2021财年的美国军事力量：增长的最后一年？（英）-国际战略研究中心-2021.3-129页_1mb

U.S. Military Forces in FY 2021: The Last Year of Growth?

Core Content

This report by Mark F. Cancian, from the CSIS International Security Program, analyzes the U.S. military forces in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, highlighting how the budget and national security strategy shape the size and composition of the military. It outlines the challenges and trade-offs faced by the Department of Defense (DOD) as it navigates a flattening budget and evolving security environment.

Main Points

Budget and Strategy Overview

• The FY 2021 budget marks the end of the previous administration's growth phase, requiring trade-offs between readiness, modernization, and force size.
• Active component end strength is expected to increase slightly to 1,351,500 by FY 2021 and reach 1,361,000 by FY 2025.
• Congress has supported the budget, which maintains readiness gains and modest force growth while limiting modernization.
• The DOD faces four long-term challenges and a wild card: day-to-day demands, resources-strategy gap, force structure for great power conflict, and disagreements on strategy.
• The pandemic's long-term impact on the defense effort remains uncertain.

Strategic Priorities of the Biden Administration

• The Biden administration retains many elements of the Trump strategy, including focus on China and Russia, arms control, and nuclear modernization.
• However, it may prioritize modernization over force structure, leading to potential cuts in force size.
• There is debate over the definition of "legacy" systems—military services see them as old weapons, while strategists view them as outdated operational concepts.

Force Structure by Service

Army

• The Army may face significant cuts to offset other DOD initiatives.
• It is less prioritized in the focus on China and the Western Pacific, which are mainly naval and air theaters.
• However, the Army has a primary role in potential conflicts with Russia, and its size is limited by the difficulty of maintaining large forces in Eastern Europe.
• There is a possibility of reducing end strength, but it may not go below historical levels due to service resistance.

Air Force

• The Air Force is likely to reduce its force size to fund modernization.
• It has traditionally prioritized cutting-edge technology over force numbers.
• Despite strategic goals, the Air Force may not be able to cut legacy systems due to congressional opposition.
• Programs such as the long-range standoff weapon and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent are at risk due to Biden's focus on arms control.

Marine Corps

• The Marine Corps is restructuring toward maritime operations in the Western Pacific (Force Design 2030).
• It plans to reduce end strength from 185,000 to 172,000, but this may be affected by DOD budget cuts.
• The Marine Corps has been at 175,000 to 200,000 since the Korean War, so further cuts may not be feasible.

Space Force

• The Space Force is unlikely to be eliminated but will remain small, with under 20,000 personnel.
• It continues to develop as more personnel and assets are transferred from the Air Force.
• The Biden administration may shift its focus from a combat role to a supporting one, as per Secretary Lloyd Austin's views.

Special Operations Forces, Civilians, and Contractors

• Special Operations Forces are expected to continue gradual growth, though maintaining quality remains a challenge.
• Government civilians may face hiring freezes, but the Biden administration is likely to reverse the Trump policy of reducing civil service protections.
• Contractors remain controversial but are expected to stay due to their lower cost and flexibility.

Navy

• The Navy is a special case, likely to receive high priority in the Biden strategy.
• The Trump administration's goal of 355 ships was unaffordable, and the DOD proposed 500 ships, but this would require significant budget increases.
• The Biden administration may reduce the target fleet size to the 320s due to affordability concerns.
• The Navy will continue to build attack submarines and destroyers, but at a slower pace than previously planned.
• There is uncertainty over the future of aircraft carriers and unmanned aircraft.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Progressives and libertarians may criticize the budget for not cutting enough, calling for smaller forces.
• Defense hawks may argue for higher budgets and larger forces.
• The services face a tension between reducing size to invest in modernization and maintaining deployments for crisis response and global engagement.
• The pandemic has disrupted military training and operations, with potential long-term effects on readiness.

Recommendations for the Biden Administration

• The report recommends a high-low mix strategy, balancing expensive high-end systems with older, upgraded low-end systems.
• Reserve forces should be relied upon more to provide depth for potential large-scale conflicts.
• A gradual transition to unmanned systems is advised to avoid abrupt changes and allow for testing and evaluation.
• The Navy should adopt a slower approach to carrier construction to avoid overcommitment and free up funds for modernization.

Key Information

• The report is part of the Defense Outlook series, which explores the interplay between strategy, budget, force structure, and acquisition.
• The DOD budget is projected to flatten or decline under the Biden administration, affecting force structure and modernization.
• Readiness metrics have remained stable, but the long-term impact of the pandemic is a major unknown.
• The Space Force is not likely to be eliminated, but its role may shift toward support rather than combat.
• Unmanned systems are seen as viable for low-end operations but are not suitable for daily deployments.
• The pandemic has had a significant impact on military readiness and operations, creating a "bear trap of current commitments."

Conclusion

The FY 2021 budget and strategy reflect a shift in priorities, with the Biden administration likely to focus more on modernization and great power competition. The military services will face challenges in maintaining readiness and global commitments while reducing force size. The report emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, combining high-end capabilities with a sustainable force structure and leveraging reserve and contractor forces to manage the trade-offs effectively.