The Defense Budget

[Daniel]

There's been a lot of talk on these boards the last few days concerning "fiscal responsibility" and spending money on such things as education and healthcare. At the same time there is another battle being waged in Washington regarding the massive expenditures on the military industrial complex in Washington. In light of the previous discussions I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this issue. For reference, the below is a speech given by Secretary Gates yesterday in Chicago. My favorite part bolded.


--

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369

Thank you, Secretary Daley, for that kind introduction.
It’s an honor to be at the Economic Club of Chicago. I certainly appreciate the special arrangements you made to have me here this afternoon.

I thank all the distinguished citizens of this great city who came here today. I am mindful I am speaking in the adopted hometown of my boss. President Obama sends his greetings, as do Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and the rest of the Chicago crew. They are no doubt discovering that Washington is the true “Windy City."

The issue that brings me here today is central to the security of all Americans: the future of the United States military: How it should be organized, equipped – and funded – in the years ahead, to win the wars we are in while being prepared for threats on or beyond the horizon. Earlier this year, I recommended to President Obama – and he enthusiastically agreed – that we needed to fundamentally reshape the priorities of America’s defense establishment and reform the way the Pentagon does business – in particular, the weapons we buy, and how we buy them. Above all, to prepare to wage future wars, rather than continuing the habit of rearming for previous ones.

I am here on relatively short notice to speak publicly about these matters because the Congress is, as we speak, debating the president’s defense budget request for the next fiscal year, a budget request that implements many needed reforms and changes. Most of the proposals – especially those that increase support for the troops, their families, and the war effort – have been widely embraced. However, some of the crucial reforms that deal with major weapons programs have met with a less than enthusiastic reaction in the Congress, among defense contractors, and within some quarters of the Pentagon itself. And so I thought it appropriate to address some of these controversial issues here – in a place that is, appropriately enough not only the adopted home of our Commander-in-Chief, but also a symbol of America’s industrial base and economic power.

First, some context on how we got to this point. President Obama’s budget proposal is, I believe, the nation’s first truly 21st century defense budget. It explicitly recognizes that over the last two decades the nature of conflict has fundamentally changed – and that much of America’s defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security realities of the post-Cold War era and this complex and dangerous new century.

During the 1990s, the United States celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union and the so-called “end of history” by making deep cuts in the funding for, and above all, the size of the U.S. military, including a 40 percent drop in the size of the Active Army. This took place even as a post-Cold War world grew less stable, less predictable, and more turbulent. The U.S. military, with some advances in areas such as precision weaponry, essentially became a smaller version of the force that held off the Soviets in Germany for decades and expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. There was little appetite for, or interest in, preparing for what we call “irregular warfare” – campaigns against insurgents, terrorists, militias, and other non-state groups. This was the bipartisan reality both in the White House and in Congress.

Of course, after September 11th, some things did change. The base defense budget – not counting spending for the wars – increased by some 70 percent over the next eight years. During this period there were important changes in the way U.S. forces were organized, based and deployed, and investments were made in new technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles. However, when all was said and done, the way the Pentagon selected, evaluated, developed, and paid for major new weapons systems and equipment did not fundamentally change – even after September 11th.

Indeed, the kinds of equipment, programs, and capabilities needed to protect our troops and defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the highest priority of much of the Defense Department, even after several years of war.

I learned about this lack of bureaucratic priority for the wars we are in the hard way – during my first few months on the job as the Iraq surge was getting underway. The challenges I faced in getting what our troops needed in the field stood in stark contrast to the support provided conventional modernization programs – weapons designed to fight other modern armies, navies, and air forces – that had been in the pipeline for many years and had acquired a loyal and enthusiastic following in the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in industry. The most pressing needs of today’s warfighter – on the battlefield, in the hospital, or at home – simply lacked place and power at the table when priorities were being set and long-term budget decisions were being made.

So the most important shift in President Obama’s first defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding for programs that directly support those fighting America’s wars and their families. Those initiatives included more helicopter support, air lift, armored vehicles, personnel protection equipment, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we also increased funding for programs that provide long-term support to military families and treatment for the signature wounds of this conflict – such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress.

But, while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists – of insurgents and IEDs – is with us for the long haul, we also recognize that another world has emerged. Growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the latest and increasingly accessible technologies to put the United States at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways.

Other large nations – known in Pentagon lingo as “near-peers” – are modernizing their militaries in ways that could, over time, pose a challenge to the United States. In some cases, their programs take the form of traditional weapons systems such as more advanced fighter aircraft, missiles, and submarines.

But other nations have learned from the experience of Saddam Hussein’s military in the first and second Gulf wars – that it is ill-advised, if not suicidal, to fight a conventional war head-to-head against the United States: fighter-to-fighter, ship-to-ship, tank-to-tank. They also learned from a bankrupted Soviet Union not to try to outspend us or match our overall capabilities. Instead, they are developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new technologies – and our vulnerabilities – to disrupt our lines of communication and our freedom of movement, to deny us access, and to narrow our military options and strategic choices.

At the same time, insurgents or militias are acquiring or seeking precision weapons, sophisticated communications, cyber capabilities, and even weapons of mass destruction. The Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah currently has more rockets and high-end munitions – many quite sophisticated and accurate – than all but a handful of countries.

In sum, the security challenges we now face, and will in the future, have changed, and our thinking must likewise change. The old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as either regular or irregular war, conventional or unconventional, high end or low – is no longer relevant. And as a result, the Defense Department needs to think about and prepare for war in a profoundly different way than what we have been accustomed to throughout the better part of the last century.

What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. As a result, we must change the way we think and the way we plan – and fundamentally reform – the way the Pentagon does business and buys weapons. It simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and buy – as we have for the last 60 years – only the most technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary – especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago.

To get there we must break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity, and delay to systems that are so expensive and so elaborate that only a small number can be built, and that are then usable only in a narrow range of low-probability scenarios.

We must also get control of what is called “requirements creep” – where more features and capabilities are added to a given piece of equipment, often to the point of absurdity. The most flamboyant example of this phenomenon is the new presidential helicopter – what President Obama referred to as defense procurement “run amok.” Once the analysis and requirements were done, we ended up with a helicopter that cost nearly half a billion dollars each and enabled the president to, among other things, cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack.

We also had to take a hard look at a number of weapons programs that were grotesquely over budget, were having major performance problems, were reliant on unproven technology, or were becoming increasingly detached from real world scenarios – as if September 11th and the wars that followed had never happened.

Those of you with experience in the technology or manufacturing sectors have at some point probably faced some combination of these challenges in your own businesses. But in the defense arena, we faced an additional, usually insurmountable obstacle to bring rationality to budget and acquisition decisions. Major weapons programs, irrespective of their problems or performance, have a habit of continuing long after they are wanted or needed, recalling Ronald Reagan’s old joke that a government program represents the closest thing we’ll ever see to eternal life on this earth.

First, there is the Congress, which is understandably concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about protecting jobs in certain states and congressional districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of these programs.

And there is the institutional military itself – within the Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are quoted as experts in the news media.

As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside. Nonetheless I determined in a triumph of hope over experience, and the president agreed, that given the urgency of the wars we are in, the daunting global security environment we will inhabit for decades to come, and our country’s economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual.

