Reductions of 20 percent (or about $390 billion over ten years) in investment accounts (procurement plus research, development, testing, and evaluation) could lead to cutbacks in many programs, large and small. Decisions relating to major programs could include:
-Terminate Joint Strike Fighter; minimal life extensions and upgrades to existing forces ($80B);
- Terminate bomber; restart new program in mid 2020s ($18B);
- Delay next generation ballistic missile submarine; cut force to 10 subs ($7B);
- Terminate littoral combat ship and associated mission modules ($22B);
- Terminate all ground combat vehicle modernization programs; minimal life extensions and upgrades to existing forces ($17B);
- Terminate all Army helicopter modernization programs.
There are some other efficiencies to be reduced; such as the second land army.
In other news, re: the F-35, production capability still is not there. Congress is right not to boost production. It isn't mature yet.
That phased line making 30 or so a year is starting to look good. That is me being generous because the F-35 is already a failed program.
6 comments:
The conversation within the US wrt F35 termination is beginning to gather steam/pace.
The sooner termination of this blood sucking ponzi scheme happens the better - and the sound out of DMO/NACC - crickets chirping...
Then they will come out and say - "no one could have foreseen this happening..." after which, - promotions all round and re-assignment to the new AIR 6000 (Take #2).
Lot of the other cuts in Panetta's letter sound good to me. I think this will lit a fire under defense industry, there is still quite a lot of money to be had here but the old way of doing business is going down the drain. It will be the fittest and fastest to change and adapt that will survive. I think USA and DOD will end up better for it.
Eh? You support only minimal life extension and upgrade for existing legacy aircraft as a Plan B?? (didn't think that's what you meant)
Note: the consequences for failing to make cuts as proposed by SecDEF here, mentions nothing of an alternative 'Plan B' 4.5 gen acquisition. (ie, the greatest threat in staying the course on JSF... being a catastrophic TACAIR implosion w/ nothing new at all, just minimal life extensions)
Such 'Minimalist' life extensions and upgrades being warned (not even sure if that means AESA) are not a Plan B, btw. Such legacy jets (with appropriate extensions and upgrades) were always intended as part of the Plan A - to supplement the transition. This does not offer some form of alternative.
I will definitely hope that the honorable McCain will take this warning by SecDEF to heart and ensure a viable Plan B is the decisive course of action take now in history... and not a handed-to-him Catastrophic implosion by default.
Same goes for LCS... act decisively now with a Plan B light surface combatant and special missions acquisition mix... or have nothing instead.
btw, I'd love to hear Gates reply in an interview as to how and why he got these inevitable austere budget realities so wrong. Why is intel and assessment making so bad in DoD and in Federal govt policy making in general??
Such fundamental incompetency is perhaps the single most detrimental national security threat to the USA today. God speed.
I cannot agree about delaying the SSBNs. Kill the nuclear bombers and land based missiles first - they are the most vulnerable.
Also, if F-35 is killed, modernization of F-15/16 and particularly the F-18E/F is critical, as well as seed money for F/A-XX/NGAD.
Toys!!! They'll never change their situation with cutting hardware. Only redefining priorities/ambitions and the force structure overall will lead to significant savings.
But let's talk about the toys here:
-- Despite the troubles it would be a mistake to kill the JSF. What should be done is to concentrate on the F-35C and build it as the only version.
-- LCS is in operation nirvana. Terminate today.
-- The new strategic bomber has to move forward. No option here, as neither B-52 nor B-1 are getting younger. I could see an early retirement (like: now) of the B-2, though, to cut ops costs.
-- The new SSBN should be based on a stretched Virginia. Maybe, just maybe such a boat should be equipped with strategic range VLO cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles.
-- Ground combat vehicles can't stay still. But there is no need for a new HUGE replacement programme. Rather do small TestEval production runs of new concepts and equip a few units with them till you've found out what's really worth the money.
I pretty much agree with you that not only are Panetta's suggestions not bad, they'd do good in both getting budgets under control and also grounding the armed forces in a more realistic mindset. If the money's not there, then you're just not going to be able to spend like you used to. Straight up.
I also totally agree with you on the "second army" thing. I think we could cut budgets and forces quite radically (by Washington's mindset) and still have the most powerful forces in the world, by far. And yes, even above the overhyped China threat.
Post a Comment