Posted on 06/26/2002 8:53:05 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Washington -- The Pentagon must make ``modest'' cuts or shifts in major defense programs this year to reduce the explosion of costs when procurement begins in 2008 and 2009, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.``It could be a cancellation, it could be shifting something to a farther year out so the cost doesn't hit at exactly the time of other costs,'' he said. ``It could be skipping a generation of technologies. It could be moderating the size of something.''
Rumsfeld worries that ballooning costs in current programs won't allow the U.S. to buy the newer technology needed to make the military lighter, quicker and easier to deploy.
``As these things grow and become not research programs but acquisition programs, you end up with an amount of money being projected that grows geometrically,'' the secretary said in an interview Monday with Bloomberg News.
``The `bow wave' is gigantic,'' Rumsfeld said, referring to the growing aggregate cost of current systems. ``A few modest changes early on can affect that very favorably.''
``If you wait, three, four, five years, you're facing a wall that's 50 feet high,'' he said. ``Doing this is never easy, on the other hand it's a lot easier with a budget that's growing than with one that's shrinking.''
Won't Name Programs
The secretary wouldn't single out which programs are in for cuts or revision.
Last month he ordered planners to devise strategies by Sept. 1 for potential cuts to the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 fighter; the Boeing Co.-United Technologies Corp. Comanche helicopter; the Boeing-Textron Inc. V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft; the Northrop Grumman Corp. CVNX aircraft carrier; and, a new space-based radar for continuous surveillance of an adversary such as North Korea.
``In some cases, we will forego currently planned weapons systems to invest in capabilities that will reduce future risk,'' Rumsfeld writes in an internal order guiding the fiscal 2004-2009 budget. The space-based radar program hasn't begun so no cost is projected; the other four programs total about $167 billion.
The defense secretary canceled United Defense Industries Inc.'s $11 billion Crusader howitzer program last month. The contractor, the Army and their allies in Congress resisted and the weapon's utility and funding are still being debated, showing how tough it is to cancel a weapons program once it's underway.
Other Costs
The fact that Congress is about to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades shouldn't lull anyone into thinking most of it's going into weapons, the secretary said.
``A big chunk of it is for conducting the global war on terrorism'' as well as to cover growth in costs for health care, salaries and military infrastructure, Rumsfeld said. ``There are a lot of calls for the funds being authorized and appropriated that are really away from the weapons side of the house.''
Of the $396 billion requested for fiscal 2003, $124 billion, or less than one-third, is for weapons research and procurement. That's $10 billion more than this year and $26 billion or 27 percent more than fiscal 2000.
By comparison, military personnel costs, including health and pay, have increased by 29 percent, to $94 billion, from $73 billion in 2000. Similarly, operations and maintenance costs have increased by 39 percent, to $150 billion for fiscal 2003 from $108 billion in 2000.
Cost Projections
Rumsfeld's concern is driven in part by Pentagon projections of spending through 2019 to research, develop and buy current weapons.
The current $124 billion increases gradually to $145 billion in fiscal 2007. It grows to $165 billion in fiscal 2008 and is that much or higher in each of the next five years.
The Joint Strike Fighter alone will demand $5.8 billion in 2008 when the first large purchase of planes is scheduled. And there's no hint of cutting this Lockheed program, which at $226 billion will be the costliest in combat aircraft history, with 2,852 planes scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and British Royal Navy.
Other commitments in 2008 include: $5.3 billion for the F-22; $5.1 billion to buy two Virginia class submarines; $3 billion for the new DD-X destroyer; $3.6 billion for the F/A-18E/F; $3 billion for the Army Future Combat System; $3 billion for the Comanche; $2.9 billion for a new LHA class of Navy amphibious assault ship and, $988 million to start procurement of a new Navy multimission aircraft.
While long-range schedules and costs are inevitably adjusted because of cuts and tests failures, ``the reality is that the bow wave that exists is of sufficient magnitude that reasonable people will say the time to fix it is now,'' he said.
``Every year you wait and you are much closer to it requires a much more severe change -- it can mean `wrenching' and harmful to people,'' he said.
The DDX destroyer is very impressive, I hope that does'nt get cancelled.
The F-22 has been cut from 295 aircrafts to 180. This is not enough for such a large air force. The original order was 700 or something like it.
F-22 has a program history that goes back to the early 1980's. It has had cost-overrun after cost-overrun. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful thing in the air. But the fact is, if we go up against the Chicoms with that thing, we'll get attrited badly. Too damned expensive. Stick with the JSF.
Oh, and please, someone kill the Super Hornet.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I served in the US Army Europe. If we brought it home, thereby saving a mountain of money, nobody'd miss it beyond those in the Army who've made a career of living in Europe.
How True.
I think this is just more of the Bush sr/Cheney policy of their continuation of the downsizing our military. One poster stated we need another F-14. Thanks to the so called genius military mind of Cheney we no longer have the means to produce as much. He ordered the mold {tooling} destroyed.
Gj, try and look beyone one conflict, okay? 'Pod
Just because we are not using heavy stuff NOW does not mean we do not need it anymore. The Crusader was supposed to replace Paladin, which has a 1950s era chassis which is too slow to keep up w/ the maneuver force, has a much shorter range and ROF, a huge logistical tail, and does not meet the needs assessments of the operational community. A lot of effort went into developing the Crusader, and it suffered a major setback because a certain general officer made a pronouncement about how he would like everything to be moveable on C-130s.
This caused a complete redesign of the system and delayed development and fielding of it.
Further, Crusader promised the ability of significant force reductions. The reductions have already been taken and now there is no new system to enable these reductions not to hurt. Doesn't sound too smart, does it?
People within the building have always hated the system and therefore gave Rummy poor advice IMNSHO.
Your analogy is a false one, because no technological advance has been made that I am aware of to obviate the need for a heavy force capability.
I do not trust his judgement on this. 'Pod
Also too much noise is being made about Light Assualt vehicles. It's good in some places so is the old reliable M1-A when the going gets rough. Neither is the complete answer to all types of warfare. Use and maintain a respectable level of both. Develop the newer generation weapons but not at the expense of our old ones just on a possibility the newer one might or might not work.
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.