DoD Budget Strategy Shredded

DoD Budget Strategy Shredded

Cartwright Says Budget Cuts Coming; Size Unknown

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ budget strategy of deferring defense budget cuts by offering $100 billion in efficiencies looks to lie in tatters as pressure for Pentagon cuts rises to seemingly unstoppable levels.

In the face of America’s fiscal strains, the nation must choose a new global strategy that better conforms to our ability to spend, three top defense experts argue. And the nation’s Nr. 2 uniformed officer says DoD is bracing for cuts and one of the top independent defense analysts has joined the defense cuts bandwagon, arguing the nation can afford to cut up to $60 billion annually even as we wage two wars.


Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters yesterday the Pentagon will lose some of the money harvested from the $100 billion in efficiencies the services have identified.

“We know there are going to be cuts, whether they are isolated to specific programs or whether they are macro level cuts, I don’t know,” Cartwright told reporters in New York.

Yesterday, the defense experts said the Pentagon can either build a new strategy now and take into account the growing pressure for cuts from a variety of Republicans and Democrats or the Pentagon can be given a new topline by the White House and be forced to adapt to it internally, the three experts said. The experts are: Larry Korb, who works at the Center for American Progress and was a senior Pentagon official under President Reagan, Gordon Adams, American University professor who authored the defense recommendations in the influential Domenici-Rivlin plan and Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives.

Korb and Conetta They are all members of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, affiliated with Rep. Barney Frank. The panel published a report recommending almost $1 trillion in defense cuts. Adams was head of the defense section at the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton administration and has actually done this before.

Politically, the second option is more likely given Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ repeated commitment to
grand strategy – higher strategy – is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal defined by fundamental policy. The Office of Management and Budget is expected to give the Pentagon its topline numbers as early as next week.

Perhaps the key factor in the new budget reality is the block of Republicans known collectively as the Tea Party. “The Tea Party has introduced a level of uncertainty and undepredictability about how this game plays out on the resource side,” Gordon Adams said.

Meanwhile, defense analyst Michael O’Hanlon — who had said after the election that no defense cuts should be considered for two years — switched gears and offered his own approach for cuts in a Washington Times op-ed this morning.

“The focus should be, rather, on the underlying or ‘peacetime’ defense budget of $550 billion. It represents about one-sixth of federal spending. Proportionately speaking, if we sought to cut our federal structural budget deficit in half by mid-decade or so, that might imply a 10 percent cut in the peacetime defense budget, or about $50 billion to $60 billion in annual spending relative to the current defense program,” he wrote.

Which weapons can sustain cuts? O’Hanlon’s list: the F-35 fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

His criteria for identifying weapons worthy of cuts were laid out this way.

* Weapons making maximum use of the computer and communications revolutions should be considered highest priority. These offer arguably the greatest benefit for the most reasonable price tag — the best bang for the buck.

* Weapons purchases that are redundant should be least protected, with tactical aircraft a case in point.

* Weapons that perform poorly, technically or financially, should be reassessed. These include some key Navy shipbuilding programs today.

* Weapons designed for less-important missions, if these can be convincingly identified, should also receive lower priority. Nuclear weapons modernization and perhaps Marine Corps amphibious assault are possible examples here.

Join the Conversation

“…the F-35 fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.”

A good start but the real money is tied up in personnel & benefits. If Congress ever finds the guts to tackle Social Security & Medicare, I can’t see how military and retiree compensation would be exempt.

Well we already lost 100 dollars in the picture that goes with this article.

If O’Hanlon sees Marine Corps amphibious capabilities as unnecessary, doesn’t that either make the Corps unnecessary, or fundamentally change their mission?

If you cut the F-35 fighter then in a few years all we will have is 186 F-22As to go forward with into the 2020s while the Russians, Indians, and Chinese buy hundreds of PAK FAs and J-12s. Great thinking! You cant win a war without air dominance and superiority so going forward America wont be able to win any wars. F-16s, F-15s, F-18s wont be able to fight the PAK FA Sukhoi T-50s in air to air engagements and win consistently. If at all.

See: http://​www​.heritage​.org/​R​e​s​e​a​r​c​h​/​R​e​p​o​r​t​s​/​2​0​1​0​/​12/

Read these articles too.

See: http://​en​.rian​.ru/​m​l​i​t​a​r​y​_​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​0​1​2​0​1​/​1​6​1​5​8​0​969

See: http://​en​.rian​.ru/​r​u​s​s​i​a​/​2​0​1​0​0​7​1​9​/​1​5​9​8​6​7​7​8​4​.​h​tml

We need to seriously get our Allies around the world to start paying their share of what we have been doing for them. If they do not pay up, we come home. Why the hell should we care more about their defense than they do?

I believe the proposal is not to cut the program entirely, just in half.

Read the two articles below I posted. The Russians will be adding 1500 new fighters to their Air Force plus 70 PAK FAs in the next 7–8 years. They eventually plan on having about 400 of the PAK FA Sukhoi T-50s. We cant afford (if we want the USAF to be the #1 Air Force in the world) to cut the F-35A in half with only 186 F-22As.

Socialism (liberalism) is ruining their countries. Have you noticed the budget bail outs and riots recently? They are cutting their defense budgets to pay for all their social welfare programs.

Aurora: Easy for you to say find the guts to cut Social Security and retiree compensation; let Congress try it, and you’ll see a revolt that will make the Tea Party look like kindergartners in a sandbox.

Cut the program in half and you double the unit cost. Then we get the “costs are spiraling out of control, we can’t afford platinum plated fighters” nonsense. It’s as predictable as the sun rising. And the pols never learn.

We are broke, deeply in debt and our government is still spending money we don’t have. We are bailing out European banks and helping to bail out European nations. We have wasted trillions on stimulus, bailing out banks, wall street and auto companies. We have to import our oil at great price, yet we sit on some of the world’s greatest oil and natural gas reserves, we can’t tap them because of the government. Our industry is crippled by government and enviromental regulations. We can’t fly without being sexually molested, yet the government refuses to profile for terrorist. Through all this our congress continues to tax and spend. Our CinC is just a socialist as any European, I think our government is broken, and the Tea Party is trying to put it back together again.

If your justification is future fighter threats, the Just So Farcical won’t be able to stand up to the threat. We need to build more F-22’s. It would be nice if all the Gates fan-boys would figure this one out. Gates and his crew don’t know what they are doing on air power issues.

” …about $77 million per copy.“
–Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Feb. 2008.

