Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1 Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern By ANNE GEARAN AP Military Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs. Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan. The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year. The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces. Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut. Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended. Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back. Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents. "It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said. The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion. A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow... -DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
FJV    Actually   4/7/2009 3:08:00 PM
This is in line with some of what I've read on CSIS (Center of Strategic and International Studies) source:
"http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080422_fy2009_poisoned_chalice.pdf"
 
The briefing can only provide a brief overview of the full scale of the crisis the nation faces in military procurement. These problems are so permeating in every service, and affect so many critical programs, that it is brutally apparent that the Department has no real world spending plans, and is indulging in a ?liar?s contest? in terms of costs, the timelines for major programs, their probable effectiveness, the numbers it can actually procure, and the force trade-offs between
modernization and force cuts.
 
Even if one ignores key issues in effectiveness and availability, work by the GAO shows that the cost of the defense major acquisition portfolio rose from $790 billion in FY2000 to $1.6 trillion in FY2007, and outstanding commitments rose from $390 to $858 billion. The average cost escalation in RDT&E costs over the first cost estimate rose to 40% over the eight-year period, and total acquisition costs rose 26%. The share of programs with more than 25% cost escalation rose from 37% to 44% and the average delay in delivering initial capability rose from 16 months to 21 months.
 
Work by both the GAO and CBO indicate these problems are likely to escalate steadily in the nearterm unless the next Administration acts quickly to control them, and reshaping an affordable and effective procurement program may well take at least the full term of the next President. This may well involve major program cancellations, and further hardship for defense industry. It certainly means a need to establish far more realistic standards for estimating program costs, schedules and deployment times, and effectiveness; far tighter standards of program management; and far tighter control over the klind of changes in specifications and design that do so much to raise cost and increase program delays.

This stuff isn't all that out of line with what the pro's on strategic thinking are saying. The US may need to do this in order to stay on top in the long run.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Don't offer advice.    4/7/2009 3:16:57 PM
JFKY, I already told you. I can take the $60 billion over the four years I need out of useless social spending. Failing that I will retire one for one and replace Eagles with Raptors and then I will reduce the army by 30,000 useless soldiers and short man the Navy, or delay barracks construction or how about killing the AAAV for starters?  
 
Know of any bases that need to be shut down? I do. 
 
The needed money is there. You just throw up a straw-man hoping I won't keep knocking it down  Its cheaper to buy 60 F-22s and do what I propose than to buy 100 additional F-35s promised in the future which will never be bought.
 
It is cheaper to show with a little action now that war with us is insane, than to have to prove it in blood in ten years.
 
Like I said I run the numbers and the proposals right by you and you keep asserting. Come up with some facts and quit stalling on this or admit that you've got nothing except......"tain't so."
 
I'm waiting for you to make a cogent response now..I don't have to produce any more data or generate any more results until you do.. You have more than enough data to snow you under. Now produce your own case. Defend this nonsense budget Gates offered with FACTS
 
Herald
 
   
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Softwar   4/7/2009 3:32:52 PM
 
"You make one assumption that may not be true - the defense budget will shrink over time.  .... 
So what section of the Entitlements are you willing to cut back on out of the trillion dollar budget?"
 
3)      The political philosophy that would increase the percentage of GNP devoted to Defense did NOT win, the elections of 2008.
 
IF DPRK or Iran... or IF another party takes Congress (2010) or POTUS and Congress (2012) Defesne Spending may rise.  That's all "if" money.  The elections of 2008 produced THIS Congress and this POTUS.  Ergo, Defense Spending shrinks, as a share of Discretionary Spending and GNP.   Like, Love, or Hate it...them's the FACTS as Herald likes to say.
 
Please don't assume I approve of the decisions regarding domestic spending....but that's is irrelevant.  THIS US Government is going to shrink defense, so please tell me what you're going to cut to pay for the 60 extra F-22's.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald's Economics   4/7/2009 3:36:56 PM
Ignores the fact that as US unemployment rose, so did the PRC's and Iran's...the global economic down-turn is not some nefarious plot to weaken America.  If it is the fools aren't in Washington, but in Beijing and Teheran....In fact, both Iran and the PRC face significant economic and SOCIO-POLITICALdislocation from the economic downturn and collapse of oil prices.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 3:46:45 PM

 
"You make one assumption that may not be true - the defense budget will shrink over time.  .... 

So what section of the Entitlements are you willing to cut back on out of the trillion dollar budget?"

 


3)      The political philosophy that would increase the percentage of GNP devoted to Defense did NOT win, the elections of 2008.


 

IF DPRK or Iran... or IF another party takes Congress (2010) or POTUS and Congress (2012) Defesne Spending may rise.  That's all "if" money.  The elections of 2008 produced THIS Congress and this POTUS.  Ergo, Defense Spending shrinks, as a share of Discretionary Spending and GNP.   Like, Love, or Hate it...them's the FACTS as Herald likes to say.

 

Please don't assume I approve of the decisions regarding domestic spending....but that's is irrelevant.  THIS US Government is going to shrink defense, so please tell me what you're going to cut to pay for the 60 extra F-22's.



While I would have dedicated the money we threw down the rat-hole that is now GM toward something more useful - it would appear that if we must - cut the Army's future fighting vehicle project - it has been a money hungry no show from the word go - and defunding it will not change the Army or make it any more vulnerable.  Of course, we would have money left over after that...
However, the political reality is what I posted coming out of the Senate and House Democrats - especially from states where LockMart is big (e.g. Conn., GA, Calif, Texas) - these are the guys who will make the final say.  At this point - I see the urge to keep the defense jobs on the F-22 overiding any Obama urge to cut it (or Gates for that matter).
 
Thems the facts....
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Janes Says Otherwise   4/7/2009 3:48:50 PM

Ignores the fact that as US unemployment rose, so did the PRC's and Iran's...the global economic down-turn is not some nefarious plot to weaken America.  If it is the fools aren't in Washington, but in Beijing and Teheran....In fact, both Iran and the PRC face significant economic and SOCIO-POLITICALdislocation from the economic downturn and collapse of oil prices.
 

The global financial crisis has amplified Iran's economic woes in ways that have political implications for both the current government, which is facing a re-election fight in June 2009, and the country's governing system as a whole.

Given Iran's relatively robust foreign reserves (estimated to be somewhere between USD80 and USD100 billion in foreign exchange reserves, Oil Stabilisation Fund and an unknown amount of cash and gold) and low external debt (less than USD23 billion), Iran's economy is far from collapse.

But the issue of how Iran's economy should be handled in the midst of a global economic downturn has become increasingly contentious. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ability to work together with the conservative-controlled parliament (Majlis) to devise economic policies that not only address the current crisis, but also partially transform Iran's subsidies-addicted economy will be critical in creating a more harmonious and less partisan political environment in the next few months. If this happens Ahmadinejad's re-election is assured.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   4/7/2009 3:54:10 PM
Don't offer advice.
Well there you go.  Pharoh has spoken, "So let it be written. So let it be done."  I'm sorry did I miss the part were you appointed SecDef or were just appointed SysAdmin of the board.  That's pretty funny, "Don't offer advice."  Ok I won't offer advice.  Because obviously you're not one to take advice.  I'll just keep trying to make my points.
 
 
JFKY, I already told you. I can take the $60 billion over the four years I need out of useless social spending. Failing that
Yes, failing that, because you will, because the folks who like Social Spending run the government, not crabby Internet voices consumed with Sinophobia and a lust for F-22's.
 
