NYT sub article reprinted in full below:
:shocked:The Pentagon plans to retire one of the Navy's 12 aircraft carriers, buy fewer amphibious landing ships for the Marine Corps and delay the development of a costly Army combat system of high-tech arms as part of $60 billion in proposed cuts over the next six years, Congressional and military officials said Wednesday.
The proposed reductions, the details of which are still being fine-tuned and which would require Congressional approval, result from White House orders to all federal agencies to cut their spending requests for the 2006 fiscal year budgets, which will be submitted to lawmakers early next year.
Since the November elections, the White House has been under growing pressure to offset mounting deficits and at the same time pay for the unexpectedly high costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which combined now amount to more than $5 billion a month.
The proposed Pentagon cuts, which include sharply reducing the program for the Air Force's F/A-22 fighter and delaying the purchase of a new Navy destroyer, would for the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks slow the growth in Pentagon spending, which has risen 41 percent in that period, to about $420 billion this year. Military and Congressional officials said the Pentagon was looking to trim up to $10 billion in the 2006 budget alone.
The budget-cutting is likely to foreshadow additional reductions of weapons designed in the cold war and the revamping of America's arsenal as the Pentagon prepares for its quadrennial review of military weapons and equipment to address current and long-term security threats, including the insurgency in Iraq and a possibly resurgent China.
"The services are making decisions about where to make their investments," said a Pentagon spokesman, Eric Ruff, who declined to comment on specific proposed cuts. "As we look ahead to the challenges of the 21st century, it's fair that we look at programs that began two or three decades ago."
One of the winners in this round of budget work is likely to be the Army, some military budget analysts and Pentagon officials said. While the other armed services have been forced to scale back their weapons modernization plans, the Army is spending billions of dollars a year to add as many as 15 brigades in the next several years.
"It doesn't matter if you can win a war 20 years from now if we lose the global war on terror next year," said one military official, who favors increasing spending for the Army to help battle the Iraq insurgency but spoke on condition of anonymity because the details of the budget are not complete.
When Donald H. Rumsfeld became defense secretary in 2001, he took aim at costly weapons systems that he and his top aides said were relics of the cold war. Since then, the Army has canceled the $11 billion Crusader artillery system and the $38 billion Comanche reconnaissance helicopter program.
But the armed services have until now resisted deeper cuts and have been buoyed by big increases in military spending since Sept. 11.
Mounting deficits and the growing cost of keeping more than 150,000 American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq the past year have forced the White House and the Pentagon to look at cuts. The war costs have so far been paid by supplemental appropriations, and the Pentagon is preparing another such request of about $80 billion early next year.
"The guidance the secretary is receiving is for the department to bear its share of cuts necessary to help work down deficits, and at the same time have adequate funds for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to refurbish the Army," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Warner said in a telephone interview that he had a long conversation about the budget with Mr. Rumsfeld last week.
At a time when the Army and Marines are stretched thin, cutting force levels was out of the question, as was reducing operating costs.
The Pentagon's new weapons budget, now about $78 billion a year, became the immediate target, although much of the savings cannot be realized for several years because of how the programs' development and production costs are spread out.
"These are probably prudent steps to take," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group here. "One question, though, is how much in savings does that get you right away?"
Among the proposed cuts, the Navy takes some of the most prominent hits. This is in large part, Navy officials and independent budget analysts said, because increased efficiencies in its operations under Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations, allow for reductions in forces and ships that do not jeopardize the service's missions.
Two military and Congressional officials who have been briefed on the proposed cuts spoke about them on condition of anonymity because the budget is not yet complete.
Under the proposal, the Navy would retire the carrier John F. Kennedy - one of the oldest carriers in the fleet, having first been deployed in 1968 - next year. The Kennedy, based in Mayport, Fla., recently completed a tour in the Persian Gulf, where its air wing was flying 60 missions a day, including flights to Iraq.
The Kennedy's retirement would, for the first time since the mid-1990's, reduce the size of the Navy's carrier fleet.
The proposal also calls for reducing the number of new LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious landing docks, which are designed to transport Marine assault vehicles, amphibious landing craft and Osprey aircraft, to trouble spots around the world. The Navy had originally planned to buy five of the ships over the next five years, at about $1.2 billion apiece. The vessels are built by Northrop Grumman in New Orleans.
Another major change would be to build fewer new Navy destroyers than planned over the next six years. A team of contractors, led by Northrop Grumman, is building the ships, currently called DD(X), at a cost of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion per vessel, in Pascagoula, Miss., and in Bath, Me.
In addition, development of the Army's $120 billion Future Combat System would be delayed. The system is designed to link soldiers by computer with remotely piloted aircraft and combat vehicles.
