LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — If the Pentagon is the titan of world military powers, then it seems Atlas is shrugging when it comes to the latest defense budget.

While some pro-military analysts and Republican lawmakers contend that the fiscal 2013 spending plan proposed by President Barack Obama earlier this week could threaten national security, most Pentagon watchers are saying the cuts are mild.

The proof? Not even military personnel and defense contractors are crying foul.

How much of budget survives?

“We understand the fiscal challenges our nation faces, and we believe the president’s [fiscal 2013] budget reflects a good first step toward addressing these issues,” officials at Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, -0.45% said in a prepared statement.

Lockheed Martin is one of those adversely affected by the budget. Obama’s plan calls for cutting back on the purchase of 13 of the company’s F-35 Lightning strike-fighter jets. But even on that program, the Bethesda, Md.-based defense giant seems to be taking the cutbacks in stride.

“We understand the funding constraints that require the [Department of Defense] to reduce the number of aircraft procured to 29 in [fiscal 2013] and to move 179 aircraft out of the five-year plan, and we will continue to partner with the department to implement the changes as efficiently as possible,” Lockheed went on to say.

There’s good reason for harmony in the military-industrial complex, at least for now, analysts say.

“I thought, frankly, the industry survived pretty well, and [the cuts were] pretty mild,” said Jon Kutler, chairman and chief executive of Admiralty Partners, a defense-industry merger specialist. “I think they emerged rather unscathed.”

Sharp contrast

The mood struck this week by Obama’s defense budget stands in sharp contrast to what was expected just a few weeks ago, when Republicans and even the president’s own defense secretary, Leon Panetta, warned against exposing the nation to continued terror threats and perpetual uncertainty around the world.

Those fears now seem to be allayed, if statements from the Pentagon are to be believed.

Panetta outlined a new strategy that focuses on creating a leaner, more efficient military, starting to shift away from the Middle East and more toward rising threats in Asia. He contends that the Pentagon is “strongly unified” behind the new strategy.

“We’ve got to reduce excess overhead, eliminate waste, and improve business practices across the department,” Panetta said in a prepared statement.

Oppenheimer analyst Yair Reiner said in a note to clients on Tuesday that all five major contractors will feel some pain — if not now, then in future budget years.

But stock prices for most major prime contractors have held up, even though many stumbled initially when the president announced his plans Monday. Boeing Co. BA, -1.49% ended Tuesday trading up about 1% to $75.56, and was higher than Friday’s close of $74.95.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Co. RTN, and General Dynamics Corp. GD, -1.68% all posted modest gains Tuesday, with Lockheed and Raytheon managing to best their closing prices from Friday.

Northrop Grumman NOC, -1.28% was also above the previous week’s close, though down marginally on Tuesday. Reiner said that its unmanned aircraft program Global Hawk faced severe cuts.

Only General Dynamics was off its Friday level, as a replacement for the Trident submarine was put on hold under the Obama budget plan. Reiner says the company may have to shift to lower-margin business in future years.

Not yielding?

One reason the effects of budget cuts appear to be muted is that the Pentagon probably isn’t yielding that much ground at all, said Joe Trevithick, research associate for GlobalSecurity.org.

Take two Air Force programs, the 1970s-era A-10 “Warthog” ground-attack jet — a star in 1991’s successful Operation Desert Storm — and the C-27J cargo jet, a small, joint-service plane program. The Air Force has been trying to cancel both for several years so it can pursue other programs, Trevithick said.

“These cuts are cuts for growth,” he said.

By the same token, the Army is willing to cancel upgrades for its workhorse Humvee all-terrain vehicles so that it could pursue a new vehicle in much the same vein as it replaced the Jeep, said Loren Thompson, defense analyst and chief operating officer for the non-profit Lexington Institute.

“Instead of being repaired and enhanced, it is going to be retired and replaced,” Thompson said.

Trevithick points out Obama’s proposed base military-spending plan, $525 billion, represents a cut of less than 1% compared with last year’s actual outlay of $530 billion. The real reduction comes from the supplemental war budget; with the Iraq war ending, spending has been cut to $88 billion from $115 billion.

Last year, however, the Pentagon had forecast a 2013 base spending plan of $570 billion before U.S. budget constraints put the kibosh on any increases.

It is from that point that Obama’s critics are operating, saying the cutbacks from year-ago projections total 9% and are eating into the prospects for new jobs.

Fred Grandy, executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy, said that reductions to the industry and base closures could result in at least 1 million jobs being lost. He projects that in California and Virginia, two states heavily dependent on defense, a combined 250,000 jobs could be lost.

Grandy, who worries that national security could be threatened by roughly $500 billion in planned cuts over the next decade, has trouble believing the Pentagon’s contention that it “strongly” supports the president’s plan.

“I would expect that to be the company line right now,” he said.