You might think, with two wars draining hundreds of billions from the country’s coffers, that the Pentagon would be inclined to slow down its modernization efforts. Especially ones that have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorists — or even battling North Korea or Iran. That’d be wrong.
The Pentagon fiscal year 2008 budget adds another $8.8 billion to its modernization accounts, Defense Department comptroller Tina Jonas justed noted in a news conference. That’ll include “the first significant funding” — $3 billion — in the next generation of aircraft carrier,” the CVN-21. The Joint Strike Fighter fleet will grow from two in FY07, to twelve the following year — including the first short take-off version. It’ll take $6 billion in 2008, the Pentagon projects. Despite major cost inflation, the Defense Department budget request “funds three littoral combat ships and will continue funding for two DDG-1000–class destroyers and another amphibious assault ship,” according to a American Forces Press Service article. “The Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter is budgeted at $3.8 billion for 20 aircraft.“
The F-22, it should be noted, was recently deemed “too sensitive… to be useful” in places like Iraq. Most of these other systems — big destroyers, new aircraft carriers, and the like — wouldn’t have much to do with an Iraq-style situation. Neither would the $8.8 billion for missile defense (although that is a more than a half-billion less than what the program got last year).
Of the major service’s weapons programs, only the Army’s massive modernization effort, Future Combat Systems, seems to have been trimmed. The $3.6 billion requested for FCS is just slightly less than what the Pentagon asked for last year.
One bit of good news is that the Army, after years of requests, is starting to get a bigger slice of the budget. “If the budget is enacted as submitted, the Army will receive $130.1 billion in fiscal 2008, for an increase of more than 20 percent,” the American Forces Press Service says. “The Navy will receive $119.3 billion, up 9 percent. The Marine Corps will receive $20.5 billion, up 4.3 percent, and the Air Force will receive $136.6 billion; an increase of 8.2 percent.“
Bloomberg’s ace Pentagon-watcher, Tony Capaccio, has more.
UPDATE 02/06/07 4:06 PM: “Any fear that war costs would crimp spending on new weapons evaporated Feb. 5 when the Pentagon unveiled its proposed 2008 budget,” says Defense News. Check out these stats:
$14.4 billion for new ships, a 29 percent increase over 2007.
$6 billion for satellites and related equipment, a 25 percent increase.
$27.4 billion for warplanes, an 18 percent increase.
$3.7 billion on the Armys Future Combat Systems, a 9 percent boost.
Speculation about the Army’s Land Warrior system has also been put to rest. It’s PE line has a nice “Program Terminated” label next to it now.
Sounds good to me.
The army really needs to do something about its FCS, its so big…surely they know it will never come to fruitition.
They need to come up with a few vehicles that are hella good at multi-missions. Todays Humvee is used for far far far more then it was ever envisioned to be, they to pick like half a dozen different types of vehicles, and any other task that they need completed, adapt one of the vehicles to that specific role.
If I was the Army’s head honcho, I’d accomplish a few critical things…Like replace the current (old) gun with something newer and better…they were working on one for a long time (XM8) but axed it in 05′.
Another thing I’d do is ditch the old kelvar flak jackets, and go with dragon skin.
And a big one, I think would be to replace the humvee, get something that gets better mileage, is more efficient, comes standard armored, and has slanted sides and underneath to help deflect threats (like shrapnel from rpg’s or ied’s, or just gun fire.
Those 3 things I mentioned SHOULD be at the top of the army’s list.
BTW, I think the US should axe the future carrier program. The carriers really dont have a purpose these days, there all show. If we ever went to war with a major country like China or Russia, One of their first targets (assuming this hypothetical war didn’t go nuclear) would be the dozen carriers we have, they are no stealthy, and can easily be found using sats.
There funding should then be diverted for more littorals, and a few more DDG’s.
Hey Murc,
i’m new to this!! why so many TLA’s (3 lettered acronyms) Pleae let me kknow what they met because Your comment seemed interesting and informative..
Money definetly on New weapons and Intelligence gathering.. Also I do not see satellites Losing there place either Space based Lasers is Still better than Nuclear, Bio, or chemical for that fact Perfect on point targeting and No casualties…
Murc, I’m with you, the Army keeps trying to wish away this nightmare of 4GW, and go with their pork projects.
I’d choose the Barret 468 6.8mm SPC or something similar. Dragon Skin is a must, its NIJ L3 now. The Cougar works as advertised no need waste time reinventing any new vehicle; although I’d like to see more Ti, ceramic composite and less RHA. We should supply state of the art thermal scopes/goggles for every soldier. Passive low-light NVG is so yesterday, even the insurgents have been found using them. Not enough boots walking the beat, where are the armed UGV’s/sentries? Can someone please create hyper spectral sub-surface radar, for those damned IED
@BT:
Retire the B52?!? Well, there’s a first time for hearing every suggestion, I guess…
DragonSkin failed miserably in its testing at an independent lab — I haven’t the slightest idea why folks are agitating for its adoption. The DragonSkin execs do run a good PR campaign, I suppose.
Joe M — If your unsure of what the acronym means…either google it, or use wikipedia.
BT — the cougar is good, but its big…which can be good and bad. The army needs its lighter vehicles to, but these lighter vehicles…these days, must be armored. I’m kinda partial to General Dynamics humvee replacement concept…known as Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).
I’m with you on the thermal instead of Night vision.
I’m not to keen on mothballing subs though, they are the epitome of stealth, I think we need to do some work on making them cheaper, and going diesel/electric…instead of making the majority of them (very expensive) nuclear.
The F-35 has a role to play, and with so many countries backing it…I dont see it getting cancelled. Although a rather annoying thing, is when they talk about what its going to replace…and then they go and spend millions on upgrading what they are planning on getting rid of. A prime example is the A-10…its old, its ugly, but it does a good job and should not and will not be canned. The harrier it will definitely replace…and I think the AF is still planning on it replacing (at least some of) the F-16’s…and as for the Navy’s hornet.…i dont know…I think its going to replace the hornet…but with sit side by side the super hornets.
I disagree about the B-52, you shouldn’t get rid of your cheap bomb truck.
The F-117…yes, its out dated, and its payload is very small, this is one aircraft that should be retired…unfortunately, theres Lockheed that keeps rattling on and on about how its still great, and that they can outfit them to be unmanned and ground controlled…I hope they dont receive funding for such a dumb idea.
Thermopile — Yes, the carriers do an alright job…but I prefer something that makes economical sense. I would rather have a fleet of Arsenal Ships, which was a good concept. Imagine over a dozen of them…they would sit low, and be stealthy, have a small crew (around a dozen), and carry a couple hundred missiles, and outfit it with a EM gun when they come of age.
There has never being a hostile attack on a carrier…I think a reason the terrorist or enemy countries haven
Speks is free.
Carriers serve an excellent purpose, especially when
putting troops and equipment on the ground. When neighboring countries refuse to allow US forces to base operations in their countries, aircraft carriers can bring troops on the ground as well as provide air support. Carriers, yes, are by no means stealthy or maneuverable, instead of replacing the carrier with something that cannot fulfill the same roles, replace and/or upgrade today’s carriers with lighter, stealthier ones; ones that can fulfull the same capabilities and roles that carriers play.
The Special Operations Forces (SOF) have a few guidelines regarding operations, one of them is “Quality is better than Quantity.“
America should definitely try and keep an equal balance, but if necessary, quality should be the key factor in introducing new technologies to the battlefield. Today, insurgents have the numbers in a given city, but they must use insurgent, guerilla tactics to wear us down and gradually increase casualties, as in a war of attrition. Quality or training and quality of technology is still much more important than numbers.
Focus on better quality and innovation rather than how much money can i save.
well, the army is going to get a good budget but it will be wasted on that stupid land warrior system. the manufacturer is going to reduce the weight to 80 lbs before the army will accept it. well now ad in your body armor and your in the range of 125 lbs of gear. the army should apply some of this budget to finding a more effective combat caliber for weapons. make the soldier a more effective killer as opposed to a stupid looking robot that cant move fast on the battlefield.
what is the POTUS? S
omeone just recently asked me about it.