Posted on 01/04/2005 1:15:36 PM PST by Drago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) would bear the brunt of proposed cuts in U.S. weapons purchases totaling $30 billion over the next six years, according to the summary from a Pentagon budget document made available to Reuters Monday.
Nearly $18 billion would be slashed from programs run by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's biggest supplier, according to a trade publication, InsideDefense.com, the first to report details of the plan.
The cuts were spelled out in a so-called Program Budget Decision signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and dated Dec. 23. It would reduce previously budgeted purchases by $6 billion in fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1, and nearly $30 billion through 2011...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
That's still a few too many, but a little overkill of the High part of the High-Low concept is OK in my book. Not much is going to be able to touch even 80 F-22's for a long, long time, after all...
The F-22 is good, but it can't be in two places at once.
Quantity matters, too.
180 will be plenty enough F-22's to implement High-Low.
This is in contrast to the article here (from 12/16/04):
Lockheed Martin to add 500 jobs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1302884/posts
How many Soviet fighters, and/or how many SAMs, would it take to disable or destroy an F-22? How many Chinese? How many fighter-jets do the Soviets and Chinese possess? How many missiles? Would 100 F-22s be pivotal without complete control of the air? or irrelevant?
That said, I find the dimensions of these cuts extremely disturbing--not because it may cost me a lot of money--but because it appears that the Administration, having gotten through the election as the Party that would beef up defense, may now be abandoning that position.
Make no mistake, the budget has to be reined in. But an Administration that can send Fifteen Billion to Africa to fight AIDS, and project hundreds of billions to pay people's pharmaceutical bills, has plenty of room to cut expenses, without risking America's essential domination of the air. This may be sending a very mistaken message to China, North Korea and others with far greater capacity to wage war than the Iraqis, with whom we seem far too preoccupied.
Hopefully, Congress will see fit to restore some of these cuts.
William Flax
Some UN hack calls us stingy, and America commits suicide trying to prove him wrong. Had clinton done even half of this, FR would be ablaze with outrage.
This Administration suffers from a form of tunnel vision, which is extremely dangerous. More and more, they seem unable to assess their apparent priorities in terms of the dynamic interaction of factors. With China racing to catch up with us within 20 years, we need to send a clear message that while we seek peace, we intend to remain heavily armed. If these about to be cancelled planes were seen as necessary a year ago, the only thing which has changed, so far as I can see, is that the Administration has made one outrageous spending commitment, after another, and is beginning to panic in the face of a collapsing dollar.
If we simply got back to Constitutional premises; which would mean no foreign aid but that which is clearly in our interest; no federal role in civilian health or education; and putting our interests first, in general; the deficit would be eliminated, without cutting defense procurement. Why, just to introduce another factor, do we not require the Iraqi's to finance their own rebuilding, by pledging oil futures to a banking consortium? Is that too Capitalistic for this "conservative" Administration?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I don't have any financial interests in either company, however I agree with your arguments. I sometimes get the feeling that this administration goes for short term "warm fuzzies", without looking at longterm threats. The PRC is our sworn enemy, as is N. Korea. We are hated by most of the Islamic world. Democracy has not overwhelmed the former USSR. Our true allies are few. Seems like bad timing. Not as bad, nor as treasonous as Clinton, but shortsighted, nonetheless.
About a decade ago, I attended the Annual Meeting in Chicago, and spoke out on some issue before the meeting. I wouldn't want someone to feel they were exposing something, if someone there, then, is a poster here now. (Of course, one would presume that most of the other shareholders would not be happy about this news, either.)
But all of that said, my motive here is concern for the continuity of the United States; the same theme that you will find in many of my posts on a very wide variety of issues, where I have no conceivable conflict of interest.
William Flax
I used to work for Lockheed, too, and am stuck with a bunch of their stock in my 401(k). What did it lose in the last two weeks, 30% or so? Sheesh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.