Obama’s defense cuts will hurt naval readiness

President George W. Bush’s 2009 defense budget and supplemental spending on Iraq and Afghanistan came to $647 billion. Obama’s 2010 defense budget, together with his supplemental request to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, comes to $617 billion.
So, a straightforward comparison reveals that Obama is proposing $30 billion in defense cuts during a time of war. Through time, Obama appears to be orchestrating an eventual return to the days of Bill Clinton’s “hollowed out” military, when defense spending in the post-Cold War era declined from nearly 5 percent to 3 percent of GDP. For now, the immediate effects of the cuts are still very serious.
Obama proposes a $1.4 billion cut to land-based missile defense systems, and the timing could not be worse. North Korea has just tested a long-range ballistic missile.
Russia has just rebuffed Obama’s offer to drop U.S. plans to install missile defenses in Poland and Czech Republic, if Russia would put more pressure on Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. If this is not a sign of a lack of American resolve, what is?
Obama has also called for reducing the number of aircraft-carrier groups from 11 to 10, and proposed taking the Navy below the current 313-ship level. In reality, the cuts will go deeper.
Obama’s budget foregoes meaningful funding for F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets in favor of the yet to be delivered F-35, Joint Strike Fighter, which was originally designed to save costs by providing a single fighter-jet platform that could then be custom fit to serve the Air Force, Marines and Navy.
The reality is that GAO has recently reported what many people who follow defense programs already knew — that the JSF is years behind schedule and at a current cost of $400 billion, is 45 percent over budget. So far, the F-35’s lifetime program costs could well top $1 trillion, making it the most expensive single item in the history of Pentagon spending.
The delays are even worse. Even the most optimistic estimates say the Navy’s version of the JSF will not be operational for another six years, and this will create a shortfall in the Navy’s inventory of carrier-based fighter aircraft of 200 jets.
Since an aircraft carrier will typically carry about 50 fighter aircraft, that shortage is equivalent to taking four aircraft carriers out of service.
It’s far better to continue to provide our aircraft carriers with currently available F-18 Hornets than risk this kind of shortfall. As we saw during the recent standoff with Somali pirates who kidnapped American ship Capt. Richard Phillips, whenever there is trouble in the world, the Navy is certain to get the call.
The cuts don’t make sense. Pouring hundreds of billions more into the F-35 JSF program after it has gone way over budget and fallen way behind schedule is no way to enforce budget discipline in the Pentagon.  
Let’s be clear: Any cut in the availability or readiness of our top fighter aircraft compromises the effectiveness of our carrier groups and safety of the sailors and Marines serving in them.
As a military man, I’ve never been fond of having 535 secretaries of defense. But given what Obama is proposing, it is imperative that Congress restores the critical combat readiness that is threatened by the Obama defense budget.

Retired Adm. Paul Rohrer served in the Navy for more than four decades, retiring as a rear admiral. He currently resides in McLean, Va.