A quick look at various money spent on ineffective programs shows part of the problem. How would you spend $183 billion?
The F-22 could have been something really good. It does offer some value today, but with a combination of bad decisions, we will be lucky to sustain it to 2030; the latest $13B in upgrades will not give it a true high off-bore sight air-to-air missile capability until we have spent the number of years that it took to fight WWII. It is no longer built so there are no production-line learning curve mistakes for our benefit. Good luck trying to resurrect the supply chain too.
F-35: We are now in the $60B region of total spending for the Joint Strike Fighter experiment. Since the F-35 defines failure, thus far, the "5th-generation" fantasy has only yielded 120-some combat-coded F-22s; for the cost of around $134B.
We do not need a $15B aircraft carrier. We need aircraft carriers that are affordable and in-number. And in this case, our big carriers are well on the way toward having obsolete-to-the-threat carrier air wings.
LAH-6: It is hard to fix stupid when a ship specifically for the USMC has no well deck, and costs, $3B.
DDX: It was named a "destroyer" to put the con on congress. It is a pocket battleship-sized target that will go the way of the Prince of Wales and Repulse after the obsolete carrier air wing is swept away. Maybe before that.
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS): This, like the Styker shows you how a criminal enterprise operates inside the military industrial congressional congress.
For the LCS and Stryker, against real threats, these "weapons systems" are a death trap.
We can run the DOD on about $350B per year.
And have more more killing power.
4 comments:
I could not agree more with you that an annual US Defense appropriations of $350B could provide more capability and more deterrent, if prudently spent, acquired and implemented.
I've usually made the challenge personally with a $375B appropriations vs the status quo, but I'd accept your $350B.
And very unfortunately, I have to fully concur with your damaging 'Military Industrial Congressional COMPLEX' assessment, which needs to be broken soon, and reinvented, if there's any hope going forward.
G
These numbers are all completely false. The real expenditures are MUCH higher than these.
See my comments on earlier ELP Blog posts, to see how "Re-Baselining" is used to conceal overspending.
This is what a few of the programs you feature here *actually* cost;
F-22: $98 Billion+
F-35: $412 Billion+
Stryker: $45 Billion+
Those figures are what has already been spent on these programs. As they are still ongoing, they will each cost many billions more in the next few years.
Hi Blacktail. Hope you are doing well. As of yet we haven't spent $400-some Billon of the F-35. That is projected if the full procurement run is done. The full procurement for the F-22 is done and that covers the whole program with recent upgrades. And yes of course there is some high ops money per year still to figure out with that... so a bit open to more dollars. I will defer to your land knowledge on the Stryker. I suppose it could cost that much when you figure in all the money to screw up the TO&E of several Brigades and deployment costs. And as your briefs suggest, there is probably a lot more colors of money out there in the Stryker program to find. I find this a bit more complex than the base numbers for aircraft!!!
cutting dod budget to $350b would make quite a few people loose some $350b on extra xmas money. people like some directors of some military enterprises. sorry, cant be done. no way. not in our lifetime.
Post a Comment