Official Site of the U.S. Air Force   Right Corner Banner
Join the Air Force

News > Gates reveals budget efficiencies, reinvestment possibilities
 
Photos 
Budget efficiencies
(U.S. Air Force graphic/Corey Parrish)
Download HiRes
 
Related Stories
 Defense Department officials to prune senior ranks, freeze staffing - 1/6/2011
 
Related Links
 Air Force statement on announced budget efficiencies
 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
Gates reveals budget efficiencies, reinvestment possibilities

Posted 1/6/2011 Email story   Print story

    


by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


1/6/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Defense Department officials have found $154 billion in budget efficiencies over the next five years and will be able to invest $70 billion of that saved money in more-deserving accounts, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Jan. 6.

The secretary announced the savings and reinvesting of the efficiencies during a Pentagon news conference.

Secretary Gates said that the nation is at war and faces a range of future security threats.

"It is important to not repeat the mistakes of the past by making drastic and ill-conceived cuts to the overall defense budget," he said. "At the same time, it is imperative for this department to eliminate wasteful, excessive and unneeded spending."

Secretary Gates said he wants every dollar invested in defense spent in the smartest manner.

The efficiencies continue a process to reshape and re-balance the defense budget that has already saved the nation $300 billion, he noted.

The secretary announced efficiencies in modernization accounts.

He said he agrees with the recommendation by Navy and Marine Corps officials to cancel the expeditionary fighting vehicle program, which already has consumed $3 billion to develop and would require another $12 billion to build.

Secretary Gates said he also will restructure the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter program.

The Air Force and Navy variants of the fighter are on-schedule, but the short take-off and landing variant is experiencing significant testing problems.

"As a result, I am placing the STOVL variant on the equivalent of a two-year probation," Secretary Gates said. "If we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be cancelled."

The secretary said he also wants changes to the military's TRICARE medical program, noting that fees have not risen since the program was introduced in 1995.

He said he will propose modest increases to fees for working-age military retirees.

These changes also will be part of the fiscal 2012 budget request.

Army officials will cancel procurement of the surface-launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile and the non-line-of-sight launch system.

The efficiencies will change the way the department uses information technology, consolidating hundreds of information technology centers to save more than $1 billion a year, Secretary Gates said.

"At the same time," he added, "I am not satisfied with the progress we have made in this area since August, and expect to make a follow-on announcement with a specific plan of action by next month."

The efficiencies will cut the number of contractors.

"Overall, we will cut the size of the staff support contractor cadre by 10 percent per year for three years and realize nearly $3 billion in total savings," the secretary said.

A third efficiency will trim the size of the defense work force and place more in areas with the most pressing need, he said.

This should yield $4 billion in savings, he added.

Secretary Gates also said he's initiating changes in the defense intelligence apparatus, and will eliminate or downgrade general and flag officer positions. He will also eliminate or downgrade 200 senior executive positions.

The efficiencies will eliminate the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Network Intelligence and Information, the Business Transformation Agency and the U.S. Joint Forces Command, Secretary Gates said, though roughly 50 percent of Joint Forces Command will survive and be assigned to other organizations.

In April, Secretary Gates instructed the services to find at least $100 billion over five years in overhead savings that they could keep and shift to higher-priority programs. They have done so.

In addition, defense agencies have found $54 billion in possible efficiencies.

Air Force officials have proposed efficiencies that will total $34 billion over five years. Army officials have proposed $29 billion in savings, and Navy officials look to savings of $35 billion over five years.

Of the $100 billion in savings, the services will use about $28 billion to deal with higher-than-expected operating expenses. These costs include health care, pay and housing allowances, sustainment of weapons systems, depot maintenance, base support and flight hours, and other training.

"Frankly, using the savings in this way was not my original intent or preference," Secretary Gates said, "but we have little choice but to deal with these so-called 'must-pay' bills, and better to confront them honestly now than through raiding investment accounts later."

But this still leaves the services with $70 billion to reinvest in higher-priority systems. In the Air Force, this will mean the service can buy more Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles and enable the service to move this capability from the war budget to the base budget. It will also allow the service to increase procurement of the evolved expendable launch vehicle and to modernize radars aboard the F-15 Eagle to keep the fighter jet flying and fighting longer.

The Air Force also will be able to invest in development of a long-range, nuclear-capable bomber.

The Army will invest in Soldiers by improving suicide-prevention and substance-abuse counseling. The service will also modernize its battle fleets of Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and Stryker wheeled vehicles. The service also will accelerate fielding of the newest tactical communications network and will invest in more unmanned aerial vehicles and a new unmanned helicopter.

