Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

The FY 2006 Pentagon Spending Request

by Christopher Hellman [contact information]

February 5, 2005

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 PENTAGON SPENDING REQUEST

“Top Line” Funding – The Bush Administration is requesting $419.3 billion for the Department of Defense in Fiscal Year 2006, which begins on October 1, 2005. This is $19.2 billion more than the current level of $400.1 billion, an increase of 4.8 percent. This figure does not include funding for the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy, which is considered part of total Defense Department spending. Nor does this figure include the costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon estimates that total annual funding for the Defense Department alone will grow to $502.3 billion by Fiscal Year 2011. Total Pentagon spending, not including funding for the Department of Energy or for actual combat operations for the period FY’06 through FY’11 will exceed $2.8 trillion.

Funding for Contingency Operations (Supplemental Appropriations) – The request contains no funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the Pentagon continues to fund through special supplemental spending packages. To date, the Pentagon has received $155 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ($64 billion in FY’03, $66 billion in FY’04, and $25 billion so far for FY’05). The Administration plans to request an additional $75 billion for the remainder of FY’05 (with an additional $5 billion for tsunami relief and foreign assistance, for a total of $80 billion), bringing the three year total to roughly $230 billion. Further funding will clearly be necessary to fund operations during FY’06.

Missile Defense – The Administration is requesting $8.8 billion for missile defense in FY’06, down roughly $1 billion from the current $9.9 billion. Approximately $800 million of the proposed reductions are from the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program. Though the request is below current levels, missile defense continues to receive more funding than any other weapons program in the annual Pentagon budget. This total does not include $757 million for the SBIRS-High satellite program.

Shipbuilding – The request includes funding for the continued development of the Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program ($873 million), the DD(x) Destroyer Program ($1.8 billion), and the Littoral Combat Ship ($613) million. It includes $2.6 billion for the purchase of one SSN-774 “Virginia” class nuclear attack submarine, and completes funding of the last planned DDG-51 “Arleigh Burke” destroyer. The budget also includes the retirement of one conventional aircraft carrier, reducing the fleet from 12 to 11.

Aircraft – The request includes $2.9 billion for 38 of the Navy’s F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet,” rather than the expected 42, $1.8 billion for procurement of 11 V-22 “Osprey” tilt-rotor aircraft, and $5.0 billion for continued development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The request also includes $4.3 billion for 25 F/A-22 “Raptor” fighters, and prepares to end F-22 procurement in FY’08 at a total of 179 planes.

Personnel – The request includes an increase in base pay of 3.1 percent. According to the Pentagon, base pay has risen 25 percent since 2001.

Base Closures – The request includes funding to implement base closure and realignment decisions by the 2005 Base Closure Commission. The budget includes $1.9 billion for FY’06, and $5.7 billion for FY’07.

Homeland Defense – The request contains $9.5 billion for Pentagon activities related to homeland security including detection and protection against weapons of mass destruction, emergency preparedness and response, and protecting critical infrastructure. This includes $1.6 billion for defense against chemical and biological weapons.

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) – The Administration is requesting $416 million for the CTR (also known as “Nunn-Lugar”) program, up slightly from the current $408 million. The CTR program assists Russia and the former Soviet republics safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related technologies.

Federal Budget Deficit – The Administration’s request arrives on Capitol Hill as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is predicting a deficit of $400 billion for Fiscal Year 2005, much higher than the $348 billion deficit it projected in September. The Administration’s own Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) most recent deficit estimate for FY’05 is even higher – $427 billion. CBO also projects an FY’06 deficit in excess of $300 billion, but an analysis of the CBO figure by the Senate Budget Committee minority staff put the figure at $386 billion.

THE FY'06 PENTAGON "TOP LINE" REQUEST

The Bush Administration has requested the following funding for the military.

TABLE 1. TOP LINE REQUEST (budget authority in $billions)

	FY’05	FY’06	FY’07	FY’08	FY’09	FY’10	FY’11	TOTAL FY’06- FY’11
DOD Military(051)	400.1*	419.3	443.1	462.4	482	492.1	502.3	2,801.20
DOE and Other
TOTAL (050)
TABLE NOTES * Totals may not ad up due to rounding ** Figures will be updated when DoE funding levels become available.

TABLE 2. FY’06 BUDGET REQUEST BY FUNCTION INCREASE/DECREASE FROM FY’05 (budget authority in $billions)

	FY’05	FY’06 Requested	+/-	%
Military Personnel	104	108.9	4.9	4.7%
Operations & Maintenance	137	147.8	10.8	7.9%
Procurement	78.1	78	-0.1	-0.1%
RDT&E	68.8	69.4	0.6	0.9%
Military Construction	6	7.8	1.8	30.0%
Family Housing	4.1	4.2	0.1	2.4%
Misc. Other	2.1	3.2	1.1	52.4%
TOTAL (051)	400.1	419.3	19.2	4.8%
TABLE NOTES *Totals may not add up due to rounding.

TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEFENSE SPENDING: 051 Account (budget authority in billions)

	FY’06 Requested	Percentage of Total
Military Personnel	108.9	26.0%
Operations & Maintenance	147.8	35.2%
Procurement	78	18.6%
RDT&E	69.4	16.6%
Military Construction	7.8	1.9%
Family Housing	4.2	1.0%
Misc. Other	3.2	0.8%
TOTAL (051)	419.3
TABLE NOTES *Totals may not add up due to rounding.

TABLE 4. FY’06 BUDGET REQUEST BY SERVICE INCREASE/DECREASE FROM FY’05 (budget authority in billions)

	FY’06	FY’07 Requested	+/-	%
Army	100.3	100	-0.3	-0.3%
Navy/Marine Corps	119.2	125.6	6.4	5.4%
Air Force	117.8	127.5	9.7	8.2%
Defense Wide	62.8	66.2	3.4	5.4%
TOTAL (051)	400.1	419.3	19.2	4.8%
TABLE NOTES *Totals may not add up due to rounding.

TABLE 5. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEFENSE SPENDING: 051 Account (budget authority in billions)

	FY’07 Requested	Percentage of Total
Army	100	23.8%
Navy/Marine Corps	125.6	30.0%
Air Force	127.5	30.4%
Defense Wide	66.2	15.8%
TOTAL (051)	419.3
TABLE NOTES *Totals may not add up due to rounding. **Totals do not include supplemental appropriations for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. SOURCES: DoD, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request, February 2005.

THE FY'06 REQUEST FOR SELECTED WEAPONS SYSTEMS

The breakdown by selected weapon systems provides funding requests, per unit costs and total program costs for the Pentagon's major weapons programs.

TABLE 6. FY’06 REQUEST FOR SELECTED WEAPONS SYSTEMS (budget authority in millions)

	FY’07 Request	Quantity	Per Unit Cost	Total Program Cost
F/A-18E/F Fighter	2,911.0	38	94.9	43,845.2
F-22 Fighter	4,297.2	25	257	71,693.2
F-35 Fighter (JSF)	5,020.2	––	99.6	244,834.3
C-17 Transport Aircraft	3,662.9	15	334.2	60,162.5
C-130J Cargo Aircraft	1,623.1	12	97.6	16,396.5
B-2 Bomber	344.3	––	2,114	44,400
V-22 Osprey Aircraft	1,779.5	11	104.9	48,024.7
E/A-18G Jamming Aircraft	745.8	4	94.3	8,491.4
H-60 "Blackhawk" Helicopter (All Services)	1,965.6	79	N/A	N/A
Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program (CVN-21)	872.9	––	12,027.4	36,082.1
DDG-51 Destroyer	225.4	––	1,013.6	62,840.5
DD(X) Surface Combatant	1,800.7	––	10,313.7	10,313.7*
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)	613.2	1	N/A	N/A
SSN-774 "Virginia" Attack Submarine	2,557.3	1	2,773.8	83,215.2
SSGN Trident Submarine Conversions	310.5	––	1,002.6	4,010.2
LPD-17 “San Antonio” Landing Ship	1,356.1	1	1,298.6	15,582.7
Trident II D-5 Missile	1,022.7	––	65.7	37,318.8
Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missile	373.7	379	1.2	3,290.3
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)	305.9	11,400	0.03	5,301.5
Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW)	158.9	420	0.36	4,422.9
Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)	217.2	300	0.92	3,998.5
Small Diameter Bomb	155.1	512	0.08	1,816.5
Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV)	905.1	240	4.1	8,658.7
Future Combat System (FCS)	3,404.8	––	N/A	92,600.9
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)	449.6	––	0.22	18,209.2
TABLE NOTES *"Total Program Cost" for these systems reflects only the cost of Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E). SOURCES: DoD, Program Acquisition Costs By Weapon System, Procurement Programs (P-1),and RDT&E Programs (R-1),February, 2005. "Per Unit Costs" and "Total Program Costs" are based on DoD's Selected Acquistion Report, August 19, 2004, with the exception of the B-2 Bomber, which is no longer listed.

