Military.com’s founder Chris Michel forwarded a New York Times op-ed titled “How to Pay for a 21st Century Military” that ran in today’s paper. The piece recommends the following steps to get defense spending under control:
End production of the Air Forces F-22. (Recommends the use of “upgraded” F-16s until the F-35 comes into production.)
Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer. (Advises the production of the Littoral Combat Ship instead.)
Halt production of the Virginia class sub. (Recommends extending the life of existing Los Angeles class submarines instead.)
Pull the plug on the Marine Corpss V-22 Osprey. (Recommends buying more H-92s and CH-53s instead.)
Halt premature deployment of missile defense.
Negotiate deep cuts in nuclear weapons.
Trim the active-duty Navy and Air Force.
It cracks me up when those who know little to nothing about the military requirements process and defense procurement suddenly deign to give a damn about it. Talk about the Bush administration handing the Pentagon a “blank check” is ridiculously cliche and simplistic. Further it is ignorant. Tell the budgeteers who spend literally days doing drills that attempt to squeeze every dime out of a program that they’ve been handed a blank check.
And among the elements missing here are the other crucial missions the military does besides fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and what it takes in manpower and equipment to do those things) and how much it actually costs to extend the life of an outdated system. Further, the “we need more Army and Marines, less Navy and Air Force” logic smacks of folks who have done nothing but watch MSNBC to come up with their understanding of who does what and who’s needed in today’s military. Did you want the sea lanes open? Did you feel like supplying those Soldiers and Marines at war?
It would be nice if “The Grey Lady” took the time to actually flesh out what’s wrong. In accurately identifying problems they might have actually assisted the Obama White House as it attempts to get the five-sided beast under control. As it is, framing things poorly is worse than not framing them at all.
– Ward
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
…the very first step in getting control of Pentagon-spending– is getting a fair, independent audit of DoD finances.
Absence of such a fundamental accounting audit in the last half-century… tells you all you need to know about the procurement “experts” and commanders within DoD.
Choosing arbitrary procurements for cuts is a child’s game anybody can play… so is buying new stuff from eager defense contractors. Spending taxpayer dollars wisely, legally, and with objective accounting is a whole different ball game.
Have everybody in the armed forces, the DoD and defense related contracting count off by four.
Everybody who said the number four, your fired.
Next problem.
Indeed, Barton.
The really intelligent proposals are about much more principal issues than big ticket procurement decisions.
There’s even a flash game of a Think Tank in the web; make your big ticket choices and they tell you how much the military would cost in the next five years.
They make people believe that the DoD budget is only about big ticket procurement.
Such people talk reform potential away.
Given that the role of world peacekeeper, for good or ill, now falls on the US the main problem is not that defense spending is too high, but that it is currently too low.
I’m honestly shocked really, that they don’t recommend disbanding the armed forces all together. I mean they are the New York Times, they know whats best for the country…
This is what the left does (the NYT is far left) repeat lies over and over until it is accepted as the truth. Regardless of the issue. The lie; The US is spending too much for national defense.
Firstly, the US is spending less for defense as a percentage of GDP than Pres. Carter did and that includes war supplementals. WE ARE NOT OVERSPENDING FOR DEFENSE. Imagine if you made $100k/year and bought a $50k car, equal to 1/2 your annual income. Now you buy a $100k car on an annual salary of $1 million/annum. In which instance did you pay to much based on your income, the NYT would say the $100k car was to expensive for your budget, asinine idiots!
To show you how this is unserious propaganda the NYT calls for deep cuts to the nuclear arsenal. While debating disarmament is legitimate the program is hardly the casue of federal budgetary woes.
This is the same crap being spewed since Reagan. Replace, cancel the F-15, M1 and Bradley (or insert any weapon under development at the time) with the weapons mentioned above. The NYT has written this article dozens of times. I agree with JH if they were honest they would say what they really want ZERO defense spending and a complete elimination of the military.
I say limited prod on F22
Produce 20 DDG 1K destroyers.
Fund VA class N subs or find ways to extend LA class subs.
Cut Pentagon VA bureaucracy alone
Combine vendors
CUT regulations
change procurement regs
& If reusing F16 & F15, then I say add
Fwd Swept or Delta wing models to those 2 planes.