To this end, the president’s budget request cut, curtailed, or ended a number of conventional modernization programs – satellites, ground vehicles, helicopters, fighters – that were either performing poorly or in excess to real-world needs. Conversely, future-oriented programs where the U.S. was relatively underinvested were accelerated or received more funding.

For example, we must sustain and continually improve our specialized strategic deterrent to ensure that our – and our allies’ – security is always protected against nuclear-armed adversaries. In an initiative little noticed, the President’s program includes money to begin a new generation of ballistic missile submarines and nearly $700 million in additional funds to secure and assure America’s nuclear deterrent.

Some of our proposed reforms are meeting real resistance. They are called risky. Or not meeting a certain military requirement. Or lacking in study and analysis. Those three words – requirements, risk, and, analysis – are commonly invoked in defense matters. If applied correctly, they help us make sound decisions. I’ve found, however, that more often they have become the holy trinity of the status quo or business as usual.

In truth, preparing for conflict in the 21st century means investing in truly new concepts and new technologies. It means taking into account all the assets and capabilities we can bring to the fight. It means measuring those capabilities against the real threats posed by real world adversaries with real limitations, not threats conjured up from enemies with unlimited time, unlimited resources, and unlimited technological acumen.

Air superiority and missile defense – two areas where the budget has attracted the most criticism – provide case studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22 fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future potential conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air supremacy? For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision-guided bombs and missiles. The president’s budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs – aircraft that have a greater range than some of our manned fighters, in addition to the ability to loiter for hours over a target. And we will buy many more in the future.

[Daniel]

We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if – and it is a big if – money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs.

Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion – and counting – to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.

In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 – the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental – was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president.

The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline.

Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.

Correspondingly, the recent tests of a possible nuclear device and ballistic missiles by North Korea brought scrutiny to the changes in this budget that relate to missile defense. The risk to national security has again been invoked, mainly because the total missile defense budget was reduced from last year.

In fact, where the threat is real or growing – from rogue states or from short-to-medium range missiles that can hit our deployed troops or our allies and friends – this budget sustains or increases funding. Most of the cuts in this area come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy missiles immediately after launch. This was a great idea, but the aspiration was overwhelmed by the escalating costs, operational problems, and technological challenges.

Consider the example of one of those programs – the Airborne Laser. This was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a fleet of 747s. After more than a decade of research and development, we have yet to achieve a laser with enough power to knock down a missile in boost phase more than 50 miles from the launch pad – thus requiring these huge planes to loiter deep in enemy air space to have a feasible chance at a direct hit. Moreover, the 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost about $1.5 billion each plus tens of millions of dollars each year for maintenance and operating costs. The program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. So we curtailed the existing program while keeping the prototype aircraft for research and development.

Many of these decisions – like the one I just described – were more clear-cut than others. But all of them, insofar as they involved hundreds of billions of dollars and the security of the American people, were treated with the utmost seriousness by the senior civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon. An enormous amount of thought, study, assessment, and analysis underpins these budget recommendations – including the National Defense Strategy I issued last summer.

Some have called for yet more analysis before making any of the decisions in this budget. But when dealing with programs that were clearly out of control, performing poorly, and excess to the military’s real requirements, we did not need more study, more debate, or more delay – in effect, paralysis through analysis. What was needed were three things – common sense, political will, and tough decisions. Qualities too often in short supply in Washington, D.C.

All of these decisions involved considering trade-offs, balancing risks, and setting priorities – separating nice-to-haves from have-to-haves, requirements from appetites. We cannot expect to eliminate risk and danger by simply spending more – especially if we’re spending on the wrong things. But more to the point, we all – the military, the Congress, and industry – have to face some iron fiscal realities.

The last defense budget submitted by President George W. Bush for Fiscal Year 2009 was $515 billion. In that budget the Bush administration proposed – at my recommendation – a Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget of $524 billion. The budget just submitted by President Obama for FY 2010 was $534 billion. Even after factoring inflation, and some of the war costs that were moved from supplemental appropriations, President Obama's defense request represents a modest but real increase over the last Bush budget. I know. I submitted them both. In total, by one estimate, our budget adds up to about what the entire rest of the world combined spends on defense. Only in the parallel universe that is Washington, D.C., would that be considered “gutting” defense.

The fact is that if the defense budget had been even higher, my recommendations to the president with respect to troubled programs would have been the same – for all the reasons I described earlier. There is a more fundamental point: If the Department of Defense can’t figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes.

What is important is to have a budget baseline with a steady, sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys that are enormously harmful to sound budgeting. From the very first defense budget I submitted for President Bush in January 2007, I have warned against doing what America has done multiple times over the last 90 years by slashing defense spending after a major conflict. The war in Iraq is winding down, and one day so too will the conflict in Afghanistan. When that day comes, the nation will again face pressure to cut back on defense spending, as we always have. It is simply the nature of the beast. And the higher our base budget is now, the harder it will be to sustain these necessary programs, and the more drastic and dangerous the drop-off will be later.

So where do we go from here? Authorization for more F-22s is in both versions of the defense bill working its way through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget, including the F-22. Some might ask: Why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple billion dollars for a dozen or so planes?

The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity – whether for more F-22s or anything else – is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.

And, with regard to something like the F-22, irrespective of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 planes or 200, if we can’t bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision – reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can’t get this right – what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as usual. The President has drawn that line. And that red line is a veto. And it is real.

On a personal note, I joined CIA more than 40 years ago to help protect my country. For just about my entire professional career in government I have generally been known as a hawk on national security. One criticism of me when I was at CIA was that I overestimated threats to the security of our country.

Well, I haven’t changed. I did not molt from a hawk into a dove on January 20, 2009. I continue to believe, as I always have, that the world is, and always will be, a dangerous and hostile place for my country with many who would do America harm and who hate everything we are and stand for. But, the nature of the threats to us has changed. And so too should the way our military is organized and equipped to meet them.

I believe – along with the senior military leadership of this nation – that the defense budget we proposed to President Obama and that he sent to Congress is the best we could design to protect the United States now and in the future. The best we could do to protect our men and women in uniform, to give them the tools they need to deter our enemies, and to win our wars today and tomorrow. We stand by this reform budget, and we are prepared to fight for it.

A final thought. I arrived in Washington 43 years ago this summer. Of all people, I am well aware of the realities of Washington and know that things do not change overnight. After all, the influence of politics and parochial interests in defense matters is as old as the Republic itself. Henry Knox, the first secretary of war, was charged with building the first American fleet. To get the support of Congress, Knox eventually ended up with six frigates being built in six different shipyards in six different states.

But the stakes today are very high – with the nation at war, and a security landscape steadily growing more dangerous and unpredictable. I am deeply concerned about the long-term challenges facing our defense establishment – and just as concerned that the political state of play does not reflect the reality that major reforms are needed, or that tough choices and real discipline are necessary.

We stand at a crossroads. We simply cannot risk continuing down the same path – where our spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today and the growing ones of tomorrow. These threats demand that all of our nation’s leaders rise above the politics and parochialism that have too often plagued considerations of our nation's defense – from industry to interest groups, from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. The time has come to draw a line and take a stand against the business-as-usual approach to national defense. We must all fulfill our obligation to the American people to ensure that our country remains safe and strong. Just as our men and women in uniform are doing their duty to this end, we in Washington must now do ours

[Kuyuk]

Our military spending is absolutely outrageous.

Maybe we should stop paying everyone 50k for college when they're done (or whatever) :)

Also, if we actually took a fine tooth comb through what the government is spending money on, in regards to the common items, to make sure we're actually getting "good deals" on said items, not inflated prices "because it's the military".

For example, in kitchens, when we buy XYZ amount of product, we get reduced price due to volume, I would assume this would fall in line with any other sector. However, we all know when people get contracts with the government, they rip them off, because the government doesnt look at shit - they are given a budget, and as long as it's within it, who cares.

/shrug

Other than that, hold people accountable for their spending in the military. Give them a budget, if they go over, demote their ass.


K.

[Daniel]

Our military spending is absolutely outrageous.

Maybe we should stop paying everyone 50k for college when they're done (or whatever) :)

Also, if we actually took a fine tooth comb through what the government is spending money on, in regards to the common items, to make sure we're actually getting "good deals" on said items, not inflated prices "because it's the military".

For example, in kitchens, when we buy XYZ amount of product, we get reduced price due to volume, I would assume this would fall in line with any other sector. However, we all know when people get contracts with the government, they rip them off, because the government doesnt look at shit - they are given a budget, and as long as it's within it, who cares.

/shrug

Other than that, hold people accountable for their spending in the military. Give them a budget, if they go over, demote their ass.


K.


you coulda just said tldr

[radamanthys]

Procurement and Research are only a third (roughly) of the defense budget. The rest is in paying, housing, and maintaining the men and women at arms.

I'm curious how much of the actual spending is mandatory (Pensions and contractual obligations and so-such)

I agree we spend way too much. We have no business abroad- fighting wars, providing aid, etc. We have far too much to do domestically.


(Edit: Though, all that said, the F-35 project was a pretty good one for the economy. We're selling that sumbitch to everybody. I bet we installed a kill-switch in the int'l version, heh.)

[Bhuryn]

Really the easiest way to cut spending is to close bases around the world. I don't think you really need to have the proverbial ear on the ground all across the globe these days. Then again I might be biases since my wife works at Lockheed on the F-35 project.

Honestly though, I'd rather spend money on researching ways to protect the troops then to pay them to get drunk in some distant country like Germany.

[AnticorRifling]

you coulda just said tldr HAHAHA

[Daniel]

Procurement and Research are only a third (roughly) of the defense budget. The rest is in paying, housing, and maintaining the men and women at arms.

I'm curious how much of the actual spending is mandatory (Pensions and contractual obligations and so-such)

I agree we spend way too much. We have no business abroad- fighting wars, providing aid, etc. We have far too much to do domestically.


(Edit: Though, all that said, the F-35 project was a pretty good one for the economy. We're selling that sumbitch to everybody. I bet we installed a kill-switch in the int'l version, heh.)


What's your source on the 1\3rds and some of the most significant contractual obligations (Education) are handled by the VA.

I find it surprising that you would get all in a tizzy when people spend money on community colleges but all we get is a "meh, that sucks" when they are talking about buying hundreds of planes we don't need at $135 million a pop.

[Sean of the Thread]

We don't need kill switches. We've sold F-16s and Tomcats back in the day to the middle east.

What we did not provide is maintenance or parts. The were useless in no time.


*I personally can't wait for a fly over at a football game with some of these new planes. The last time I saw some B-2's rip over RayJay it was awesome.

Also always awesome to watch S.E.A.L.'s come out of no where and land directly an orange cone.

[radamanthys]

What's your source on the 1\3rds and some of the most significant contractual obligations (Education) are handled by the VA.

I find it surprising that you would get all in a tizzy when people spend money on community colleges but all we get is a "meh, that sucks" when they are talking about buying hundreds of planes we don't need at $135 million a pop.

1/3 link:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

The f-22 program is pretty much over. I think they've already stopped buying those expensive death machines. And the f-35 is being sold like Christmas hams across the world- so that's a rather obvious return on investment.

The unfortunate reality is that a significant chunk of our scientific development, and thus our technological lead in the world, comes from our Military research. It'd be nice if they shifted money to NASA and in science research; However and for example, I think one of the greater legacies of the Iraq war will be the subsequent research into cybernetics and biotech resulting from the low mortality and high casualty rate.

[Daniel]

1/3 link:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

The f-22 program is pretty much over. I think they've already stopped buying those expensive death machines. And the f-35 is being sold like Christmas hams across the world- so that's a rather obvious return on investment.

The unfortunate reality is that a significant chunk of our scientific development, and thus our technological lead in the world, comes from our Military research. It'd be nice if they shifted money to NASA and in science research; However and for example, I think one of the greater legacies of the Iraq war will be the subsequent research into cybernetics and biotech resulting from the low mortality and high casualty rate.


The entire reason for the speech, which he said multiple times, was that congress has put into the defense budget money allocated specifically for F-22's despite our wishes to discontinue the program.

[Bhuryn]

The entire reason for the speech, which he said multiple times, was that congress has put into the defense budget money allocated specifically for F-22's despite our wishes to discontinue the program.

My wife said that all of the government folks she talked to were of the opinion that the F-22 was a coldwar weapon (because of it's size/payload capabilities) and we don't need anymore coldwar weapons.

[ElanthianSiren]

Does Gates write his own speeches? They're goddamn brilliant with great segways etc. It's interesting to see him put into action what he mentioned in the previous article you posted.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=38710&highlight=balanced+strategy

I particularly liked



Robert Gates
"So the most important shift in President Obama’s first defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding for programs that directly support those fighting America’s wars and their families. Those initiatives included more helicopter support, air lift, armored vehicles, personnel protection equipment, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we also increased funding for programs that provide long-term support to military families and treatment for the signature wounds of this conflict – such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress.

But, while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists – of insurgents and IEDs – is with us for the long haul, we also recognize that another world has emerged. Growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the latest and increasingly accessible technologies to put the United States at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways.


What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. As a result, we must change
the way we think and the way we plan – and fundamentally reform – the way the Pentagon does business and buys weapons.


In truth, preparing for conflict in the 21st century means investing in truly new concepts and new technologies. It means taking into account all the assets and capabilities we can bring to the fight. It means measuring those capabilities against the real threats posed by real world adversaries with real limitations, not threats conjured up from enemies with unlimited time, unlimited resources, and unlimited technological acumen.

To get there we must break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity, and delay to systems that are so expensive and so elaborate that only a small number can be built, and that are then usable only in a narrow range of low-probability scenarios.


We also had to take a hard look at a number of weapons programs that were grotesquely over budget, were having major performance problems, were reliant on unproven technology, or were becoming increasingly detached from real world scenarios – as if September 11th and the wars that followed had never happened.

In fact, where the threat is real or growing – from rogue states or from short-to-medium range missiles that can hit our deployed troops or our allies and friends – this budget sustains or increases funding. Most of the cuts in this area come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy missiles immediately after launch. This was a great idea, but the aspiration was overwhelmed by the escalating costs, operational problems, and technological challenges.

Consider the example of one of those programs – the Airborne Laser. This was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a fleet of 747s. After more than a decade of research and development, we have yet to achieve a laser with enough power to knock down a missile in boost phase more than 50 miles from the launch pad – thus requiring these huge planes to loiter deep in enemy air space to have a feasible chance at a direct hit. Moreover, the 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost about $1.5 billion each plus tens of millions of dollars each year for maintenance and operating costs. The program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. So we curtailed the existing program while keeping the prototype aircraft for research and development.



We cannot expect to eliminate risk and danger by simply spending more – especially if we’re spending on the wrong things. But more to the point, we all – the military, the Congress, and industry – have to face some iron fiscal realities.

The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity – whether for more F-22s or anything else – is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.


But the stakes today are very high – with the nation at war, and a security landscape steadily growing more dangerous and unpredictable. I am deeply concerned about the long-term challenges facing our defense establishment – and just as concerned that the political state of play does not reflect the reality that major reforms are needed, or that tough choices and real discipline are necessary.

We stand at a crossroads. We simply cannot risk continuing down the same path – where our spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today and the growing ones of tomorrow.

I liked the bolded parts because attaining victory through strength of arms is one thing, but attaining it through planning seems more prudent, especially if everyone's concerned over the budget. And let's face it, I believe he's correct that there's plenty of bloat to be cut.

Also, his focus on the real possible scenerios is respectable, very down to earth.

[Sean of the Thread]

Keep in mind that all these new planes/weapons started being developed on average like 25 years prior. That still exists. The next generation will keep showing up that has been in development for just as long.

[Androidpk]

The entire reason for the speech, which he said multiple times, was that congress has put into the defense budget money allocated specifically for F-22's despite our wishes to discontinue the program.

Yet the Pentagon and the Air Force did not request more planes as the number they have now is still sufficient. In the long run even if congress approves the building of 7 more F-22's, the USAF can override them just like they did with the B-1 bomber program.

[Androidpk]

My wife said that all of the government folks she talked to were of the opinion that the F-22 was a coldwar weapon (because of it's size/payload capabilities) and we don't need anymore coldwar weapons.

Air to air superiority is far from being a cold war concept and is something we can never afford to lose. Thanks to the F-22 that won't even stand a chance of happening.

[Bhuryn]

Air to air superiority is far from being a cold war concept and is something we can never afford to lose. Thanks to the F-22 that won't even stand a chance of happening.

Right, since f-35 is more then capable though there isn't a huge need for a plane with the f22's payload. Again though, that's not my opinion, thats the JPO (or whatever aconym they are) folks and the people she meets with in DC.

[Androidpk]

The F-35 is built more towards air to ground work. Which is why it is replacing the F-16 and A-10. However the F-22 is FAR superior in terms of air to air combat, so much that the navy is not replacing their F-18 superhornets with the F-35.

[radamanthys]

The entire reason for the speech, which he said multiple times, was that congress has put into the defense budget money allocated specifically for F-22's despite our wishes to discontinue the program.

I thought there was a moratorium on new f-22s. Fuck them in their retarded goat asses, we don't need more.

Jesus, it's replacing the warthog? That plane is a metric fuckton of nasty.

[Bhuryn]

The F-35 is built more towards air to ground work. Which is why it is replacing the F-16 and A-10. However the F-22 is FAR superior in terms of air to air combat, so much that the navy is not replacing their F-18 superhornets with the F-35.

I hear ya, really I do, you're not understanding what I'm saying though. The people that write the checks disagree with you.

[radamanthys]

It seems like streamlineing to the f-35 would reduce costs- aging planes need more maintenance, etc.

We're picking up 2100 of them @200 billion. However, other nations are buying 3500 of them. That's between 200 and 420 billion (depending on the models they purchase). Dev costs were pretty minimal, at 20-40 billion, underwritten also by other nations.

The f-35 is actually a pretty sound idea, under the assumption that the planes being replaced are old and need replacement anyway (how will we kill decepticons without working a-10s?), that the provided numbers are correct, and that other nations will buy as many as stated. ROI doesn't seem too bad there.

That said, after this, I would bet that cutting the budgets across the table wouldn't be too devastating. Pending that we won't be going to war any time soon. We don't really know the actual diplomatic situation with some of these nations, so who the hell knows what's really going on? Hard to talk about defense spending without any clue as to why. Obama's 180 on the issue is pretty telling, though.

[Bhuryn]

It seems like streamlineing to the f-35 would reduce costs- aging planes need more maintenance, etc.

We're picking up 2100 of them @200 billion. However, other nations are buying 3500 of them. That's between 200 and 420 billion (depending on the models they purchase). Dev costs were pretty minimal, at 20-40 billion, underwritten also by other nations.

The f-35 is actually a pretty sound idea, under the assumption that the planes being replaced are old and need replacement anyway (how will we kill decepticons without working a-10s?), that the provided numbers are correct, and that other nations will buy as many as stated. ROI doesn't seem too bad there.

That said, after this, I would bet that cutting the budgets across the table wouldn't be too devastating. Pending that we won't be going to war any time soon. We don't really know the actual diplomatic situation with some of these nations, so who the hell knows what's really going on? Hard to talk about defense spending without any clue as to why. Obama's 180 on the issue is pretty telling, though.

Just close some bases, easy way to save money. We don't need ~180 foregin bases.

[radamanthys]

Just close some bases, easy way to save money. We don't need ~180 foregin bases.

That's the truth. Why do we even have any? Isn't that what allies are for?

[Androidpk]

That's the truth. Why do we even have any? Isn't that what allies are for?

Yes but some countries LOVE having a US military presence there. It's almost guaranteed protection from another country trying to fuck with you.

[Sean of the Thread]

The bases aren't really that big guys.

[radamanthys]

Yes but some countries LOVE having a US military presence there. It's almost guaranteed protection from another country trying to fuck with you.

Of course they do! Military bases are like crystal meth for an economy. Can sustain it forever without any actual nourishment.

Every dollar a soldier spends off-base goes into an economy that does not benefit us. So we spend taxpayer dollars that just get up and walk out the door. No ROI on them. Not like a base here. Things spring up around a base- manufacturing and so-such. Fort Drum is basically keeping northern upstate new york state afloat, for example.

[Daniel]

It seems like streamlineing to the f-35 would reduce costs- aging planes need more maintenance, etc.

We're picking up 2100 of them @200 billion. However, other nations are buying 3500 of them. That's between 200 and 420 billion (depending on the models they purchase). Dev costs were pretty minimal, at 20-40 billion, underwritten also by other nations.

The f-35 is actually a pretty sound idea, under the assumption that the planes being replaced are old and need replacement anyway (how will we kill decepticons without working a-10s?), that the provided numbers are correct, and that other nations will buy as many as stated. ROI doesn't seem too bad there.

That said, after this, I would bet that cutting the budgets across the table wouldn't be too devastating. Pending that we won't be going to war any time soon. We don't really know the actual diplomatic situation with some of these nations, so who the hell knows what's really going on? Hard to talk about defense spending without any clue as to why. Obama's 180 on the issue is pretty telling, though.

What? Did you even read the article? What 180 are you even talking about?

[Androidpk]

The bases aren't really that big guys.


Large sized base or not there are still alot of costs in running one. I don't have an exact number but there are around 700 bases in 120 countries.

[Daniel]

That's the truth. Why do we even have any? Isn't that what allies are for?

:facepalm:

[Sean of the Thread]

Well we rule the world for a reason ya know.


Let's just replace the bases with Southern Baptists and arm them. We'll never have a war again.

[radamanthys]

What? Did you even read the article? What 180 are you even talking about?

Yea, I read the article. On defense, I mean. He walked into office ready to stop every one of bush's programs. The wiretapping is staying, there are still soldiers in Iraq, etc. Superlibs have been rather pissed about it.

Meaning he must have gotten information to turn his mentality around. A buddy of my dad used to be high high up in AF intelligence. One of the 'big shots', I guess. When my dad tried to plug him for info, he said- "That's going with me to my grave. But I can tell you this- If I told you what actually happens, you wouldn't even believe me." I have to imagine that's still true.

[radamanthys]

:facepalm:

It was a question, not a statement. Tell me why we're defending the interests of another country when everything domestically is FUBAR, and we have enough military power to shatter a continent, let alone repel an invasion.

It's like being 500,000 dollars in credit card debt, with a beat up house. Then you head over to your buddy's place and foot the bill to paint his place. And do the work. And buy the beers off him while you work.

[Androidpk]

Haha, sounds like California footing the bill to MJ's memorial at the Staple Center.

[Daniel]

Yea, I read the article. On defense, I mean. He walked into office ready to stop every one of bush's programs. The wiretapping is staying, there are still soldiers in Iraq, etc. Superlibs have been rather pissed about it.

Meaning he must have gotten information to turn his mentality around. A buddy of my dad used to be high high up in AF intelligence. One of the 'big shots', I guess. When my dad tried to plug him for info, he said- "That's going with me to my grave. But I can tell you this- If I told you what actually happens, you wouldn't even believe me." I have to imagine that's still true.


...I really don't have the energy for this. I'll see if no one has said anything about this stupidity on monday.

[Daniel]

It was a question, not a statement. Tell me why we're defending the interests of another country when everything domestically is FUBAR, and we have enough military power to shatter a continent, let alone repel an invasion.

It's like being 500,000 dollars in credit card debt, with a beat up house. Then you head over to your buddy's place and foot the bill to paint his place. And do the work. And buy the beers off him while you work.

Because isolationism has been very effective at keeping our borders secure?

[Bhuryn]

Because isolationism has been very effective at keeping our borders secure?

People always jump to this and forget there is something between imperialism and isolationism.

[Daniel]

People always jump to this and forget there is something between imperialism and isolationism.

Agreed. However, I don't know how else you would characterize not having *any* bases or presence abroad.

[Durgrimst]

This thread is almost painful to read, I rarely read the non GS threads on these boards, but this one seems like all but 3 of the posters have no understanding of a global economy or force projection.

[Bhuryn]

Agreed. However, I don't know how else you would characterize not having *any* bases or presence abroad.

Well I only said ~180 since that number stuck out in my mind as bases that were located in areas like Germany, Japan, England, etc. Places that really don't need a forgein interest protecting them.

[Bhuryn]

This thread is almost painful to read, I rarely read the non GS threads on these boards, but this one seems like all but 3 of the posters have no understanding of a global economy or force projection.

I hope you realize that participation in the global economy and military force are mutually exclusive.

[Durgrimst]

Well I only said ~180 since that number stuck out in my mind as bases that were located in areas like Germany, Japan, England, etc. Places that really don't need a forgein interest protecting them.

We do not have bases in Germany and Japan to protect them. You should go back in history and look at the treaties that ended WWII. Also most of the foreign bases are diplomatic/training installations that the CONUS units use when going to train in different climates and terrains. If the American military only trained in America to fight wars, we wouldn't be very effective anywhere but America.

[radamanthys]

Agreed. However, I don't know how else you would characterize not having *any* bases or presence abroad.

So... any country without a military base abroad is isolationist? Meaning, well, just about every country in the world? No.

I understand bases in places where we have active conflict- SK, Iraq, Afghanistan. I don't understand why the rest of the world. We could easily close them down and use the money for protecting our shores- the whole point of national DEFENSE.

In WWII, they bombed pearl harbor. We turned two of their cities into parking lots. Their tails are still between their legs- it's a matter of pride in japan that the military budget is less than 1% of GDP.

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon." --RP

[Daniel]

So... any country without a military base abroad is isolationist? Meaning, well, just about every country in the world? No.

I understand bases in places where we have active conflict- SK, Iraq, Afghanistan. I don't understand why the rest of the world. We could easily close them down and use the money for protecting our shores- the whole point of national DEFENSE.

In WWII, they bombed pearl harbor. We turned two of their cities into parking lots. Their tails are still between their legs- it's a matter of pride in japan that the military budget is less than 1% of GDP.

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon." --RP


Excepting 9\11 and afghanistan, right?

[Bhuryn]

We do not have bases in Germany and Japan to protect them. You should go back in history and look at the treaties that ended WWII. Also most of the foreign bases are diplomatic/training installations that the CONUS units use when going to train in different climates and terrains. If the American military only trained in America to fight wars, we wouldn't be very effective anywhere but America.

Really? you think that? funny, cause there are 3 bases in Japan flagged specifically as "training" out of 124.

Keep your training bases, close the other ~120.

As of May 19., 2009:

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

I would also like to point out that when the bases in Japan were established (post-WWII) Japan was occupied by the US. That's not exactly consistant with the Japan of today is it?

[radamanthys]

Excepting 9\11 and afghanistan, right?

Not for nothing, but I said Afghanistan. Read it again. It also said, "Country" not "person". I'm arguing for domestic protection, dur.

Or in "daniel lingo"... You stupid fuck, Learn to read.

[Bhuryn]

Excepting 9\11 and afghanistan, right?

Well of course, there is always that lingering chicken or the egg argument surrounding 9/11.

[Androidpk]

Well of course, there is always that lingering chicken or the egg argument surrounding 9/11.

What's that?

[Durgrimst]

Really? you think that? funny, cause there are 3 bases in Japan flagged specifically as "training" out of 124.

Keep your training bases, close the other ~120.

As of May 19., 2009:

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

I would also like to point out that when the bases in Japan were established (post-WWII) Japan was occupied by the US. That's not exactly consistant with the Japan of today is it?



Umm... there is a big difference in defending a country, and providing stability to a region.

Also Japan and Germany are still under restriction imposed on them from treaties/agreements in the past. Their military size is still limited even though they are completely different countries with different goals...

[radamanthys]

What's that?

Our involvement abroad caused 9/11, but we need to be now more involved abroad because of 9/11?

[Durgrimst]

You are not understanding what I am looking at, you are arguing a point without good understanding of the subject. Military bases are closed and budgets are being reduced all the time. I am in the military and just got done with staff briefings all day today.

You are not looking at the big picture. The more spread out and broad out military is the safer Americans are. We have the ability to respond to anywhere in the world within 24 hours with troops on the ground, planes overhead and all the gear/ammo they need to win the fight. Also by having our fingers in other countries economies it ensures that the global economy is supported.

America is not the only country that is feeling the current state of the economy. If we pull all of out of the global economy just to focus on our own, we will be worse off in the long run. There is a reason why we got into the economies of the entire world to begin with, and stopping that will not help.

[Durgrimst]

Our involvement abroad caused 9/11, but we need to be now more involved abroad because of 9/11?

This statement makes me laugh, no matter what happens and what countries do, terrorism will always exist. There is more good than bad coming from countries working together all over the globe.

[radamanthys]

This statement makes me laugh, no matter what happens and what countries do, terrorism will always exist. There is more good than bad coming from countries working together all over the globe.

Yea, I wasn't sure what he meant- it was the only thing I could think of that he meant.

Of course terrorism will always exist. There is terrorism in the US (McVeigh?). There's nothing that will stop it other than everyone being satisfied. And that would take injection of highly specialized drugs into every municipal water supply in the world.

