Strategic Weapons Win in Gates’ New Budget Plans

Strategic Weapons Win in Gates’ New Budget Plans

Defense Secretary Robert Gates today announced the winners and losers of his FY-12 budget request and his effort to save more than $100 billion in defense spending over the next five years. The Air Force and Navy emerging as clear winners while the Army lost the SLAMRAAM and Non-Line of Sight missiles and the Marines lost their Expeditionary Fighting vehicle and saw the F-35B put on a two year probation. If the jet isn’t on track by then, the Bravo-model JSF should be gone, Gates proposed.

The Army and Marine Corps will also see force structure cuts along the lines of 27,000 and up to 20,000 troops after 2015, respectively.

However, the two “strategic services,” the Air Force and Navy, fared much better, with both receiving cash for weapons capable of projecting power in the face of high-end 21st century area defenses like those being developed by China or Russia.


As Lexington Institute analyst Loren Thompson put it in an email to DoDBuzz right after the cuts were announced:

“This is the first good budget news I’ve heard for the Air Force is a long time.  Key programs like the F-35A fighter and Global Hawk Block 40 were not cut, while several new programs were added.  Maybe the military is returning to a balanced posture after a decade of counter-insurgency.”

“The Gates proposals portend a diminished role for ground forces in the nation’s future defense as Iraq and Afghanistan wind down,” added Thompson. “The Air Force and Navy typically dominate joint deliberations when there are no major ground campaigns under way.”

The Air Force’s biggest victory may have been getting permission to build a new, optionally-manned, long-range stealth bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The aircraft will be developed using existing technology and work on fielding the jet should begin right away, said Gates.

“The follow on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities – an area that should be a high priority for future defense investment given the anti-access challenges our military faces,” said the Secretary.

The Air Force is also getting cash to buy more MQ-9 Reaper drones and it will be moving ISR programs from war supplementals to the permanent budget. The service will also buy more of the extended expendable launch vehicles to help keep Air Force space programs alive and preserve the U.S. space technology industrial base.

The air service will also see money to buy new Active Electronically Scanned Array radars for its F-15s and will be buying more F-35 simulators.

Naval aviation programs will see funding aimed at overcoming next-generation area denial weapons. This means the sea service will get cash to field everything from new jammers to defeat advanced air defenses to the construction of all new carrier-launched strike and ISR drones. The Navy will also see the purchase of new classes of aircraft carrier, a destroyer, an ocean surveillance vessel, fleet oilers and the Littoral Combat Ship.

The Department of the Navy will buy more F/A-18EF Super Hornets and extend the lives of roughly 150 F/A-18 Hornets to offset the delays in the F-35B production. Gates announced he is moving the troubled F-35B to the back of the F-35 development queue, behind the Air Force’s F-35A and the Navy’s F-35C, and putting it on a two year “probation.”

He described the B as “experiencing significant testing problems.” He then said “these issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft’s structure and propulsion, changes that could add yet more weight and more cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either.”

The Missile Defense Agency will also see cash dedicated toward buying more long range interceptor missiles and radar sites to protect Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

While the Army will see it’s end strength cut and lost two missile programs, it will see investment in relatively cheap ISR equipment such as C-12 turboprop-based spy planes and Grey Eagle UAVs. It will also develop a new vertical-take off and landing UAV. It will also get cash to modernize its Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and Stykers.

Even though the Marines saw two or their main elements of 21st Century power-projection cut or put on probation, Gates insisted that amphibious assault will remain a key mission of the Corps. Instead the Marines will get cash to develop a new, more affordable amphibious assault vehicle, according to Gates.

“This decision does not call into question the Marine’s amphibious assault mission,” said the secretary  We will budget the funds necessary to develop a more affordable and sustainable amphibious tractor to provide the Marines a ship-to-shore capability into the future. The budget will also propose funds to upgrade the existing amphibious vehicle fleet with new engines, electronics, and armaments to ensure that the Marines will be able to conduct ship-to-shore missions until the next generation of systems is brought on line.”

To fund all this, the armed services along with the Pentagon’s various offices and agencies offered up more than $150 billion in efficiency cuts over the next five years.