Cut Navy, AF, Army, CG, Marine inner bureaucracy alone
Cut Groups & Comms in Pentagon or combine
Re ratify treaties
Host training on US Mex border for NG & Army & MC Reserve.
Extend CV22 Production.
Fund 1/2 LCS & 1/2 DDG 1000 ships.
Compete for & UNDER BUDGET & see who wins.
Winner gets Full On contract to produce.
Test missile defense in CA & Alaska & ME & FL.
“I say limited prod on F22″
That’s what we’ve got… 183 + 4, and lots and lots of obsolecent Eagles, Hornets and Falcons, that already cost a fortune to maintain, while it only continues to get worse…
Even without Stealth (which I consider marginal), the F-22 is a good buy, due to lower maintenance costs and faster mission turnaround time, alone!
“Produce 20 DDG 1K destroyers.”
Here’s a unique idea… Whatever ship design we create and build, how about freezing the design between when we order it, and when it actually gets built? As opposed to ordering numerous redesigns and rebuilds, then blaming the resultant cost increase solely on the contractor?
{I know, I’m being silly…}
“Fund VA class N subs or find ways to extend LA class subs.”
Problem with Nuclear anything isn’t so much procurement, as finding qualified personnel who’d rather work for the military for less money, than work for civilian Nuke plants…
“Cut Pentagon VA bureaucracy alone”
Good luck with that one…
You planning on shooting them, or crashing another plane into the Pentagon?
“Combine vendors”
Already done, and it’s been a disaster! The contractors we have already know they have no competition left… Why should they try to be efficient?
“CUT regulations
change procurement regs”
Okay, you’re actually advocating *nuking* the Pentagon! Not that I disagree, mind you, but some might feel this to be a radical solution… :->
“& If reusing F16 & F15, then I say add
Fwd Swept or Delta wing models to those 2 planes.”
It’s not the wings that are a problem, but the age of the designs, and the fact that they designed them more for performance, than for maintenance access…
“Cut Navy, AF, Army, CG, Marine inner bureaucracy alone”
Trouble is, you have to get this decision made by the very people you’re trying to cut!
“Cut Groups & Comms in Pentagon or combine”
Sounds nice, but it’s not likely to save much, and would probably screw things up for the guys in the field…
{“What? We’ve got to go to a General sitting in Germany to approve a deployment in Afghanistan?”}
“Re ratify treaties”
Why bother ratifying anything we’ve already proven we’re only going to ignore, anyways?
Pieces of paper do not defend countries, Soldiers do!
“Host training on US Mex border for NG & Army & MC Reserve.”
What, to scare away that host of Mexican Illegals that Wal-Mart’s been busily recruiting? {It’s never that simple, I’m afraid…}
“Extend CV22 Production.”
Maybe…
Depends on whether it actually works, or not…
Still too early to tell.
Great idea on paper, though…
“Fund 1/2 LCS & 1/2 DDG 1000 ships.”
Scrap the LCS and the DDG1000 both! THEN, go ahead and ‘nuke’ the Pentagon (at least the guys in charge of turning military procurement into personal feifdoms), and start from scratch…
Preferably with a *clear* idea of what you want these ships for!
“Compete for & UNDER BUDGET & see who wins.”
Whoever’s willing to lie the most, of course!
It’s not like they pay attention to the budget after the contract is let, anyways…
“Winner gets Full On contract to produce.”
At which point, the massive overruns begin…
“Test missile defense in CA & Alaska & ME & FL.”
Actually, keep the SM-3 with upgraded Aegis, and scrap the stuff that doesn’t work.
See if you can build a landlubber’s version!
My personal view is that this whole issue should be a long term one!
I personally hate when all the advanced programs always get the chop! If we are looking to climb out of a recession – similar to a failing company – you have to climb out of the rut, not curl up in a ball!
We need to increase funding on advanced programs, particulary developmental programs! How will we survive if we keep making that which we already can… which happens to be that which the rest of the world is now good at making (cars, etc.)?
Therefore, my view is to decrease spending on in-service items – and increase spending on new tech.