How to save 43 billion to 102 billion in the Defense Budget and get more equipment ( Aircraft ) and Grow US Jobs! The Marines would still be able to get the Ospreys, EFV’s, The Navy the subs they want. The Army their GCV.

First Cancel the JSF F-35 and instead of 2443 aircraft get 3900 aircraft.

Do a Joint venture, license agreement and produce the Gripen NG here in the US with upgraded US avionics and radars and you have a 4.8 or 4.9 Gen US produced fighter.

The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion Original ( 382 billion as of latest estimate )

Gripen NG: 60,000,000.00 x 3000 = $180,000,000,000.00
F-22 Raptor: 120,000,000.00 x 500 = $60,000,000,000.00
F-15E Silent Eagle: 100,000,000.00 x 400 = $40,000,000,000.00

Total Aircraft = 3,900 = Total cost $240,000,000,000.00

So you get 1,457 more Aircraft and save $43,000,000,000.00 off Original or $102,000,000,000.00 off latest estimate.

That would create US Jobs in all the factories ( LM F-22, Boeing F-15-E , and a joint venture for the Gripen ) and the pilots would get aircraft that can actually fight against the SU-30 — 35 family of fighters in a year or so instead of the F-35 maybe in 5 years.

F-22’s and F15E’s could be rolling of the lines in numbers by the the end of next year.
The Gripen NG with a joint venture in the US within a 2 years.

Good Afternoon Folks,

I see the right wing silliness is back. Russia 1500 fighters, that was January, the same source in July says 60+10. I’ve been reading RIA Novosti for years and their reliability is very questionable on a good day. This same site also said in July that by 2020 all soldiers in the Russian Federation Defense Forces will be college graduates by 2020, in November. the RIA says that Russia can’t fill its ranks with conscripts and is offering enlistment to foreigners.

The current size of The Russian Federation Air Force is 310 Mig 31’s that are being modernized at a rate of 10 a year with 30 already modernized. They have a small numbers of Su.30’s and Mig 29’s that they are rebuilding for carrier operations. In the past month one each has crashed. The purchase of 60 5th. Generation has long been stated for after 2016, since the aircraft is yet to go into production and it’s still 2010 I wouldn’t place a bet on that date.

China has zero J-12’s.

The US didn’t even send any F-22 for a photo op. last week in the Yellow Sea, I guess they are to expensive to risk. The Chinese showed how much of a military power they are, or not. The North Seas Fleet is Chinas strongest Naval and Air sector but with the GWBG playing in China’s neighborhood at will and in fact entering China’s EEZ, the would have been a great opportunity to show off their J-12’s for a GW fly by, but it didn’t happen. China did nothing. Not even a symbolic showing of sending a DD out to the 200 line and show the world that China is there.

All of this about Russia and China as mighty military powers exist only in the imaginations of the Butternut Right Wing.

The Navy right now is concerned with the North Sea Route and getting ice-hardened surface ships and icebreakers. The LCS’s up there are useless.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

You’re thinking in “the right now” all my postings are in a long term view from now to 2025. So adjust your thinking to that. I know that China has no J-12s right now but in 2016–18 they just might be deploying them by then. And that Russia plans on building 1500 new fighters in the Su-35S realm and related variants and adding 70 PAK FAs before 2020 too. Beginning in 2013 and then buying more each year for an estimated total of 400. We must also keep in mind that our current fighters are aging out and being retired every year and must be replaced. With what? New versions of the same model? Or the F-35A? or the F-22A (if the next Admin restarts the program)?

Here’s a good plan! :)

You write “Russia 1500 fighters, that was January, the same source in July says 60+10.”

You’re mixing up the articles. The 1500 fighters werent the 5th gen T-50 but older models in the Su-35S range. All the models are in the article if you want a more exact breakdown. The 60+10 are the PAK FAs T-50s. Two different groups of fighters.

In a worse case scenario where the F-35 is doomed, my preference would go to a super F-16 over the Gripen NG. Think F-16XL brought into the 21st century with AESA radar and other components. Yes it would require some development and prototype flight testing to be done unlike the case with current F-16s, but if we are incapable of accomplishing that we might as well all learn Mandarin.

The Gripen NG is great for a light fighter, but there is only so much you can get out of a single F414. The latest versions of the F100, F110, or F119 offer more power to work with.

BradM —

You should have thought about that slight Tac-air conundrum before prematurely killing the F-22 and staying the course with JSF. Yes, we are now indeed up you-know-what creek. Good to see you are finally catching up with the cold reality that some of us have been raising the alarm on for years.

If you want to discuss it, I’ll be perfectly happy to debate an emergency Plan B contingency going forward. God speed..

Good Evening Folks,

The active imagination at work. The Russian Superman is back. By the time either Russia or China gets any creditable military force that should be of concern to the United States any F-35’s bought now will be over 50 year old technology.

Both Russia and China will absorb technology as it is developed by the US, EU, Nippon etc. and passed on to them through third party countries like Switzerland and Israel. A current example is UAV, UCV and electro optical targeting technology that is being transfered by third parties to the PRC.

The pattern that both China and Russia are operating under is to build small numbers of platforms that use proven technology, neither have historically and show no inclination to change for this long standing pattern. Developing new technologies are not culturally what either country does best.

When the need arises both countries will resort to proven, cheap and simple weapons platforms and systems.

Here a news flash, on November 23, Yeonpyeong did not suffer from an artillery attack. The reason people are not being let back on is that a clean up is under way to remove the evidence that could prove rather embarrassing to the Lee Government of SKorea.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

William C, that was a rather wise and up to date perspective of the current situation and need for strategic contingency planning. imho.

Respects–

“All of this about Russia and China as mighty military powers exist only in the imaginations of the Butternut Right Wing.”

Not one of your brightest posts, allons. I’m pretty sure you would have re-written that if you could.

But with regards to the LCS, we can agree. Respects–

You can try a new cold-war divide and conquer, as much as you desire Byron, but you will never prevail no matter how harsh the punishment is dished out, or good the wine :)

Cheers–

South Korean causalities say different about NorK aggression.

Not fighters, but airplanes and helicopters.More then half will be helicopters.

There are no 1500 fighters, there are 1500 aircrafts and helicopters, including cargo and training.

see russia budget for was just a little serious (and don’t imagine one war between russia and USA)
Russia need modernize all the army, not just one part.
Today Russia have in the paper really much airplanes and copters, but in reality they can’t use 3/5 of them (financial or meca. prob)
And many of them was old and need be remplaced.
When all russian modernisation was ending, you can compare the russian army with 3/4 of the french and GB army (if they was virtually reunified) with one budget inferior of them (the total economy of russia was inferior of just one of these country), but with superior numbers of troops.

