‘Most Likely’ Threats Driving Budget, Says Cartwright

‘Most Likely’ Threats Driving Budget, Says Cartwright

In what will become known as the beginning of a major shift in military acquisition and strategy, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said today that the Obama administration can’t afford to wait for the 2012 budget to stamp its imprint on the Pentagon and so will make major changes to the 2010 budget. The money will go to systems that address the “most likely” threats, not to those aimed at the “most dangerous” threats, Cartwright told a missile defense conference in Washington.

The country, he said, must fund systems that allow us to “stay ahead of the threat.” No longer can the country afford great weapons that take decades and billions to develop and build.

As examples, Cartwright said the threat cycle for cyber attacks is 14 days and for Improvised Explosive Devices it is roughly 30 days. So our systems and architectures must adapt and get inside these cycles, he said. On a more strategic level, Cartwright said the US must fundamentally change its approach to costs. Weapons systems must impose greater costs on our potential and current enemies than they do on the US. “We have to impose costs on them, not on us,” he said.

In a typical tour de force, Cartwright told an audience of about 1,000 at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics annual missile defense conference that weapons that take decades to build and can address a limited array of threats will fall by the wayside. The nation, he said, cannot afford this approach any more.

“Would you buy in tough economic times something that does one thing well or something that does 100 things well, and can do things you haven’t even thought about yet,” he asked rhetorically.

“My money is going to go on sensors and command control,” he told the audience. Architectures — and the systems they serve — must be changeable, ready to adapt to unforeseen threats with ease.

“We have got to be able to string these things together. Get over the traditional barriers about what domains they fly in, or what INT they are in. The guy who gets a bullet between his eyes couldn’t care less,” Cartwright said.

Combine all this with the need to have a global presence and “the emphasis is going to shift to deployed forces, allies and friends,” the general said.

Although she did not hear his speech, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, echoed many of Cartwright’s themes, in particular the focus on cost. “We need to make some tough defense budget decisions,” she said, noting that the “days are over” when the country could “refuse to make hard choices.”

The one system she highlighted as a major problem likely to be cut: Airborne Laser, built by Boeing. One likely winner, she identified: the Aegis anti-missile system. “We must seriously consider adding additional Aegis ships and destroyers,” she said, noting the system is operational and proven in testing.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

General Cartwright is right on track. Mr Gates and the Obama administration and John MCain and even Congressman Duncan Hunter and now many on the Armed Services Committees are seeing that the way MRAPS were purchased and fielded is the way forward. The Rapid Equipping Force should be the way we field equipment and technology to the deployed forces. Keep the F-22 and F-35 and the Air Force UAVs and close down the so called emerging redundant programs that want to compete with the. A current artcile in the Air Force Association magazine talks about the real time prgress in the GWOT with UAVs and ISR aircraft. Another article(warheads on foreheads) in a recent Air Force magazine talks about the factual way that on the ground troops can call in air strikes and it is working. Why are redundant systems being built by companies that have no experince in these systems?

I find it interesting that President Obama is imposing fiscal discipline only upon the military. His stimulus plan’s lack of oversight has been defended on the basis that we can’t worry about the little stuff while the house is burning down.

Given Obama’s behavior to date, he’s not shown the tough mindset to confront the congressional pigs so how can he reform military procurement? I agree reform is needed but many of the problems lay at the snouts of congressional porkers.

President Obama and the Congress can outfox the pentagon bean counters and the military industrial social welfare complex! I near retirement with 30 years at the DoD and I have seen it all, the waste, the useless programs, the revolving door, etc., of the complex. It needs to be ended and the white house can do it finally after 60 years of this mis management and greed. Stop the revolving door of 20 year retirees who are in PMO and acquisition positions who take off the uniform and walk in the next day to work for the same contractors they supposedly overseen. The retired career officers of rank of Major and above are crippling our economy by pushing the spending. They have their cushion pensions and also pull in second salaries as employees of “defense” contractors and government agencies, while thousands of young war fighters cannot even get jobs. Factual point: The last two commanding Generals of DCMA went to work for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The only way this is going to end is to put back in place the rules to stop the revolving door and to stop retired PMO and acquisition officers from working for defense contractors. if one would do a survey of where the retired generals, colonels, and majors have gone you will find they work for new organizations, defense contractors, defense agencies and go back to the same jobs as civilians in the Program and contract offices. These folks do everything they can to perpetuate the need for defense spending because it lines their greedy pockets. Federal dollars can be diverted from defense spending to the real defense of our country and that is a good infrastructure and economic base where our former enemies are under our economic thumbs using trade, sports and travel to keep the world together and safe. Sanders Research has published excellent suggestions on how the defense budget can be brought under control. Recommend that the military bases in the southwest be used to generate solar and wind for the nation, just as the interior department lets ranchers and mining companies use federal lands to raise cattle and mine our resources. Recommend that the military help determine needs for weapons but let professional career civilians manage the procurement and programs and that they are trained and held accountable to congress with complete transparency. The POM process, PPBS process is corrupt and the FYDB is a joke. Determine hardware and software needs and then do the fastest track to get it from the market, get it deployed and move on. Instead the old guard keeps trying to keep the old institutions intact. It is like us trying to keep old steam engine train manufacturing going today when new technology and industries have replaced them. It is time to dismantle old institutions that are draining true defense needs.

@ Mike – 30 years at the DOD and you say we can defend this nation with infrastructure and a good economic base and our “enemies are under our thumbs using trade, sports and travel” Why don’t I beleive you worked there. Where, in the cafeteria?

Your post is so incoherent that I don’t know where to start to criticize.

“Determine hardware and software needs and then do the fastest track to get it from the market” WHAT??? By hardware do you means things like a new fighter plane or main battle tank? Because that is “military” hardware. How do you get it from the market I don’t even understant what the hell you mean.

Also, you hate the revolving door, did I miss your post about Obama withdrawing the names of former DOD lobbyists he now has in his administration?

“Like trying to keep old steam engine train today when new technologies and industries have replaced them” So are you saying that the F-22 in the same as the P-51 or the B-29 is the same as the B-2? What about spy sats and lasers and…. I mean the list of new technology is too long to begin to list here.

What institutions need to be dismantled? Defense contractors that actually build the weapons?

If I am wrong about you please accept my apologies but for our benefit here at DOD Buzz could you send links to all the studies you completed in your 30 years at the DOD recommending improvements to the acquisition system and stopping the revolving door. You must also have completed reports on all the new technologies and industries out there we can rely on for our defense.

Bobbymike – Here, Here!!!

Mike,
Why not consider some real improvements to the system:

- Allow Military to retire with pension and become a Civil Servant. The current system incentivizes military to retire and work in civilian contractors because they must surrender over 60% of their retirement pay to be a civil servant. Based on simple economics, the US Government is throwing away 20+ years of expertise when it is needed most. Aerospace companies are just being good businessman by taking advantage of all of this training and expertise when the Government rules force these people out.

- How about requiring multi-year appropriations for all programs. a Large percentage of past & current cost growth occurs when you are faced with annual appropriations which change on a whim thus requiring the “re-baselining” of programs – stretching out to fit a new budget. Oh, have you ever tried to “kill” a program that was a darling of a senior Congressman or Senator – not going to happen.

- The procurement is over-loaded with reviews, reports, assessments, etc. levied by Congress on every program after a number of them had troubles. This added bureaucracy increases costs, adds time, and reduces accountability. The reason that organizations like the “Rapid Equipping Force” gets things into the field quick is that they have dramatically streamlined this inane bureaucracy – they follow the same rules and laws – they just talk to one person, not multiple committees.

- One last thought, as a career Program Manager – the only people that consistently had a mission focus and a sense of urgency was the military acquisition folks. Career civil servants live and thrive in a 9 to 5 bureaucratic environment and have long ago forgotten what their real focus should be.

