CDR Salamander - So, about that defense budget...

After the election, I gave a single-point quick look at what I think will be a casualty of the midterm election for our Navy.

Looking ahead, I think everyone needs to be clear-headed that having a “big defense budget” was not an election winner. It really wasn’t an issue…so it has no heft.

We also need to understand that we may have one of the most left-wing cohorts coming to Capitol Hill in, well, perhaps post-Watergate. The 89th and 111th were quite liberal, but not filled with as many hard-leftists, perhaps. We’ll see what they do in office, but this new class will move the center of gravity to the left.

Yes, there are some (D)s coming in who know the defense issues, but they are not the ones with, well, heft.

So, what could happen? I’m not emperor, so I cannot pick and choose what I want…and I am aware of my biases.

I am Mr. “We are a maritime and aerospace power,” so you know where I would put money in the short term—say, a few POM cycles—if we were facing declining defense budgets. Make no mistake, we are. We are probably at the high-water mark for defense budgets, and should plan accordingly.

Things are going to have to go.

OK, I officially do not like automated systems—Artificial Intelligence or Super Intelligence, whatever—getting involved AT ALL in how we allocate our defense budget.

As I like to say: fewer accountants, more thinkers. Letting the black-box do your thinking for you simply removes agency, accountability, and produces excuses…etc…etc.

I have no illusions about how the sausage is made in DC. I know everything from the NDAA to selection boards in Millington (yes, that is politicized too) involves imperfect human imput. Trust me, I get it…but there are humans in the loop. Sure, they try to hide from responsibility, but you can find it if you want.

Automated systems? Nosomuch. True, ‘garbage in—garbage out’ applies, and those who write the program shape the results…but few go after those who write the code.

“It’s what the machine kicked out…”

Do. Not. Like.

That being said, AEI’s Defense Futures Simulator is an interesting exercise to go through if you are trying to find out what may come out the other end should defense cuts come at scale.

What makes it interesting? Well, what it comes up with after the code gets through chewing on things.

I’d encourage everyone to sign up for the Simulator and give it a try. It won’t let you pick this system or that. It just takes your priories. The black-box does the rest.

This is how the good folks at AEI describe the project.

As Congress returns from recess after the midterm elections, the FY 2027 defense budget hangs in the balance. The administration requested a record $1.45 trillion in funding for the Department of Defense (DoD) through a combination of base budget and reconciliation funding, not including additional national defense funding outside of DoD. Before Congress left for recess, it made little progress advancing defense appropriations and a reconciliation package for defense. DoD is currently operating under a continuing resolution (CR) at the FY 2026 base budget level of $858 billion until December 11, 2026. The range of outcomes at play between the CR level and the requested budget level is nearly $600 billion, roughly the size of the entire defense budget a decade ago in nominal terms.

If the Congress cannot agree to the full requested level of $1.5 trillion, it will have to make hard choices about what to cut, what to defer, and what to keep. In this working paper, three AEI scholars take on this difficult task so that everyone knows the stakes involved. Using the publicly available Defense Futures Simulator, we each developed plans for how we would adapt the budget under three hypothetical levels of funding for FY 2027, including reconciliation and base budget combined, but excluding the supplemental requirements.

The first scenario considered is $1.25 trillion, a cut of $200 billion from the request. The second scenario is a reduction of $350 billion to $1.1 trillion in total funding. The third scenario is $1.0 trillion, which is $450 billion less than the request and roughly equal to the FY 2026 level of funding including the prior $152 billion reconciliation package.

They are much more pessimistic than I am in the second and third scenarios. If you made me make a prediction today, I’d say we’re looking at a bit under a 15% reduction from $1.45 trillion. The first 10% in FY27, and then the other 5% in decreasing amounts through FY31.

It is something to start with.

In the simulator, here is how my Plan Salamander works inside their emphasis slider.

You enter how you would have a different emphasis, then pick your cuts.

Here is how I would allocate the $209 billion in cuts over five years.

What did that give me?

Everything got cut, but some things more than others. My Marines—our most useful service—got hit the least.

Excellent.

I do like that the Simulator, rightfully, cut Army end strength the most, but what got my attention was the Tonnage (Navy).

What did it cut?

I was surprised that BBGN was still hanging in there…and that the LHA was taking the hit. A completely different decision from what I would make…but something has to go and, again, I cannot micromanage the outcomes here.

Somehow, we’d need to claw back this loss.

Just like Grok or ChatGPT, AI/SI gives you an 80% solution. The other 20% you can adjust.

I like this. Good exercise. Nice Phase-1. Give it a shot.

Leave a comment

Share

View the full article