Here’s a sample of some of the ways this will be done: a DoD-wide civilian pay and hiring freeze expected to save $54 billion in the next five years; reducing the number of civilian contractors by 10 percent; cutting the size of U.S. military headquarters in Europe; eliminating 100 general and flag officer billets; freezing some new military construction; using multi-year aircraft buys and consolidating DoD-wide IT infrastructure, a move expected to save more than $1 billion per year. Intelligence programs will also be consolidated under the Defense Intelligence Agency.

A total of $72 billion from those savings will be redirected into the services’ modernization coffers, said Gates.

He went on to defend his FY-12 budget request of $553 billion saying it equals “about three percent real growth over the funding the department would receive in FY-11 under the current continuing resolution – and about 1.5 percent growth over the Appropriations Committees defense bills for FY-11.”

Still, $553 billion was $13 billion less than what the Pentagon had planned for FY-12 in it’s five year budget plan produced last year. The overall budget plan is expected to chop $78 billion the previous five-year spending plan known as the Future Years Defense Plan.

Gates went on to paint a picture of defense budgets growing at a slight rate through FY-14 and then flat-lining with zero real growth in FY-15 and FY-16.

“Under the proposed budget plan, the Defense Department will continue to see real, albeit steadily diminishing, growth for the next three fiscal years before flattening out in the fourth and fifth year,: said Gates. “What is important is to have a budget baseline with a steady, sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys in defense spending that can be enormously harmful to readiness, planning and financial management.”

The secretary also defended the Army and Marine Corps troop cuts, saying they will take place in the middle of the decade and only after combat winds down in Afghanistan. He added that even after the cuts, the Army will still be about 40,000 soldiers larger than it was four years ago.

Gates was joined by Chairman of the joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen in saying that the Pentagon, with its massive pot of federal discretionary money, cannot be exempt from the belt tightening required to close deficits and get the nation’s finances in order. Mullen described long term federal debt and economic problems as one of the most serious national security threats to the country.

Join the Conversation

Not bad…sure could have been a lot worse. New hornets for the navy, more X-47 money, new bomber for the air force, more reapers, upgraded eagles, next gen jammer.…a lot of focus on air power.

We have no need for a long range nuclear bomber. Conventional bombs, yes. Nuclear, no. Subs and ground based missiles take care of all our nuclear needs. We will never use, or need, a nuclear bomber. In any real war, we need Marines and Army.

You can’t say he doesn’t course correct when needed.

Built up our military, cut Obama care, welfare!

The only certainty is that Gates as Barry obama’s hatchet will continue to gut our military. Think of the 60 billion wasted on government motors to produce golf carts and the trillion dollar ‘stimulus’ which stimulated nothing but government bureaucrats.

13 Billion less than requested.

The chicomms are building 5th gen stealth and will not stop at 183.

Where is our air superiority capability going to come from?

Yea cut the number of ground troops, sounds beyond smart being they are already stretched beyond thin, and in ANY type of war in the future, they will be the ones doing 90% of the fighting. Especially in these guerrilla wars, like the ones were in now.

Good Evening Folks,

It good to see the racist out and among the non dead.

Who won , who lost. Gee I though we were all on the same side, it appears that is not the case. This is really a sham deal all the heavy savings will come in the 2015–2016 budgets with the personal cuts. The F-35 still has a pulse but is the B variant is back into the ICU, again. Sec. Gates is still a Texan. Oh did I miss it, or is there no F-136 second engine mentioned ?

The Air Forces bomber, was that not funded on a ten year program a couple of years ago for $548 million? What has changed?

No new manned air craft for the USAF, that is a problem the AF already has an excess of pilots looking for ride and don’t like pouting away the hours in front of video at Creech AFB.

The Army losing two missile system that were already red lined, lots of fiscal courage there. One thing that appears to be cut but not mentioned is the IFV, with funding for Abrams and Bradly modernizations that pretty much seal the fate of the not needed or wanted IFV.

The ill fated FCS is finally history.

The Marines, oh the poor Marines, their $16 million aluminum duckie has finally been sunk and they were told to modernize their existing platforms. Perhaps if General Amos didn’t spend all his time worrying about what Marines did in their bunks with who, and who they were going to bring as a date to the Marine Corp. Dance on Nov. 10– 2011 the Marines may have got a better deal.

The big winner for the second year in a row the US Navy. Mo ships, mo sailors in sea billets, life is good on the high seas. I know it may be nit pickin’ but on Sec. Gates list of new ships Destroyers, LCS, Tankers etc. I failed to see any LPD’s or LHD’s, does this mean anything? Will fewer Marine be needin’ a ride?

Of course the Navy is still in search of systems and weapons to put on the LCS but that’s next years budget.

All in all a rather conservative budget, there is no political courage here.

Someday all this nonsense maybe will be set aside and we all be on the same team to defend America instead of fighting each other for money in the defense budget.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Your unsupported assertions are wrong, right, wrong, wrong, hopefully right (never use), wrong (or need), and who knows (depends on the definition of ‘real’ war).
I’m guessing you’ve never been within a mile of a force-counterforce analysis, and find nukes ‘too scary’ to think about and believe the ‘fewer the better’. In that case, embrace the ‘Triad’. Triad doesn’t exist because it sounds cool. The Triad concept exists because it allows fewer overall weapons to hold more targets at risk for the same or lower cost.

Leave it to BS Byron to drop the race card at any hint of calling out his man child prezident.

Wonder If he would label true racists such as obama’s pastor as such?

Does Byron have a real job? Truly I wonder is he a welfare queen Obama voter or what.

Anyone.?

(1) No big deck amphibs were added because the Navy and Marines already have all they need.
(2) Troop cut don’t even take military personnel down to pre-911 levels. We need to sort out what kind of wars were should be fighting and with what kind of forces. I still say that using the entire Army, National Guard and Marine Corps (on the rotational basis with peacetime dwell times between deployments) is a failure of military strategy. Given high tech weapons and surveillance systems we should be reducing the manpower required to fight our war, regardless of whether they are insurgencies or force-on-force.
(3) No cuts to strategic programs! That’s a great source of Pentagon pork. We can cut half that force and still employ a deterrent strategy.

Where is our air superiority capability going to come from?

A old fighter called Raptor.You think that is not enough????

(4) Where is the net reduction from combining high tech (like UAVs and surveillance with targeted weapons) versus the large number of aircraft? There should be substantial savings from the changing way we fights our wars and with what forces compared to how we are doing it today.
(5) This is not Obama gutting national defense. The first President Bush did the same thing when money was tight. This is the people — like the Tea Partyers — cutting a bloated budget. Cutting $12 to $16 billion a year from $530 or $550 billion a year is easy! I know. I handled these budget for two decades and have seen all the waste. It’s still there!
(6) STOP with the Loren and Loren and Loren thing already. Mix up your sources.

I agree. You can’t fight a major air campaign with only 187 F-22s. Gates should have admitted his mistake and used some of the savings to buy it back. A total of 400 to 500 is probably required, once combat UAVs are added to the mix.

You can’t fight a major air campaign with only 187 F-22s

You can fight a air campaign with 187 Raptors ‚400 Eagles,1000 F-16, Couple hundreds F-18 plus B-2 .B-1 ‚B-52, AWACS and so for .

The race card? Really Byron?

The problem is when it comes to #5, these are actual programs as opposed to the stupidity related waste that occurs in everything.

Taxpayer “don’t even take military personnel down to pre-911 levels“
Do you know we are in a post-911 era?

We are at war and will be at war a lot of years.

That message is playing the dunce card. Really, Byron.

G.Bush have augmented by 20 000 soldiers the size of the army, no?
I think the f-35 was one big part of all problem in the Army programs.
The numbers of foreign base was really absurd and unnecessary today.Only one base in europe, one in asia,in the gulf and in djibouti was largely suffisant today.See others country, like GB and France, who reduce their foreign base for save their budget and their acquisitions.
I was for one small numbers of foreign base and one good navy, and not reduce navy power just for see one world map where you see one US military presence everywhere, just for give to the world one sentiment of the master of the world.
we don’t live in on colonial time, the world have changed

“We need to sort out what kind of wars were should be fighting and with what kind of forces.”

Yes but, we need to 1)decide where we are fighting 2)let experts (DoD) make reccomendations on how and with what an whom 3) perform some sort of cost/benifit analysis and choose a course of action 4)fully fund selected course 5)get out of the way and let DoD do its job

We hardly ever make it past step 1, rarely do steps 2 and 3, and never do steps 4 and 5. Gee, I wonder why the system is a mess.

“See others country, like GB and France, who reduce their foreign base for save their budget and their acquisitions.”

If we are going to emulate Europeans in defense, we will have to rely on somebody else to win wars. That is not a very smart strategy.

I support most of what Gates is doing. Many comments:
– It’s sad to see that many emotion people are looking at these COAs as assaults on the Army and USMC. For example, SLAMRAAM termination. In the “SLAMRAAM, EFV…” posting, it was written that Army leaders had recommended this cut to Gates​.In the previous story you said Army leaders recommended cancelling SLAMRAAM.
– NLOS-LS is another remnant of FCS – the program that is the gift that just keeps giving. How much longer do we have to suffer from the FCS demon — How long until leadership also give up on perennial JTRS, JC4ISR, and ICS failures?

- USMC Generals have recently supported EFV termination. If EFV were worth saving, they’d be resigning their commissions in protest. They know that they failed to execute the program well. Finally we can start over and develop something properly. Just don’t repeat EFV mistakes.
– Army/USMC force structure cuts coincide with pulling back from Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Good! We need to develop a long term, sustainable mission in both Iraq & Afghanistan. $160B a year ain’t it.
– Love the characterization of USAF & USN as “strategic services”. Peace through Strength. Strategic Deterrence. Love it.

- Long Range Strike Bomber – love it, agree it doesn’t need to be nuclear, this would drive up cost. We need something affordable. Actually Northrop’s prior proposal to restart B-2 is looking pretty good now.
– Reapers – love it
– Super Hornets are excellent fallback should JSF fall
– MDA is a long term money pit R&D program that has been allowed to violate DoD Acquisition procedures. Shameful. They need to wind down this program. Break it up into smaller, manageable programs, that have to play by the rules.

- Not crazy about Army developing UAVs or fixed wing aviation. Not core competencies of the Army and this direction will draw resources away from the rotary aviation, where they are awesome.
– Starting new AAV from scratch is a good thing. This program needs to lie low until everyone can get the EFV bad taste out of their mouths.
– Don’t believe the “efficiency cuts.” Cutting European headquarters seems the only real cut. “Consolidating” IT requires up front investment, usually these situations end up in Cost Overruns and Benefit Shortfalls.
– Flat future DoD budgets – Good. Federal government needs to freeze all pay scales until we get our overall economic and fiscal house in order. We have to stop being our own worst enemy, or we will all go down in flames.

1) The future is too Uncertain to decide where we will fight. We need full spectrum capabilities. 3)Totally agree with you on the failure to apply Cost Benefit Analysis. Even when it is done, most CBA’s do not account for Uncertainty & Risk in different Courses of Action. Disagree with you on 5) though. Continual program reviews and constant re-evaluation is always important. I cover all these issues in my book: http://​www​.amazon​.com/​C​o​s​t​-​O​v​e​r​r​u​n​s​-​W​h​a​t​s​-​W​r​o​n​g-H

Byron – When you say IFV do you mean the GCV? I thought that program was still going.
As far as FCS goes, see my post below. The ghost of FCS actually still lives on in the “Spin Out” concept. Lot of money still being poured into JTRS, JC4ISR, and ICS under nebulous concept of “network”.
Cheer up Byron! You should give Gates more credit. He IS displaying a lot of courage, there will be a political bloodbath to get all these reforms to pass. It’s a start. And if it drives you so crazy and you are sure you’ve got all the answers, I’d love to see your name on a ballot or in a “high on the org chart, low on pay” political appointee position!

Why do you say that? Suppose we end up in a fight with China. Hopefully we will have some allies right, or do you think we will just want to fight them ourselves? On the opening days of the war, we blow them away with submarine and air launched cruise missiles. If our air superiority is ever truly in danger, and we lose something big, like a lot of fighters or an aircraft carrier, we use a nuke.

I agree with you. Making the new bomber nuclear will drive up costs like crazy. Nuclear deterrence should be provided by subs, ICBMs, and forver how long we can keep B-52s and B-2s nuclear capable. Actually any affordable aircraft that could carry air launched nuclear cruise missiles could maintain that part of the strategic triad, without having the excessive expense of having a single platform have to do many missions. Heavy bombers are used a lot to loiter and drop many JDAMs even in close air support role. It seems like a very different mission than long range nuclear attack.