THE FY’06 REQUEST FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

The ballistic missile defense program receives more funding than any other weapons system in the annual Pentagon budget.

Background: As part of its Fiscal Year 2002 budget request, the Defense Department announced a major restructuring of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO). Funding for a range of programs within BMDO were absorbed and redistributed in to five major areas of research. These are the Terminal, Midcourse and Boost Segments, the Ballistic Missile Defense Segment, and Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors.

As part of the FY'02 reorganization, some specific missile defense programs were absorbed in to the general research areas and have, from a funding prospective, effectively disappeared.

Such changes continue in the FY'06 request. The BMD System Segment and the Terminal Segment have disappeared. Meanwhile, a half-dozen subsections under "BMD" have appeared.

"Navy Area-Wide" was terminated in January, 2001, when it violated the Nunn-McCurdy amendment, which calls for the cancellation of a program that experiences significant cost growth.

The Space Based Infra-Red System-High (SBIRS-High) continues to be funded outside the MDA budget.

TABLE 7. FY’06 REQUEST FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (budget authority in millions)

	FY’05 Total	FY’06 Request
Terminal Defense	928.4	1,143.6
Boost Defense	476.2	483.9
Midcourse Defense	4,501.5	3,234.4
AEGIS BMD	522.3	537.8
BMD Sensors	231.1	136.2
Space Tracking & Surveillance	159.9	349.5
BMD Technologies	279.8	236.3
Advanced Concepts	718	617.5
BMD System Interceptors	383.8	455.2
BMD Test & Targets	399.8	464.1
Other Programs	127.5	116.7
Joint Theater Air Missile Defense Org. (JTAMDO)	86.4	80.7
Military Construction	22.3	4.9
O&S (Army, Navy & Air Force)	88.2	111.7
MEADS/Patriot	312.9	288.8
Patriot PAC-3 & Patriot MODs	607.1	583.3
Total Ballistic Missile Defense	9,900.3	8,844.6
Space Based Infra-Red System-High (SBIRS-High)	594.2	756.6
GRAND TOTAL Ballistic Missile Defense	10,494.5	9,601.2

THE FY’06 REQUEST FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVs)

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) continue to prove their worth on the modern battlefield. The newest weapon in the U.S. arsenal is the armed UAV. The administration is requesting over $1.5 billion to develop both combat and surveillance UAVs.

TABLE 7. FY’06 Request for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) (in millions)

	FY’05 Total	Number	FY’06 Resquest	Number
Global Hawk (Air Force)	687.4	4	706.2	5
Predator (Air Force)	288.5	12	216.9	9
Shadow (Army)	154.5	8	46	––
Small UAV (Army)	––	––	20	100
Fire Scout (Navy)	59.1	––	77.6	––
Extended Range (Army)	––	––	95	––
J-UCAS (DARPA)	587	––	––	––
J-UCAS (Air Force)	8.4	––	350.1	––
TOTALS	1,870.7	24	1,511.8	114
SOURCES: DoD’s Program Acquisiton Costs By Weapon System, February 2006.

FY’06 DISCRETIONARY SPENDING REQUEST

GRAPH I. DISCRETIONARY BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 2006 (in billions)

Spending Category	Billions of US dollars
Defense		438.8
Education		58.4
Health		51
Justice		38.7
Veternan Benefits		31.4
International Affairs		33.7
Housing Assitance		30.6
Natural Resources & Environment		28
Science & Space		24.6
Transportation		21.4
Training, Employment & Social Services		19.5
General Government		16.3
Other Income Security		16.7
Economic Development		12.6
Social Security & Medicare		9.8
Agriculture		5.3
Energy		3.7
Notes: The “Social Security & Medicare” funding in this graph refers to administrative costs associated with these programs, and does not reflect actual benefits paid out.