Those employed by the institutions will always be defenders of the acquisition institutions. Let the real employees, i.e., engineers, mathematicans, scientists of the aerospace firms design, build and market the best technology. We do not need armies of PMO and acquisition oversight paper tigers. Keep the Defense Depatment lean and focused. The CINC commanders and war planners determine what they need in a joint environment. If what they have in the inventory works, keep it. If new technology is needed, build up the Systems engineering and material requirements positions and keep those who know how to seek out the new technology and purchase it off the shelf via firm fixed price contracts. When new technology is brought in it must be inspected and tested, two weak areas in the pentagon, why is it weak now…because I have seem military program managers order that inspection and testing be ignored. I will testify under oath on that. General Cartwright and the current thinking is on track and they all will get push back from those defending the status quo.

Obama is a traitor. He is inflating our currency and gutting our defense. The man is shockingly vile.

Pay civil servants what their worth to retain their services for the governemnt.

Even though Obama has the typical Democratic crowd of defens cutters behind him, I wonder if he’s going to be able to cut funding for weapon systems being built in some key Democrats distict. I also think instead of trying to enforce convoluted restrictions on who can serve in the government posts,should just pay civil servants in such positions, what their worth to retain their services for the government. It will cost us more at first, but ultimately save the government money in the long run.

Jim

Obama is a patriot with a different philosophy … one doesnt have to agree with his policy, but we should show a level of civility when addressing him.

I like what he is doing, and BTW, this rolling ball was put in motion by SecDef Gates BEFORE President Obama was elected. These changes are occuring via the advice of top brass and a good Sec. of Defense. We do need change to address the immediate, merging threats, and those threats are wrt information operations, cyber,command & control and communciations; not systems to fight a Cold War with the Soviet Union.

General Cartwright should know better – he’s been in Washington too long. There are conflicts we can afford to play with like IRAQ and the “Stans” and there are conflicts and threats we absolutely cannot ignore because they threaten our nations existence. Loose nukes, an overly ambitious China or a resurgent aggressive Russia threaten us politically, economically and perhaps even with future military conflict. These we cannot afford to get wrong. History is full of nations that chose “last war itis” out of political expediency and to silence critics – we need forward thinking leadership.

Gentlemen, if you read what Cartwright said, his money is on sensors and Command/Control…. Those are high tech, expensive, big budget items… What do they propose killing? They propose more Aegis Ships (last one was over $1.5 Billion) so how is that cutting big, expensive programs? This is pure rhetoric, just as President Obama’s ‘cuts’ are, his budget for 2010 was only $17 billion less than the DoD had asked for… President Bush usually cut their request by more than that! (They had asked for $527 billion for 2010 if I remember correctly and he placed in the budget for them $510 billion) Big Business knows how to get their big programs approved. PORK. Your elected lawmakers (I am looking at you Murtha!) will talk a big deal, but when it comes down to cutting programs in their districts/states… I bet they tell a different tale. As Barney Franks how much he wants Raytheon (one of the biggest employers in Massachusetts, and they only make Military stuff) to be cut by 25%…

President Obama, a Patriot? What logic makes you say that? What proof do you have? Has he ever donned a uniform and put himself in harms way for his country? Nope. SO don’t try to wrap him in a flag merely because he won a popularity contest a few months back.

Whatever we do we have to put the most economically lethal weapons in the hands of the “trigger squeezers” and take out the bad guys at max effective range, making the first shot count. We may not have time for a 2nd one and we cannot afford the added cost. Training, training, training! The more we sweat in peace-time the less we bleed in war. Semper Fidelis, Herb

ALL (except Jim) great posts! Jim, go to a blog that bashes president and doesn’t require experience or intelligence (there are many). Here is what I think (24yrs Active Duty, 4 years Civ Svc, 1 yr (present) as contractor). We need an acquisition system that can distinguish between those who desire to improve the business (cost/capability), and those that desire to improve the warfighter (capability only). My experience – the govt employee should concentrate (train to) defining the requirements, the contractor to meeting those requirements with accurate cost and schedule projections. Can it be done? Of course, but requires all (politicians, govt employees, and contractor providers) to “be on the same page” – which is not going to be easy.