Byron, the F136 was mentioned in a VERY subtle manner. I think Mr Gates has much BIGGER Problems and Programs with much BIGGER costs to deal with.

F-35 F136 are political bombs. Alot of $$ and reputations have been put at risk. Even GAO has been on the record as saying that the second engine program will save money.

Rumor has it the only reason why USMC Generals supported cutting the EFV was because Gates ordered them to do so.

Well you can pass along rumors that say just about anything. I want to know what the RECORD shows.

The future is not uncertain. We knew exactly what kind of fights we would be in right now 20 years ago at the end of the Cold War and did close to nothing to prepare. Good decision making and prudent long range preparation are uncertain, but not the potential theaters of operation in the next 20 years.

It will be a conventional bomber, just nuclear capable.

“The Air Force’s biggest victory may have been getting permission to build a new, optionally-manned, long-range stealth bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons.”

See others country, like GB and France, who reduce their foreign base for save their budget and their acquisitions.

I dont know about that comment. GB is bulding two aircraft carries, and they are talking about mothballing one of them as soon as its built. not to mention the ASTOR Sentinel R1 Airborne Stand-Off Radar. Pretty much a brand new aircraft, and they are talking about retiring it as soon as its not needed in afgan..

Smoke-and-Mirrors people. They say they are going to “cut” the budget (which will sound good to Americans) but, what they don’t say is they are going to re-invest into into “selected” programs. Therefore, very little cutting going on over the next 5 years.

As a matter of fact, the USAF and USN are getting more funds then they had on a year-to-year basic over the last 5 years!

Smoke-and-Mirrors

Depends on the aircraft’s profile. If it is stealthy it will not and cannot under treaty carry stealthy nuclear cruise weapons. The B-2 is prohibited that way currently.

From what I have read previously this aircraft would be stealthy. It could carry nuclear armed free fall weapons but I don’t see that as driving the cost up.

A bomber that is 1/3 the size of a B2, but costs just as much, makes no sense.
There is no need to have a bomber get all the way to the target, look at a B52 with cruise missiles.
Buy more updated B2s, I can support.
The concept of Triad is dated, ground missiles and nuclear subs are a better investment, especially since we are headed towards having far fewer warheads. But, if you want Triad, buy more B2s. Something with payload capability, and can deliver massive amounts of conventional bombs, which is something which probably will be needed.
We probably have no need for more than the 1500 warheads in the latest START agreement.
B3 will be a hanger queen.

IF the war is fought in the next 20 years we’d be fine with those planes. After that, scratch half of them from the roster as they will be retired. Hopefully the F-35 can handle air to air responsibilities in the future since it will be the only game in town.

The IT consolidation has been going on for a couple years and is on track to continue. A few years ago the DoD went from post-wide domains to regional domains. They expect in the next couple years to narrow that down to a single domain where all helpdesk functions are done remotely which will negate the need for a help desk at every post. The upfront costs seem to be mostly server upgrades and some personnel shifts. The savings will come from shutting down redundant help desk infrastructure all over the place.

A strategic bomber is highly needed, so that is good news. I’m not sure how they are going to pay for it though.

“If F-35 fails” — in my book it already has. Price will never be where promised and neither will export sales. The whole reason for F-35 was affordability. For the $30B overrun in EMD/SDD we could have cured a lot of what ails the DoD. With China testing their J-20 and Russia flying their PAK-FA (T-50) and getting India to help pay for it, I highly doubt that F-35 will provide air dominance. Hmm, time to restart F-22 or start something new.

I like the fact that Secretary Gates is putting a plan out there for the DoD to do its part with the nation’s finances. Unfortunately, he may not be able to accomplish everything on that list for this simple reason:

“I’m willing to work with Secretary Gates and the president to cut wasteful defense spending, but cutting the budget on the backs of Ohio’s workers is unacceptable,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. ”

Congress would vote for a 10-man army as long as it continued to spend $100 billion a year on weapons in their states. They’ll talk all day about waste, efficiency, and belt tightening as long as it isn’t their belt.

Minus 1. If you follow the AirSea Battle yellow brick road, it all starts with long range strike. Once again this commentator dons the green eyeshades, with no understanding of actual system concepts or usage. Its all about CAIV to him.

Minus 1. I particularly appreciate the old Eisenhower strategy of going nuclear as soon as possible if things go bad in the Taiwan straights.

NLOS-LS was officially dropped in this round. Another one bites the dust. I think the court is out on what will happen to GCV. Could get weird.

Minus 1. NLOS-LS was one of the most mature of the spin out systems. I could have lived on, but the attitude now seems to be “screw it, nothing goes to the field unless it can be carried by an individual soldier”. EFV looks like the Marine Corps version of the FCS debacle. From a strategy perspective, it makes it just that much harder to get back onto the Eurasian continent — from littoral on back — once we are fully “redeployed”. So all you have there is SOF, operating covertly, with no promise of reinforcement. And since our forward presence in Northeast Asia and Western Europe is reduced, it is just that much harder to get into an immature theater in sufficient numbers to win. So all you can do is sail around and plink at the bad guys with precision strike. If that does not work, you are out of options. I do think it poignant that the Marines may have an existential crisis over losing EFV. They can join the party with the calvarymen and tankers and airborne infantry…maybe they can invite Mr. Thompson:
http://​www​.lexingtoninstitute​.org/​g​a​t​e​s​-​k​i​l​l​s​-​efvhttp://​www​.lexingtoninstitute​.org/​j​o​i​n​t​-​t​a​c​t​i​cal–

What difference does the payload make ? Minus 1

I’m not saying those rumors are true but that was according to DefenseTech. Gates actions when he killed the F-22 makes it seem rather likely.

I didn’t like the way the EFV had been handled. For the amount of money and time we invested we got very little. Yet I am more concerned about the future of the Marine’s amtracks and AFVs in general.

Part 1 / 9

You should be snearing, no: SPITTING at this huge armament shopping list instead of cheering at every new clothes of the Emperor, like the grovelling, unquestioning, irremediably pre-Renaissance subjects that you are! Show a bit more critical sense, more anger, more unpredictability, will ya?

Can anyone detect the slightest COHERENCE , the slightest preferrence = anything even resembling a fundamental, courageous CHOICE , any clear STYLE , or some long-term master-PLAN (like a national strategic doctrine) behind this kukoloris, tutti-frutti, motley, interracial arms purchase? I don’t.

(Continued)

Part 2 / 9

Ask yourselves: WHAT kind of warfare is Gates’ dream-up weapons potpourri for the next few years best suited for? What on Earth did he have on his mind for it? Victories?! Oh, so that’s NOT its function. But AT LEAST a victory against Afghanistan, no…?
If not even that, then why do you deride all new, officially announced, Russian or Chinese military goals, LOSERS ? Why do you still bother to write White Books, Papers, reports, “visions” and studies, etc.? Why don’t you just buy hyper-expensive, useless, made-in-America weapons (like the F-35 and the L.C.S.) to impress the hillbillies at home, in the classical “Oblatian” sense?

(Continued)

Part 3 / 9

And wouldn’t it also be cheaper to make war plans and arms acquistion programs that last just a bit longer than the weapons they include, for a change, not just from one visionary P.O.T.U.S. to the other? Since 1962, when we left Algeria, we French still had roughly the same strategic doctrine and no one invaded us yet or touched “our strategic interests” abroad, so why your constant lack of definition?

(Continued)

Part 4 / 9

If Gates’ budget plan is supposed to create a LOW-end armed force, then it seems to me that in the next 20 (50 ? 100 ?) years the U.S. Infantry will still be WASTING TRILLIONS of ineffectual 5,56 mm rounds in real shooting wars, wear subpar bullet vests (against World-wide standard 7,62 mm rounds) and have no decent rocket launchers, A.P.C.s / I.F.V.s, mine-resistant vehicles and transport helicopters of all sizes, nor CO​.IN. planes and A-10s to depend on! How caring of the potato-bellied, doddery generals.

(Continued)

Part 5 / 9

And why can’t the Marines use L.C.A.C.s “until the next generation of systems” (of E.F.V.s) is ready? According to the U.S.M.C. The L.C.A.C. hovercraft can cross 70 % of the World’s coastlines, as opposed to only 15 % for normal landing craft, it’s armed, it can carry TANKS , it has a range of 370 km – 550 km and a speed of 40+ knots (46+ mph, 74+ km/h) with full load or a staggering 70+ knots (80+ mph, 129+ km/h) empty, and for each E.F.V. you can buy around 4 – 5 L.C.A.C.s (and each L.C.A.C. can carry 4 – 5 E.F.V.s to shore, LOL, from where on it’s as useless as the E.F.V.s) !

Alternatively, since the U.S.M.C. is even willing to pay 1 million $ to carry each single oink to land, what’s possibly – technically, nautically or tactically – wrong with THIS alternative here to the 20-million-$-E.F.V.s:
http://​www​.fareastgizmos​.com/​e​n​t​r​y​_​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​1​0​0​7​/25

(Continued)

Part 6 / 9

Second, even more exotic alternative to the E.F.V.: Would even a 30 km far flying rocket backpack ( = a slightly modified, remote-controlled missile) cost 1 million $ ?

On the other side, if Gates’ choice shall represent the arsenal of a HIGH-end armed force (the title says: “Strategic weapons win”), then where are all those additional F-22s, a (conventional) replacement for the B-52s, the urgently modernized I.C.B.M.s and any NEW Space launchers / Space vehicles? In my ignorance I thought all THESE were truly “high end” systems…?

And what’s so “high-end” about continuing to fight two multi-TRILLION-$ wars in the wider Absurdistan area?

And what the fuçk do the U.S.A. need additional aircraft carriers for? Is this how the U.S. Navy intends to trick China into spending all its anti-carrier I.C.B.M.s?

(Continued)

Part 7 / 9

Short of pioneering some revolutionary new technology like hyper-speed and/or extreme flight altitudes and/or ACTIVE cloaking devices, etc., nuclear bombers are kamikazes, too, like the aircraft carriers: The only two enemies you’re building them against have such big countries (one as big as the U.S.A., the other twice as big) that the stealth bombers will become plainly radar-visible again (from straight below) as soon as they overfly their borders and coastlines, if not sooner, and from then on they’re pure cannon-fodder.

(Continued)

Part 8 / 9

You can’t be sober to base a nuclear warfighting strategy against high-tech enemies on such an idea as “bombers”, not in an era of missile-intercepting S-300s, S-400s and S-500s ! But that’s precisely what Gates says (quote) : “…given the anti-access challenges our military faces…”.

In the event of a nuclear war, would your heavy bombers even make it to the end of the runway, before a M.I.R.V. explodes 20 km above their (hard to cloak) air base? Please… what next: Expect these bombers to return, maybe even to fly a second sortie, too?

(Continued)

Part 9 / 9

I think I’ve proven to you often enough, and quite irrefutably so, that the U.S. Armed Forces can always buy A LOT more weapons AND SIMULTANEOUSLY better weapons (if necessary foreign ones…) with ONLY A FRACTION of their money! It just doesn’t have to be always Boeing and Lockheed Martin on the menu, this invariably leads to malnutrition.

All in all this budget request just looks DEPRESSING , like a total victory of the rotten, grey eminences of your System, of the M.I.C.‘s backstage players (of the “reaction”, to employ a leftist term), and like a capitulation letter of the most basic common sense.

Party on, sheeples! Your enemies are smirking, satisfied.

Nice. Another program to throw billions at only to cancel without putting any hardware on the ramp.

The Marines need to get rid of the V-22 , they should have done that a long time ago.They might have had the funds for their EFV. That piece of sh*t V-22 cost around 70 million then the hanger queen needs maintance after the first flight that is if it didn’t crash and kill a few good people.

FFB finally wrote one so long that even he didn’t want to finish it.

FFB is French, right? He reminds of the French soldier in the castle from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grai that taunts Arthur & the knights of the round table. “I fart in your general direction!”