[radamanthys]

You are not understanding what I am looking at, you are arguing a point without good understanding of the subject. Military bases are closed and budgets are being reduced all the time. I am in the military and just got done with staff briefings all day today.

You are not looking at the big picture. The more spread out and broad out military is the safer Americans are. We have the ability to respond to anywhere in the world within 24 hours with troops on the ground, planes overhead and all the gear/ammo they need to win the fight. Also by having our fingers in other countries economies it ensures that the global economy is supported.

America is not the only country that is feeling the current state of the economy. If we pull all of out of the global economy just to focus on our own, we will be worse off in the long run. There is a reason why we got into the economies of the entire world to begin with, and stopping that will not help.

I highly doubt that continually riding our country into debt is the best long-term idea for the economy.

We're responding within 24 hours to fights that aren't ours to fight. We're not just a domestic- we're a global welfare state!

[TheEschaton]

You are not looking at the big picture. The more spread out and broad out military is the safer Americans are. We have the ability to respond to anywhere in the world within 24 hours with troops on the ground, planes overhead and all the gear/ammo they need to win the fight. Also by having our fingers in other countries economies it ensures that the global economy is supported.

Since it is our widespread military in the Middle East, for example, that causes hatred of America and provokes terrorist attacks, is it not probable that we can greatly reduce terrorism by reducing our forces worldwide at the cost of..what, 48 hours of advance prep?

The next war among superpowers will be on a scale of minutes, and anyone who doesn't have nukes we can afford to get there in 72 hours instead of 24.

-TheE-

[Tolwynn]

Since it is our widespread military in the Middle East, for example, that causes hatred of America and provokes terrorist attacks, is it not probable that we can greatly reduce terrorism by reducing our forces worldwide at the cost of..what, 48 hours of advance prep?

It's not all that probable, our presence there is just one excuse among many for those who use such attacks to their advantage. Look at how many terrorist attacks that get committed in the Middle East against by Middle Eastern people against other Middle Eastern people because of factional and/or religious differences, say.

[Stanley Burrell]

Since it is our widespread military in the Middle East, for example, that causes hatred of America and provokes terrorist attacks, is it not probable that we can greatly reduce terrorism by reducing our forces worldwide at the cost of..what, 48 hours of advance prep?

The next war among superpowers will be on a scale of minutes, and anyone who doesn't have nukes we can afford to get there in 72 hours instead of 24.

-TheE-

Since I think you're sugar-coating shit, I'll be pretty honest and say that Israel is not that widespread and you can continue to love the Jewish people who caused 9-11.

[Androidpk]

Since it is our widespread military in the Middle East, for example, that causes hatred of America and provokes terrorist attacks, is it not probable that we can greatly reduce terrorism by reducing our forces worldwide at the cost of..what, 48 hours of advance prep?




False. Most people in the Middle East are very happy to have the US Military involved there. The people who are in favor of them being there far outnumbers the people who are pissed off. When I was over there one of the times I got to go off base I had locals coming up to me and just thanking me, it was pretty touching.

[Parkbandit]

Since I think you're sugar-coating shit, I'll be pretty honest and say that Israel is not that widespread and you can continue to love the Jewish people who caused 9-11.

There's a new one.. blame the Jews for everything.

[Bhuryn]

Yea, I wasn't sure what he meant- it was the only thing I could think of that he meant.

Of course terrorism will always exist. There is terrorism in the US (McVeigh?). There's nothing that will stop it other than everyone being satisfied. And that would take injection of highly specialized drugs into every municipal water supply in the world.

Well, there are some books around (like Dying to Win) that would probably at least make you say "hmmmm....". I'd say blowback, but it's sort of a boring read.

Here's the quandary, so to speak:

Terrorism is really founded in one of two beliefs.

A. People are just evil and decided they'd kill some infidels.

or

B. "Terrorism" is a reaction to some situation(s).

Most people believe A, but I tend to lean the other way for a few reasons. First, Dying to Win is pretty convicing. Pape's overall concept is that the vast, vast majority of all "terrorism" is nationalistic (you're here in my house, so I am going to kill you/attack your house). The second being, the hijackers said that was the reason (it's actually in the 9/11 commission report, it's just typically ignored).

Ultimatly, even if terrorism isn't a function of nationalism, we still have a black eye. We sicked the Shah on Iran, they took US hostages in our embassy, but they're the "evil" ones right? We've at least danced with all of the partners in the past. It shocks me that so many people just assume "terrorism" is an driven by unprovoked hatred.

[Bhuryn]

You are not understanding what I am looking at, you are arguing a point without good understanding of the subject. Military bases are closed and budgets are being reduced all the time. I am in the military and just got done with staff briefings all day today.

You are not looking at the big picture. The more spread out and broad out military is the safer Americans are. We have the ability to respond to anywhere in the world within 24 hours with troops on the ground, planes overhead and all the gear/ammo they need to win the fight. Also by having our fingers in other countries economies it ensures that the global economy is supported.

America is not the only country that is feeling the current state of the economy. If we pull all of out of the global economy just to focus on our own, we will be worse off in the long run. There is a reason why we got into the economies of the entire world to begin with, and stopping that will not help.

The problem is you ultimately just assume your opinion is correct. I happen to think that we don't need troops stationed all over the world to respond to any crisis within 24 hours. The reason? I don't think us responding to every crisis makes us safer, I think it actually has the opposite effect in some cases.

[MrTastyHead]

I think it's flat out bullshit that we have to have bases around the world to respond to events in a timely manner. I can decide to go practically anywhere on the planet, head to the local airport, and be there within 24-48 hours. And that's with layovers!

[Tsa`ah]

Procurement and Research are only a third (roughly) of the defense budget. The rest is in paying, housing, and maintaining the men and women at arms.

I'm curious how much of the actual spending is mandatory (Pensions and contractual obligations and so-such)

I agree we spend way too much. We have no business abroad- fighting wars, providing aid, etc. We have far too much to do domestically.


(Edit: Though, all that said, the F-35 project was a pretty good one for the economy. We're selling that sumbitch to everybody. I bet we installed a kill-switch in the int'l version, heh.)

Our defense budget expands beyond what is itemized under defense spending. Programs are tucked into other budgets as well. Such as NASA, the DOE, and Homeland Security to name a few.

[Fallen]

I think it's flat out bullshit that we have to have bases around the world to respond to events in a timely manner. I can decide to go practically anywhere on the planet, head to the local airport, and be there within 24-48 hours. And that's with layovers!

Are you capable of bringing your tank with you?

[MrTastyHead]

Oh, you're right, I forgot the military only has passenger planes.

[radamanthys]

Our defense budget expands beyond what is itemized under defense spending. Programs are tucked into other budgets as well. Such as NASA, the DOE, and Homeland Security to name a few.

Of course. We're not allowed to see the numbers for intelligence, for example.

[Fallen]

Oh, you're right, I forgot the military only has passenger planes.

Do you honestly believe shipping soldiers, their gear, and their vehicles all the way around the globe in 24-48 hours minimum is feasible? Think about fueling situations. Think about reconnaissance being done before they land. Think about how the hell they are going to get back. What about air support? What about ANY form of unplanned aid? You can make the argument that they shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but it is pretty silly to think you can fight effectively from a home base on the other side of the planet.

[Gan]

Thanks for posting the Gates speech Daniel. I'm a huge fan of his. Keeping him on is one of the smartest things Obama has done. Hiring him was one of the smartest things Bush did.

Too bad line item veto isn't an executive power on the federal level. No matter how advanced the 22's are, they are no match against the 35's at a 15:1 ratio.

[Fallen]

Thanks for posting the Gates speech Daniel. I'm a huge fan of his. Keeping him on is one of the smartest things Obama has done. Hiring him was one of the smartest things Bush did.

Too bad line item veto isn't an executive power on the federal level. No matter how advanced the 22's are, they are no match against the 35's at a 15:1 ratio.

I always liked the idea of a line item veto, but it would decimate the power of congress unless heavily restricted in its use.

[Gan]

Decimating the power of Congress... What an attractive thought.

[TheEschaton]

False. Most people in the Middle East are very happy to have the US Military involved there. The people who are in favor of them being there far outnumbers the people who are pissed off. When I was over there one of the times I got to go off base I had locals coming up to me and just thanking me, it was pretty touching.

Again, false. Before they stopped doing polls in the Middle East because they gave a negative perception of the U.S., consistently 70% of Arabs polled did not want U.S. military bases in the Middle East. This included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and so on, so forth.

I don't even know where you got the idea that people there favor a U.S. military presence. Only the most conservative U.S. media espouses that view, even the NYT and the Wash Post have shied away from dubbing us the heroes of the Middle East.

Once again, anecdotal evidence does not prove reality.

[Tsa`ah]

Of course. We're not allowed to see the numbers for intelligence, for example.

Then by your own words .... Procurement and Research are only a third (roughly) of the defense budget. The rest is in paying, housing, and maintaining the men and women at arms ... would be wildly inaccurate.

[radamanthys]

Then by your own words .... Procurement and Research are only a third (roughly) of the defense budget. The rest is in paying, housing, and maintaining the men and women at arms ... would be wildly inaccurate.

I'm talking about the actual defense budget. They money. Budgeted. For defense... The numbers. That say. Procurement.

I would have said spending if I meant spending. Really.

Now, on the other end... does intelligence count as procurement to change that ratio? To make it "wildly inaccurate"? Or is it to support our troops abroad in their efforts (as well as, on another level, to protect our shores).

[Bhuryn]

It's not all that probable, our presence there is just one excuse among many for those who use such attacks to their advantage. Look at how many terrorist attacks that get committed in the Middle East against by Middle Eastern people against other Middle Eastern people because of factional and/or religious differences, say.

Ignoring the effect our presence alone has it he middle east is foolish. Like i said before, one of the top experts on terrorism disagrees with religious based terrorism. He did the work (compiled every act of terrorism ever commited) and his opinion is they're acts of nationalism.

That would pretty much put our presence there pretty high on the list of potential triggers.

[Androidpk]

I think it's flat out bullshit that we have to have bases around the world to respond to events in a timely manner. I can decide to go practically anywhere on the planet, head to the local airport, and be there within 24-48 hours. And that's with layovers!

Actually the Military does not utilize a whole lot of passenger planes, especially large sized ones. When troops deploy to theater most of the times it is done by commercial passengers planes contracted out to the government.

[radamanthys]

Actually the Military does not utilize a whole lot of passenger planes, especially large sized ones. When troops deploy to theater most of the times it is done by commercial passengers planes contracted out to the government.

Really? That's interesting, I didn't know that.

[Gan]

Prettier flight attendants. ;)

[Androidpk]

Senate rejects additional F-22 funding

No surprise here.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/senate.f22/index.html

I really liked what McCain had to say about this.


"It really boils down to whether we're going to continue (the) business as usual of once a weapons system gets into full production it never dies, or whether we're going to take the necessary steps to really reform the acquisition process in this country."

[Bhuryn]

Senate rejects additional F-22 funding

No surprise here.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/senate.f22/index.html

I really liked what McCain had to say about this.

Me and my wife had a good laugh considering the chance in stance.

[Rocktar]

Of course, what people don't know is that it's replacement is already on the drawing board and likely going to be both unmanned and a hell of a lot cheaper and even more capable.

[Tsa`ah]

Of course, what people don't know is that it's replacement is already on the drawing board and likely going to be both unmanned and a hell of a lot cheaper and even more capable.

And you know this how?

[Rocktar]

Simple common sense that obviously you lack, so, here is the short course.

Military procurement as it stands, for major weapons systems takes many years, in this case, something on the order of 15. Release to the public of such information has a lag time and declassification of information takes even longer. Since we know how long this aircraft might be in use and we know that the super expensive nature of the aircraft is seriously hampering it's continues purchase, one can make a few assumptions based on common reasoning.

A. It will be a while until you know about the next aircraft in line and a great deal of work will already have gone into to it long before you hear about it. The current aircraft is already well on it's way to being out of date technologically because of the long time needed to develop and manufacture, because much like computers, the next new thing is only a little while away therefore the planning for the next line of aircraft must begin as soon as possible.
B. The military is always looking for things that do more, do better and otherwise out perform the system that they want to replace and I don’t think that will change. I don't see the military wanting to downgrade systems anytime soon so I can assume that the next thing in the line will be more capable.
C. Based on the comments from our Secretary of Defense about the shift to unmanned remote aircraft I assume that they will focus on such things, in addition to it being the logical next step for air-to-air combat aircraft. Ever since WWII the ability of a plane has been limited to the ability of the pilot to withstand G forces, removing the pilot removes that limit.
D. Based on our Secretary of Defense comments about cost and suitability to perform many tasks, I can assume that the focus will be on more capabilities at lower cost.


So, based on those common sense assumptions, I assume that they are already working on the next aircraft, at least in the idea stage, that it is going to be cheaper and that it will do more. Simple logic really, so, of course it is beyond you.

[Gan]

oh boy...

[Tsa`ah]

So essentially you're spewing a bunch of shit.

[Bhuryn]

Of course, what people don't know is that it's replacement is already on the drawing board and likely going to be both unmanned and a hell of a lot cheaper and even more capable.

Really? Half the people I socialize with on any given day work for Lockheed, Bell, L3, and Raytheon. One of them happens to be my wife and the majority of them are fairly high up on the totem pole (you can see two of them are on in the F35 future weapons episode). There isn't anything I've heard of past the F35 that isn't a munition.

Lockheed's take on unmanned by the way, is to retrofit the F35.

[Androidpk]

The X-45 and X-47 Pegasus, by Boeing and Northrop Gruman are both unmanned combat air vehicles. Those are only two programs, there are plenty of other companies working on unmanned combat aircraft and bombers.

[AnticorRifling]

Bitches you've seen stealth that thing killed Jamie Fox we will not stand for it.

[landy]

Bitches you've seen stealth that thing killed Jamie Fox we will not stand for it.

Why.. why would you make me remember that pile of shit?

Wait... Jessica Biel was in that piece of shit...

NM, Thanks Ant

[Androidpk]

BTW...


In 2008 the New York Air National Guard 174th Fighter Wing began to transition from F-16 piloted planes to MQ-9 Reaper drones, which are capable of remote controlled or autonomous flight, becoming the first all-robot attack squadron.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20080811.aspx

[Clove]

Simple common sense that obviously you lack, so, here is the short course....
A. It will be a while until you know about the next aircraft in line and a great deal of work will already have gone into to it long before you hear about it. The current aircraft is already well on it's way to being out of date technologically because of the long time needed to develop and manufacture, because much like computers, the next new thing is only a little while away therefore the planning for the next line of aircraft must begin as soon as possible...YF-16 development began in 1969. The first F-16 was manufactured in 1976. Just sayin' (I think you're talking out of your ass).