We are there so many people saying, “kill the F-22 its over budget”? Yet they neglect to mention that their beloved F-35 is also over budget! And what gives with delaying the tanker desicion?! What a bunch of lunatics. Hey guess what our nukes are old and under-funded. Russia is treating their nukes like the last cold beer on a hot day. Also, I like the FCS but I think maybe it should be scaled back just a little. Now they better not go half *** on the NGB either.
Kill the F22 lol.
I’ve said it before. The F35 is politically sensitive. A lot of countries are expecting the US to pull through on the deal.
Besides, everyone thinks that the military doesn’t need more spending because they already wage war very well. However, the equipment wears out. A lot of countries learned that lesson the hard way (from history). Not everything is an air craft carrier that can sail for years and sold off still in working condition to a 2nd world country.
I’d like to see the US sell off the Huey’s from the national guard. Those things are ancient but well near the end of their life span.
I think saying that the V-22 “has yet to prove reliable or safe” is a stretch spoken by someone who hasn’t spent much time in or near them. Perfect they ain’t, but they’ve come a long way, and calling them unreliable (certainly unsafe) is really pushing it.
Of course, the most of the folks reading that op-ed piece probably don’t know any better, since the only time the Osprey makes it into their publication of choice is when one crashes.
As for the submarines, ships, and airplanes, sure, for the time being, maybe you can spend a lot of money keeping the current tech going. What happens in ten years, though when that stuff is REALLY outmoded? 25 years? 30 years? Guess what, you don’t have an industry capable of building that new high-tech hotness because everyone who worked on the F-22, F-35, DDG-1000, Virginia class, et al. is retired. Well crap, now what?
Ward,
I can’t agree with you more. I do think there could be some savings from the defense budget but it’s like they hired some gadfly or wonk who has never really been in the process to opine.
The last time I checked, there are two parts to the budget process, getting to your point about how much time folks spend justifying their programs and concepts. Why isn’t Congress ever included in the solution and the problem?
Look at the programs they are recommending be cut or scaled back….what are any of those programs doing to support on-going operations in Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan (yes we are operating there too)?
A few minor points.
1. In all of defense acquisition, cost estimation is the biggest pile of c*** in the equation. Part of it is because so much of cost ‘overruns’ come from factors having nothing to do with the program being ‘estimated’. The CBO, GAO, DOD are all purveyors of estimates based upon their particular philosophical bent. (Pure budget wonks are the worst because they tend to create magic weapon system strawmen and then make up the costs for them on top of that.) Part of it is because you are estimating what it will take to do what has not been done before. You may think you have something at Technology Readiness Level 6, but is really at TRL 5. Now some moron might think, “fine we’ll go forward when we know the tech is ready” (it might sound something like ‘halt premature deployment of missile defense’) Of course, then the weapon systems will have extremely short operational lives because they will be obsoleted earlier, and then you have to develop and field another system to replace it sooner than you would have if you had pushed the practical envelope.
2. When someone proposes cancel this or that and they aren’t part of the acquisition or operator communities, I’ll bet dollars to donuts they have never heard of “Strategies to Task”. They just have some stupid or ignorant preferences, vague gut feelings and a compulsive need to share them. If they had heard of Strategies to Task, they would know that somewhere it is written down why some weapon system is in development and how it fits into some larger scheme of things.
3. More people are probably aware of this NY Times piece because of Military.com than read it in the original. Honestly, who reads that rag anymore?
4. Any guesses as to how the NY Times editorial board sees America’s role in the world? Taking that into consideration, shouldn’t they be challenged as to how they arrived at their laundry list?
I say ramp up F-22 production! The extremes in high tech aircraft keep the younger generations of engineers, technicians and pilots excited, motivated and proud. In fact, why not let them innovate around the airframe and take some chances outside of the stifling bureaucracy? The F-22 is just not an investment in an aircraft, it is an investment in the ongoing development of the people who will carry the nation forward.
I disagree. We need the F-22 bad. In fact, we need more than the couple of squadrons the new planes would cover. The 18th TFW at Kadena, and the 51st TFW at Osan should have F-22′s already!
The man is as full of crap as a Chritmas turkey.
Happy Holidays,
Ron Axley
MSGT/USAF
Retired
Indianapolis, In
“think saying that the V-22 “has yet to prove reliable or safe” is a stretch spoken by someone who hasn’t spent much time in or near them”
But look at the statistics. After twenty-five years (or more depending on how you measure), you stil certainly can’t claim that is is either.
And it’s damn expensive for moving poundage.
Something else to look at….the technology that went into the F-22 is probably approaching 15 years old now…..and the V-22 design dates back to the 80s…..
Maybe the NYT should stick to running their own business as there stock continues to plunge, lay offs continue, readership declines, etc. The NYT can’t even run their own business nevermind trying to run the DOD
Sorry I meant to say “Why are there”. Never type when you are angry.
This guy Michel, where did he graduate from….West Point, Annapolis, USAF Academy? How many warzones has he been stationed in? Please, tell me what appropriation committees has he sat on? What year was he an instructor at the Army or Navy War College? And he understudied as an engineer and prototype designer for FCS too right?!?!? Heard he is a skilled military tactician and makes regular trips to Aberdeen and Yuma providing grounds to gauge the success of our prototype weapons for future conflicts. Man, got to love those NYTimes writers…they know EVERYTHING! I worked there for over 7 years and have never seen such an arrogant bunch of slobs in my life! Alot of the blue collar/hands on white collared folks have military or family members who have served, but the newsroom people, barely any that they care to talk about AND they make it no secret their personal disdain and loathing for our Armed Forces! This guy should be taken somewhere and SHOT!
That should read “How to turn the United States military into a arm of the UN by neutering it in its ability to work offensivly and by turning it instead into a occupying power”
And wait a minute why are we going to take advice from a.) ppl who have been in the tank for every major hater of the US. and b.) cant even manage there finances. c.)Let the congress who got us into the mess where in now determine how to get us out……….wtf
F22, get the 183 jets sorry there awsome but to expensive. Build the Virginia class and gradualy phase out the los angeles class. Zumwalt again in some respects i like it most no. Instead of the DDX build a new crusier class that has thicker armor uses nucleur has 8in guns with a more advanced propelent and round(Heavy Crusier). Also has beefed up anti missile and torpedo defenses to counter senarios where it is expected to face numerous surface to surface missile armed combatants. (let it utilize things from the DDX program like the power systems etc..). Build Missile defense ships (also nuke powered)carring BMD interceptors. Accelerate F35 testing(do not build plants in the north where unions thrive!!ask ford,chevy, and GMC it sucks).Keep osprey weve spent way to much time and money on that thing to kick out something that has such a chance to help our troops and that we might accualy use at more than air demonstrations(f22 sorry)in the next 10 yrs. Its expensive yes but its a fiest of its kind.
ok im tired of typing so yea just a few thoughts
Why is it people get so emotional when someone reccomends cutting or scaling back Defense programs?
Perhaps we should all take an objective look at what the NYT is proposing and see if their suggestions have some merit based on emerging operational needs.
Try to have an open mind and think of what challenges we face in todays operating environemnt and what challenges the emerging non-state threats present. Then objectively ask yourself the question “Do the programs the NYT is proposing to cut support meeting these challenges?”
Think for yourself….but think, don’t just react.
Valcan,
In reference to Rawanda, the UN has no standing armed forces, they rely on the member nations to contribute troops before they can deploy anywhere.
Additionally, no one really wanted to get involved there…sad but that’s the truth of it. Most people simply look at it as another African nation tearing itself apart.
We say “never again” but we really don’t mean it…..
I thought production of the Virginia class subs was a step in the right direction.
Think for yourself….but think, don’t just react.
Posted by: CR at December 22, 2008 12:46 PM
—————-
You have a point but to me when i read that and think about it i see this. 20yrs from now our children looking back and asking why were they so unprepared why?
That and i also think about where the info is comming from
Most of the problems I see with the U.S. Military’s spending are in process, not programs. If you don’t tighten up the process of making things, then whatever you get you’ll have paid too much for.
That said, cutting corners has a tendency to come back to bite you. A cheaper solution now may cost a lot further down the line.
Get 600 F-22, cut the F-35″A” to 800,
give the army organic firesupport and heavy weapons so they can deal with terrorist and dont have to call in planes to srop bombs.
Fund at least 2 DDG-1000 as techincal demonstrators, rework the LCs programm into a real warship/FFG.
Good comments Ohwilleke. In addition, we always hear about unmanned aircraft but hear relatively little about undersea and unattended sea vessels that can reduce Naval force structure size while accomplishing the same results.
BTW, you guys didn’t notice that the NYT article you are complaining about essentially took their ideas from the Center for American Progress and Lawrence Korb’s folks:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/military_priorities.html
There a much better way to cut defense spending in the log run.
It would be much more effective to…
1. Drop the hundreds of decades long worldly sanctions.
2. Apologize for some specific foreign policy mistakes.
3. Declare victories we have had in the war on terrorism.
4. Consolidate forces back into Europe & mainland USA.
5. Declare our willingness to give more respect & sovereignty to those who hate upon us.
6. Remake peace with Russia. Few realize, before Hitler attacked Russia, he moved armies into Poland “for better protection”. Past decade we have only shown Russia our will to dictate world policy (just like hitler). Then we plan a ‘missle defense’ program in Poland. Thanks to that, now Russia supplies EVERY country not linked to USA. Including those that actively attack our country and it’s allies. (Publicly, militarily, electronically, economically & biologically) … on a regular basis.
Every day, week & years that have gone by without these issues being a priority, shows America does not really want peace. Ever. It is arrogant, blinded & egging on it’s own demise.
Our weapons will have to get better, not cheaper.
When Hezbollah hit the Israeli’s with smart missiles, it proved that the bad guys can now hit what they’re shooting at. That is a game changer.
Building sharpnel proof APC’s won’t cut it.
Small quantities of expensive systems could turn into an afternoon’s work for the bad guys.
We need fast, flexible and hard, all seeing and all knowing weapon systems.
Where did these people from the Times get their ideas? that sounded like a list handed down by our enemies?! Holy crap this pisses me off!!! “Cut military spending in the most vital parts of our defense and offense capabilities, we don’t need them…” We live in a hippie-love for all peace for all world. true we don’t need them now, but how do you know we won’t need them if a certain country close to Taiwan decides to attack it say… tomorrow, how do you contain this and end the war fast and easy?
Every day, week & years that have gone by without these issues being a priority, shows America does not really want peace. Ever. It is arrogant, blinded & egging on it’s own demise.
Posted by: Rob at December 22, 2008 10:27 PM
——————-
WTF are you serious as opposed to the peace loving russian, we own you because you used to be occupied by us so obey or well just invade you again rapping looting and acting like barbarians?
russians real peace loving
Asking the NY Times for military wisdom is like seeking chastitisy counselling from a New Orleans prostitute.
Almost humorously, I find myself weeding-out comments from users I don’t recognize.
I served in the sub force until December of 2004, and anyone who says that you could reasonably-extend the life of an LA boat…. hasn’t been on one. They look like they’re straight out of the 1970′s with their awkward, pale-colored, water-cooled computers that are embarrassingly-slow; green-screen vector CRTs (think Pong or Asteroids); and a sonar system that sucks, just to top it all off.
I’ve never been on a Virginia, but it’s going to be better than what we have. I wouldn’t put a 688 up against a diesel with decent sonar– especially one with AIP.
thats something thats bugged my why did the navy get rid of frigates while other navies still use them for anti sub and other duties?
And um ive heard about atacams is there a reason we cant just addapt them to naval use?
One thing that doesn’t seem to be a high priority is unmanned aircraft. We need like 1000 reapers, and a space-based laser communications infrastructure capable of supporting it. These aircraft replace the need for bombers and strike aircraft. These reapers will outlive the F-35 by decades, I think. The airforce spends a lot of money on manned aircraft I suppose it could cut costs in half by adopting unmanned aircraft for every mission, including nuclear strike. I think this is the only real primary objective change that would save a significant amount of money. The technology is all available right now, just hasn’t earned the hearts and minds of the military commanders.
-”Few realize, before Hitler attacked Russia, he moved armies into Poland “for better protection”. Past decade we have only shown Russia our will to dictate world policy (just like hitler).”-
You obviously have chosen to ignore the fact that Russia invaded Poland as an ally of Germany in 1939…
“…the V-22 is unreliable and unsafe”. Interesting. Would the NYT like to provide some empirical data to support this statement? Oh, I forgot, they have a track record of making statements and then doing the research