GOP leader: Pentagon lied to us

GOP leader: Pentagon lied to us

A top Republican Congressman just came out and said what many of his colleagues tried to tell Pentagon leaders in this latest round of budget hearings: We are not buying what you’re selling.

“We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice. We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin. “What we get from the Pentagon is a budget-driven strategy not a strategy-driven budget.”

Everyone is falling over in shock that a Republican would dare question the generals, especially after presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and U.S. Sen. John McCain has accused President Obama of not listening to his generals advice on Afghanistan.


Ryan, the chair of the House Budget Committee, went further saying the retired and active generals will fully admit offline that their budgets don’t fall in line with what they want.

“I think there is a lot of budget smoke and mirrors in the Pentagon budget which is not really a true, honest and accurate budget,” he said. “When you confront military experts — retired or active — they concede these things to us.”

The Pentagon responded with a milquetoast statement from spokesman George Little.

“The Secretary of Defense has been very clear with the military leadership in this department that they should provide independent military advice and be as straightforward as possible with members of Congress,” Little said. “That is a solemn obligation. We value Congress’s oversight role and the secretary expects honest, straightforward input from our military leadership and he believes that’s precisely what they do on a military basis time and time and time again.”

The question remains, though, if Ryan’s accusation is anything more than verbalizing the utter disregard some Congressmen have had with the Pentagon’s recommendations — most notably coming from the Air Force.

Congress has lined up to take shots at the Air Force’s decision to cut the Guard’s budget more so than active duty. Whenever Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz explains that their analysis found this to be the best way forward, Congress has essentially asked to check their homework, or redo the analysis.

Same goes for the recommendation to reopen the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Congress is up in arms over how the Pentagon came to the conclusion that they could save money by closing bases after they still haven’t started saving money on the last round of BRAC.

It’s Congress’ role to question the military. This is how the founding fathers wanted it after all. The military answers to Congress, although you’d think it’s the opposite anytime a lawmaker dares to question “his generals’ advice.”

Of course, it’s a whole other can of worms when you start questioning the integrity of these generals. For this, Ryan stands to lose some political points. And don’t be surprised if Obama’s team replays that line throughout his re-election campaign.

What’s really surprising, though, is the chorus of questions coming from the GOP or the Democrats regarding the Pentagon’s budget-driven strategy. I mean these are the same lawmakers that penned and signed the Budget Control Act that dictates what could amount to over a trillion dollars in cuts to the Defense Department.

America’s generals had no choice but to write this year’s budget based on the country’s fiscal realities, and not based solely on how many soldiers they really want or how many gadgets they could install on the next generation long range bomber.

And maybe that’s not completely awful as the rest of the country tightens their waist belts to avoid the impending debt doom.

Join the Conversation

Just cancel the worthless JSF and then the Air Force wouldn’t have to lie to congress as much. The Air Force bought LM power point presentation hook line and sinker and now every other Air Force project is at risk because of it.

The F-35 is late WAY OVER BUDGET , and the F-22 works and so does the F-15. There are 24 Million lines of code in the F-35 and to get them all work with “Legacy Hardware” think again. It will all work great on a “Simulator written in the same code ) but not so well in real world applications. Think ” MS Vista” and trying to find drivers to make it work with Legacy hardware. I Know I’ve been writing code for 25 years. To try and make it simple 8 /16 bit hardware doesn’t like 64/128 bit code ( operating instructions ) thrown at it.

New F-35 LRIP 5 Contract: Unit Costs Tops $200 Million.
F-35 A Cost: $172 Million
F-35B Cost: $291.7 Million
F-35C Cost $ 235.8 Million

Average Cost: $209.6 Million

F-22A $120 — 140 Million and it is actually flying today.

Its funny, the B2 was considered to be a catastrophe, we were supposed to get 100 of them at a couple hundred million $ a piece, instead we were left with 21 at a cost of $1.2 billion. The b2 works great and no one is complaining now.

The F35 will work and it is forward thinking. Stop wanting technology created over 35 years ago, they won’t survive.

stop including development costs in your totals. And an F-22 does not cost that cheap. Sorry

@Matt: The B-2, like the F-22, does not “work great”. Both of ‘em are insatiable maintenance hogs, and both of ‘em, like the F-35, are unaffordable in practical numbers.

BTW, the true cost of something is what you have to pay to get it. That includes the development costs.

@ tee: The production cost alone of a combat-capable F-22 has never been less than $200M+

But,…but,…but…
The Army NEVER lies, my leadership told me so!
The problem is the truth. Because the truth keeps changing. It won’t stay still long enough for all my leaders to effect all their pet projects!

The F-22’s price I quoted is if at least 100 more are built, using what it would cost us today to add more to the fleet since development has already been payed for. Unlike the F-35 which has reached a “Whopping 4%” of the operational requirements needed that have been met to date. If we are lucky it might reach combat capability in another 6–10 years at the rate it has been proceeding so far. And God only knows how much more it will cost to reach that capability, if it ever does.

Yeah, Ryan’s upset because he thinks the military is using a “budget-driven strategy,” which everyone says is bad (and, it actually IS). What he fails to mention is that the military has to do that, because Congress has not only dropped the ball, but thrown the ball into the street and walked away on fixing the Federal budget!

They’re the ones who couldn’t play well together and got us to this harsh cuts position in the first place. (I’m blaming Democrats AND Republicans.)

Tee, might as well add in the cost to reestablish the production line. The last F-22 flew out of the factory a couple weeks ago and Lockheed is well on its way to pack it in.

The F-22 was a far bigger disaster. The Air Force originally planned to order 750 at a cost of $26.2 billion, with production beginning in 1994; but when finished they only bought 183 aircraft for $62 billion.

In an op-ed for Defense News I wrote that we needed a “full disclosure” budget, which would detail the time-phased requirement for an item, along with a budget request for whatever was decided to buy that year. For example, 100 F-35’s per year needed, but only 80 per year requested based on the mix of all Pentagon programs within their total budget. That way Congress could evaluate the requirement (what the generals and admirals want) versus what is affordable (what the Pentagon, OMB and the President request) within that year’s budget request for all federal programs. That would eliminate this perception of “lying”.

Congress passed the need for a budget back in 1913 (the same year the federal income tax was passed). They can change the law to require the president and Pentagon to provide whatever they need to evaluate they budget. So they should stop whining and change the budget law.

BTW, the generals and admiral DO, in effect, lie all the time to the President and the Congress. About what they need (everything), what those new toys can do (less than advertised), what they cost (four times as much), when they will be deployed (much later rather than sooner). So, why is this a shock?

We have a corrupt military culture. Nothing shows that better than having lost two wars in the Middle East their reaction is to run and hide in the Pacific and ask for new toys.

Its a sham both ways the Generals are wasting personnel and money for crap we dont need like GCV and the ICC, and are cutting troops we do need for it. Someone should question the nutty way the DoD tries to save unneeded programs. Congress like Generals are trying to save and expanded there put projects for profit and gain. the whole crappy system needs to be changed both congress and the Pentagon. Stop the money flows to push crap like GCV we dont need.

Try using apples-to-apples numbers rather than total procurement vs flyaway. The F-35A is ALREADY less expensive than the F-22.

Exactly. The DOD budget has ALREADY been cut by $1 trillion sine Obama took office. Everyone with any sense knows the DOD is & has been operating under a “budget driven strategy”.

Quite the opposite. WE WON BOTH WARS! But political BS is causing us to lose the peace.

You have no clue what we need.

The F-22 is flying some days when its oxygen-generating system works. The US has been in 3 wars the F-22 has not participated in because its ground attack capability has been bad. Now it’s improved to just OK after billions of more dollars were poured in to fix things that should have worked when the jet went operational in 2005, and it still can’t do basic things like fire an AIM-9X air-to-air missile or share data with other types of fighters. http://​www​.wired​.com/​d​a​n​g​e​r​r​o​o​m​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​3​/​r​a​p​t​o​r​-co

Unit costs (not including R&D):

FY13 procurement (includes all internal systems):
F-35A — $180 million
F-35B — $254 million
F-35C — $280 million

Those are LRIP figures (couldn’t find any for the F-22). The first full rate F-22 purchase was for 13 planes at $233 million each. It dropped to $200 million for 20 planes the next year, and dropped 10% a year for each year after until hitting $140 million each. The program manager stated if the production run went past 187 planes, they would have cost $116 million each. Current budget documents think production run F-35As will be between $120-$140 million each, F-35Bs $145-$190 million, and F-35Cs $140-$186 million each. Take those numbers with however much salt you wish.