[Androidpk]

YF-16 development began in 1969. The first F-16 was manufactured in 1976. Just sayin' (I think you're talking out of your ass).


That's only one weapon system. Work first started on the F-117 in the 70's with the first flight taking place in 1981. However the public was not aware of it until the end of 1988. This goes for a lot of their high end specialized weapon systems, they exist for tens of years before the public ever becomes aware of them. There is nothing bullshit about what Rocktar is saying.

[Clove]

That's only one weapon system. Work first started on the F-117 in the 70's with the first flight taking place in 1981. However the public was not aware of it until the end of 1988. This goes for a lot of their high end specialized weapon systems, they exist for tens of years before the public ever becomes aware of them. There is nothing bullshit about what Rocktar is saying.6 years for the development of a highly secret weapon system (specifically the project began in 1975) and 13 years before the public became aware of it. And yet here we are talking about the F-35 JSF. I reiterate. Rocktar is talking out of his ass.

[AnticorRifling]

I thought we just used whatever we could get to turn on in Area - 51....

[Androidpk]

6 years for the development of a highly secret weapon system (specifically the project began in 1975) and 13 years before the public became aware of it. And yet here we are talking about the F-35 JSF. I reiterate. Rocktar is talking out of his ass.


Again you are wrong, the project started in the early 70's with actual design work starting in 1975. Not to mention Rocktar was talking about the replacement for the F-22.

[Clove]

Again you are wrong, the project started in the early 70's with actual design work starting in 1975. Not to mention Rocktar was talking about the replacement for the F-22.Yes the concept of a stealth fighter has been around almost as long as radar. By the 1970's math and materials existed that made a stealth design possible. Never-the-less the project didn't begin until 1975, General. And depending on whom you ask even later than that (the military is very proud of short turnover times).


The first F-117A was delivered in 1982, and the last delivery was in the summer of 1990. The F-117A production decision was made in 1978 with a contract awarded to Lockheed Advanced Development Projects, the "Skunk Works," in Burbank, Calif. The first flight was in 1981, only 31 months after the full-scale development decision. Lockheed-Martin delivered 59 stealth fighters to the Air Force between August 1982 and July 1990. Five additional test aircraft belong to the company.

[Androidpk]

If you want to be technical the Russians (through mathematician Pyotr Ufimtsev) completed the necessary math work for stealth technology in 1964. However they found no practical use for it and shelved his work. One of the reasons is because the types of flight computers and software needed did not exist at the time. That russian paper is actually how the US Military got the framework for it's stealth programs.

[Clove]

Yup. "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction", for the Russian Institute of Radio Engineering or some shit. It doesn't take 15 years to develop an aircraft. In fact with the design and fabrication technology available today it takes even less time than ever before.

[Androidpk]

It doesn't take 15 years to develop an aircraft. In fact with the design and fabrication technology available today it takes even less time than ever before.

There is a lot of work that goes into procuring a new weapon systems, for the most part there is no exception. The F-35 for example was a product of the JSF program which started in 1993, after the USAF and Marines agreed they needed a joint fighter in 1992. Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract in 2001 and the fighter will enter service possibly in 2011.

You're looking at around 18 years total to go from R&D to service readiness for this weapon system, it's about the same for the Raptor.

[Bhuryn]

Yup. "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction", for the Russian Institute of Radio Engineering or some shit. It doesn't take 15 years to develop an aircraft. In fact with the design and fabrication technology available today it takes even less time than ever before.

Well, the government is involved. 15 years is probably an unreasonable goal to try and attain.

[ClydeR]

If you want to be technical the Russians (through mathematician Pyotr Ufimtsev) completed the necessary math work for stealth technology in 1964. However they found no practical use for it and shelved his work. One of the reasons is because the types of flight computers and software needed did not exist at the time. That russian paper is actually how the US Military got the framework for it's stealth programs.

Hitler had plans for a stealth plane, along with three prototypes, at the end of Word War II. It was the Horten Ho 2-29 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1198112/Sleek-swift-deadly--Hitlers-stealth-bomber-turned-tide-Britain.html).

[Androidpk]

Hitler had plans for a stealth plane, along with three prototypes, at the end of Word War II. It was the Horten Ho 2-29 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1198112/Sleek-swift-deadly--Hitlers-stealth-bomber-turned-tide-Britain.html).

That's true, I forgot about that. They used a radar absorbent material. The kind created by that russian involves specific design shape to shrink the radar cross section.

It's weird to think that we owe thanks to the Nazis and Russia for some of our most important military and space technologies.

[Rocktar]

You can think what you want, it won't change the truth. Both the F-16, F-15, F-22 and F-35 entered and will enter service many years after the beginning of design work. On top of that all of the above planes and pretty much everything that uses a computer will go through several computer refits while in design and development, not to mention once deployed. Then there are weapon systems upgrades, avionics, engine tech and so on, all being upgraded all through development. Now, my bevy of doubting morons, all of this can be rendered null and void by a single significant weapon or sensor technology being developed. The time frame is pretty long when you consider that we are still going along with the rule about computing power doubling every 18 months. Facts are facts, the military pays a lot of people to second guess the whole world and then some to second guess those people and then they try and plan for the absolute worst shit storm possible. They don't sit still anymore, they learned the hard way. Besides, I tend to believe our Secratary of Defense when he says that is what they are doing over what you doubting idiots think. I am pretty sure that he is a good bit more informed than you are.

[Keller]

You can think what you want, it won't change the truth . . . Facts are facts.

You're the best, Rocktar. Assliana got banned, and you stepped up to the entertainment plate.

Thanks, bud.

[AnticorRifling]

You can think what you want, it won't change the truth. Both the F-16, F-15, F-22 and F-35 entered and will enter service many years after the beginning of design work. On top of that all of the above planes and pretty much everything that uses a computer will go through several computer refits while in design and development, not to mention once deployed. Then there are weapon systems upgrades, avionics, engine tech and so on, all being upgraded all through development. Now, my bevy of doubting morons, all of this can be rendered null and void by a single significant weapon or sensor technology being developed. The time frame is pretty long when you consider that we are still going along with the rule about computing power doubling every 18 months. Facts are facts, the military pays a lot of people to second guess the whole world and then some to second guess those people and then they try and plan for the absolute worst shit storm possible. They don't sit still anymore, they learned the hard way. Besides, I tend to believe our Secratary of Defense when he says that is what they are doing over what you doubting idiots think. I am pretty sure that he is a good bit more informed than you are. What the American public doesn't know is what keeps them the American public.

[Gan]

What the American public doesn't know is what keeps them the American public.
Exactly! Thats why we still have troops in Iraq. Not everybody is in the know, not even some of the ones who think they are.

[Rocktar]

You're the best, Rocktar. Assliana got banned, and you stepped up to the entertainment plate.

Thanks, bud.

I don't know, you are doing pretty good with your inane internet stalking grammar police act, your completely out of touch jumping to conclusions and your over all cluelessness about anything having to do with the real world.

Keep up the good work, those of us unwashed masses not in ivory towers of intellectual vapidity enjoy getting reports from the twilight zone.