That’s sure russia plans for the future don’t was realistic between ideas and money
If they will 1500 airplanes and copters, they got 800 new and continue to use old planes

If need be the Russians could dig up another 1,500 MiG-29s, MiG-23s, and all sorts of older aircraft they never throw out.

What good is all this Budget cut or Cost savings talk when we all know the money will be just rerouted and spent on useless Social programs that only help keep the citizens ever so dependent on the US Government.
No money is actually going to be saved…The igits in the beltway will make sure of that.

Be sure to go to the Museum of US History and look at the “Extinct midlle class Taxpayer” Exhibit, it will make you weep.

Good Morning Folks,

The opinions on China that I expressed to a large extent came for “The Great Wall at Sea, Second Edition” by Bernard D. Cole,and USNI Dec. 2010, “China’s Navy: A Turn to Corbett?”.

These are far more studied thoughts on the current situation with China and China’s quest for military power then what the Butternuts have, which is nothing more then their unlearned opinions.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

Exactly. All of these programs governments in Europe are trying to move away from, the moonbat left wants to charge right into.

Good evening Byron,

You need to expand your thinking on USNI’s Dec. 2010, “China’s Navy” reflection, please. It was not exactly clear what you were trying to relate.

Are you reflecting on areas of the article such as: “Beijing’s foray into Western strategic thought may yield insight into China’s high-seas future?”

or “Active Defense = Superior offense: Command of the sea — … permanent general control”?

Not quite sure what you were attempting to get at.

Instead, all Pacific Rim must be humbled, atone, and decide to make a collective restart on demilitarized terms. I would suggest to emphasize that more so.

And as a p.s., an ancestor of mine (RADM) was commander of Asiatic squadron of the Pacific fleet in 1907–1908 and sailed the Yangtze on gunboats in support of trans-asiatic trade relations and to establish stronger relations with an emerging China in then a demilitarized Asiatic fleet (USN removed all armored Cruisers from Asiatic fleet by 1906 as a strategic statement).

Time for a better assessment, better relations and yes; a better restart. imho.

Cheers–

Theoreticaly, yes. But it will be a herculanian task to refurbish them and find and train pilots for them. USA could do the same with much better chances of success.

William C: The right plan a ( Single Engine Thrust Vectoring Light Fighter ) wrong airframe. The F-16 is a 4th gen airframe. The Gripen NG is a 4.5 gen airframe. I agree, dust off those MATV ( Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring ) GE/GD plans from the late 90’s, but reconfigure it to the F414 engine or put the F100 in the Gripen NG. They have the software etc. already worked out and done. That could be incorporated in later batches of the Gripen NG. Which is the way to go. But I think you are missing one of the main reasons for the Gripen NG besides price. Keeping our Fighters in the Fight. It can take off and land on a 800 meter stretch of highway, and be rearmed and refueled buy truck or chopper ( the Marines used choppers to rearm and refuel choppers in Vietnam) . The F-16 can not. If there is a shooting war in the Pacific, how many mile plus long runways will be left operational in 24 hours after the cruise missiles start hitting. But there will be a lot more of two lane roads left usable so we can stay in the Fight till help arrives.

Good Evening geogen,

My point here, and I will agree that it is rather obscure, is that the PLAN which has been reading Mahan for years is now is now rethinking what is “Sea Control”. The idea that they can go for what is wanting all out sea control is changing, maybe.

The PRC doesn’t have the industrial base, resources or even the will as their Chain of Command now stands to venture out into the Pacific beyond Costal and Off shore waters. Mahan is sea control, Power Projection as the GWBG demonstrated in the Yellow Sea last week and is currently doing in the Sea of Japan. China could of provided the world with the opportunity to join in helping with an international problem but they passed.

For various reasons China is not and won’t in the future be a major world Naval player, to succeed China must work with the US and now Japan in protecting it lines of maritime communications. The US and Japan must show China that we don’t consider them a threat and China must joint the Pacific Rim Maritime community. What the you Naval officers like in the US and what takes place at Newport is where this can happen, I hope.

The US should stop viewing China as a problem and try and get them into helping solve problems. China and Russian are not our enemies.

I would like to here some stories of your grandfather. The era he served in has been over shadowed by the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection. Because of global warming or what ever is happening with the climate the seas above Canada and Russia are quickly going to become the maritime super highway between Asia and the East Coast of North America and Europe. Your grandfather may have some insight into what to expect.

From what it looks like right now the USN is quite ill prepared to meet this challenge. Of the $3.8 trillion in defense procurement that is under or near contract for the next ten years none of it is for this mission.

The Russian opened the Northeast Passage last winter and escorted a hand full of ship through, they are planning more this winter. The Canadians are anxious to open up the Northwest Passage but will require the USN to help keep it open with icebreakers they don’t have and to maintain order with ice hardened ships which they don’t have.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

That’s not what this is saying. Everyone knows that cuts will come when the two major overseas contingencies have stopped. This says that you keep fighting those contingencies and cut some more. It is just a continuation of what has been happening since 2004 (actually, since 1993) — stealing from Peter to pay Paul. You haven’t changed your strategy at all, just accepted a boatload of risk and inefficiencies.

Cut military retirement compensation in the middle of 2 wars and see how hard it will be to maintain a effective and seasoned fighting force. I don’t exactly see a line out the door of people willing to do our jobs, much less for a full 2 decades. Even peacetime military work is no walk in the park, with the average soldier spending a good 12 weeks a year away from home and family and that is just when they are training. No I say that retirees deserve their benefits.

I’ve said this before, and I get a little tired of saying it — does not matter how deep a blue water threat the PLAN has, but whether the USN can close to the littoral. That’s what Command of the Sea is all about. If you can stop us from closing to the littoral, plink at us with subs or missiles to the point where we say Uncle, you have contested control of the seas. All this fluff about global warming and international cooperations and sitting around the Arctic Circle and singing Kumbaya is a diversion. Once you abandon Mahan’s priniciples, there is no floor and your strategy is groundless.

Last blast. This is the old bait-and-switch going in. The services didn’t actually think they would get to keep the money Gates flashed at them to get their support for his reductions last summer, did they ? The issue is not really how steep the reduction is, so much as where the floor ends up. If you cannot defend a baseline force, then your goose is pretty well cooked from the get-go. They can keep dreaming that they will get away with raiding modernization accounts indefinitely — doesn’t make it so. If you squeeze force structure and benefits, then bad things happen to OPTEMPO and retention. If we end up even more dependent on the reserve components at the end of this process, then sorry, sorry, sorry on us all.

Call me o9ld Fashioned, but i dont think we should buy the Gripen. great aircraft yes, but we’d be better off purchasing updated Falcons, like the kind we sell to the UAE to start with. cancel our contract with them, and re-route those aircraft to the Air Force with further upgrades (thrust vectoring, conformal weapons bays like on the Silent Eagle, the PW119 from the Raptor etc). that way, we still have a world class fighter, and we dont take jobs away from Americans.
far as the Navy, Boeing just recently unveiled a Silent Hornet mock up in the same vein as the Silent Eagle. so that, along with further production of the Superhornet takes care of the navy.
as to the Marines, i say fuck it and give them the 35-B, albiet De-stealthed. for what they are doing with them stealth isnt exaclt necessary, and it would ease maintaince as well as cut costs. while still keeping the JSF programs alive untill the Economy turns around.

also, the latest quote on the F-22 is 77 million for continued production, not 120 million. so, you save even more! while pumping out the most lethal Aircraft to ever take to the skies.

id like to know exactly how we are going to win two wars with a massive budget reduction when we are loosing them right now.

the Government wants to save money? how bout cutting all foreign aid (like to hati and Indonesia) and the continuing assistance programs throughout the world. frankly, we have enough problems of our own to even begin to worry about some peeon living in a thatched hut. two, take money out of the military by closing down some of our European bases, if not the VAST majority. there is no more threat in Europe, most of those bases can be shut down. some, (like the hospital in germany) DO need to stay open, but we dont need bases dotted all over the damned palce. thirdly, refocus our efforts in Afghanistan from trying to rebuild that asshole, to eliminating the enemy. putting that Country back on its feet is the UN’s job, not ours. Fourth, reformat the ENTIRE welfare program, since its the biggest draw of money short of ALL the millitary budget. 5th, switch into a Military economy. it worked for WWII, why the hell couldnt it work now?

that way, you save a bunch of money, AND you keep the military in top form.

it may be a newer airframe, but it’s ordinace capability falls short of even a standard Falcon. we’d still be better off with modified falcons rolling fresh off the assembly line. and by doing this, you make life easy for the maintance crew since the already know most of teh aircraft in question, which also saves money.

The Marine Corps was not built for sustainment. It was built to get in, kick butt, and get out. Its time to get out.

I’m no lawyer or economist but how about no bid defence contracts to American firms for starters. Use the defence budget as economic stimulus. See the F-35 through as the r&d is mostly paid for and make enough of them to bring the unit cost down. Lastly we should be working more with the Russians instead of always viewing them as the enemy. We have more have more dangerous enemies than each other.

An excellent, rational article, “Waste Land” by Gregg Easterbrook in the New Republic, Dec. 2, 2010 presents the reality of the Pentagon’s nearly unprecedented, wildly irrational spending binge of at least $700 billion on defense and security. Four pages of objective writing, not a screed by some far left scholar who wants the Pentagon to disappear. Since 2001, military and security costs have soared by 119 percent. One hell of an analysis.

In short, no, within 5–10 yrs (at best) the USN will not have Bill R’s stated repeated wish to have an active littoral fleet operating at will, no matter how many hundreds of USN LCS are built. Time to modernize the fleet’s requirements, game plan and strategic capabilities and change the assessment of the other’s plans accordingly.

“to succeed China must work with the US and now Japan in protecting it lines of maritime communications. The US and Japan must show China that we don’t consider them a threat and China must joint the Pacific Rim Maritime community.”

Very insightful comment and well said, Byron and this would (or at least should) be the near-term hope and interest of many.

As far as my great-great grandfather’s stories or insights are concerned (yes, he was directly involoved on a minor scale during the unfortunate S-A War time period), he appears to have been pragmatic, strategic-thinking and cutting-edge oriented, as I read him of course. I’m very sure he would be calling on SecNAV today to be killing LCS and then with part of savings, reallcoate funds for building Arctic region capable escorts (or at least very long duration joint-aviation patrols of responsible areas). Perhaps he would have been calling on even more creative, joint-venture ways to ‘break ice highways’ up North too.

Cheers–

Andy,

IMHO, the only way the F-35 program could have prevailed as ‘affordable and thus sustainable’, would have in fact been for Congress, perhaps back in FY09, to have specially allocated an F-35-specific bailout and stimulus procurement plan.

As far as strategic US/NATO-Kremlin relations go, since the mid-90s it was unfortunately more in Kremlin’s court to ‘work more closely w/US and view them more favorably’, despite all of US’s related unfortunate flaws since then. The US/NATO could not force that aspect, but could only offer support for it. And today, it seems more than ever since the Cold-war that no matter what the US or NATO proposes, the Kremlin is taking an increasing aggressive stance against the US in particular, as part of a perceived coordinated build-up. It would indeed seem to be centrally pre-determined and unilateral… very unfortunate. Although I would totally join you Andy, in supporting a reciprocal ‘reverse-the-ideological-trend’ relationship going forward and for a better restart. imho.

To the poster “tee”

Part 1 / 3

You wrote: “Gripen NG: 60,000,000.00 x 3000 = $180,000,000,000.00
F-22 Raptor: 120,000,000.00 x 500 = $60,000,000,000.00
F-15E Silent Eagle: 100,000,000.00 x 400 = $40,000,000,000.00
Total Aircraft = 3,900 = Total cost $240,000,000,000.00”

*Cough*

180 million $ + 60 million $ + 40 million $ together is NOT 240 million $ …
But your basic reasoning is okay despite this detail.

And why not…:

A-10 Thunderbolt: 12 million $ x 3.000 = 36 billion $
Super Tucano: 9 million $ x 1.000 = a mere 9 billion $ (!)

for example to jump-start the U.S. ARMY Airforce again?! Because of historical parochialism and sclerosed corporativism?

(Continued)

Part 2 / 3

1) My opinion about the presently stalled development of 5th generation fighters?

Since the U.S.A. still experience some very real technical difficulties with their F-35s AND Russia also with its Pak-FAs, and the present international political and economical atmosphere REALLY DOESN’T require any of these two (unaffordable and completely budget-distorting) aircraft types, why don’t the two Super-Powers not agree on a TEMPORARY conventional arms limitation and field henceforth ONLY 4th or 4,5th generation fighters – say – for the next 30 years or so? Kind of “Blondie” (Clint Eastwood) and “Angel Eyes” (Lee Van Cleef) not meddling in each other’s dirty businesses without need? This way each of them might even manage to finish his first or second 5th generation fighter with abundant time!

