final version as published by InsideDefense.com on 30 January 2010. Hosted on the Commonwealth Institute website.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/100130qdr2010.pdf

Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Memo 46, 26 January 2010.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/Assessing_the_2010_QDR.pdf

Excerpt:

Today’s military is stressed by having nearly 25% of the full time military overseas, including 16% in overseas operations.

How does the QDR seek to reduce the stress of overseas stationing and deployment?

In recent years large counter-insurgency campaigns have demanded much of the military’s attention and energy.

Is the QDR preparing for more of the same in the future? At what scale and frequency?

Chris Hellman, National Priorities Project, 29 January 2010.

Sources and Methodology: Much of the information contained here comes from various media accounts or discussions with analysts and congressional staff.

Introduction: The Obama Administration will release its budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 on Monday, February 1. At the same time, the Defense Department is expected to release an additional emergency supplemental funding request to cover the FY 2010 costs of the Afghanistan “surge” not covered by the “Overseas Contingency Operations” funding included in the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326). [See “Funding for Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” below.]

Total “Top Line” Spending: $580 Billion [Function 050] – [NOTE: These totals do not include the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.] Unlike most years, the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request did not project Defense Department [Function 051] future year funding. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projected $541.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2011. Previously the Administration had pledged to hold Pentagon spending at $534 billion plus inflation. More recently, however, it has been reported that defense spending will grow by a total of $100 billion, plus inflation, over the next five years. Estimating 2 percent inflation (roughly $11 billion), and adding an additional $10 billion (assuming that the $100 billion in new spending over five years will be weighted toward the “out” years) means a nominal increase of roughly $21 billion, or $555 billion for defense [Function 051]. In addition, OMB projected a further $16.6 billion for nuclear weapons-related activities of the Department of Energy [Function 053] and $7.1 billion for miscellaneous defense activities [Function 054], for a total defense spending level of $579 billion [Function 050].

Funding the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Prior to Fiscal Year 2010, funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded outside the annual defense budget through special supplemental appropriations. After taking office the Obama Administration pledged that it would end this practice and, beginning with its FY 2010 budget request, would include funding for ongoing military operations in the annual request. As a result, the FY 2010 request included $130 billion for “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).” Subsequent to that, however, the Administration decided to send “surge” of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. As a result, the Pentagon’s funding request will consist of two parts – a small $30-$35 billion supplemental request for additional FY 2010 funds to cover the cost of the “surge,” and a larger $165 billion request for OCO in FY 2011.

Including the additional funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, total defense spending in FY 2011 could exceed $745 billion.

Program Terminations – The Pentagon will again seek to terminate weapons programs that are either under-performing, those for which there is no requirement, or those which don’t fit with the Department’s strategic vision. The Pentagon will not seek additional funding for the C-17 transport aircraft or the second engine source for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), both of which it sought to terminate in FY 2010, but for which Congress appropriated unrequested funds. In addition the Pentagon will reportedly not seek funding for the Navy’s CG(x) cruiser replacement program, or its EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft replacement program.

“Winners” – The Army will invest heavily in helicopters, including the CH-47 “Chinook,” the family of UH-60 “Blackhawks,” and the development of a heavy-lift helicopter. The request will contain funding for the Air Force’s oft-delayed airborne tanker program. Funding will continue to grow for a broad range of unmanned systems, both aerial and ground-based.

Missile Defense: Steady-State at $9 Billion – The FY 2011 request is likely to be at or slightly below current funding levels. In addition, the Pentagon will likely continue efforts to reorient missile defense away from long-range development of a national system, and increase focus on systems at or near operational capability such as the Navy’s program based on the AEGIS system and the Standard-3 missile.

Shipbuilding: Steady State – The Navy will continue to spend roughly $14 billion on shipbuilding. This will include funding for two DDG-51 destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), two “Virginia” class submarines, one “San Antonio” amphibious assault ship and two other ships – possibly an LHA replacement vessel and/or T-AKE supply ships. Development funding will also be included for the “Ohio” ballistic missile submarine replacement program.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Slight Increase – Despite recent Pentagon reports detailing problems with the F-35 aircraft, the Pentagon is continuing its efforts to accelerate the program, although not quite as rapidly as anticipated. While Congress funded 30 aircraft in FY 2010, the Pentagon is requesting 42 aircraft for FY 2011 in its base budget, plus one additional aircraft in the “OCO” accounts. Previous plans had called for funding 48 F-35s in FY 2011.

Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Memo 45, 18 January 2010.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1001PDABM45.pdf

Excerpt:

What can be said reliably is that:

First, the level and duration of debt forecast by the administration, when taken together, constitute a historically unprecedented situation for the United States. Similarly, our global context is new and changing rapidly. We are entering terra incognita.

Second, some of the assumptions and inputs on which the administration bases its plans and forecast are either bound to change or are contested. As noted earlier, a key component of its defense plan – the cost of foreign operations – is merely a “place marker” today. Perceived requirements due to the wars could easily add $250 billion in spending for 2011-2017. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the plan forecasts that it will yield larger deficits and more debt due to lower revenues and increased expenditures. It forecasts higher interest rates and, therefore, higher interest payments.

Finally, regardless of the actual determinable effects of the government’s debt burden in the longer-run, the sudden growth of that burden and its persistence at a higher-level is bound to intensify political contention around budget and fiscal issues. The Obama administration will face intense pressure to economize in some areas.

