DoD Budget Vault Closing

DoD Budget Vault Closing

Word from the Pentagon is that this week should see the final version of the 2010 budget sent to the White House.

Known in lovely Pentagon-speak as the POM lock, this will mean the services are barred from screwing around with their numbers any more. At least until the next administration comes in and they start running to the new folks crying, “the wolf is at the door! The wolf is at the door.”

Several industry and Pentagon sources believe Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are locking the POM this early (it usually happens just before Christmas, more or less) to forestall the kind of haggling that clearly had John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, so frustrated last week that he actually told reporters that the services’ gaming of the system was a “cancer.”


The other reason to lock the POM down as early as possible is to present the defense transition team with as much information as early as possible so they can make considered judgements about the budget. They will have about two months to find out who is running things and try to make rational choices. If the presidential election is particularly close that will move decision points even further out.

A few of the big choices: How many F-22s; DDG 51 or DDX and how many; how many F-35s; fund the BASIC satellite program; fund an ARH replacement; and finally, decide whether to make a dramatic decision to kill a program or two to send message that defense spending (other than operations) will be frozen or cut over the life of the administration. There is little indication so far that either candidate is planning to make major defense changes, but if Obama is elected he will face some party pressure to cut defense spending or at least contain it.

Join the Conversation

I am not sure whether cutting the programs is the answer. I think we are due for an overhaul of the entire process.

It has been a long time since we have seen any new technologies come from the DoD, and we cant blame the individual services for that. The one fact that remains blatantly evident is that no recent wars have produced rapid jumps in technology equivocal to those made during WWII.

Funding the DoD should be an investment security AND technological future of the United States. Whoever is elected tomorrow has some serious work in front of them.

http://​www​.esemperfi​.com/​F​o​r​u​m​T​h​r​e​a​d​.​a​s​p​x​?​c​a​t​e​g​=​G​e​n​e​r​a​l​&​a​m​p​;​p​o​s​t​I​D​=​1​1​_​3​_​2​0​0​8​_​_​4​_​3​4​_​P​M​P​1​H​9​S​G​B​A​S​E​Z​B​E​P​2​5​Q​J9R

Gaming the system? That’s just standard SOP. What this really means is that the chance of revising and updating requirements, based upon recent events and data, will shortly be eliminated.
Much of the budgetary requirements are at least six months to a year out of date.

(Based upon personal experience), most logistics data that must be used (by regulation) is at least that old. Some is much older.

eSemperFi: Well, we actually went pretty far because of the Cold War. Read up on SAGE if you think we never did anything good. Also: the Internet, you’re soaking in it.

DensityDuck: I concur and redact my previous statement about WWII. There have been advances, but I remain frustrated by the ODT&E program’s evolution.

As we lower the percentage of GDP toward these programs, we fall further from the rapid progression to our sci-fi fantasies. When we do leverage a new capability from the current paradigm, we find it underwent such as slow evolution that it remains easy to oversee the progress made.

http://​www​.esemperfi​.com/​F​o​r​u​m​T​h​r​e​a​d​.​a​s​p​x​?​c​a​t​e​g​=​G​e​n​e​r​a​l​&​a​m​p​;​p​o​s​t​I​D​=​1​1​_​5​_​2​0​0​8​_​_​1​_​1​4​_​P​M​V​G​9​5​4​Q​H​D​Z​G​L​P​U​I​F​T​E​EDH

I agree that our recent “advances” haven’t been anywhere near what we managed between 1940 and 1990. The problem is that without a war, there’s no impetus to make a program work regardless of warts. The customer will put forth a set of pie-in-the-sky requirements and then whine when they’re impossible; there’s no longer any sense of urgency or “take what you can get”. The customers will ask for the entire Solar System, and when we tell them that we can only do Venus through Jupiter, they’ll say “no thanks” and go back to hitting things with sticks.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement