Winners and Losers in the 2015 Budget

Winners and Losers in the 2015 Budget

While its passage in Congress is far from guaranteed, the Pentagon’s budget request for fiscal 2015 has some clear winners and losers on the weapons-acquisition front.

The Defense Department on March 4 will request its spending plan for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The base budget, excluding war funding, will total $496 billion, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said during a press conference Monday afternoon at the Pentagon.

Hagel spent a portion of the hour-long briefing discussing the department’s modernization plans.


* The service-wide Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning II fighter jet made by Lockheed Martin Corp. The Pentagon is expected to request funding to buy 34 of the aircraft — down from 42 planes it previously budgeted for, but up from the 29 aircraft it’s buying this year.

* The Air Force’s RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman Corp. The service intends to use the high-altitude drone to replace the Cold War-era U-2 spy plane.

* The Air Force’s MQ-9 Reaper drone made by General Atomics. The medium-altitude remotely piloted aircraft, known as the hunter-killer for its surveillance and strike abilities, is slowly replacing the fleet of MQ-1 Predators made by the same company.

* The Navy’s SSN-774 attack submarines and DDG-51 destroyers developed by General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. Multi-purpose vessels will be needed for the department’s shift in strategic emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region.


* The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) being developed by General Dynamics and BAE Systems Plc. The one-time replacement for the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle was estimated to cost as much as $17 million per vehicle — too pricey for the current budget environment.

* The Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolt II attack plane initially developed by Fairchild Republic and later upgraded by Boeing Co. The venerable Warthog is still great at shredding tanks and other ground targets, but service plans to replace it with more advanced aircraft such as the F-35.

* The Air Force’s U-2 spy plane made by Lockheed. Expensive to fly and maintain, the aircraft will be replaced by Global Hawk drones for high-flying surveillance missions.

* The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) developed by Lockheed and Austal. Leery of committing so much of an investment to a single type of ship, Hagel sliced the department’s planned purchase to 32 ships from 52 ships and ordered the service to review potential alternatives.

* The Navy’s Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers made by General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls. Half the fleet, or 11 ships, will be “laid up,” or removed from operations, until upgrades take place.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Join the Conversation

Looks like Hagel is doing what Obama hired him to do ( Destroy the US Military’s Capability to Wage War ) so they can increase Entitlements and turn the US Military into a Third World Military Power.

I sure hope Congress and the State Governors tell then NO by not cutting the check’s in some cases and cutting the checks needed to keep the A-10 and the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers in service.

I’m actually happy that the GCV is getting killed and the LCS is taking a big hit. I don’t care much for the U-2 or the grey hull warships. I’m also happy about the Virginia-class attack sub getting a win here. These were all good decisions I think. The fact that the Super Hornet is not listed here means that it’s still undetermined if it will win more funding.

The only things I strongly disagree with here are the retirement of the A-10 and the continued funding of the F-35 mistake jets. When the F-35 fails at CAS and infantrymen start dying it won’t be funny.

Overall, this is much better than what my expectations were for the 2015 budget and I’m actually kinda excited to see what happens.

You are a RWNJ fool. You honestly think the President wants to “Destroy the US Military’s Capability to Wage War”? Better loosen that tin foil hat of yours.

A-10s are responsible for their fair share of blue on blue.

Ironically, this would be a good time to start mothballing F-16 wings early, or sell them overseas to vendors with Skyhawks and Phantoms to make a quick buck (obviously not to Iran…)

Of course this competes with FMS by Lockheed who wants to make F-16s and keep the money for themselves.

What’ll probably happen is that after mass drawdowns of personnel everyone will go into the mercenary business. We’ll find ex-SAS and Navy SEALs running about west africa on security missions keeping Dictator A in power keeping country B safe from Al-Qaeda.

Go pound sand LWNJ. You know the agenda is true..