With the exception of Mike and Jim comments, I agree with the others..But I think we have all been down this road before, as a matter of fact several times it seems by the years represented in the comments. The system is too large,too protected, too slow,to react to any new threat. We cant even agree on the threat, why, because while the CIC may make a choice, he doesnt do the funding and until they fix the problems in the Congress the rest will change the name but stay the same.. Frankly its scary to me, and I pray that somehow it can be fixed..

It should be noted that many “cold war systems” politicans like to rant on about are largely what won the Gulf War and have saved many American lives which otherwise would have been lost.

M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, A-10A, F-15? All were designed and built in the Cold War to fight the Soviets but were key in ODS for example and have provided great service since then. Even long range bombers, specifically the B-1B Lancer have flown countless missions and proven.

@Recon Team,

You GO Man! Dead Right!

Something that our politicians are conveniently forgetting (and our sheeple!) is precisely true, the rhetoric of referring to these systems as “Cold War” systems is incorrect. Oh, and that Aegis System that they want to buy more of, Hey, Cold War Era Baby!

Just because a system was developed prior to 1989 does not make it ineffective necessarily, it merely means it was not developed after 1989.

Thanks for pointing out an example stupidity, rhetoric and group think Recon Team!

RADARNAV

“The current system incentivizes military to retire and work in civilian contractors because they must surrender over 60% of their retirement pay to be a civil servant.”

Your statement is not entirely correct. If you want your Military time to count toward civil service retirement, and be protected from any RIFs the it is correct. HOWEVER, I did not surrender (or buy back) my retirement benefits and was able to seamlessly transition form Sr Enlisted to a GS-11 under the VRA program. Now I am NOT protected from a RIF (if it occurs) but at the same time I am recieving my full retirement and VA pays. In my case a pretty good trade-off.

As to Gen Cartwright’s comments, I think he’s right on the mark. That being said, the acquisition community is still forced to deal with Congressional meddeling, and a budget system/process the is almost incomprehensible to anyone outside the system.

How many systems can you name that were fielded after 1989 ? Oh, yeah, the F-22…and ? Stryker ? LAV ??

The point is that all these guys are doing is avoiding the pain – and the cost – getting major systems through the process all the way to fielding. The more you stretch everything out now, the more these things cost in the end. There ain’t now free lunch. The Big Lie is that you can save money by “reforming” acquisition. Obama is simply not going to find 8-10% of fat to cut out of Title 10. It ain’t there. It went away with the peace dividend. Rumseld already raided the cupboard to pay for the war, and we are living with the legacy of 17 years of taking peace dividends. Look at the real numbers – Obama’s budget mostly caps defense spending to current levels in current dollars after 2012, so you are looking at 4-5% real reductions out to eternity. Who can sustain that ? And these guys are plussing up force structure to 547,000 on the Army side, the highest it has been since – ah, the Cold War.

These numbers just don’t work, but then, nothing in this administration budget works. Domestic discretionary spending goes up for two years, then it goes back down to current levels. Entitlement spending rages out of control and the deficits are massive. I don’t want to be working when these chickens come to roost, but as it stands, I probably need to work 15 more years to make ends meet.

Agreed on ohters about Mike.

Here is my question for Mikey. If you had been in 30 years and “saw” this, why didnt you change it? As a 30 year guy, surely you were at least a GS13, you had the power.

Me? 22 years active, going on my second year civil service and I sacrificed none of my retirement pay either.

Why do we have to think in a global presence? That’s military doctrine and not political doctrine and all which has come about due to the military industrial complex Ike so eloquently warned us of in his farewell speech to America. We do not need to be the worlds policemen and exporters of political doctrine. No such role for America was ever envisioned by the vast majority of our Founders. If you have a large and unwieldly military, they want something to do besides remain on bases as a protective force against would be and future aggression by the many demons conjured up in the doctrinal philosophy of the military.

S/F Gordon

“Would you buy in tough economic times something that does one thing well or something that does 100 things well, and can do things you haven’t even thought about yet,” he asked rhetorically.”

Buying one system that does everything is why our stuff is so expensive and takes too long. One system that truly does one thing well is significantly less expensive than one system that tries to do it all. Redesigning systems to add more “capabilities” and bells & whistles is why our ships and planes continue to fall years and $billions behind schedule.

Want a scout vehicle? Build one. Want an anti-tank gun? Build one. Want an infantry carrier? Build one. Want a vehicle that does it all? Wait 17 years, spend $20 billion (before fielding), and you get the Bradley, which is too big and tall to scout, too small to carry infantry, and barely has the armor and firepower to fight tanks.

Some of you will respond saying “but the Bradley works in those roles.” Just because we made it work (with considerable pains) doesn’t mean it was the best use of our resources.

The story is the same with the EFV, the B-1, the canceled Comanche, the DDG-1000, the F-22, the F-35, and that 25mm/M-16 rifle contraption.

After spending 30 years active duty and 5 years as a defense consultant,I read and heard the same aruments that were expressed during my years as a junior Air Force officer in the systems acquisition and financial management businesses. It is difficult not to be somewhat cynical when you hear the same circular arguments without any new ideas and innovative solutions. The battle that rages behind the defense policy and acquisition structure all boils down to liberalism verses conservatism. We now have the most liberal President in history and our defense system will soon reflect his weakness in reality and policies as our new Commander in Chief. The DOD and Congress will bow to the thrown of this liberal icon and we will step back to the good ole Carter days when we were disrespected and discraced by even weaker second and third world countries. So you can talk threats,acquisition and weapons until hell freezes over but without a conservative like Ronald Reagan at the helm we will return to where we were during the Carter years…. and the beat goes on.

Let’s not forget where Gen Cartwright came from. The failed program “Crusaider” and the current 3.6 billion dollor Future Combat Systems where Crusaider was reborn under the component title NLOS-C Non Line of Sight Cannon. Programs were mismanaged as the GAO highlight primarily due to poorly defined requirement therefore leaving the door open for the contractors to deliver anything and not be held accountable by FAR To type of Termination: Termination for Default and Termination for Convience. Let’s start by forcing Defense Contractors to Build what we buy in the form of a contract defined by Functional and Performance Requirements. To often Engineers like myself with the US tax payer’s best interest at heart are unable to move forward with terminating ineffective programs because we have no legal backing to support our finding. With over 15 years DoD experience on the gov. and contractor side I have seen it all. Worked MDA, FCS, VLS, F/A-17, H-46, Aegis, H-56, V-22, etc you name it I was a part of the systems engineering team attempting to hold the contractors responsible for what they are delivering. As stated in Mike earlier submission. The program managers are te ex military personel. Not holding their now employer responsible to produce any inforcable contract. The games the powerful play for everyone to eat but the tax payer.

Wrong GEN Cartwright. This one is a Marine 4 star. The Crusader/FCS MG Cartwright is a recently-retired Army 2 star.

Delon: Someone who was “part of the systems engineering team” for programs going back to the 1970s should probably know how to USE ENGLISH GRAMMAR by this point.