You are sure you’re an adult right? If a platform is both conventional and nuclear, it will cost more than a platform that is just conventional or just nuclear. This is a diffcult AoA and C&OEA problem. Is it better to have one platform perform multiple roles or would it be best to have separate platforms? There are difficutl cost, uncertainty, and risk issues involved with any COA. But since the current track record on multirole platforms is not good, I’m leaning towards separate platforms…

Most DoD Buzz readers are mature enough to recognize the biased, flawed analysis of Mr Thompson. Seems like you’re behind the learning curve. Too bad you can’t give me –2 for each one of my comments, we could get to see you display even more immaturity. Now you’re calling FCS “debacle”, and you gave me a bunch of crap when I called it what it was?? What the heck???

What difference does the payload make? how about EVERYTHING. if a platform is multi-mission it will cost more than a platform designed for a specific purpose. it is also a more complex and risky program. the question here is would it be better to do the multi-mission or to have separate platforms, one for conventional and one for nuclear. there are costs, benefits, uncertainty, and risks with whatever COA. given the historical performance of multi-mission acquisitions, i suggest it is wiser to have separate platforms. diversification is an excellent risk management practice.

the first full scale development contract was awarded in 1996. any program that takes 14 years and doesn’t produce an operational product deserves termination prima facie. how the heck are we supposed to sustain any kind of military capability if we tolerate this kind of performance?? it takes 14 years to field 10 years to produce?? it’s going to go obsolete during the acquisition process. 5 years from MS B to FUE needs to be the standard.

If NLOS-LS was so mature, then why was it canceled?? nothing goes to the field undless it can be carried by an individual soldier? who the heck has that attitude, besides you? Now you call FCS a debacle, when you’ve been attacking me giving me –1’s and calling me a jerk for expressing that same position?? Most of the DoD Buzz readers have caught on to the flawed, bias analysis of Mr Thompson, BTW.

Well, read some of the stuff the generals are putting out, such as the RDECOM Commander. I first got a whiff of the handheld mania from a former PM FCS. What signal was he sending there ? Keep in mind that I really like the Universal Controller and I do think you can do a lot with portable computers these days. But — riddle me this — if NLOS-LS was really and truly expendable, what does the Army have in its inventory that makes its capability superfluous ?

Agree on fixed wing aviation. Disagree strongly on UAVs — but this is an area where form follows function. Why was the Class IV UAV — a very mature system cancelled, but Class I lives on ? It is not a trick question, it is a question of operational (or really, tactical) roles. The Class IV worked for the brigade. I’m not sure who the Class I will end up working for, when all is said and done. But it won’t be the Air Force.

Until Obama and the other DemocRATs are voted out of office, their primary role is to keep people in economic slavery so they will have a voting block. If anyone party has dumded down Americans to make them dependent on the government is the DemocRATs

The dealys only allow for the theft of technology; our only advantage has been to put into play the very best as soon as can be mustered other wise you have given the advantage to the enemy; they are buying technology; by the time we catch the leaks the damage is done. This will come back to bite us; being right is not what I want, I Love this country and have been amazed and proud at what we have come to engineer and builld often out of desperation; the American ingenuilty roars into place and dilivering the goods when needed most. We have over the last 45 years have pi__ed away resources by giving them to dictators and war lords, etc. Take the foreign aid back and put it to good use in our future. Sooner or later they will all be assimalated. Take stock in America, the F-35B is a good step into our future, not to develop this craft is a waste of time and money; build 20; you are going to see other countries buy them can we afford not to have them in our arsonal? I think not.

Let’s put it into a really clear perspective.… the entire $335B defense budget is NOTHING compared to the $700+B the Obamacrats just squandered in the stimulus package to pay the unemployed to sit on their duffs and did NOTHING to create jobs for them. Let’s worry about the REAL problem in the current financial cricis, the congresscrats and the white house dwellers! VOTE NON-INCUMBENT! FIRE ‘EM ALL!

btw.… the “ill fated FCS” is not history…working under a different name.…..
if allowed to mature it would blow your little mind.….

I think some of you are clueless sheep supporting Obama’s cuts. Active troops is the last thing you cut. When you pll back from the 2 fronts you put the guard and reserve back to civilianlife and weekend warrior status to save money. 1.4 million active force is a joke at best. 2 fronts proved that. The active strength if anything is way too thin and needs expanding. The real enemy is foriegn aid and Obamacare. Dump both of those and cut the waste in the way things are procured. The lack of adequate assembly plants and monopolies. Then a 350 million F22 cots 100 million instead.

*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.