The presidential field has narrowed to a handful of candidates, with two Democrats and six Republicans remaining in the race. In the early months of their campaigns, the presidential hopefuls delivered vague promises to defeat U.S. adversaries and restore the military in terms of size or capability. But as the primaries rage on, the candidates gradually have revealed more substantive national strategy proposals that contain glimpses of the form a defense budget could take. From Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz’s detailed procurement wishlists to Bernie Sanders’ comments about reducing funding for nuclear weapons, the Democratic and GOP candidates couldn’t be any more different.

Pentagon_anddowntown_Defense Daily presents a look at how all eight candidates would tackle military spending, including the facts and assumptions their proposals omit, and what it could mean for the defense industrial base.

Donald Trump:

What’s in his proposal: Trump has made plenty of bombastic statements about national security policy, famously saying he would “bomb the [expletive] out of ISIS,” and force the Mexican government to pay for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border However, the Republican front runner hasn’t released a comprehensive defense plan, although he has put forward a veterans affairs proposal.

During a September speech to the Veterans for a Strong America group, Trump donned a red “Make America Great again” cap and vowed to make the U.S. military formidable enough to deter all its adversaries and to increase the country’s stature by standing up to China, Iran and Russia.

He repeated similar sentiments during a rally in Plymouth, N.H. earlier this month. “I’m going to build the military bigger, better, stronger, and I guarantee we can do it for less money,” he said. Throughout the speech, Trump hinted that he might not be so friendly with the military industrial complex, which he accused of lobbying the government to sell products the military no longer needs. “I hear stories, like they’re ordering missiles they don’t want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor,” he said. That won’t happen in a Trump presidency, he added.

What’s not: There’s a lot Trump hasn’t addressed, not least of which is how he will find the savings to beef up the military without needing to make huge increases to the budget. He said he will roll out his list of defense and foreign policy advisers in the coming week, which is likely to yield more clues on his thinking. The New York business mogul has been silent on many matters important to the defense industry, including whether to do away with sequestration, potential acquisition or Pentagon reform activities and what platforms or technologies he would be keen to invest in.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):

What’s in his proposal: In a December campaign advertisement, Cruz summarizes his defense strategy as “rebuild the military … kill the terrorists,” and the junior senator from Texas is willing to spend billions to accomplish that goal. He has vowed to hugely expand the military, both in terms of its active duty force and the number of platforms it procures. And he expects to boost defense spending from about 3.5 percent of GDP to 4.1 percent during the first two years of his administration, after which the “guideline” will be 4 percent of GDP.

“If you think it’s too expensive to defend this nation, try not defending it,” he said at a Feb. 16 rally at Mount Pleasant, S.C.

Cruz believes he can offset that investment by accelerating economic growth through tax and regulatory reform, cutting other parts of the budget and selling federal assets and properties. He also wants to eliminate “unnecessary programs” after conducting an audit of the Pentagon, meaning some Obama-era acquisition programs could get the axe during a Cruz administration.

His proposal sets a number of benchmarks in terms of procurement and readiness. In the area of air warfare, “The United States must have a decisive advantage … and must aggressively pursue advanced fighter technology,” his plan states. Cruz would expand the number of Air Force aircraft from roughly 4,000 to 6,000 total aircraft, including 1,500 tactical fighter aircraft. He calls for the military to procure additional unmanned aerial systems and train more pilots to fly them.

Cruz also plans to augment the size of the Navy, proposing a fleet of at least 350 ships instead of the 308-ship Navy the service plans to attain in the next decade. He would like to boost the number of carrier strike groups to 12, while current shipbuilding plans would maintain a forces of 11 carriers. Adding an additional carrier strike group could entail buying an additional Ford-class carrier, or perhaps prolonging the lifespan of one of the services’ existing Nimitz-class carriers.

In the proposal, Cruz voices his support for modernizing the nuclear triad, including procuring 12 Ohio-replacement submarines, the Long Range Strike Bomber and a replacement for Minuteman III ICBMs. However, he also calls for the United States to expand cooperative missile defense technologies with allies such as Israel and to enhance its investment in missile defense overall. “We need to develop new, more effective kill vehicles to counter the ever-advancing capabilities of our adversaries. We must expand the missile defense network by building a site on the East Coast in order to better protect the entire country from any rogue, accidental or systemic ballistic missile attack,” his proposal states.

Finally, Cruz wants to increase the end strength of the four military services to 1.4 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. His plan includes reversing cuts to Marine Corps end strength and growing the Army, which is slated to dip to 450,000 active duty troops by the end of Obama’s second term, to 525,000 soldiers.

What’s not: Should Cruz’s cost cutting measures not yield the amount of funding necessary to cover for the tremendous expansion of the military outlined above, his proposal doesn’t include a Plan B for how to pay for it. Further, executing one of the items on Cruz’s cost cutting plan could be trickier than it appears. The Pentagon hasn’t ever conducted a clean financial audit, and as Defense Department Comptroller Michael McCord told Congress it may not be ready by its 2017 deadline. Compared to fulfilling its national security mission, completing an audit is simply not a priority for the department, he said according to a Fiscal Times report.

The proposal itself also has huge implications for the defense industrial base. Increasing procurement of aircraft could be a huge coup for Boeing [BA], Lockheed Martin [LMT] and Northrop Grumman [NOC], especially if it leads the department to continue procuring legacy aircraft like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that is slated to end production within the next few years. An uptick in ship procurement would greatly benefit domestic shipbuilders like Huntington Ingalls Industries [HII] and General Dynamics [GD] NASSCO and Bath Iron Works, and may force the Navy to rethink its plan to cut Littoral Combat Ship procurement.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

What’s in his proposal: Rubio’s ambitious  10-point defense plan calls for Congress to get rid of spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the return to 2012 defense budget levels—when the department requested $676 billion for base and wartime expenses, the highest since World War II.

The Navy would be the major winner in a Rubio presidency. The junior senator from Florida wants to increase the services fleet to a minimum of 323 ships by 2024, an increase over the Obama administration that had been moving toward a 321-ship Navy but slashed its shipbuilding plan to 308 vessels in the 2017 budget request. Rubio would request funding to build up to 12 aircraft carriers, which could push up procurement of the Ford-class carrier. He would also bump planned procurement of amphibious ships so the Navy would meet its 38-ship requirement, an increase over the current 34-amphib plan.

In the Air Force budget, Rubio would speed up F-35A procurement and invest in “better” intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, which could open the door for new unmanned aircraft programs of record. He would also fund returning readiness to “pre-Obama levels.”

For land forces, Rubio’s investments focus on readiness. He would increase the current end strength of the Army and Marine Corps to 490,000 soldiers and 182,000 Marines, respectively. His plan also includes stationing additional Army brigade combat teams to Eastern Europe and greater investments in Army Special Operations. On the modernization side, Rubio wants to “look at options” to modernize the Army’s legacy vehicle and helicopter fleets, some of which have been in service since the 1970s. The cash-strapped Army has chosen to upgrade existing aircraft rather than develop new programs of record, but a second look at the service’s modernization plan could change that.

Parts of Rubio’s plan continue programs already set in motion by the military during the Obama administration, including the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, Ohio-class replacement submarine, KC-46A tanker and the Long Range Strike Bomber.

Other goals include overhauling the acquisition process, cutting bureaucracy and increasing innovation. Rubio wants to make it easier for the Defense Department to access commercial technologies like 3D printing, data analytics, cloud computing and robotics, and further develop programs that allow Pentagon personnel to gain experience in the private sector. He also wants to increase the use of the rapid acquisition process and further invest in cutting-edge anti-submarine, air warfare, precision strike and electronic warfare capabilities.

What’s not: Rubio’s plan will cost the department hundreds of billions of dollars, something he said during a November speech is “essential if we want a modern national defense.” However, his proposal does not explain where additional defense spending will come from, especially as his platform also includes lowering taxes, driving down the national debt and balancing the budget.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush:

What’s in his proposal: Bush’s four-point defense plan is less detailed than the comprehensive proposals some of his Republican colleagues have issued. An opponent of the mandatory spending caps caused by the Budget Control Act of 2011, Bush would seek to end sequester and expand defense spending. Particularly, he would increase the size of the Navy’s fleet and production of the Virginia-class submarine, as well as replacing legacy aircraft. He also wants to grow land forces by adding 40,000 soldiers to the Army, allowing the service to get back up to a 490,000-troop end strength, and increase the Marine Corps by 4,000 Marines.

Pentagon reform is another priority for Bush, who says in his proposal that he “will reduce D.C. bureaucrats to free up resources for more uniformed military.” Bush’s strategy involves transferring some management authorities from the office of the secretary of defense (OSD) and the regional combatant commands to commanders on the battlefield. In that arena, he could find allies in Congress’ armed forces committees, who are working on their own reform proposals to streamline the Defense Department’s structure.

Bush also wants to work with Congress to accelerate the weapons buying process. “It shouldn’t take forever for a weapons system to be built. It shouldn’t require two or three of the defense contractors that have the scale to make this happen,” he said in a January speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. “We need to open the system up and allow for much more innovation, and speed, and agility for our procurement.”

The former Florida governor wants the United States to take more of a leadership role worldwide, which means a larger commitment to NATO and allied countries in the Asia-Pacific region. He would deploy an Army Special Forces Group to European Command, and plans to increase the partnerships and exercises with foreign nations. Cybersecurity plays an important role in the final point of his plan, defending the homeland. According to his defense proposal, Bush would increase information sharing, create more public-private partnerships, and work with Congress and the Pentagon to develop a more agile acquisition process for cyber technologies.

What’s not: Bush hasn’t really explained the scope of his plan to grow the military, including how he would pay for it. During the Obama administration, the services invested in a number of programs that would build up the service’s surface and submarine fleet and replace aging aircraft platforms like the B-52 bomber. Whether Bush would accelerate some of those programs or boost existing programs of record is yet to be seen.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich

What’s in his proposal: Along the campaign trail, Kasich has touted his experience and credentials as both a fiscal conservative and a military expert, including 18 years on the House Armed Services Committee and his tenure as House Budget Committee chairman. The self-described “cheap hawk” wants to increase defense spending by $102 billion in over the next eight years, investing a total $5.3 trillion over the course of two terms as president. At least some of that money would go toward boosting the number of aircraft carriers from 10 to 15 ships.

During a speech in December, Kasich spoke at length about the need to reform the Pentagon’s organizational structure and make the acquisition system more efficient. There’s no room in the budget for “pork,” and taxpayers cannot afford to pay for every item on a general’s wishlist, he said.

“We have to be careful about how we spend our military dollars, especially on weapon systems,” he said. “We need to reward on-target cost estimates, insist on extensive prototyping, and provide incentives for contractors to come in ahead of schedule and under budget. Commercial off-the-shelf technology needs to be used, and establish tough criteria for costly design changes.”

The United States must also do more to counter cyber threats, including making it clear to adversaries that it will responded if attacked, Kasich said. It needs stronger cyber policies and must continue developing offensive and defensive tools.

What’s not: While Rubio and Cruz have recommended sweeping increases for aircraft and ship procurement, Kasich has not been entirely forthright about what will be paid for with the $102 billion of additional spending. Raising the defense budget would also make it more difficult for Kasich to accomplish one of his other goals: balancing the federal budget. The Ohio governor has said he would grow the economy by cutting taxes and regulations that impede business, but hasn’t explained how he would obtain additional revenue.

Ben Carson:

What’s in his proposal: Carson, a renowned neurosurgeon, doesn’t have the national security bonafides that some of his competitors do, but his national security plan contains a significant boost in funding for the Defense Department. As president, he would request that Congress abolish sequestration and restore the defense budget to the $676 billion level set in fiscal year 2012.

Carson has expressed dissatisfaction with the current size of the military, and has said he would give the military the resources necessary to maintain its technological superiority on land, in the air, at sea, in space or in cyberspace.

“Our armed forces are too small, too old, out-gunned and under-resourced,” his plan states. “Even more unfortunate, reductions in military capacity and readiness have taken place at the same time that America is attempting to defeat and destroy the Islamic State, confront Iran, deter Russian adventurism and contend with China’s rise.”

He has also created a seven-point plan for defeating the Islamic State, which includes declaring war on the terrorist organization, forming a coalition with Middle Eastern nations to recruit and train fighters and creating a refugee zone in northeastern Syria.

What’s not: Although Carson has criticized the size of the Navy and Air Force, he has kept mum on specific defense spending priorities. A return to 2012 budget levels would be a $94 billion increase over the fiscal 2017 request. Carson has yet to disclose how he would fund that growth in spending, as well as how he would split that sum among personnel, readiness and modernization. The candidate, unlike many of his other GOP competitors, has not said much about Pentagon management or acquisition reforms, so it remains to be seen whether that would be a priority for his administration.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

What’s in her proposal: As the former secretary of state, Clinton has extensive experience in foreign affairs—and when it comes to national security, that’s where she’s put the focus. She appears to be in lockstep with Obama’s policies, supporting the enforcement of the nuclear deal with Iran and continuing to fight ISIS by training the Iraqi military and conducting airstrikes.

What’s not: Aside from its stated goal of fielding “the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military” in the world, Clinton’s plan doesn’t include any information on whether she would try to grow defense spending or repeal the BCA caps, nor does it give any indication what acquisition programs would be her priority.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

What’s in his proposal: Sanders’ plan advocates diplomatic solutions instead of military action, and has said going to war would be a “last resort.”

Of all the candidates, Sanders might be the most likely to make sweeping reductions to the Pentagon’s budget. “We have also got to take a look at the waste and inefficiencies in the Department of Defense, which is the one major agency of government that has not been able to be audited,” he said during the Feb. 11 debate in Milwaukee.  “I have the feeling you’re going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities.” He has also taken aim at defense contractors for cost overruns.

His biggest target would likely be the country’s strategic weapons portfolio, such as its ballistic missile submarines, bombers and ICBM force. Sanders has vowed to cut $100 billion in nuclear spending over the next 10 years.

What’s not: Like Clinton, Sanders has not addressed in detail how he would tackle military spending, and he has not issued a preliminary defense budget figure.