I don’t get what your first statement means. The problems with the blue on blue incidents have not been a result of faults with the A-10 aircraft itself. They are a result of pilot error or an imperfect way of being able to identify ground friendlies from the air. Drone attacks have their fair share incidents when they have killed friendlies or civilians by mistake and the problem is with the way of identifying ground targets or the operator.

I’m with you on the F-16 though. I remember reading about a huge fight between Boeing, BAE, and Lockheed over work on the F-16 and I think that’s still ongoing.

The F-35 will never be able to perform like an A-10! Could never operate out of some airfields that the warthog can. Hagel could not answer half the questions at his confirmation hearings (without help from his cronies behind him at the hearings) is now proving he IS NOT the person for the job (Secretary of Defense)! He should admit he is in over his head and resign immediately!

grant, it really pains me to say it, but I don’t think Obama believes in a strong America.
Think about where he was coming from when he said, “Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower….”

Think about what discussions they have had over the years when his wife says,
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country” and the thing that made her proud was that America had nominated Obama to the Democratic candidacy for President.
In all of Americas history, that was the first thing she felt was worthy of pride.

I don’t think Obama is evil, but I definitely don’t believe what he wants for this country would be considered to be good for it by the majority of its citizens.

p.s. Is he going to get all of his future advice from the czar he is going to hire. He really doesn’t need the added expense; as he is killing the military on his own. I repeat — Hagel should resign immediately!

Other than the A-10, the losers mostly deserve to step off the stage. It is a pity, the Navy needs a Corvette/Frigate badly for a lot of reasons, but the LCS is simply not a warship at this stage. Even if they get a tactical length VLS they will be under-gunned and unable to sustain damage and keep fighting.
I hate to say it but there are at least two foreign ships that fit the need better than anything we have on the table.

How are 34 more non-combat capable, unproven, mistake jets adding to the security of the country? What a waste of taxpayer dollars. The only benefactors are LMT shareholders. The order should be zero until OPEVAL is completed and it is shown to be operationally suitable and operationally effective.

Let’s face it, they are cutting troops and existing vehicles not so they can cut the defense budget. Hell, the defense budget is going up. Sequestration is dead, haven’t you heard? They are making these cuts so they can fund more big weapons development programs. The real “big winner” in this game is the same as it has always been, the BIG DEFENSE CONTRACTOR.

The funny thing is, they are going to cut all of these existing weapons, and they’ll cut programs that are just beginning to enter production for one reason and one reason only. That is to steer more money to the big weapons development programs that the defense contractors want. The same is true of the personnel cuts. All that money is going to big defense contractors via big development programs. And these defense contractors are so good at manipulating the public, that you will all thank them for the screwing. Everyone will get all excited about the new programs that “this time are going to do it right,” right up to the point where they get cancelled just before going into production just like every other development program we’ve had lately. And yet again, you’ll thank them for the screwing, because the next program will be better. It always is.

Let’s face it, they are NOT cutting troops and existing vehicles not so they can cut the defense budget.

Yes, I’m sure the next ship program will be much better than LCS. They always are.

I think Obama, just like most politicians, is full of good intentions, and guess where the road paved with good intentions is going to take us?

To be effective — doesn’t the A-10 have to survive in contested airspace?

Clearly the F-35 and the LCS survive only for political reasons.

I’ve seen an A-10 land safely after having 3/4 of its hind end shot off. I DEFY anyone to tell me an X-35 (I refuse to give it an F until it can actually Fight) can do the same. But by all means, keep the F-22 mothballed and let’s continue to pour money down the rabbit hole.

I should’ve said keep the F-22 line mothballed.

Clearly! Obviously there’s no urgent operational need for the LCS.

Depends on what you mean by contested airspace. If there’s an Su-35 combat air patrol in the vicinity, the A-10 would be in big trouble, but so would an F-35. The difference is that if the F-22’s have cleared the enemy, the A-10 can withstand more ground-based anti-aircraft fire than F-35, and can deliver far more ordnance than the F-35. Not to mention that we’ve already bought them, and so we don’t have to pay over $100M a copy for F-35, then pay even more to modify them into a useful configuration.

