For the past four years, ADS has been the No. 1 defense contractor in the 2nd District – in terms of defense contract awards – eclipsing much larger and more nationally prominent contractors.

Some of ADS’ recent success is the result of a massive contract announced in January 2008. It lets ADS and four other firms compete for work worth up to $4 billion over as many as five years.

Yet even before winning that contract, the kinds of products in which ADS specializes – such as boots, socks, scopes, night-vision and infrared equipment, cold-weather and flame-retardant gear – positioned it to capitalize on the wars the nation is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Defense Department is moving away from large programs that focus on aviation or other expensive platforms, to equipment and technology to protect the individual soldier, Philbrick said. “That’s our core business.”

While ADS ships massive amounts of supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not a manufacturer, but what Philbrick calls a “value-
added distributor,” a kind of buyer for the Pentagon.

Years ago, if the Pentagon needed, for example, a flame-retardant glove, it would design and develop it itself, buy thousands of them and stockpile them in government warehouses, Philbrick said.

Today, it’s faster and more economical to buy “off-the-shelf” products on the commercial market.

ADS offers the Defense Department and government agencies one-stop-shopping for equipment and logistical support, buying the products that meet the necessary standards and then “kitting” – or assembling – them for shipping.

The company has an 85,000-square-foot kitting operation off London Bridge Road in Virginia Beach and employs more than 400 people. And, Philbrick said, it expects continued growth, so it’s building another kitting operation.

Not everyone is so optimistic, especially with the budget-cutting ax already falling in Hampton Roads.

“These are not easy decisions,” said Charles A. Schue III, president and CEO of UrsaNav Inc. in Chesapeake. “No matter what they decide, somebody in the United States is going to get hurt.”

Among other tasks, UrsaNav helps maintain and service the workhorse navigational radar systems used on most ships in the Navy and Coast Guard.

Schue and another Coast Guard vet established Ursa­Nav about seven years ago when they bought the East Coast operations of a California company.

Now with about 100 employees and annual revenues in the $20 million to $30 million range, UrsaNav has positioned itself in the defense sector as a product and service provider focused on maintaining and modernizing existing systems, sometimes referred to as “legacy systems,” Schue said. Its employees travel to vessels around the world to do repairs, make adjustments and train crew members.

Losing any contract would have a dramatic effect on Ursa­Nav.

“Large defense contractors have the ability to recover from losing 500, 1,000 or 1,500 people; as public corporations, they’re big enough to absorb that,” Schue said. “Small, typically privately held businesses don’t have that big a footprint; there’s much more of a drastic effect. The impact on small businesses is significant.”

Service-contracting companies that provide engineering, maintenance and information-technology services are likely to be more vulnerable to defense cutbacks, said Cindy M. Walters, director of Old Dominion University’s Government Sponsored-Industry Assistance Programs.

The Pentagon already is working to bring back under its roof work that it “outsourced” to businesses over the past 15 years, so “you don’t have as many contracts,” said Walters, who helps local firms get federal contracting work.

“My biggest concern is that we have this somewhat of a perfect storm going on,” she said. “For me, the foregone conclusion would be a cut in defense spending that would impact dollars for programs and contracts, across the board, that would affect our area.”

The impending closure of the Joint Forces Command, which provides research and development, modeling and simulation, and training to the military, will slow one flow of defense contracts for firms large and small in the region.

“Everybody’s kind of breathing a sigh of relief,” said Tom Mastaglio, CEO of Mymic LLC, of news that roughly half of JFCOM’s functions will continue in Hampton Roads.

Yet Mastaglio – a West Point grad, 22-year Army veteran and founding director of the Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk in the late 1990s – said he’s not sure how much to buy in to what he terms “spin.”

“We’re on the slippery slope here,” he said. “If we’re not careful, there are going to be some significant issues for small businesses.”

The Portsmouth-based company employs about 80 people and has about $20 million worth of defense contract work, about 90 percent of its portfolio. It’s now on a mission to diversify its product line, creating computer programs to help train emergency medical response teams, provide therapy for people with brain injuries, and improve security at U.S. ports. It’s already won a contract with the Virginia Port Authority.

“As a region, we’ve got to look beyond defense,” Mastaglio said. “If you don’t want to end up like Detroit, we better figure out what we have, what our organic capabilities are and how we can use them to meet other needs, rather than being largely dependent on a single customer .”

****

Others, however, believe that the region has such a well-established defense infrastructure, with facilities and a talent pool few other places can match, that it will continue to hold its own, at the very least, and even may see some growth.

“There’s a huge customer base there, and there’s a lot of talent,” said Dave Herr, president of BAE Systems’ Rockville, Md.-based Support Solutions sector. “It’s a good place to do business; it’s fairly diversified; I’d say it’s fairly well-positioned.”

BAE’s Support Solutions sector includes the Chesapeake communications facility, an office in Hampton and, most recognizable, its shipyard at the mouth of the Elizabeth River’s Southern Branch.

“The Hampton Roads area is actually fairly central to the BAE strategy,” Herr said.

Last summer, anticipating some of the shifts in the defense environment now under way, BAE reconfigured its businesses, shoring up the unit Herr heads, servicing and sustaining existing systems.

“We think there’s going to be rising demand to maintain and upgrade some of those older platforms,” Herr said.

The local shipbuilding and ship-repair industry, in which BAE is a player, contributes significantly to the region’s economy. Nearly one of every 11 jobs in Hampton Roads is directly or indirectly dependent upon the private-sector shipbuilding and repair industry, according to a 2007 study by Old Dominion University’s Economic Forecasting Project.

“Knock on wood, it’s not going to affect us very much,” said Malcolm Branch, president and CEO of the Norfolk-based trade group, of any defense-spending adjustments.

The port’s ship-repair facilities are virtually unparalleled, Branch said, and local firms have adapted to changes by the Navy that concentrate more work in one shipyard through “multi-ship, multi-option” contracts. The Navy’s 30-year plan calls for a minimum fleet of 313 ships. As long as they continue to be built and go to sea, Navy ships will require maintenance and periodic overhaul .

It’s that ongoing pace of operations that may secure continued defense contracting for businesses in Hampton Roads.

“When is that going to end?” asked Al White, an executive at BAE’s Chesapeake facility, pointing to a slide-show image of two camouflaged snipers in an Afghan-like setting, near a portable satellite dish. “When is the war on terror going to be over?”

Until that happens, he said, he’s not too worried.

Five myths about defense spending

Friday, January 14th, 2011

Defense spending is a massive part of our federal budget – and a cause of equally massive debate, whether in wartime or in peace. With fiscal pressures rising, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has detailed a reprioritization of Pentagon resources and a $78 billion reduction in planned defense spending over the next five years. But he has also argued that “when it comes to the deficit, the Department of Defense is not the problem.” Still, the $720 billion defense budget is a very large share of federal discretionary spending – more than half in 2010. We can no longer separate national security from fiscal imperatives. Unfortunately, several myths keep us from a more disciplined defense budget.

1. Defense spending is dictated by the threats we face.

The challenges posed by terrorism, cyber-threats and military buildups by potential adversaries clearly play a role in shaping our national security strategy and defense budget. But so do competing government priorities in the face of limited resources, political and bureaucratic interests, and the influence of the defense industry. At times, these issues overwhelm security concerns.

As a result, budgeting decisions can appear off-course. Should we invest in our military’s capacity to rebuild post-conflict societies, even if we are unlikely to engage soon in another war of regime change? Or should we spend as if we will soon confront China at sea and in the air, even if we are unlikely to do so? The White House, the Pentagon and Congress have enormous discretion in these decisions.

Sometimes funding also meets purely parochial or industrial needs. In August, for example, Gates announced his decision to close the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, which costs $240 million annually to operate. But after heavy criticism from state officials, Gates decided that half of the command’s activities should continue, to be carried out by other Defense Department organizations in Virginia’s Tidewater region. Local politics trumped efficiency.

2. The larger the Pentagon’s budget, the safer we are.

Excessive defense spending can make us less secure, not more. Countries feel threatened when rivals ramp up their defenses; this was true in the Cold War, and now it may happen with China. It’s how arms races are born. We spend more, inspiring competitors to do the same – thus inflating defense budgets without making anyone safer.

For example, Gates observed in May that no other country has a single ship comparable to our 11 aircraft carriers. Based on the perceived threat that this fleet poses, the Chinese are pursuing an anti-ship ballistic missile program. U.S. military officials have decried this “carrier-killer” effort, and in response we are diversifying our capabilities to strike China, including a new long-range bomber program, and modernizing our carrier fleet at a cost of about $10 billion per ship.

This country has remained secure in eras of declining defense budgets, such as the postwar period of the Eisenhower presidency and the early post-Cold War years. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton reduced active-duty forces by 700,000, Pentagon civilians by 300,000, defense procurement dollars by 53 percent and overall national defense spending by 28 percent – and we were still able to carry out one of the Pentagon’s top planning scenarios: occupying Iraq in 2003. (The wisdom of that decision is a different matter.)

3. Republicans like defense spending; Democrats don’t.

Since 1945, defense spending has risen in wartime and fallen as conflicts end. Dwight Eisenhower reduced national defense outlays by 28 percent from their 1953 Korean War peak. Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford went even further, cutting 37 percent from the defense budget after the Vietnam-era high in 1968. And President George H.W. Bush had cut 14 percent compared with the 1989 Cold War budget by the time he left office.

All these presidents were Republicans. Meanwhile, after adjusting for inflation, the most expensive defense budget in more than 60 years belongs to President Obama, a Democrat.

Of course, Democrats have also found savings at the Pentagon. Clinton extended the post-Cold War drawdown through his 1998 budget, and Obama will probably start post-Iraq and Afghanistan defense cuts soon – potentially with support from new Republican House leaders such as Eric Cantor (Va.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.), who have said that defense will not be exempt from the fiscal axe.

4. Today’s levels of military pay and benefits are necessary.

Just as in any other labor market, the supply of and demand for workers determines the pay needed to maintain a professional military. But military pay and benefits are affected by other factors: Congress has learned that boosting military compensation is the easiest way to show that you’re supporting the troops.

Gates expressed frustration in May with Congress’s practice in recent years of adding half a percent to the military pay raises the Pentagon requested. While it does not sound like much, that increase is enormous – as much as $450 million a year – because it applies to all active-duty troops rather than targeting key specializations that the military needs.

Benefit costs for the military have also been increasing. Health care has been a particular problem, with Pentagon health-care budgets rising from $19 billion in 2001 to more than $50 billion today. This increase has been driven largely by the growth in the cost of health care generally and the expansion of the beneficiary pool to include more retirees and reservists. Congress has also resisted the Pentagon’s recent annual requests to increase enrollment fees for working-age retirees, even though these have not changed in 15 years.

5. Gates’s cuts are enough.

They’re a small step in the right direction, but the proposed cuts would still leave the level of defense spending far above what we need. The United States spent more on national defense last year, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than in any year during the Cold War, even though we no longer face an existential Soviet-style threat.

Our security situation permits us to spend in a more disciplined way, and our fiscal circumstances require it. Publicly held federal debt takes up a greater share of the U.S. economy – roughly 64 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget – than any time since 1951. Failing to control this debt means that interest payments will consume future budgets and limit our spending, even for defense.

As we detail in an essay in the latest Foreign Affairs, the national defense budget proposals could be lower by an aggregate of roughly $1 trillion through 2020, still leaving us to spend $6.3 trillion on defense over that period. This can be done while retaining our military dominance and building a more effective and efficient force.

Gordon Adams is a professor of international relations at American University and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a global security think tank. Matthew Leatherman is a research associate at the Stimson Center.