{"id":40712,"date":"2020-05-19T09:00:14","date_gmt":"2020-05-19T09:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2020\/05\/19\/funding-two-military-services-with-the-resources-for-one-risks-both\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T23:18:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T23:18:52","slug":"funding-two-military-services-with-the-resources-for-one-risks-both","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/commentary\/2020\/05\/19\/funding-two-military-services-with-the-resources-for-one-risks-both\/","title":{"rendered":"Funding two military services \u2014 with the resources for one \u2014 risks both"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The U.S. Defense Department\u2019s budget is confusing \u2014 and misleading. On the surface, it appears that the departments of the Air Force, Army and Navy receive comparable shares of the budget<\/a>. That\u2019s false. There is a little understood provision referred to as the “pass-through\u201d that quietly transfers more than 20 percent of the Department of the Air Force\u2019s budget to programs outside its control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Department of the Air Force, with its two military services \u2014 the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force \u2014 has been significantly underfunded for decades, resulting in significant shortfalls in readiness and modernization for both air and space forces. The pass-through funds that seemed to go to the Air Force for space were inaccessible for Air Force space investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In comparison, the Department of the Navy is provided a budget sufficient to fund the Marines Corps as a separate service, and its pass-through is only 1 percent. The Department of the Army\u2019s pass-through is 3.2 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each year, the Department of the Air Force requested increased space investment, but lacked funding to sufficiently adapt to the emergence of space as a contested war-fighting domain. Service budgets and war-fighting priorities escalated to meet the evolving global threat environment, while military space budgets and capabilities remained relatively stagnant over 30 years. As a result, our satellites aged and space advantages have gradually eroded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The investment apathy can be partly excused due to the focus on fighting extremist groups, which posed little threat to our space capabilities. The 2018 National Defense Strategy, however, pivoted the strategy from the Middle East to an era of great power competition and preparations for all-domain conflict with peer competitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

America grew complacent with its asymmetric advantages in space, while both China and Russia aggressively made large, rapid strides in the domain. Both countries created organizations to militarize space and developed threatening capabilities. Both have demonstrated offensive space abilities with anti-satellite missiles, while the Russians have engineered autonomous robotic space competencies that could be used against satellites. The Chinese invested in hypersonic missiles that would be incredibly difficult to evade. Clearly, space is now a war-fighting domain and will be part of any future conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n