I adore the A-10 as much as anyone else. However, to assume we need to put pilots in harms way (what a warthog was built to do), is an archaic view. Our weapon systems are far more advanced than they were when the A-10 was conceived. An X-35 would never need to get that close or go that slow to provide CAS.

Shows how narrow minded and corrupt the Pentagon is. Most of all the keep fawning over this failed JSF which is inferior slower and carries less than the F-16 or F-18 it was meant to replace. It relies on computer WAY too much. It cannot do the same job as the A-10 and when Lockheed shoves money at Heagle he saves there pet project. Only really good news is that GCV is about to die. LCS gets cut which is good. Need to focus on Blue water navy not some coastal Stealth boat.

Iam glad to see the GCV boondoggle finally soon de that was a joke from the beginning.

A-10 unit cost $11.6 million
F-22 Raptor unit cost $159.9 million
X-35 Joint Strike unit cost $196.5 million

The A-10 is revered by the boots on the ground and has no comparable support platform. Inexpensive, super dependable and reliable. Low tech, easily maintained, and allows the pilot to maintain visual contact with a target at all times during a turn for a second run.
Worn out yes…but why on earth simply not produce New A-10’s. Compared to the X-35, you can deploy at a rate of more than 10/ 1 for the same money.

There are some designs that simply work. Regardless of when it was conceived, the cost to retool and re-start a new production run is totally justifiable when you know IN ADVANCE that this platform works, it’s economy is proven, and dependability takes a back seat to nothing.

Just the sound of the A-10 made the enemy shit their pants.

You nailed it the Obama administration wanted F-22 cut off for this small p.o.c. so of course they will save it time and again.i

It can it can carry AIM-9s for self dense and always the need to fighters IE F-15 or F-2 to keep the airspace clear is needed too.

Sorry you got the UASF 1950s mentality a CAS plane may need to loiter to keep fighting the enemy. a Fighter bomber just drops a few boobs and leaves. This is why the JSF wont work its smaller fuel capacity will make it a one bomb run plane and so the A-10 which loiters is needed a lot more for the CAS mission.

I don’t think the issue at this point is capability, it is cost. It is far more effective to cut an entire aircraft fleet, than do smaller cuts across several fleets.

You forgot that the real losers are the Troops — pay raises capped, paychecks frozen, commissary prices will increase, and TRICARE fees beginning for family members. All bad!

It would be good for the Air Force to get rid of the A-10, and it would be good to give the A-10 to the Army.

It is long past time to revisit the partitioning that prevents Army from flying fixed wing aircraft with forward firing weapons. Let Army fly fixed and rotary wing aircraft that provide close air support, ground attack, recon, forward observation, counter insurgency, intra-theater cargo, etc.

Wrong wrong wrong. It is going to cost us $3.5 billion just to MAINTAIN the aircraft over the next 5 years. That’s very expensive for a platform that will all the while be losing capability as ground units begin upgrading to newer C2 systems. A restart of the A-10 production would have to follow the route of the Super Hornet. It may share same designation, but it’s a completely new aircraft. With new avionics, controls, engines, etc. The systems currently being maintained have dead logistics tails. So while yes the A-10 has a very proven general design, you wouldn’t be able to recreate it without making significant changes which cost money and inherent risk. It’s not as simple as just dusting off some machinery and reopening a factory. This takes a ton of engineering.

You’re not paying attention if you think Barry has good intentions for the United States of America. It’s right in front of your face and you don’t see it; could be you don’t want to…

You can spend yourself into billions and trillions of dollars in debt trying to pursue technological nirvana, but it’s hard to imagine the ground fight going away any time soon. And where there are boots on the ground, the A-10 is needed. It would be just as archaic to say attack helicopters do not need to be put in harms way. I am ex-USAF and ashamed that the service has not put its heart into the CAS mission by investing in a realistic replacement for the A-10. Could we atleast have some demonstrated live fire tests to prove/disprove the F-35 can perform CAS before committing to retiring the A-10 fleet? NOPE that would be too sane.

F-35 has more than twice the combat radius of an A-10 and get to a target 3 times as fast, all while still carrying more ordnance. I would put time to target above loiter time which isn’t that much longer with an A-10 anyways. Additionally just take a look at the Super Hornet or a Harrier for an example of how a fighter bomber can be successful at CAS.

Look in the mirror FOOL, The current jerk in the White House was even derided by Ralph Nader as being totally awful at foreign policy. He said he would fundamentally change this country. He is. He is bankrupting it and stripping it of it’s power. He is a traitor.

Good call BlackOwl18E 91p! One wonders if the pilots of the F-35 will give it the nickname “Mistake” as opposed to “Lightning II”.

the air force is too insecure to ever let that happen, they’re afraid that the Army might do a lot better job,
all one have to do is look at the Corp to see have effective a totally integrated force is

18E: a total of 192K reduction in combined AD & RC Army end-strength is a something your actually happy with? Kinda excited about that? Less than a Million combined AD/RC soldiers.……

There is a separation difference between close air support (CAS) and strike or interdiction missions. CAS is direct support to ground forces in contact with the enemy while the other category is hitting targets behind the lines, concentrations of troops and armor, logistics, command vehicles and radar systems, etc.

Against modern enemy air defenses the A-10 is not survivable doing those sort of strike missions behind the lines. Not even all that titanium plate will protect you from direct hits from vehicle-launched SAMs. Even providing CAS against an enemy with such weaponry would involve a lot of risk. If we had gone to war against the Soviets in the ‘80s I think everybody knew there would be large numbers of A-10s lost. Yet it was thought the damage they’d inflict would be worth that price. I have no doubt they would claim a huge toll on Soviet armor, yet there life expectancy would have been quite low.

Even with better ECM gear threats like the Russian SA-15, SA-19 and SA-22 could all too easily down an A-10 and we no longer have an Air Force the size of what we had back in the ‘80s. The USAF thinks it isn’t survivable enough to justify the cost. Newer GPS guided munitions and targeting pods have also made fighters like the F-15E and F-16 much more effective in the close air support role than in the past.

The USAF does have some solid arguments about the A-10’s limited use in a conventional shooting war against a modern enemy. My issue with that argument is that we aren’t usually fighting Russia or China and the A-10 is still highly useful in conflicts like Iraq or Afghanistan. While the A-10 takes longer to arrive than the fast jets, it can stay on station longer and go very low and slow when that is needed. Even with JDAMs on F-16s and Hellfires on UAVs there are situations where “simple” weapons like that 30mm cannon can be of a lot of use.

The F-35 is needed as an replacement for the F-16, yet considering the amount of money we (justifiably) spend on our military we ought to be able to afford the 300 or so A-10s currently in service in addition to our other assets. Find some foreign bases to cut or all of these excess generals and admirals we have.

Who is “they”, Congress? I don’t agree with you about the idea this is intentional, for example Lockheed was lobbying to continue (not terminate) F-22 production until DefSec Gates told them to stop. But there are indeed reason we ought to have term limits. Good luck getting them to vote for that however.

Hagel is right and Sen. Marco Rubio wrong or was just simply politicizing the issues. At the end of the day — REMEMBER ROME — OR AT LEAST REMEMBER THE LESSONS OF ROME. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

Yah, that’s my take too. The USAF is right that they absolutely need the F35 and that the A10 is not usable in certain conflicts. But in many of the conflicts we are likely to face, they are invaluable. And it won’t save money anyway, because the Army will just have to find another way to get close air support. I don’t think we need 300 given our budget situation, but we sure as hell need 50 to a 100. Just because it isn’t survivable in all conflicts doesn’t mean it isn’t a necessary part of our inventory. Same could be said for the gunships.

No, Rubio is right and the US is doing what it always does after a war and only regrets later.