It doesn’t make sense to assert the F-35A is less expensive than the F-22 right now because stricly speaking it isn’t, but all we have to go off of are LRIP to production run numbers unless you’ve got LRIP F-22 numbers handy. There’s probably a few million dollars worth of inflation to factor in there somewhere too (way outside my lane though). It’s late and I have no idea where to start if we were to factor in total program costs.
http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​f​2​2​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-pr
http://​www​.saffm​.hq​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​nt/
http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

Unit costs (not including R&D):

FY13 procurement (includes all internal systems):
F-35A — $180 million
F-35B — $254 million
F-35C — $280 million

Those are LRIP figures (couldn’t find any for the F-22). The first full rate F-22 purchase was for 13 planes at $233 million each. It dropped to $200 million for 20 planes the next year, and dropped 10% a year for each year after until hitting $140 million each. The program manager stated if the production run went past 187 planes, they would have cost $116 million each. Current budget documents think production run F-35As will be between $120-$140 million each, F-35Bs $145-$190 million, and F-35Cs $140-$186 million each. Take those numbers with however much salt you wish.

It doesn’t make sense to assert the F-35A is less expensive than the F-22 right now because stricly speaking it isn’t, but all we have to go off of are LRIP to production run numbers unless you’ve got LRIP F-22 numbers handy. There’s probably a few million dollars worth of inflation to factor in there somewhere too (way outside my lane though). It’s late and I have no idea where to start if we were to factor in total program costs.
http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​f​2​2​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-pr
http://​www​.saffm​.hq​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​nt/
http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

The corruptness of Air Force brass will not stop until you ban them from govt jobs or contracts for 2–3 years after retirement ‚seperation. Clinton lifted this restriction because he knew the military would follow the pied piper to social reengineering all for a cushy govt job.

It’s not a shock but it’s also not right to keep operating that way. Where’s the “integruty first”?

that was “Integrity first”. It is irritating to keep listening to the ethics briefings when this is what the senior leaders demonstrate.

the pipeline from active duty to government civilian is even worse. So in addition to banning them from contracting jobs, also ban them from government jobs for the same time period. In theory this already exists but in reality the waiver process for anyone E-5 and above is the most streamlined process in government.

There is definitely no accountability for those that rank high in the American military industrial system. We need to start firing people (even certain generals and admirals) and cancelling overly expensive stuff that doesn’t perform what it costs, such as the LCS and the JSF.

Wrong. We already bought the 20, so there is no point crying over spilled milk. There is a lot to complain about, just no point anymore. They were excessively expensive to procure, hugely expensive to operate, and produced in too few of numbers to be as effective as desired or required.

Unit costs FY13 (not including R&D, but includes all internal systems):
F-35A — $180 million
F-35B — $254 million
F-35C — $280 million

Those are LRIP figures (couldn’t find any for the F-22). The first full rate F-22 purchase was for 13 planes at $233 million each. It dropped to $200 million for 20 planes the next year, and dropped 10% a year for each year after until ending production at $140 million each. The program manager stated if the production run went past 187 planes, they would have cost $116 million each. Current budget documents think production run F-35As will be between $120-$140 million each, F-35Bs $145-$190 million, and F-35Cs $140-$186 million each. Take those numbers with however much salt you wish.
http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​f​2​2​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-prhttp://​www​.saffm​.hq​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​nt/http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

It doesn’t make sense to assert the F-35A is less expensive than the F-22 right now because stricly speaking it isn’t, but all we have to go off of are LRIP vs production run numbers unless you’ve got LRIP F-22 numbers handy. There’s probably a few million dollars worth of inflation to factor in there somewhere too since we’ll be buying them for the next 20 years. The planes already bought will need a few million dollars worth of upgrades once testing is completed. Considering how military procurement trends go, those unit prices will probably edge up another 10% before hitting full production.

I had numbers and evidence to go with that statement, it keeps getting deleted.

I was prepared to back Ryan on this until I read that the criticisms are levelled at DOD budget cuts that threaten politically powerful constituents– the Air National Guard and those who work for the military at bases across America. These are not real critiques of DOD budget decisions, they are political turf guarding by the political class in Washington. DOD needs a disciplined critique of its budget– unfortunately, this isn’t it.

Unit costs (not including R&D):

FY13 procurement (includes all internal systems):
F-35A — $180 million
F-35B — $254 million
F-35C — $280 million

Those are LRIP figures (couldn’t find any for the F-22). The first full rate F-22 purchase was for 13 planes at $233 million each. It dropped to $200 million for 20 planes the next year, and dropped 10% a year for each year after until hitting $140 million each. The program manager stated if the production run went past 187 planes, they would have cost $116 million each. Current budget documents think production run F-35As will be between $120-$140 million each, F-35Bs $145-$190 million, and F-35Cs $140-$186 million each. Take those numbers with however much salt you wish.
http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​f​2​2​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-pr
http://​www​.saffm​.hq​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​nt/
http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​f​2​2​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-prhttp://​www​.saffm​.hq​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​nt/http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​f​2​2​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-pr

http://​www​.saffm​.hq​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​nt/

http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

http://​www​.finance​.hq​.navy​.mil/​f​m​b​/​1​3​p​r​e​s​/​A​P​N​_​BA1

FY13 aircraft prices (includes all internal systems):
F-35A — $180 million
F-35B — $254 million
F-35C — $280 million

I got these numbers off of Air Force and Navy budget documents (the Navy one keeps getting deleted from here), but these numbers don’t match what’s posted in the other article.

Those are LRIP figures (couldn’t find any for the F-22). The first full rate F-22 purchase was for 13 planes at $233 million each. It dropped to $200 million for 20 planes the next year, and dropped 10% a year for each year after until hitting $140 million each. The program manager stated if the production run went past 187 planes, they would have cost $116 million each. Current budget documents think production run F-35As will be between $120-$140 million each, F-35Bs $145-$190 million, and F-35Cs $140-$186 million each. Take those numbers with however much salt you wish.

Sounds like Ryan is trying to wash his hands. Of course the strategy is budget driven. Everything in the world is budget driven.

Like you do? Give me a brake the Bradley can do everything the crappy GCV csan do waste of money I know you want Genrals pet projects to come for new toys BUT you cant figure out that the Nation has NO MONEY!

Don’t blame the uniformed military, blame the civilian suits in the DoD.

I wonder what they consider to be the lie being told? Is it because the military budget is not fat enough for the military hardware makers who bribe congress to oder things not needed nor wanted by the military. We still fight wars the most expensive way possible,but far from the most effective way judging that we have won only one war in my lifetime, and that was Desert Storm where we were not dumb enough to try to stay. Apparently your congress and our military providers believe to sole reason for our military is the make Industry the biggest possible profit without regard for what is god for the rest of the country. Now there are some cuts that would help, like firing at least half the General and Admirals in the Pentagon, and perhaps moving up some lower level officers with actual recent war experience. Meanwhile we could stop cutting back the Sergeants that actually know how to run things. Far too many Chiefs and not near enough Indians. Then put more into
Black Opts operations which get more done for less cost in manpower and equipment. Time to use terrorist tactics on the terrorists. Put more American train spies on the lines and stop depending on less than honest local people.

Here is a solution that I wrote about in one of my analytical papers at the US Army Academy at Fort Huachuca. The bottom line is this: Want to save a whole ton of money? Disband the entire Airborne Operations Functions all over the Army. Save it only for the Special Forces, Delta or Green Berets. Why in the world do you need an entire Corp of Soldiers trained to jump out of airplanes to begin with? It’s an unproven form of war fighting that never proved itself to be effective, even in WW2. Nothing but chaos with sticks strewn all over San Mer Egliese. It hasn’t been used since. Think of all the planes, airfields, training programs, equipment and soldiers you could reduce or divert to other MOS Specialties. I postulated this back on active duty 18 years ago, and reaped the world wind from my fellow cadets as well as the cadre.

Bottom Line: Airborne Operations at the large scale Corp or Division level is obsolete. Get rid of it and all the supporting equipment. There is your several billion in bucks you were looking for.

You’ll get no argument from meon the Bradley: to get technical, it’s today’s equivalent of a Sherman,
in that it can be continually upgraded with readily-available current tech to soldier on for decades more and be very capable against its newer foes.

New, more powerful and fuel efficient engines? Check.
More compact and durable transmissions? Check.
Improved suspension technology and longer-wear tracks? Check.
Add on armor types (passive and active)? Check.
Active protection systems and various jammers and countermeasures? Check.
And perhaps most importantly, we also have much better guns available (larger than 25mm), and far better sensors to maximize the range at which we can use them.
We’re perfectly capable now of improving the current hull and designing a better turret.
If we want more dismounts, give it a top-mounted, minimal-penetration RWS like that Israeli system with the 30mm and Spikes.
Otherwise, give it a more formidable gun in a better turret.
We don’t need a completely new hull design, nor an entirely new vehicle from a clean sheet (or rehashed euro armor) to get the Army into the next quarter– and –half century.

The moment a billionaire is threatened with a tax hike, Republicans throw the military under the bus. They’re actually showing their true stripes. They’ve spent a decade hiding behind the flag and the military to keep them selves in power and now they’re hiding behind their true constituents. Billionaires.

It will cost the price of “ONLY 1 F-35B” and then your back up producing F-22’a again. So I’d love to trade 1 F-35B to get the F-22 back in production. If I remember correctly Romney said he would restart the line and sell an “Export Version” to our Allies Australia and Japan. I’d add South Korea and any other country that is currently in the ill fated F-35,

The F-35 can no more replace all of our tactical USAF and USN aircraft than the F-111 could back in the 60s. It needs to be reorganized, the B model cancelled (a separate lift fan, a la Yak-38-gimme a break). It is short range, is having to be redesigned as we speak, has no vectored thrust (to save money), and its only advantage is stealth, which is in the process of being countered, and it’s outrageously expensive. We should build our own version of the Euro-fighter Typhoon, which is has vectored thrust as an option, and there is a carrier version available. ONE type of fighter cannot do everything, especially the 35. Was stupid enough cancelling the F-22. Japan wanted to buy 40 but was turned down, along with all other foreign interest. The Super Hornet is a strike fighter that can defend itself, NOT an air superiority fighter. We need something SOON to be in production that is competitive, and any cost of F-22 production should be considered in EXTRA cost outside the developement costs. W’eve been through this before, 1917, 1941, 1959, etc. “those who fail to remember the past are condemned to relive it”.

Quite the opposite.

F-22A Recurring Flyaway $ million from FY2009 budget
FY2007 = 131.992
FY2008 = 133.388
FY2009 = 142.302
=
3 year average = 135.894

F-35A Recurring Flyaway $ million from FY2013 budget
FY2011 = 135.158
FY2012 = 127.714
FY2013 = 118.144
=
3 year average = 127.005

As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

First, the F-35 isn’t supposed to replace ALL our tactical aircraft, just most of them. Second each F-35 model is a VAST improvement in capability (INCLUDING RANGE) over ALL the aircraft they are replaceing. Third, stealth is NOT its only advantage & it is not anywhere near being countered except for in sci-fi wet dreams. Forth, it is NOT outrageously expensive — it is in fact STILL on track to being not much more expensive than new models of the aircraft it is replaceing cost. Fifth, it is not expected to do EVERYTHING.

Where did you get that from? The budget document I linked was published last month and has the LRIP F-35A procurement from the last 3 years and projected for the next 3 years. It also breaks down the radios, ECM, engines, and other equipment costs that you can’t forget to add in.

Sounds like they are acting like the GOP Leaders have been over the past two years.…..hypocrits..

pfcem:
You may not, but I DO have a clue what Jeff is talking about, even while we may not like how he says it
– or, sadly, what it says about our ACTUAL current system of government in these United States.

Essentially Jeff’s right, but it’s misdirected to blame the brass or even the politicians and contractors when they’re all just playing the game to win according to the unwritten rules of The Game.

The Rules of That Game are those of “the military-industrial complex” we were warned of by an honest
man, politician/general Dwight D. Eisenhower, who knew the dangers to our nation’s safety and
integrity if Those Rules gained supremacy. But they did — we allowed them to, and the B-school boys running the corporations, aided by their henchmen, the law-school boys running the Congress, made
sure that the boys from Annapolis and West Point and Colorado Springs played ball or were benched.

From Ford whiz-kid Macnamara’s unrealistic TFX program to LM’s unrealistic F-35 program, with
every nickel to Boeing and Bechtel and most certainly Haliburton in between, the only Generals
really to blame have the last name “Electric” or “Dynamics” — not Shinseki or Schwarzkopf…
The last fifty years of the tools of their (our?) trade have been delayed, defective, damned expensive
in the first place and devastatingly so to field and maintain… but as long as profits are up
who cares how far down the disaster descends — to dogfaces in the ditch or drivers on the decks
(that was me driving perpetually yellow-sheeted F4s off the Connie from ’66 to ’69) — complex birds
“designed by PhDs, flown by guys with BAs/BSs, maintained by guys that flunked out of high school.”

No fault of any of them, nor any of the rest of us from the 99%. Pay the taxes for the 1% who pay 0%,
serve the country to protect the profits of the 1%, obey the orders of those obeying orders of the 1%
– not that they have any choice — and we will continue to guarantee that the government of of the 1%,
by the 1%, for the 1%, shall not perish from the Earth.

born (

Only reason the Generals are being questioned is because the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (Like Eisnehower said they would) are seeing defense dollars fly away and limited amounts to continue to afford complex programs that can run over for years (I joined the Navy in 1982 when the MC started the Marine Expeditionary Vechicle, and it is still years away from going to the production and being used). Time for DOD do what they have always done since the end of WWII.… TIme to take the weapons and turn them into plow shares and become a force with the open market not a limited market to line politicians pocket books!

I think it was the author, and not Congressman Ryan, who juxtaposed Congressional disapproval of ANG budget cuts with Ryan’s critique of the FOGO’s. I agree with Ryan…the uniformed leadership needs to find the courage to stand up and tell Congress and the American people plainly the consequences for our security of the Obama Defense budgets.

The top 10% pay about 70% of all tax revenues. The top 1% pay about 40%. See http://​www​.ntu​.org/​t​a​x​-​b​a​s​i​c​s​/​w​h​o​-​p​a​y​s​-​i​n​c​o​m​e​-​tax.…

BTW, building those complex flying machines ain’t easy, fighter jock.

Those evil defense contractors employ a lot of very smart, very hardworking engineers, scientists, and technicians. Not exactly the 1%.

And their profits? Defense industry margins are notoriously low — on the order of 7–10%. There’s no other industry I can think of where the customer gets to regulate and approve the accounting structures (to include profit margins) of their suppliers. And the risks associated with designing and building 5th generation fighters? For one sometimes fickle customer? And still, those “obscene” profits go mostly to big, conservative, institutional investors…like your pension or 401K account,

You’re living up to the worst stereotypes of fighter pilots…ready…fire…aim! Now you’re throwing in with the “Occupy” morons. You should know better.

This argument would be hilarious if you didn’t actually believe it.

We wouldn’t need to make harsh cuts in the Defense budget if we hadn’t blown $800B on low-skill non-ready “shovel-ready” domestic jobs. Might help if the Senate, which is controlled by the President’s party, could have passed a budget at least once in the past three years.

Oddly, most billionaires seem to be Democrats (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, that Zuckerman guy from Facebook, 90% of Hollywood), who are fully able to voluntarily write enormous checks to the federal treasury any time they feel the patriotic urge to put their money where their enormous mouths are. Not sure why you think they are the big Republican constituency. The Tea Partiers in the GOP are much more interested in protecting a large number of small businesses than a few left-leaning billionaires.

What’s really sad is the way the Generals and the Defense Industry are allowing themselves to be held hostage to the Democrats’ big domestic spending addiction. “Give us more of your money, Mr. Taxpayer, or we shoot the Generals! (Never mind what we did with the last $800B you gave us).”

How about a “balanced approach.” The Dems want to raise taxes and spend more. The GOP wants to cut taxes and spend less. Let’s compromise: hold the line on taxes, reverse the Dems’ irresponsible domestic spending spree, and husband our resources for our defense priorities.

AND THIS IS A NEW THING?

I bvelieve Senator Rand Paul has proposed legislation to this effect; banning govt contracts to mil-ind-complex firms lead by retired flag officers just out of service.

Everyone is falling over in shock that a Republican would dare question the generals, especially after presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and U.S. Sen. John McCain has accused President Obama of not listening to his generals advice on Afghanistan.
===================================================================================
Indeed. Perhaps Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney would recite in what fashion the previous incumbent listened to his generals? If he had — he might not have left behind a military at it’s lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam, there would likely be far more headroom in the budget, and we might not have endure the largest string of foreign policy disasters in US history. Maybe.

What we need is a super F-15. One with canards, & retrofited to handle the engines used to power the F-22. Screw stealth…with beyond horizon missiles in production this kind of aircraft could handle itself nicely in any situation.

The military does NOT report to Congress. They hold our budget strings, and that’s how they maintain a balance of power, but we are the executive branch and my chain of command does not include anyone from the legislative side. Congress has continually threatened the lives of the soldiers I serve with, and also helped bury, without any concern whatsoever. It doesn’t necessarily mean we should be uncooperative with Congress but they need to stop butting in on non-budget affairs like they continue to do. We take care of our own. Last I looked, WE serve the public. THEY serve their own interests. I think the DoD has a lot of fat it can trim but Congress’s slash and burn approach threatens our national security and the safety of our soldiers. This is not acceptable and needs to change.

Like it or not, Congress has the right to require testimony from any American citizen it wants in order to make their decisions.

he Military is now a Business Case Analysis driven force, not a What do I need to portect the United States and her allies

Saving money on the last BRAC round, they must be kidding? That round will never generate any savings especially being the Government bought homes of those affected by the BRAC at 2005 prices (when the closures were announced). The base I am on they underestimated the cost to close by 1.3 billion dollars and is anyone held accountable — NO! Is the mission getting completed without any affect to the forces — NO! Not to mention the chairman of the BRAC committee has a large brand new health center with his name on it just down the road from the base. Hmm do you think he’s a part owner? corruption at its finest, worthy of jail time.

What’s the matter Ryan? Some of those budget cuts affecting your district? Your consttituents are beginning to realize they elected a MORON. Starting to feel the heat. Hope Wisconsin rids you and Ohio cans Bone head Boehner.

My question about the whole thing is why do the soldiers have to be the ones that pay. They are talking about cutting combat pay and then not paying hazard pay until after they come back from deployment and then taking taxes because it will be paid once they are back on American soil. I would love to see where else these cuts are coming from other than our military.

Where did you hear that? The only change they made to combat pay was prorating it by day rather than a flat amount per month.

When DOD opens up a RFP (Request For Proposal) on an aircraft or other military weapon system, there are a number of capability criteria. The clean sheet of paper approach has some benefits, usually by encouraging innovation and new technologies. The problem arrives when the high ranking military folks start piling on a lot of extra features. VTOL, stealth, internal weapons bays… It all starts to gum up the works with unnecessary complexity and lower reliability, which in turn adds to the cost in both production and maintenance over the useful life of the system. This can also make an aircraft so cumbersome that it is impossible to meet its original performance envelope requirements. So cost over runs and lower production runs are the consequence of mitigation. And that is how a single plane can cost over $200M during its useful life time. In my estimation, the Chinese approach is better: Keep it simple, effective and lower the cost. Then build lots of them. No matter how advanced the technology that we incorporate, eventually, higher numbers of cheaper weapons could overwhelm our defenses.

Ryan makes some valid points, & implies that the Secretary of Defense is over-riding what the Chiefs of Staff are recommending in order to implement the SECDEF’s and the president’s budget-driven strategy.
It appears that we are having a replay of the Pres. Johnson years as we sank deeper & deeper in Viet Nem. During those years then Secretary of Defense McNamara misrepresented the recommendations of the Chiefs of Staff, with the complicity of 2 different Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Taylor & Gen. Wheeler, & instead told Johnson what he, McNamara, recommended & untruthfully said that the Chiefs of Staff agreed. For anyone interested in what went on back then, read the book “Dereliction of Duty”, written by H.R. McMaster.

He speaks only the truth. A huge problem in acquisition is that the contractors never accept any of the risk. Because of this we are letting them get away with a cost plus fee contract. Basically they are gauranteed profit. Meanwhile the military keeps paying and paying for stuff that was promised in the first block buy.

Put contractors on a fixed price and incentive fees then the risk swaps to them to do it and do it right the first time. I say this as a logistics guy so I accept some of the blame.

AF Retired Sgt Crew Chief. It is time for our Gov to consider how important people are over weapons and
Generals being put in jobs they are not able to handle. For instance, who designed the SR71? skunk works with few experts. Some damn good pilots in the mix as well. Also just fun sake a few good Sgt mechs would be h elpful. I crewed a C-47 and F-86 and F100 and F-105 and believe you me I could write a book on design flaws.

*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.