The Navy will accelerate procurement of electronic jamming gear and fund refurbishment of Marine Corps equipment. The service is also looking to develop a new generation of sea-borne unmanned strike and surveillance aircraft, and to buy more F-18 Super Hornets. The Navy also will be able to buy more ships, including a destroyer, a littoral combat ship and fleet oilers.

Secretary Gates stressed the need to make cuts carefully and judiciously.

"To maintain the kind of military needed for America's leadership role requires not only adequate levels of funding, but also fundamentally changing the way our defense establishment spends money and does business," Secretary Gates said. "That is why it is so important to follow through on the program of reform and overhead reduction.

"This department simply cannot risk continuing down the same path, where our investment priorities, bureaucratic habits and lax attitude towards costs are increasingly divorced from the real threats of today, the growing perils of tomorrow and the nation's grim financial outlook," he added.



tabComments
1/10/2011 11:23:45 PM ET
I guess our papercuts weren't a result of our multiple deployments. I appreciate what everyone on AD is doing but we earned our TRICARE during our deployments DESERT SHIELD DESERT STORM OIF OEF JOINT ENDEAVOR JUST CAUSE and the myriad of deployments I participated in. We didn't earn it from a desk. We deployed also and it wasn't on a schedule.... TRICARE is supposed to take care of how they broke us.
TC, Pittsgrove NJ
 
1/10/2011 9:37:22 PM ET
Retired -- I did some research actually. The government spends approximately 500 billion on the military based on data from CIA World Factbook. Before benefits the government spends 80 million on congressional salary. Factoring in benefits at a generous 25 percent I'll give them a total bill of 100 million dollars. In other words if congress was to cut 100 percent of its own pay and benefits it would be the equivalent of cutting 0.02 percent of military spending. Now I'm not great at math but that doesn't seem like a viable alternative.
tr, ok
 
1/10/2011 12:51:00 PM ET
@tr: First you must ask yourself why is it that when the Gov't needs cuts the first place they look is DoD Look at the amount of pork and earmark spending that goes on with our Gov't. Second you never hear of our Gov't leaders cutting their benefits -- benefits they earn in about half the time it takes a military member to earn a retirement. So please do some research. Look at the meager benefits a retired military member gets compared to your Gov't leadership. Look at the billions wasted on earmarks and pork...then make an educated statement based on fact. I'm pretty sure those who get injured in combat are not losing benefits compared to those of us who did our time.
Thankfully Retired, USAFA
 
1/10/2011 12:50:10 PM ET
I agree we did not even know how to spell TriCare when we were serving. I cant believe the Military is allowing the Aircraft and other manufacturers to dictate sky high pricing for new modern aircraft and the goes into systems. The savings they could easily get are to control the industry costs to the Government and allow them to sell to a friendly foreign military at whatever price they want, keeping the costs to the US government secret so there is no cost comparisons. Most industry costs are marked up 3-400 percent, and I know they need to make profits to cover costs, but the US governement has the power to control those costs and they are not doing a good job of it from the looks of the costs. So go save from the right area and not off the military retirees and future retirees backs.
Phantom Phixer, USA
 
1/10/2011 11:43:54 AM ET
OK, yeah I know it's not a cakewalk in today's economy. This is economic triage. We'll get to your papercut after we treat the bullet wounds, ok?
tr, ok
 
1/10/2011 9:40:19 AM ET
With all due respect, the reasons people join the military are varied. Who are you to say that benefits is not a motivating factor Additionally, Tricare was not in effect when most retirees joined and we all were assured that we would be taken care of medically after we retired. Never having to worry about medical care is a big motivator for some of us. Some of you seem to forget that retirees also spent their 20 years fighting wars in places they did not want to be. It is easy to be critical when you are on active duty, Man-up yourself. Finish your 20 years, retire, then come back with your opinions after someone starts to take your benefits away.
Retired Flight Engineer, Hurlburt Field
 
1/10/2011 8:58:59 AM ET
At "tr" and others: It isn't important to you until it affects you. When you retire I hope you too would feel the need to protect your erroding benefits. I have to agree with "Jerry." No cost of living allowance increase, no TRICARE increase. You cannot have it both ways. There is a big assumption here. Everyone is assuming all retirees have not been affected by the recession and are working. Not everyone has a job, and have their TRICARE fees, and oh by the way most likely a supplemental insurance to make up the shortfall in benefits factored into a budget. True, many serve to serve, but many serve beyond 20 for other reasons. We are not asking for something for nothing, just what was sold to us.
TC, Pittsgrove NJ
 
1/9/2011 1:29:53 PM ET
Otis Joe you guys are right on. Thank you for your service. "Kathleen" and "Taxpayer," civilians didn't EARN the benefits that military members and retirees have. I don't feel bad for them and I'm tired of people like you trying to demonize people who have earned benefits for not wanting to spread our wealth around to people who did not serve and therefore did not earn the same benefits. They had the chance to serve and chose not to. They can live with that decision pay for their own healthcare and it's not my problem. There are plenty of government entitlement programs wasting money on people who did nothing to earn anything that can have their budgets cut before cutting the budget of the program providing healthcare for the heroes who sacrificed and often times went through hell in service to our nation.
Ken, Florida
 
1/8/2011 2:46:07 PM ET
Once again a very grateful nation. Gates has wasted far more on ineffective wars than tricare will costs for decades. When we terminate welfare, food stamps, etc., then and only then will I accept increases. Mr "Taxpayer," I couldn't care less about others. I only want what I was promised---which was free health care for life with the only contingincy being space available. I did what was required of me. I would guess most who respond are not retirees in the military or ever were called into combat positions.
Dave, CA
 
1/8/2011 8:01:28 AM ET
Tricare is a drop in the bucket and could save the military some money. The true cost savings exist by teaching fiscally irresponsible leaders, congress included, how to be responsible. The way we bid contracts, redeveloping uniforms and duplicate work blow all our money at the end of the fiscal year because our budget will be cut if we dont dedicate multiple cargo aircraft to DV support, build DV capsules, create and build inefficiencies for use of Airmen's time. I believe I could go on. These are your cost saving areas. Tricare is too easy and does not require decision makers to look in the mirror and actually hold themselves accountable.
John, US
 
1/8/2011 4:36:57 AM ET
For the first two posters: It's attitudes like yours that keep our country on the fast track to economic collapse. Everybody agrees we need to cut spending but FEW are willing to support the cuts to their own bennies. Bottom line is our gov is BROKE. We either cut where we must NOW or lose everything when our country's ability to exist finally hits a wall. You choose.
Major, overseas
 
1/8/2011 1:20:46 AM ET
@ Mr. Needleman and Mr. Tarkow: The proposals put forth by Mr. Gates are very modest increases in fees. Free health care for life would be great, but unfortunately we live in the real world with real-world budget challenges. Trying to demonize the proposal by using words such as destroy is not helpful. The security of our country depends on a solvent Federal government. This is one part of reigning in the Federal budget.
Caveman, Bedrock
 
1/8/2011 12:51:19 AM ET
The answer is simple to keep Tricare premiums and co-pays low. It's the same answer for our nation's healthcare crisis. Like it or not we need to stop providing healthcare for individuals who contribute to their own demise. If you're causing your own health problems then you're the problem. I.E. the retiree who developed emphyzema smoking 2 packs a day for 30 years in the commissary with a medical oxygen tank in his cart along with 24 cartons of cigarettes. Or the retiree who weighs 350lbs and is throwing down a whole pizza in the food court at the BX. If the individual is not willing to make the proper lifestyle changes to help him or herself then why should the taxpayer? I bet this would save billions. Administer it just like the AF PT test. You get 4 chances to change your lifestyle and make improvements and then you're cut off.
MSgt Angone, LV
 
1/7/2011 9:27:55 PM ET
I am a retiree. I respectfully disagree with those who believe we are being treated unfairly. I will willingly pay a higher TRICARE Prime premium. It is already a bargain and it is a quality program. I get good care at an MTF and through a responsive referral system. Most people pay far more per month than we pay per year.
Jim Harrold, Omaha
 
1/7/2011 7:59:18 PM ET
"TR" is right. This is about keeping our national defense effective. The TRICARE annual buy-in hasn't risen in years but the cost of EVERYTHING else has, especially in the health care arena.
Smith, DC
 
1/7/2011 1:35:35 PM ET
With all due respect to the people who have served before me -- I honestly don't believe that you served for the purpose of getting benefits. So let's man up here. Combat effectiveness comes first. I really appreciate what you did, but frankly I'd rather see the Marines get new body armor than see a working-age man safe at home collecting free bacon. That's not efficiency and you know it. So again I respect you, I thank you... but I don't agree with you on this point. Maybe that's my youth speaking or maybe it's the truth.
tr, ok
 
1/7/2011 12:23:48 PM ET
Any future increases in Tri-Care costs should be tied to the cost of living increases in retirement pay. No increase in retirement pay -- no increase in Tri-Care premium costs. Notice there was no definition of modest.
Jerry, Oklahoma
 
1/7/2011 12:09:44 PM ET
Folks, if you were led to believe you would be receiving free medical care for life, someone deceived you. Tricare has always required retirees to pay into the system. Like any sustainable healthcare plan, it was assumed that fees and copays would rise over time just like the cost of all goods and services rises over time.The current cost structure is unsustainable. The extremely generous benefits being offered at virtually no cost to retirees are having a definite impact on our current ability to pay for national defense. Math is non-partisan.
John, San Antonio
 
1/7/2011 10:03:37 AM ET
There seem to be some greedy people by the sound of some of the comments posted here. Just be greatful that you have the the great benefits that you have. Just remember the millions of Americans who work hard to provide for their families, and they cannot even afford to have insurance. Who cares if you have to pay a $30 to 35 copay? Welcome to reality.
Taxpayer, USA
 
1/7/2011 9:22:22 AM ET
Joe: Please provide information on the billions of dollars spent each year providing benefits for illegal aliens in this country. What benefits do illegal aliens get exactly, besides less then minimum paying jobs that Americans wont do?
RH, LA
 
1/7/2011 7:31:02 AM ET
It is true that rates and copays for Tricare have never gone up and I am very thankful for that. If rates must be raised then lets be fair about it. Rate increases MUST be graduated based on retired rank. This means the retired officers must bear the brunt of the increase with little to no increase for retired enlisted members. Consider the fact that a 1st Lt needs only 3 years of active duty to surpass the pay of a 20 year MSgt. I do believe that retired field grade and general officers can and should assume the majority of any proposed Tricare increase. Many consecutive years of across the board pay increases have set officers disproportionately ahead of the enlisted force. This alone can justify expecting the officers to pay for the increases.
FB, US
 
1/7/2011 7:21:10 AM ET
I have to agree with the first two writers... We are watching our retiree benefits errode as AD and Ret General Officers make decisions about TRICARE fees. TRICARE is already mediocre at best to make us pay more is criminal. The country is in a recession and the government's answer is to raise taxes and break the backs of those who are serving or have served. Here's an idea: How about we cut foregin aid...
TC, Pittsgrove NJ
 
1/7/2011 3:35:23 AM ET
They aren't 'taking away' your medical benefit. You are still insured for pennies compared to similar packages on the outside. There are many Americans who've worked diligently, independently, who cannot afford even limited coverage. There isn't too much 'free' anything anymore. Would you want 'free' insurance without quality medical capabilities.
Kathleen Martin, Misawa AFB
 
1/7/2011 1:42:43 AM ET
Ditto to both comments.
JH, Iraq
 
1/6/2011 11:30:47 PM ET
I see it's time to save the nation again by punishing the people who served this country faithfully for years. I spent 22 years doing whatever they told me and going to some of the most horrible places on the planet. Now they are going to destroy one of the main benefits I stayed in for all those years. My medical benefits. Every day I see stories of slicing apart the benefits for military personnel, their families and retirees but not one story anywhere about reducing the billions of dollars spent each year providing benefits for illegal aliens in this country. It's just not right and the good honest hard working people of this country better start speaking up. The primary job of the Secretary of Defense is to make sure we have the most capable military forces on the planet. You can't do that by telling people who serve we aren't going to keep our promises to you once you get out. Reducing military retirement benefits will also reduce the quality of people who stay to the end.
Joe Tarkow, Randolph AFB
 
1/6/2011 9:39:36 PM ET
NO to ANY Tricare enrollment fee increase. NO to ANY increase in copays. Period. Many of us retirees were promised free medical care for life. Gates need not even THINK of balancing his defense budget on the backs of retirees. NO WAY
Otis R. Needleman, USA
 
Add a comment

 Inside AF.mil

ima cornerSearch

tabSubscribe AF.MIL
tabMore HeadlinesRSS feed 
New training facility opens in Wyoming

Solar power lights up Southwest Asia

Separate paths bring brothers together for Christmas  1

All I want for Christmas ... Daddy!

Osan community brightens holidays for Korean orphans  |  VIDEO

Deployed Airman receives Christmas phone call from President Obama

Air Force Week in Photos

Premier AF concert band 'wows' fellow musicians at Midwest Clinic  11

Pararescue, security forces Airmen train as one  10

Through Airmen's Eyes: High school reunion ... above Afghanistan

Space Fence program moves forward  1

Kunsan AB, Hurlburt Field Airmen unite to spread holiday cheer

Operation Christmas Drop  1

Air Force Week in Photos

tabCommentaryRSS feed 
Legacy of valor  1

There IS an I in team  3


Site Map      Contact Us     Questions     Security and Privacy notice     E-publishing