I honestly can’t believe people are saying things like we won’t be fighting protracted ground wars in the future. Amazes me that it can fly out of their piehole.

Obama claims to be a scholar of the constitution, which one?

Guess he forgot about the preamble that says the government will “Provide for the Commom Defense” and “Promote the General Welfare” NOT Provide the General Welfare. The DemocRATS have seems to have CHANGED the meaning of the promote the general Welfare as to mean they will Provide the general Welfare after all it was the STATES that would provide for the general welfare.

Also see some articles that under Obama budget the cut in Military will be given to heis social agenda and maybe his failed green engery policies?

from G2mil:

Feb 26, 2014 — Pentagon Spin

I read numerous stories his week about cuts in military spending. These are false. Spending for FY2015 remains mostly flat. Some areas will be cut, but offset by increased spending elsewhere, like retiree pay and health benefits. For example, a Colonel retiring today after 30 years of service will receive a monthly check twice as big as his next door neighbor, a Colonel who retired in 1984. Some reports note that “cuts” are from “forecasts” or “plans”, meaning wish lists dreamed up by Generals that our nation cannot afford. The White House announced a separate proposal for $26 billion in spending growth for next year that is above the agreed long-term budget plan.

Everyone has read about plans to cut the Army to the smallest force since pre-World War II. However, it will be twice the size as in 1940, and the National Guard and Army Reserve will remain several times bigger. Moreover, our 1940 Army included the Army Air Corps. Adding today’s U.S. Air Force manpower to the Army’s total amounts to 800,000 active duty GIs, four times larger than in 1940.

Finally, manpower reductions are required because of past refusals to restrain soaring personnel costs, something the Pentagon has finally attempted for FY2015, by trimming (not slashing) some benefits after decades of rapid growth. Despite the whining about cuts in Army manpower, there is no plan to preserve combat forces by slashing overhead found in redundant headquarters and outdated overseas bases, as detailed here: Save our Army from Generals

Compensation inflation is pretty common. Executive pay in 1984 is pitiful compared to what it is now, though perhaps with inflation…

The generation that is retiring today is demanding what their fathers got. Regrettably, they’re doing it on a plundered economic base that their children are picking through the ruins of.

I feel like we should reduce the number of expensive contractors and add more DoD civilians to do those jobs; or add more personnel end-strength to handle what the contractors were handling.

If the army picks up the A-10 it means maintainers have to be cross-trained or seconded from the AF.

It’s regrettable that the Army/Air Force is not a team in the same sense as Navy/MC with effective division of labor to comparative advantage of both branches.

While DoD civilians are far cheaper than contractors, they are also more expensive than military personnel. Hell, half of the military qualifies for food stamps now. You definitely don’t see that in the civil service ranks. When you get to the rank of full Colonel or General some of the salaries might be excessive, but the typical military soldier is no where close to over-paid.

On the other hand, it is hard to feel sorry for the people in the military whose jobs are being cut. They are being stabbed in the back by the monster of their own making. They weren’t satisfied by just making their defense contractors rich. They made them hyper-rich, and concentrated that money into the hands of just a few companies with tremendous political power. Now the servant has become the master.

If I was South Korea, I’d be asking the USAF for a quote on how much they wanted for their A-10s.
Don’t think there’d ever be too many North Korean tanks driving south of the DMZ if the South Koreans had 300 A-10s waiting to pounce on them.

The military brought it on themselves. They made the defense contractors the super powerful political force in the nation they are now. So I am supposed to feel bad for these people who get laid off so the monster they made can get even richer? Yeah, right. You brought it on yourselves, you idiots! You brought it on all of us. What the hell were you thinking?

Yeah, because the F-18 is such a prize. The original “jack of all trades, master of none.” I guess when an Su-27 blows your ass out of the sky in an F-18 you’re not as dead as you’d be in some other airplane, because the F-18 is so cost effective.

Personnel costs haven’t risen at even 1/100th the rate that the costs of weapons development programs have gone up. But how will they use the money “saved” by laying off soldiers? They will spend it all on weapons development programs that funnel more corporate welfare to defense contractors. Of course, it should be noted that more than anyone else, the military deserves to be cut. These defense contractors are the monster of their making, and it’s about damn time they got screwed for it.

When talking of weapons loads; wouldn’t the F-35 have to carry external loads to beat the A-10’s capability?

Most pilots loved to fly the warthog. It is highly survivable with the redundant systems and the titanium bath tub.

Correct it has 2 internal bays for a total of 4 internal weapon stations. The exclusive use of the internal bays would be for air to air combat where max speed and minimal radar cross section are paramount. Neither of which are really critical in a CAS mission.

President Obama: A Belgian man and his fifteen year-old love slave were looting the accident scene, and came across a blood soaked baby, moi. They raised me to be evil. You know, that old chestnut.

One can only hope someone has enough courage try a new design under the budget situation the military is under right now. I’ve yet see brand new design some how survive process and get built. DDG-51s and Viriginia Boats are old designs upgrade, not actual new ones.

A-10 being cut is crap, aging frames is understandable but the design sound. F-35 taking its mission is always been airforce’s (high-tech only) crowd mission. The F-35A barely holds enough ammo and is survivalable to handle A-10’s missions. It maybe old, but thing can handle modern threats, its not suppose be fighting SU-33s or T50 Stealth Jets. Its ground attack plane. Drones can’t survive doing that right now!

Yes, it takes real courage to design a ship under a Navy contract that guarantees you $1.10 for every $1.00 you spend. Wow, I wish I could find someone to give me a contract like that. I can’t be sure until faced with the situation myself, but I’d like to think I too have the courage to take on a contract like that. I mean, how many people really do have the courage to take free money? Not very damn many, that’s for sure.

Who am I kidding? The ones most responsible for this defense fiasco will spin through the revolving door and get a job working for a defense contractor making twice what they made wearing a uniform. You can be sure the taxpayer will get an extra screwing this way, though. That’s the one constant.

I think Fairchild-Republic tried to get the South Koreans to buy some but for whatever reason that never went anywhere. Considering North Korea’s somewhat dated air defense systems it would be quite at home doing what it was designed to do there.

They could offer it to the Army…

The F35 can carry 2000lb more with a tenth of the gun load. The same gun that deliver support as close as 60m to friendly troops. All bomb ordnance has to be delivered exponentially farther from troops. (like 5x or more depending on the munition. That makes a huge difference when it comes to CAS.

Troops on the ground can also almost always rely on the A10 being used for CAS vs. missions the air commander may deem as more important.

The BEST solution is for the Air Force to formally abandon the CAS mission (as opposed to its traditional neglect) and allow ground services to develop and operate fixed wing ground attack aircraft without interference.

The Army would jump at the chance of doing its own fixed wing CAS.

While the Navy?MC lashup is better let’s not be confused. The key is the Marines own their own aircraft. No one, not even the Navy can keep the Marines from getting CAS.

The whole Air Force line is BS. The USAAC of 1940 made up less than 25% of the Army’s numbers and relied on Army basic training, logistics, security and medical support. Today the Air Force has independent solutions to all those needs and is 64% of the Army’s size.

Those that enable the administration grab on to any handle to haul their water.

As much as it would be nice to see another service pick up the A-10, it just isn’t in the cards. Again, every service is downsizing, and the Army moreso than others. In training, an Army Captain told me in his year group they were facing 30% decrease in manning, nothing to shake a stick at. Also, as Blight said, maintainers would have to be cross-trained, or AF support agencies on Army posts. Additional costs would also come with writing new contracts for maintenance, logistics, supply, etc. As with most of the cuts, it is the logistical tail consuming most of the expense.

“Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”

Hellfires can be employed as close as 110m to friendlies without needing the JTAC to sign off on danger close. And that is the conventional warhead, with reduced collateral warheads, or smaller missiles such as folding fin rockets, I don’t foresee collateral being a concern in the future. Another consideration is the A-10s gun was primarily designed for killing tanks. Guns also require strafing runs, meaning restricted run-ins, tighter controls from JTACs, and time spent getting into, outof, and back into position. Missiles enable faster time from clearance to weapon effects.

I’m all for the A-10s going to someplace that can afford and utilize them well. Personally I would rather see them, and any other aircraft we need to get off the active DoD books into the Guard. If a state want’s to take on the expense, they should well be entitled to. Sadly, I don’t think this is how it actually works, just how I wish it would.

Yes the Governors of states have a real need for CAS aircraft…

110m is almost double the danger close of the gun. The Hellfire is also capable of being employed from the A10. However employed it typically requires someone to laser paint the target.

Testing of 2.75 rocket employment from fast movers is ongoing but employment of that system also requires laser painting AND the fast mover has to get in pretty close with a lot less survivability than the A10.

The gun on the A10 was designed to kill tanks but also fires HE besides AP. It’s an irrelevant point. The F15 was designed to be an air superiority fighter. Does that mean it can’t do anything else? BTW, guns don’t require laser painting and can provide support to any unit on the ground. admittedly they do make the aircraft more susceptible to enemy fire, something the A10 was built for and other planes are not..

CAS is not only possible with JTACs present.Aircraft

No doubt there would be issues but let’s not mince words. The Air Force would rather gargle with razor blades than allow the Army to have any fixed wing aircraft.

All said the Army would still jump at correcting the Key West agreement.

Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics and the status quo confuses roles with tactics and logistics…

Well lets see, winners, the defense manufactures and contractors and the losers, the American people and what used to be call the American Military, but now know as the ghost service. Congress, both Houses is full of Millionaires who make more off the graft/perks they get that the yearly pay they get. Not to mention the fact that they are all guilty of insider trading which is absolutely legal JUST for them in Congress and their pals, but if you or I or even some dumb Cooking Show lady {she went to jail for what they do daily}. Can you believe that Congress passed a separate law that actually allows them to use insider information they receive as Congressmen/women in the performance of their jobs to make money on the markets for their own personal gain???WE would go to jail for anything close to this, and you VOTE for them to screw you out of the little that you might get and save. VOTE all incumbents out of office, regardless of Party. All of them screw you and laugh in your face cause you still vote for them. They call it stupid.

As compared to.…what? A need for air-superiority fighters or strategic bombers? If people want to maintain A-10s, that is an option, put their money where their mouths are. Take a state vote, raise taxes to support the units, and get on with it.

1. We are SUPPOSED to “drawdown” AFTER a war morons. It is the NORMAL lifecycle of the military.
2. Even AFTER all these “devastating” cuts the US military budget will be more than the next ten nations military budgets COMBINED. Fool!
3. Just like Faux News NOTICE, there are virtually no statisitcs, data points, or other references to FACTS in these comments.

This should be a place for vigorous DEBATE (eg assertions, opinions, supported by REASONS & FACTS) not a bunch of drama queens parroting mass media partisan political rhetoric.

Hell, I wouldn’t want to go to war with ANY of these cry-baby, whining, sniveling wannabe service members.

I noted that the big ‘three’ Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics along with an ‘up and comer’ General Atomics all won spots in the “Winner” column. Granted they were represented in the ‘Loser’ column but those programs were probably programs that they wanted to shed or that they knew would be kept in the fight by the partisan hacks in the Congress. I think Boeing had a pass into the future with the Hornets.

It’s like that old saying, “Those who don’t learn from History are doomed to repeat it.” Eisenhower said to ‘beware the military industrial complex’. Maybe he was right?

Makes you glad they got rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

It’s funny, you rail against congress, but it is the executive branch that has proposed this budget, and many in congress are questioning the cuts in personnel and active weapons programs. While I agree that we have far too many crooked politicians, maybe you should actually read the article first.

Sorry Mr. Secretary. Our adversaries have the capality to defeat your high tech war fighting/defensive capabilities. We will always need and must count on “boots on the ground”, highly trained, motivated, mobile forces to defend America. “Scouts Out.”

Sadly he has refused to work with the House at all and his executive orders are paramount to dictatorship.

The troops always take it in the ass–there’s no one to speak up in their defense. The contractor, Congress, & Washington beaurocrats get theirs–the troops get to die for for nothing

Finally someone with a logical and well reasoned argument instead of just trash talk. Well done.

Come out to my farm and call me a wannabe, JACK.

Nice exusesforobama​.com post. “The US Army will be twice the size of the 1940 Army”. Wow. That’s a great place to be. Funny how I’ve heard of no cuts in the massive unionized civilian workforce. If the administration wanted to reduce personnel costs they’d take a realistic look at the MASSIVE costs incurred by subsidizing marriages of young and immature service people and the health care costs of females, most of whom bear at least one child in their first enlistment. The purpose of the military is to defend the country, but the administration seems to consider “fully integrating” gays and women the true purpose of the military. There are dozens of ways to lower personnel costs but they would involve major cuts to union jobs, reining in the RIDICULOUS subsidies for immature people to get married, paying dependent benefits to service members who bring children into the world out of marriage, and finding ways to cut down the massive numbers of “dependents” DOD supports. All too tough for this administration to handle. Far easier to say get rid of X number of Brigades. We stretched ourselves to the limit fighting two small wars that wouldn’t amount to a single campaign in a major war. As we’ve found in every single war, you never have enough grunts. While I agree about the ridiculous number of Flag Officers, where is the push from the CIVILIAN leadership to cut them and their headquarters?

The LCS is not really a loser. Note that it is produced through the FYDP. Since nothing in the 30 year shipbuilding plan is really meaningful except the FYDP, LCS resmains in full production. the FY17 plan can change everything, after all, 2013s plan isn’t worth anything now.

True, not unlike Bush who (once again) took us to war without a constitutional declaration of war. Democrat or Republican they’ve all been happy to take our money at the point of the unconstitutional IRS’s guns. This one’s worse than the last, but not by much in my estimation. But then I’m an American, not a Republican or Democrat, and notice the lack of a hyphen — that was on purpose.

There’s no “maybe” about it. He was right.

While I agree with you that the military should not be used for social experiments of the kind this administration has been conducting, and I agree that “civil servants” should not be allowed to unionize under the current constitution, after all there are no provisions for it in the constitution, just one more unconstitutional rewrite by the unaccountable Supremes, but still I think you are missing the main cost driver when it comes to why we get so little government for the dollar these days. That cost driver is contractors. The cost of military medical care has skyrocketed mainly because much of the VA has been outsourced to contractors. We got far more bang for the buck when these hospitals were staffed by government employees, union or no union, and that’s a fact.

They don’t have the lobby organization the defense contractors have, but then again, whose fault is that?

Dfens, you are talking out of your hat. The military healthcare costs that are in the DoD budget do NOT include the VA. The VA is seperately funded and seperately controlled.

That may be, but when they talk about personnel costs going up, they include the VA in those numbers.



yes!!!! the military has been cut deeply by obama and he is trying to do it again. I have never heard of any goverment cutting it’s military budget during a time of war. Another point of interest is that while we cut defence spending, potential enemys like china have increased; I don’t think they built the carrier buster missile just because they can. Don’t forget the russians either!

That is just way to much knowledge and information for one man to know at the drop of a pin. So therefore you should know who to keep at your side who does know the answers to a lot of questions as such. That being said I agree Hagel needs to pull his head out of the sand and get with the program. Don’t make decisions based on what you don’t know as opposed to what people are telling you. The furure of your countries military is at stake Hagel.

Bush petitioned the 107th Congress with Public Law 107–243 (To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq). While not a declaration of war, it is a formal request to approve military action.


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+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.