I respectively disagree that the arguement is about liberalism versus conservatism, excuse my typing skills DenseDuck, but this dialogue about acquisition waste… is about those who live off the acquisition dollars being spent, versus, those who do not live off the waste and want the waste stopped. Today a Congressional subcommittee just had a hearing on FCS, the Army did not show up…why…? You can hear a video broadcast on the Congressional Armed services web site of the hearing and about 1 hr and 40 minutes into it one should listen to Mr, ABROCROMBIE read about the ARMY’S response to GAO reports. Army needs this system…why? that General Cartwright, OSD leaders, Congress, and many Army leaders are now seeing that this acquisition waste is going to destroy the military just like military spending killed the Soviet Union. Mr GATES AND HIS NEW STAFF and the OSD engineers and PA and E group are heading in the right direction because if they don’t this acquisition train is headed for a wreck. A new lean, efficient, military is the goal to defending America. They are doing right by starting with renaming a “War” to a contingency as the first right step. Determining who are current and most likely enemies is the second right step. Letting the CINC and COCOM leader determine war material,ISR, and Battle Command network, and fire power first and then only justify REAL MILITARY NEEDS to be purchsed by the business side of the pentagon is a great step. Procurement reform is a great step. The acquisition institutions have overcome the military institutions in size and numbers. The military does not need to be in the shopping business, keep them in uniforms, boots on the ground and out of program and contracting offices. Yesterday at a hearing on contingency contracting, setting there were three retired generals (Scott, Harrington and Parsons) who now are double dripping with civilian jobs as contractors and DoD, testifying before Congress. THEY were in charge of tens of thousands of contracting and program managers while on active duty. Billions were lost, things were not done right but…here they are today testifying…and all that they recommended was adding more military and civilians jobs. That is not the answer. Congress needs to get a copy of the GAO report released this week. Bottom line the DoD does not have a handle on how many acquisition jobs they need, but this army of double dippers keeps wanting to add on more and they still believe it will solve the waste problems. NOT..? The arguement is between those who want to keep living off the waste versus those who want the pentagon waste to stop.

This is always educational. I am not an expert but a close observer for 40 years of the literature and a minor participant as acquisition team member for a security system, bi-coastal, space launch pads. On the general level of military systems, I marvel at the misreading by congresspersons and media (and some SecDef’s) of a system’s cost effectiveness and need before it is deployed. AWACS had “no mission” according to reports of the day. F-22’s shouldn’t be built because there is no threat from today’s second rate opponents. Today’s f-15 and 16’s are 25 years into inventory. What will be the state of the World, 25 years from now when the F-22/F-35’s will be that old??? Obama and Gates focus on “today” will dis-arm our sons and daughters in diapers now.

The thinking is flawed. The greatest threat is terroroism. The most likely acts are those more simply achieved. However, these acts typically cause less damage. The focus needs to be on those acts most dangeerous; most threatening to human life and our economy——–NBC level threats which could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, along with severe economic disruptions.

Upgrades in airpower cannot be ignored. Both the F-22&JSF should be built. The JSF is going to be sold to our allies, and there will be more JSF’s built than F-22’s. Is the Corps EFV a turkey? Or does it work? If it works, build it. Those Am-tracks they use are steel coffins, too slow, not for urban combat. The N-LOS is a winner. Can be air dropped and set up quick. More UAV’s, ones made to be used at platoon and sqaud level, is a must. How about a 6.8mm carbine that uses a gas/piston system? Magpul-Bushmaster has the capacity to equip the Army. Total gas impingment system has always been unreliable. 5.56 does not have the hitting power of a 6.8mm. Can we get a new pistol too?

Obama is limiting the power projection capabilities of the United States – remember he thinks WE are the problem… A weaker US means more relative power to his socialist allies in Communist China and Russia.

barry wants a constabulary force similar to what old Europe “fields”

Granted my boss would have me shot for saying this, but Cartwright does have some points. There does need to be more flexibility and that will mean breaking down some of the local interest hegemonies in defense acquisition. Services will need to rethink their default contractors, who will in turn need to change the mindset of “if I put it on the limitations list, everything is covered”.
The flip side is, we need stable (though not stationary) requirements and funding. Yes, I did just suggest that Congress expand it’s budget horizon further than one year. You won’t get the best solutions with a workforce that is constantly churning under the weight of contract changes and layoffs.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

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