 
I will retire one for one and replace Eagles with Raptors and then I will reduce the army by 30,000 useless soldiers
Useless soldiers, and which ones would those be?  The ones in Iraq or Afghanistan or where?
 
 
and short man the Navy,
An option, run it past Galrahn at "Information Dissemination" heck he might agree.  Though since the Navy has been "RIF"'ing people for the last number of years the number of vacant billets might be a little small.
 
or delay barracks construction
That's an idea...tie it in with canceling the growth of the US Army and USMC.  Honestly, I thought that was a bad plan, for just this reason, that one day Defense budgets will shrink, but the force will be bigger.
 
or how about killing the AAAV for starters?  
 Doesn't come close to covering the costs of 60-plus F-22's.  PLUS, isn't that flying in the face of your protestations concerning air and sea lift.  The USMC considers the EFV VITAL to their mission of amphibious assault. So, which is it, we should or should not degrade amphibious assault?
 
 
Know of any bases that need to be shut down? I do.
I think that's a good idea...but will it generate enough money, in the medium-term to cover the increased costs in the short and medium-term...BRAC's reduce base costs, but only in the long-term
 
 
 
It is cheaper to show with a little action now that war with us is insane, than to have to prove it in blood in ten years.
 I imagine that the PRC is not too keen on fighting any time soon, for Taiwan, now...
 
Like I said I run the numbers and the proposals right by you and you keep asserting. Come up with some facts and quit stalling on this or admit that you've got nothing except......"tain't so."
 No ONLY now have you bothered to come up with any concrete proposals, such as they are...
 
I'm waiting for you to make a cogent response now..I don't have to produce any more data or generate any more results until you do.. You have more than enough data to snow you under. Now produce your own case. Defend this nonsense budget Gates offered with FACTS
I have, the Defense Budget will be shrinking for the foreseeable future, that's a fact...now flesh ut your proposals to cover the air frame and O&M costs of the 60 extra F-22's....
 
How much will 60 F-22's cost to produce and how much will it take to operate them over the next 20 years.  Then show that the reductions you propose equal or exceed that number.
 
Next, you complained about a whole bunch of other cuts under gates, please be specific, are you complaining about the F-22 in particular or the budget in general.  Because if it's the Budget in General, tough cookies...the budget is going to get smaller, for the next 2-4 years.
 
And that's a political FACT...you don't have to like it, you don't have to vote for the people that inflict it, but enough people did; that they make public policy.  And that's the public policy they chose.

 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Softwar   4/7/2009 3:58:15 PM
Unemployment is thrut he roof in Iran and so is inflation....
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 4:04:51 PM

Unemployment is thrut he roof in Iran and so is inflation....


All the more reason to watch carefully - as predicted.  The reserves available show that they do not have to end their missile program nor their nuke program.  So both procurement and development are still going full blast.
The Janes article also makes it clear the Iranian government is not under any financial threat nor is it likely to go away any time soon.  The government is making good on its promises to payola - sort of an Iranian form of welfare - and the ruling religious elite are not hurting.  Tn fact - the mullahs are empowered by issuing the government provided monies to the masses.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Softwar that's a BIG IF   4/7/2009 4:04:53 PM
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ability to work together with the conservative-controlled parliament (Majlis) to devise economic policies that not only address the current crisis, but also partially transform Iran's subsidies-addicted economy will be critical in creating a more harmonious and less partisan political environment in the next few months. If this happens Ahmadinejad's re-election is assured.
 
Corruption is endemic to the regime.  To wean the economy off of subsidies is going to INCREASE prices, and unrest, and probably increase unemployment, in the short-run.  IF the Iranians were willing to arrest those in power who are corrupt, and were willing to dramatically increase fuel and food prices, and probably increase interest rates, in short if Iran was willing to undergo the 1982 Recession, then Iran will emerge stronger.  It's doubtful, though that Ahmadinejad, the Majlis and the populace are willing to undergo the mutual pain that, that requires.
 
As it is from what I have read Iran faces high unemployment and double-digit inflation.  Iran can continue to function, but at a low rate of economic growth, less than population growth...yielding decreasing average income, and incresing unemployment...on top of a authoritarian and corrupt government that has lost much of its legitimacy.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy