Replies

So, do you let our nation’s ability to produce an MBT go the way of making buggie whips? Or do you keep the lines open and the skills intact that are otherwise perishable. It’s a tough choice.

I agree with you, and it is a tough choice and a valid question.

Some great (and very similar) points were raised here by other posters.

The most confusing to me is that the air force does want more F-22’s and they canned it

Obama was asked about this during the fall campaign by an 8th grader (no kidding), and he said it was "too expensive."

But Food Stamps for 1 out of every 5 American households is completely affordable - in his mind.

Here is the crux of the problem: throughout the last several decades, there has always been a tussle between Congressional members (who control the power of the purse), OSD, the Services, industry lobbying, and the President's Budget as to what the mix is regarding weapons systems.

It is a fight between competing groups for dollars/jobs vs. mission requirements.

Let me give you a recent example:

Congress won't allow Pentagon to save money - Although Congress has ordered the Pentagon to cut $487 billion in spending, lawmakers are also forcing the department to keep unaffordable and unnecessary programs and equipment running, making it impossible to save money. The Pentagon has long wished to retire some of its aircraft, ships and other military equipment, but is being forced to use its budget to keep them in service. Military officials claim that the Navy and Air Force are spending $5 billion more than they would if they could retire their old vehicles, many of which are parked at airstrips or warehouses, the Associated Press reports. The Pentagon begrudgingly keeps its C-5A Galaxy transport planes and other expensive vehicles in service, despite the fact that it has no money to operate them, repair them or employ them. The Air Force recently hoped to save $600 million by retiring the C-5A and C-130 aircraft, 18 high-altitude surveillance drones, and three B-1 bombers, but Congress rejected the request and insisted that the equipment be maintained. The Air Force has newer C-5 models and no longer needs the old ones – especially since they are costly to maintain.

Many, many times in recent years, the Services have said: "Hey, we really don't want XXX more MRAPs - we can't even afford to bring all the excess ones we do have in Iraq or Afghanistan back home." Congress is looking at jobs in their state/district, so the MRAPs get produced and now we have excess ones being transferred to Janet Napolitano's private domestic army.

The same issue came up a year and half ago with the Air Force and the funding it wanted for Guard and Reserve forces/aircraft. The Air Force wanted less money for Guard and Reserves, and Congress HAD A FIT.

It was a HUGE food fight, and the Air Force lost.

So here we are....in the Sequester mess. Not only did Congress go along with the $487 Billion reduction in military spending over 10 years that started in 2011, they are now cheering on Obama's Sequester that levies $650 Billion ON TOP of the previous cuts to the DoD.

People who whistle through the graveyard and spin this as just wonderful are nuts or ill informed. They know less about actual military operations than my grandmother.

The combination of the 2011 cuts plus the Sequester is eating the US military alive. Operations and Maintenance accounts took the largest share of the immediate cuts, as dollars such as military pay were exempt.

I have also never understood the so-called "shift to Asia" that the article talks about. Shift to Asia....why? If you read the Bible, the next devastating wars (Psalm 83 war, Ezekiel 38 and 39, etc) will take place in the Middle East, not Pago Pago.

As regards to keeping industry lines open, yes - that is vitally important. But, in the past Congress would appropriate the proper money to do that. Now, they are taking money to pad their districts through Sequestration and the 2011 cuts they are fiscally raping the military. The Navy and the Air Force will not even be able to perform maintenance (over 70% of maintenance by these services is by civilians) on their ships and aircraft.

This is serious, serious stuff.

Reduced Flying Hours Forces USAF To Ground 17 Combat Air Squadrons

Congress better get off this "Sequestration is Just Peachy" false narrative. It is NOT wonderful for the US military, who at 17% of the budget takes 50% of the cuts. Congress can't have it's payolla cake and eat it too, especially since it is walking out of the restaurant before it pays the bill.

The US has more generals now than in 1944. When they start cutting the number of generals, as a necessary measure to keep the fighting units going, I will be more receptive to thinking the US has low funding.

The same is true of Senior Executive Service positions (essentially a civil service general). When you cut the SES positions because it is necessary to to keep necessary functions, you have an argument that funds are low.

I would fold the AF and Marines into the Army. I would fold NASA into the Navy. Overhead buys no capability.

I would like to have more competitive procurements: weapons developers should develop product designs, and sell rights to their designs to producers competitively. Atlantic and Pacific commands should bid against each other for access to the weapons produced. Better products should normally win. I recognize that the remains of the arsenal system at present prevents normal competition, and some investment/licensing would be required to develop multiple sources for certain technologies such as advanced armor, cannon barrels, and some munitions.