Anyway, we’re both agreeing that Gates deserves a pat on the back for what he’s trying to do.

I’d say that what Gates is trying to do is go after the big war programs that have lagged in development and killed funding for other programs that can be almost as effective yet not cost 150%(My arbitrary number) more than the other solution that can be implemented faster and cheaper.

You mention FCS. It’s a program that I initially supported, but after having attended various AUSA conferences and talking with Boeing reps on the show floor even back in 2005, with IED’s at their height, there was no discussion or plan on how to counter IED’s. There really wasn’t more of an emphasis either on detecting targets in urban or difficult to detect cluttered terrain. Anyway, I digress, Gates has already come out and said FCS funds WOULD be rolled back to the US Army so that they can move on a better plan for the armored vehicle portion.

As for TSAT, if you follow Aviation Week, you’d know that its capabilities have slowly been watered down and there was NO longer plans to implement laser burst transmission of data. THUS obviating the description TRANSFORMATIONAL Satellite.

Gates is going for program that are effective and are showing results in tests and with prototypes that HAVE favorable feedback.

If you choose to use my argument against me on teh point of the F-22, I’d say that Russia can’t afford even the SU-33’s let alone any PAK-FA’s so let’s not talk about fifth generation threats. Also one of the other issues I have with the F-22, is the loss of one of its key selling points: supercruise. The Saab Gripen recently achieved supercruise in some testing.
Granted it was probably at a shorter duration than the F-22, for a comparitive dollar for dollar capability, I find it INCREDIBLY disappointing that ANY country could achieve supercruise in so short a time. We should have seen NO country achieve what we could until at least 20 years or so, yet the Swedes did it.

Look at the S. Koreans with their develepment of an airbursting grenade launched from a rifle, akin to our cancelled and long developed OICW. This all speaks to the problem with getting systems/weapons to actually work. And this is what Gates is trying to fix and address.

Saroff: “The amount of lobbying to preserve military programs by the uniformed services that the civilian leadership has targeted for cancellation would have been grounds for discharge as insubordination 20–30 years ago.”

20–30 years ago we wouldn’t be killing the most advanced fighter aircraft the world had ever seen. 20–30 years ago we wouldn’t be saying “sorry, we just don’t think there’s any use for high-bandwidth satcom”. 20–30 years ago we were still going to die in an atom war with Russia, and the only way to save ourselves was military spending and technological advancement.

Can’t blame Sec. Gates for trying to keep a lid on the rumor mill.

I think Gates realizes that Congress will fight some of the Pentagon’s decisions NOT based on a concern over true warfighting capabilities, but rather parochial concerns of whether jobs that will affect their district are cut. Congress as a whole sees the defense budget or programs as a campaign funding/voting mechanism rather than something that should be looking at threats and addressing them.

The great majority of the budget CONTINUES to be focused on the big war items and Gates simply is trying to ensure that “hybrid war” programs or weapons and thinking solidifies and becomes institutional.

That is all. There isn’t anything nefarious about this.

The amount of lobbying to preserve military programs by the uniformed services that the civilian leadership has targeted for cancellation would have been grounds for discharge as insubordination 20–30 years ago.

This is a direct attack at constitutional oversight and shouldn’t stand.