Gordon Adams. Budget Insight, 29 January 2010.
http://defensealt.org/Hc4g7t

Excerpt:

In the security assistance arena, look for a major assertion of direct DOD responsibility for training and equipping foreign security forces (called the “security sector”) on a global basis, consistent with the budget request forecast above. This might include the creation of new DOD “Security Force Assistance” teams and missions. It might also include an expanded DOD program to advise ministries of defense in other countries. The December 3 QDR draft also proposed that DOD have joint authority with State over State’s own security assistance accounts, though that language may have disappeared in the final version.

“pre-decisional” draft dated 03 December 2010 and published by InsideDefense.com on 27 January 2010. Hosted on the Commonwealth Institute website.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/draftQDR2010.pdf

Carl Conetta. Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Report 20, 18 January 2010.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1001PDABR20.pdf
Executive Summary: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1001PDABR20exsum.pdf

Excerpt:

… DoD’s total workforce is probably as large today as it was in 1989 (or even larger), but less of the total is in uniform. This accords with the rise in O&M spending and also with studies… which suggest that the contractor workforce may have grown by as much as 40% since 1989. By comparison, the full-time military and DoD civilian workforces are both about 32% smaller today than in 1989.

When strategic discipline is lax, legacy modernization tends to predominate, due to its institutional momentum. Eventually, external circumstances may compel a rush of ad hoc adaptive measures – as is the case today with regard to procurement to meet counter- insurgency needs. These may then come to predominate, prematurely. The only remedy is to strongly discipline force modernization in accord with a sustainable, adaptive, and cost-effective national security strategy. The various scenarios and missions that define military requirements must be strongly prioritized, and these priorities must be enforced from the center.

A permissive spending environment is the precondition for the types of problems identified in this report. It is easy enough to point to the 11 September 2001 attacks as the progenitor of this condition. However, as we note, the surge in spending began before 2001. Moreover, Gallup polls show that public support for increased spending was higher in the two years prior to the attacks than in the two years after. And it has receded significantly since then. This points to a more fundamental enabling condition: presently there seems to be little political gain (and much risk) in pressing for the type of tight DoD budget constraints that might prompt through-going reform and transformation. Nonetheless, emerging fiscal realities may soon compel increased attention to how the nation allocates scarce resources among competing national goals — foreign and domestic, military and non-military. And this might put the nation on the road to a disciplined defense.

John T. Bennett. Defense News, 27 January 2010.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4473825&c=AME&s=TOP

Excerpt:

The new force-shaping model was derived from what the draft report calls the Pentagon’s four defense strategy priorities: “prevail in today’s wars; prevent and deter conflict; prepare to succeed in a wide range of contingencies; and preserve and enhance the force.” Sources say the priorities are known within the QDR process as “the Four Ps.”

The planning framework is designed to prepare U.S. forces to, according to the review, carry out “a broad, plausible range of several overlapping operations to prevent and deter conflict and, if necessary, to defend the United States, its allies and partners, selected critical infrastructure, and other national interests.”

Megan Scully. Government Executive, 26 January 2010.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0110/012610cdpm1.htm

Excerpt:

“There is no way — no way — that the defense budget will be immune to deficit reduction,” Stan Collender, a former House and Senate Budget committee aide…

Congressional Budget Office, 26 January 2010.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/01-26-Outlook.pdf

Reuters, 21 January 2010.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60K6QK20100121

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), pp. 21-25, January 2010.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/DOTE F-35 JSF 2009 Annual Report.pdf

Reuters, 20 January 2010.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60K07I20100121

Excerpt:

The documents, labeled as “draft” and “pre-decisional,” showed continued strong funding for shipbuilding, fighter and electronic warfare aircraft and other weapons programs. They also pointed to continued effort to beef up intelligence programs, unmanned systems, cyber security, and enhanced efforts to counter biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Josh Rogin. The Cable, 20 January 2010.
http://defensealt.org/HiIFt1

Excerpt:

One big chunk of funding at issue is in foreign security assistance, known as the “1206″ account, which could total about $500 million next year. This is money used to do things like military training and joint operations with countries outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, such as Indonesia and Somalia.

Since the military doesn’t have the lead in those countries, the funding should flow through State, right? Well, not in 2011. The president’s budget will keep those funds in the Pentagon’s purse in its Feb. 1 budget release, following a pitched internal battle in which the State Department eventually conceded.

Tony Capaccio. bloomberg.com, 19 January 2009.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0UQXRzi1Fhc

Excerpt:

Sixteen of 168 planned flights were completed in fiscal 2009, the second year of flight testing, according to Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of weapons testing. The program calls for 5,000 sorties to prove the aircraft’s flying capabilities, electronics and software.

The development phase must now be extended by at least one year, to October 2015, according to Gilmore, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office’s defense unit.

George C. Wilson. Government Executive, 19 January 2010.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0110/011910cdam1.htm

Excerpt:

“There ain’t no education in a second kick of a mule.”

for more on the F-35 see: http://www.comw.org/wordpress/dsr/gates-calls-for-delay-in-pentagon-purchases-of-lockheed-f-35s-capaccio

Anne Flaherty and Anne Gearan. Los Angeles Times, 13 January 2010.
http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=81277532

Excerpt:

The administration’s Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration’s budget plans through 2015.

The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with the goals of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expanding Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.

Winslow T. Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information has written a commentary on this report entitled “Just What We Need: More Pentagon Spending” for the Huffington Post, 13 January 2010.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t-wheeler/just-what-we-need-more-pe_b_422297.html

Colin Clark. DoD Buzz, 12 January 2010.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/

Excerpt:

That would put operating costs of the F-35 B and C versions some 40 percent higher than the cost to operate the existing (larger) fleet of F-18A-Ds and AV-8s.