(Continued)

Part 3 / 3

2) My opinion about what they should fly until then? (I mean, beyond that handful of F-22s)

Why don’t these two presently technically overextended, slightly discredited Super-Powers cooperate and simply trade blueprints and production licenses for their respective aerospatial crown jewels = the Su-35BM against the F-35’s avionics?
Because of U.S. American Cold War traumas, infantilism and delusions of grandeur?
Would any of both really be threatened with “imminent occupation” by the other because of such a step – or precisely the opposite?

They cooperate on fighting Talibans, on reducing nukes and they cooperate in Space, but they can’t cooperate in the atmosphere? Somebody is being childish…

Devil Pup: Building the Gripen NG in the US would create jobs for both the ( LM F-22 and Boeing F-15E Silent Eagle) plus which ever plant that is set up in the USA to produce the Gripen. With 1400 more aircraft added to the mix, that will keep more people working much longer. As for the F-16 it’s still a 4th Gen airframe, you can’t change that easily, or make it “Carrier” capable without major modifications taking years and lots of R&D $$$ . The Gripen NG is a true 4.5 gen airframe and can be “Carrier” ready very quickly because of it’s short take-off and landing capabilities that are already built into the aircraft.

Devil Pup: Part 2.
That’s is it’s “Short take-off and Landing” capabilities. It was designed from the beginning to be refueled & rearmed in 10 minutes from a 800 meter 2 lane road. Which can be done by trucks, choppers, and the C-130, The C-130 can also use the same roadway to land as the Gripen NG, and can rearm & refuel 4 Gripen NG’s in 10–15 Minutes, then be on it’s way. In any real shooting war in the Pacific, long runways will be destroyed by cruise missiles in the first hour and will be under heavy attack every few hours there after, and will be unusable by most aircraft ( even my beloved F-22 ) probably for days. With “Cluster Runway Denial” weapons being massed produced, our air defenses on the in theater runways will be severely taxed and most likely overwhelmed very early on. So the need for an STOL fighter should be a very high priority.

Devil Pup: Part 3
As for Costs, maintenance costs alone: the F-16 block 52 cost per hour is around $3,700.00, the Gripen NG is around $2,500.00 per hour. This is just an example, I could list a lot more.
As for the supply chain, we already have them for the F-22 & F-15 so adding the additional 900 aircraft into the chain wouldn’t be to large of a problem, the Gripen NG would be a whole lot less expensive to implement than the F-35 and less than a third of the costs thru the life entire cycle.
As for the F-18 Silent Hornet, it’s still a 4.2 Gen fighter. The Gripen NG a true 4.5 Gen airframe. Like I said before with upgraded US avionics and radars and you have a 4.8 or 4.9 Gen US produced fighter.

Devil Pup: Part 4:
Remember the US is BROKE, right now they are looking at cutting the F-35 program in many different ways because it’s costing to much, will be years late, and doesn’t work as advertised. With my suggestion we get 1,400 more Aircraft, that are all proven designs that can be fielded as soon as next year and save between 43 & 102 billion. By saving the money here the Marines get to keep Ospreys, EFV’s, The Navy the Virgina class subs they want. The Army their new GCV and all the upgrades for the Strikers, Abrams & Bradly’s .

To the poster “geogen”

You wrote: “…the Kremlin is taking an increasing aggressive stance against the US in particular, as part of a perceived coordinated build-up.”

Does it get more hypocritical than that?! I’m surprised (actually, I’m DISAPPOINTED !!! ) that the Russians haven’t already wiped out all those “anti-Iranian” anti-missile missiles around THEM !

YOU U.S. Americans are the REAL threat to World Peace, and a psychopathic one, NOT Russia!

freefallingbomb :

You are correct I posted 240 Billion, when it’s 280 Billion in total costs. but had the correct amount of money saved ( 43 billion or 102 billion ). Thats what I get by looking at two different computers at the same time to get numbers and not paying attention , Sorry Guys.

If that article is an analysis, I’m a chimpanzee. It is just the same concatenation of worthless sound bites and statistics-pulled-out-context that fakes a real discussion of the issue in the mainstream media. It goes back and forth from inflation adjusted dollars to nominal dollars at the drop of a hat. The real numbers are in the President’s budget, please look at them before wasting our time further.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the merits of the LCS — unless LCS is your answer to the Navy’s countermine problem, which I doubt. One of my issues with the Air-Sea Battle concept is that its proponents seem all about turning a perceived necessity into a virtue. You end up eliminating your ability to project power ashore without firing a single shot. Maybe in fact you need things like Dick Cheney’s “useless” B-2 bomber and a revisit of the F-117. Oh — would that be an F-22 nowadays ? And — to use a basketball analogy — just because you may have a masterful three point shot doesn’t mean you don’t need an inside game, with a strong center in there to get rebounds. Why would you want to give up one inch of strategic depth unless absolutely necessary ?

Good Evening Folks,

Hi geogen. I think you grandfather had some serious advice that the current Chief of Naval Operations should be getting.

The opening of two arctic maritime lines of communications that will accommodate larger ships along with the development of the modular nuclear reactors which could make for far larger container ships and tankers then we have currently will require the oversight of the USN. With this much wealth afloat the target is to tempting for either Pyrates or Terrorists.

I’m not a maritime engineer, but I doubt that the LCS or the San Antonio’s would survive in even an ice-less arctic. Even or more robust DD-51’s might get banged up a bit. We need ice-hardened ships and modern ice-breaker in the USN now.

The terrorists have shown that they prefer to go and do their business where the US has a difficult time going and the Arctic is most surly one of those places. It would appear geogen that hard gained lessons of your grandfather will sadly have to be relearned.

Hi FFB. Glad to see your back and in form. I hope the weather doesn’t get you down to much, I hear is rather chilly in your part of the world, take care.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

Absolutely idiotic, but not surprising considering where this is coming from (Center for American Progress, Barney Frank, etc). These people who would cut modernization programs and force structure are the same people who criticized Bush for ‘over-working’ our troops, and for not having enough body armor and up-armored vehicles.

How about they cut welfare programs and other government waste before they cut defense?

–K

Hello all.

I notice some here are seriously doubting China and Russia’s military power. They are not as far behind as you wish them to be.

Byron,

Just FYSA…NAVY doesn’t do icebreaking. The hooligan NAVY (aka US Coast Guard) does.

Great news is we have lots of icebreaking experience. Bad news is our ‘breaker fleet is in abomnable condition. Not a priority for DHS.

Cheers

weapons making maximum use of the computer and electronics revolutions should be given highest priority and best bang for the buck. WHAT A LOAD OF BS! These are the most expensive and unreliable systems going today. Proves these hacks dont know what they are talking about and trying to steer money to thier districts. All of this revolutionary new wave gotta have stuff just like on star trek is what has driven the budget to where it is instead of purchasing time proven easy to use and maintain equipment and proper troop training. There are certainly items to be scrubbed in the military and reorganizing that needs to be done but these hacks in washington dont have any clue what they are.

The big increases over that period come from increasing military personnel costs, which increased from $73 billion in 2000 to $150 billion in 2010. While a large share of that is mobilized National Guard and Reserves supporting the 2 and a half wars (I consider western Pakistan a half-war), the larger portion is rising military personnel salaries, housing allowance, and health care costs, which supports the standing Army and Navy the Founding Fathers did not authorize.

With the UAV being as successfully as they are we can depend on them for a lot more than sinking billionsof $ more in other defense weapon

ret1sgthharry

Amen brother. Talking about wasting money! Politications are the biggest waste of money that there is!!

As a retired Budget Analyst for US Army I know a quick fix that wouldn’t cost anything to save money. Currently the law states that no budget can be carried over to the new fiscal year. Because of that, everyone runs around in September trying to burn up funds. If you don’t burn up the funds, the amount you leave on the books will be subtracted from the new fiscal year’s budget. Change the law so we can “Fence” money. Money could then be set aside to purchase big dollar items over several fiscal years. Therefore, encouraging fiscal savings. The other savings should be allowing the “changing of the color of money” easier. Currently funds must be returned and “if the higher HQS feels generous” you receive the color of money you need for your mission. I think justification for the mission added to the request should be enough. A third item is the lost of your budget due to the number of Higher HQS the funds must move. Currently each Higher HQS subtracts 6% “handling fee” to send down the funds. Go through 4 Higher HQS and there isn’t much left of the budget you requested. Hopefully these suggestions could be implemented immediately.

lot’s of ways to save money. Marine Amphibious Assault could be cut by two thirds the likely-hood we’ll ever do a beach landing/major offensive from the sea is just not realistic in today’s world. Move the mission to the reserves. Airborne, same scenario, we’re not doing a major airdrop ever again, we don’t need a standing airborne division. Move the mission to the national guard and reserves.

Stop quarterly funding of programs the administrative costs are outrageous.

Outsource in a real competitive envrionment all conus activities. Get the government out of the governments own way.

Halt immediately working capital funded organizations, they are not working in the best interest of the government/taxpayer.

this is just DOD, every other federal agency is bloated in the same way. Eliminate 1/3 of all federal employees. Do a bottom up review to determine if the requirement exists once the job function has been cut.

then outsource to the lowest competent biddet.. train program managers to write better PWS/SOW’s so FFP can be reasonably applied by contractors. Todays specs leave one to wonder if the person constructing the RFP has any knowledge of the acquisiton policies.

not behind at all but seriously doubt either wants a shooting war. economic war is far more effective.

Good Morning Folks,

Guest. You are quite correct the two heavy and on light ice-breaker are USCG vessels and all over 30 years old. Under the developing condition is the Arctic these ships are to old and to few. The USCG is over worked and what will be required here is a far more robust effort the the USCG can provide.

A side show if any of you are interested there is a video out there of the USMC on Arctic exercises in the 1950’s, a reader sen it to me.

For all of you right wing Butternuts who have dreams of China. in todays WSJ there is an article“China Clones, Sell Russian Fighters” by Jeremy Page. A very interesting survey of the current aircraft production in China nd their relationship to Russia. On thing that I found interesting the selling price for a Chinese J-15, when ever is it built will be $10 million USD’s, but if you can’t wait a decade you can alway pick up a rebuild Naval Russian Mig-29 loaded for $30 million USD’s.

To BOOMER the above are real numbers for your future use.

By the way to clear it up the PLAAF has 50 J-11B. Not quite enough to lake on the GWBG but enough for a parade or two.

Lets see what will $30 mullion get you with a F-35, tires rotated, windscreen cleaned and an oil change. maybe?

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

Gregg Easterbrook is the guy who thinks the forward pass should be illegal. If he said the sun would rise in the East, I’d watch for it in the West.

Right wing “butternuts” are you really that petty? Really?

Again your not looking at the big picture. It is easy to say “the Chinese don’t have all that much” but compare their assets today to say a decade ago, where do you think they will be a decade from now?

You Know I really like your postings, I think you should get all your friends and countrymen together and write a letter to our congress telling them how much you dislike and dont want anything to do with the US ever again and get all your folks to sign it. I think it would be very helpful in decreasing our deficite by not providing you any more aid or bailout money that could go back into our budget. We are the threat huh? we who provide free grain and rice to starving countries, about the only ones who help other countries during disasters when thier own governments wont, who come to the aid and defence when called. In reality most of us AMERICANS dont want anything to do with you either and wish our government would stop giving you our tax dollars.

Don’t apologize: You offered the big picture and even the details. But most people here aren’t interested in big pictures that include tiny non-American details (Gripens, etc.).

Not your fault, really.

To the poster “BOOMER”

You wrote: “In reality most of us AMERICANS dont want anything to do with you either and wish our government would stop giving you our tax dollars.”

In reality most of us NON-U.S.-AMERICANS don’t want anything to do with you either and wish our government would stop accepting your toxic bank assets.

I personally do not like out sourcing to contractors. I was doing three jobs, Executive Officer, Budget Officer and Administrative Officer all for GS-10 pay. If my job had been converted to a contractor, the first thing they would have done is demand two more contractors stating one person couldn’t do all three jobs. They get over a lot.

As for the terrorist in the Artic — while I dont forsee them getting thier hands on an ice breaker to get there and they could not sustain themselves traveling over ice for very long, A new nuclear powered design was developed and approved a couple years back for the Coast Guard but funding was pulled unfourtunately.
There are numerous mistakes made by the Pentagon under preassure from the state department via the white house. The Navy early retired numerous frigates — destroyers — cruisers — and other ships to GIVE not sell to Japan Thai and other countries, The AF and Army had to make similar donations of aircraft — tanks — vehicles — weapons as well. Most of the scrap generated at Pearl naval yard and decomed ships went to China at almost give away prices (practicly paid them to take it). All of this steel — aluminmun — copper and brass should had come right back here and not gone over seas.

continued: ALL THE GIVE AWAY ITEMS ALONE IF RECYCLED COULD HAVE SUBSTANTIALY SUPPLEMENTED THE MILITARY’S BUDGET FOR NEW ACQUISITIONS IF THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD STOP SUPPORTING OTHER COUNTRIES MORE THAN OUR OWN. Some of the gear we gave away 20 yrs ago is still in service in other countries, some of these designs we cancelled after the first ship was delivered and gave it and the rest to other countries prior to commisioning. My point is while there are current programs that need looking at or to be scrapped, some of the old ways of doing business that cost the military and public billions of dollars every year needs to be stopped first.

If only China would let Taiwan go independent. Then I would believe you. For Russia, remember South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Russia taking those territories from Georgia. How would Russia like it if a superior power took Chechnya away from her?

I’m not the Secretary of Defense.

Quote:
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Dunn, president of the Air Force Association said “…that thinking distorts the reality that both China and Russia are building next-generation fighters and, while the United States may not fight against those two countries, “We’re going to fight their stuff because they’re going to sell it around the world.”

See: http://​www​.nationaldefensemagazine​.org/​b​l​o​g​/​L​i​sts

Do not believe everything that Novosti said!

Nobody care what you thinks

you don’t make any sense

The Russian count no operational fighters in the account. If you only count AMARC,you have maybe the sixth air force in the world.

If we count AMARC we have 145 Tomcat ‚and lots of Phantom ‚F-15 ‚F-18,F-16 ‚maybe some Crusader.And a lot of Oldies.

Amen ‚brother, I agree one hundred per cent

Even is Russia take a aggressive stand against the West ‚they don’t have the resources to be a enemy.
Not the intentions.Even that ‚we gonna fight Russian weapons until China had a modern weapons industry.

We are the only country that have Space planes.We should put our efforts in things like hyper-sonics and directed energy weapons

I saw that in the Jackson Memorial Hospital Jackson Health System in Miami.

And what is so amazing about the Grippen??

To the poster(esse) Arlene Kevitz

You wrote: “ (…) I know a quick fix that wouldn’t cost anything to save money. Currently the law states that no budget can be carried over to the new fiscal year. Because of that, everyone runs around in September trying to burn up funds. If you don’t burn up the funds, the amount you leave on the books will be subtracted from the new fiscal year’s budget. Change the law so we can ‘Fence’ money. Money could then be set aside to purchase big dollar items over several fiscal years. (…) Hopefully these suggestions could be implemented immediately.”

Sorry, girl, but you didn’t invent the wheel: Imagine the face on the majority of all U.S. Americans if their victorious President told them that he’s going to save all their taxes for the next, rival Administration to spend on really big projects…

Would ANYBODY even care to show up again to vote??

I understand. English isn’t your first language. I’m saying think LONG TERM. In a range of 15 years (2010–2025) instead of only right now in 2010 to 2011.

It’s been obvious for years that the demand to cut “non-defense discretionary budget” items was not sustainable. First of all, the deficit is larger than the 1/6 of the budget that this represents, so 0 funding all those programs wouldn’t solve the problem. Second, it implies that those programs are expendable, when it includes the FBI, CIA, SEC, USDA, student loans, SEC, TSA, etc. It would mean ending everything the government does outside defense.

The massive growth of DoD over the past decade and the growing unpopularity of the two wards makes DoD an easy target for cuts. I just hope they make these decisions based on strategy and efficiency, and not based on politics and lining contractors’ pockets.

Excellent idea, and it would make the government far more efficient. It’s difficult to do anything from October until Congress finally passes a budget because of the limitations of having no funding.

You guys and girls got some radical ideas, however, none are practical. The trick is to cut the budget without harming defence. The only way to do that is to cut waste. We are making two engines for one platform, makes no sense. Everybody want to cut this and that but nobody want to cut the things thats dear to them, eventually it will have to be done if those programs are no good for the nation as a whole. There are some departments that should never be cut, DoD is one of them, cause in the likelyhood that we are hit, and I mean really hit, without the right defence to repel the attack, the first thing YOU would say is, and YOU know who you are, “we should never have CUT Defence spending”. The wasteful things need to go. To waste money to try and save money makes about as much sense as a chicken with lips. You are not saving money, you are wasting money on an antiquated idea that is bound to fail, keep doing that and we will always be behind our nearest competitor or the nexy industrialized nation.

Let’s talk about congressional pay and benefits.…..

Ditto!!!

Gordon

Boys and Girls, what we have here is a clear misunderstanding of the basics. The Job of the US Government is to protect the States from all enemies foreign and domestic. It doesn’t mean gross profits for corporations, benefits to those who have worked for the government, benefits for those who have never worked and certainly not lifetime benefits for one time government officials. The US welfare state is being viewed as the ultimate purpose of our Government to the detriment of the National Defence. I’ll admit that the procurement system is broke, but so is Military readiness planning. The changing threat has and will continue to beat us because it takes so long to field a system that its obsolete before it hits the hands of the military personnell it is suppose to support. Cutting waste including entire programs based on where and who they are affecting is just not going to get us where we need to be. Nothing less than a complete overhaul of the planning and procurement system is neccessary to bring about the efficeincies and the readiness required of our military to protect the nations interests!

If you carefully review all of the comments for the various pluses and minuses their total value equals zero.

Considering that one specific goal of our Constitution is to “Provide for the Common Defense”, I think it is ridiculous to put all the Non Constitutional priorities like Obama is doing ahead of the Constitutional ones. The military is already a smaller percentage of the GNP than prior to WWI. What are we doing in a world where the Chinese and Russians are ramping up on their defenses, while we starve our defenses?

My goodness. I work for DOD and the inefficiencies in everyday business practices are staggering. First, get congress to simplify the way money is sent through the system. At best, only 25–40% of all money actually makes it to the product, service or personnel it is intended to pay for. The number of people DOD employs to watch and regulate every conceivable scenario is a huge money sink. So is all the unnecessary training that all DOD and contractors take. My favorites in my organization are:.…Ladder safety training, Holiday Safety Training so you don’t stand in the bath tube while plugging in the Christmas lights and, Homosexual Sensitivity Training. Of this I am sure, if you randomly cut 50% of all federal employees (not just DOD) I would guarantee that the essential duties would get done and the nonsense would drop away. Sure, I might get canned in the process but I am leaving anyway!

During the Cold War, miltary requirements were most generally justified by reference to the “threat” — through the threat was generally symmetric. If the Soviets had a better tank (rightly or wrongly most analysts rated the T72/T64), the apples-to-apples comparison that make the ORSA’s job easier also provided the rationale for the US investment in the M1 tank. Simplistic ? Yes, but that was the way of it. I have a book on North Korea by O’Hanlon that computes combat power based on “tank equivalents” — no kidding. Rumsfeld tried to break this model with JCIDS, and the system basically performed tissue rejection. So to that extent, Wayne’s comment is accurate. But that does not mean one cannot use the Jack Sparrow measure of military capability — “what a man can do, and what he cannot”. You still have balance of power/correlation of forces to worry about, but makes things much simpler when you try to design systems and systems of systems that actually work.

Although it is hateful to consider, the story of the Vietnam War is that Nixon and Kissinger pulled off a masterful maneuver — by throwing the South Vietnamese under the bus and normalizing relations with (Red) China, they turned a bipolar conflict that was going poorly for the US into a multipolar system with the US pitting the USSR against the PRC. That went away with the fall of the Soviet Union, and the US has muddled through as world cop — one might like to see the balance of power ploy acted out in reverse, with the US aligning with Russia against a rising China. Neither Yeltsin nor Putin have acted in accordance with this notion — NATO expansion did not particularly help — so you do find both Russia and China counterbalancing the US position in subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle ways. In the longer time, I don’t think that center will hold, Russia and China are much more dangerous to each other than to the US, or the US to either of them. A strategic disengagement of the US position from Eurasia might light up the fires of hard balancing again — or might just push the strategic center of gravity out to rimland of Halford MacKinder, Colin Gray and Ray Cline — and we are back to containment once again.

Heh! It was probably one of those misprinted bills seen on the news the other day. We can’t even print our money right!

You gotta admit BOOMER, the public just laps that crap up; because they’ve grown intolerant of casualties. Just look at the tremendously low personnel loss rates we have, yet the media stirs everyone up until you’d thought World War III was here and millions of people died!

And not one shred of credit goes to our boys out there who managed to keep fratricide and civilian casualties to historic lows! That kind of thing gets me spitting and stomping mad!! ]X-(

I’ve been guilty of that too. But when the OMB or state capitol tells you that you will lose your budget if you don’t spend it; it forces you to get rid of it fast; but then you know that already. Anyone with assets over 15 million would.

I made up for it by purchasing supplies we may have not needed, but I knew other agencies that did, and they had what I didn’t and couldn’t get. So it all came out in the wash in the end. Trade value per value, and you can’t lose — the taxpayer wins. However — what made be mad is when we had to show losses, when we didn’t; the managers were convinced no inspection team would accept 100% efficiency. It was possible and in fact done, but they didn’t let us do it, because the bean counters would red flag us! Talk about ridiculous! OH! And the “found ammunition in field” push in the ‘80s to try and recover wasted live munitions? TOTAL FAILURE!!! Anyone who actually recovered ammo found on the training grounds was fired for admitting to it and doing the paper work to document it. So much for saving money for the tax payer there!! ROTFLMAO!!

Oh! You fucking A right! BETTER YET! Lay off a good pile of the rest of them! Why is it I have to be laid off but a government employee is too good for that? Critical government jobs? PHSAWW! There are very few government jobs that are SOOoo critical they can’t do at least a 3 month furlough! And no — I’m not talking about actual critical jobs like the actual defense of the country. In fact I could do without the US mail for that long easy! I got UPS, I don’t need no stinking US mail! Email will do just fine! In our community, we have volunteer firemen, how soon could you man your local fire fighting force with enough laid off men now! Well — that may be extreme; but that is your neighborhood’s fault, not mine. [And by the way-we have the cheapest fire insurance rate in our state — so that shows how professional they are!]

Let ‘em draw unemployment like the rest of us! One of my friends who had a government job and was familiar with the federal budget, showed me how soon we could pay the deficit if he and a lot of other employees were laid off; and it was shocking! This was back when Newtie Gingrich was threatening to shut down the government. Put a pencil(calculator) to it sometime, I think you would be shocked as well! Last I heard one in seven works for the government — and this is a Democratic Republic?

(disclaimer) I am now independently self employed, but I was a blue collar worker for years, and proud of it! I was always prepared to move down the road if opportunity meant losing a job or gaining a new one. It is the American way! USA! USA! USA!

You fucking A tweedy! Good to hear another person with a brain! Back when PCs were invading the US Army, I announced that I was touring out, because my position was replaced by a PC! I was right too! But the office about had a cow! HA! They couldn’t do anything to me — I was leaving for college anyway!

When I got to my next unit — I got busy helping them replace other positions with computers too. The Adjutant General of the State of Texas tried to outlaw them in the offices statewide, but it did no good; we just hid them in a drawer, and soldered on! No one was going to get rid of a machine that made life so easy!

And cut all of that worthless employee training while they’re at it! Holiday safety training? Really?

You gotta admit William, there is a lotta stupid and redundant things going on in any organization, it is just that we can’t afford it in the armed services; not for now, anyway!

77705256
I have heard Zero Based Budgeting and non-deficit spending for almost 30 years now! Get a grip– as long as politicians are in charge of everything we are F_____ as usual. Yesterday [now 246 days ago] a grunt E9 recommended some efficiencies that would drastically reduce our in theater cost effectiveness w/o reducing strike or readiness. This week after close consideration by upper eschelons and our DoD committee, they were thrown out as just a whim with no substance. The B.O. estimated yearly savings at 136 billion dollars over the next five years. Now what? You betcha — personnel reductions and loss of benefits for all not just military. What happens when NO country will take our word or our dollars???

Did that E9 do that through the fraud waste abuse hotline, or some other source. I’ve been out a while and I don’t really know if the old FWA system is still in effect. The old system used to work pretty well; and millions were saved once the IG did the audits!

Opine
The actual budget cuts allowed for many favored projects to continue. Budgeting is always flavored with bias.
Consider. China has internal problems, Russia has hegonomy problems, India is doing their balancing act, and the Pacific rim countries are emerging economically.
Will we truly need a massive USAF of Fighter planes, refuelers, bombers, etal. Can the USN carry the fight directly to the sea lanes, with the existing birds.
These FP application questions should drive the budget cuts/upgrades. etc questions.
end
Semper Fi

*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

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.