Two great Pentagon business stories today, one from Defense Tech friend and congressional defense beat reporter Josh Rogin and another scoop from our boy Colin Clark at DoD Buzz.
As our readers know, Pentagon chief Gates put a major clampdown on any leaks from the Obama defense budget planning. My colleagues on the budget beat have been majorly frustrated with the lack of string for story-hungry editors (myself included).
As the “April” deadline for specifics on the ’10 budget details approaches, cracks are starting to form.
First off, Rogin reports at Congressional Quarterly that the Obama admin has decided to delay purchase of a new tanker by five years and cut out altogether the Next Gen Bomber program (though he’s quick to point out no final decision has been made).
Both of these are huge mistakes, in my opinion. The KC-135 has a few more years left on it for sure, but delaying it another five means delaying it another 10 in reality. It’s one of those unsexy things that aren’t that much fun to buy, but “you’re sure glad you have them when you need them” kind of things that pushed off into the future could mean serious problems for a force as expeditionary as ours.
And the NGB…again, bombers have proven themselves to be highly adaptable platforms for a wide range of missions and munitions. They last a long time and evolve well to the threat. Our current fleet is either too small (B-2) or too old (B-52) to meet the long loiter, long range, heavy payload demands of operations, so it seems a big error to shunt this one to the side as well.
Also, Colin has an excellent grab from sources on the JSF/F-22 plans coming out of DoD. He hears that the F-22 line will be kept open, with production funding for as many as 40 more planes, and that the F-35 will be trimmed back from plans in 2010, but ramp back up in 2011 and the POM (though he has no numbers to attach to Lightning II buys).
This info would seem in line with persistent rumors that Gates and Co. will salami slice the F-22 buy, largely because they know that Congress will fund it, desperate to keep those jobs going. The F-35 trim is apparently the tactical trade-off for continuing the F-22 production. The strong out-year funding would be proof that the Pentagon remains strongly committed to the F-35, a signal that allies will peer at as closely as an anthropologist watches a rare ceremony celebrating, say, fertility.
Couldn’t have said it better myself…We know how Congress works, don’t we?
– Christian
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
Fairly recently we were hearing that the Tanker was a top DoD priority for the Administration and NGB would be kept but pushed back, would like to know some details of these OMB-DoD negotiations which appear to have changed things. Like how much of this was the DoD digging its heals in on non-Tanker/NGB programs?
On the positive side, 5 years would probably enable Boeing to offer 787 instead 767 as a base plane, and KC-787 has the potential to be noticeably superior to either plane currently being offered.
Good Afternoon Folks,
Al these suggestions are good. The next generation of bomber will be unmanned, if we are going to reduce the size of the fleet of manned air craft the the fewer tankers will be needed. The bomber is an ideal weapons delivery platform for the UAV. Where long, dull dirty and dangerous missions are SOP, also UAV’s can carry more fuel and the trend is to base bomber on CONUS that would require fewer in air refueling stops.
As in a posting of a couple of weeks ago,cancellation of the F-22 and F-35 would be what would take the United States into the 21st. Century. Use that money to develop generation 6 of fighter aircraft as described in the Rand Corp. article: “Insurgents Offer Tough Air Critique” of a couple of seeks ago.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
And the Dems are now talking about a “second” stimulas plan after the $787 billion just passed. How about a couple billion for defense to keep needed modernization programs alive? If not then we will know for certain cuts to defense are idealogical driven not budget driven.
Great So were going too push off the New tankers until the old ones fall from the Sky because there wings rusted off, And the Bomber 2018 just became 2028 because Of the Obama Cuts,
The Current force of USAF American Tankers is a mixed bag of C130′s for Secial ops choppers, 60 KC10′s which are Trucking along as best they can and over 500 KC135′s Which date back too the days of “we Like Ike” and every day are getting more and more costly too keep in the air.
As for the current bomber force the B52 is holding strong despite it’s 50 years, low speed and neon sign like radar signature. B1 is clocking off Targets well for a aircraft that no one wanted either because it was too slow compared too the YB70 or too Small compared too it’s Russian equivalent the Su160, Then comes the B2 which were built too costly due of the order cuts are hanger queens with the special stealth coatings. the B2018 was basically too make up for that by cutting back too half the bomber ( half the ranger half the Load) with off the shelf avionics and equipment using newer Easer too keep ready stealth.
The F22 and F35 are two aircraft with very different missions Although I like that there is supposed too be a new order of them. we should not be cutting back on the 35′s either. because as Time goes by The Marines are losing more harriers due too age and flight difficulties, Air force is facing age issues with the f16 and the F22 though a okay bomb dropper is not very good when it comes too dropping in and gunning up baddies who want too ruin American troops day. however seems too be doing fine with Fa18′s
i still don’t understand the need for stealth in a heavy bomber. stealth is what you need when the enemy has SAMs that work, or a credible air force of their own. and then you take those out with stealth fighters, fighter bombers (like the F-35, say) and/or missiles / cruise missiles before you send in the heavy bombers anyway. i mean, isn’t that how the air force’s been fighting these last few decades? i’m not blaming them either, seems to make perfect sense as a doctrine to me.
the B-52 getting too old? well, let’s grab any large, widebody civilian cargo plane, cut some bomb bay doors in the belly of it, slap on an in-air refueling port, and call it the B-53 then. no point even painting it haze grey; by the time it heads towards combat, the enemy’ll be reduced to small arms fire and running away on foot anyway.
Putting off the tanker program is a mistake.
Probably a result of the usual political game, with both Boeing and NorthGrum/EADS having their own buddies in Congress, all unable to agree as to a course of action, combined with a new CiC and inaction results. Not sure who’s giving Obabma bad advise here.
The manned bomber has me confused. How can you spec. a new stealth bomber, designed for loiter and long range, then specify a range or 2000 miles. Seems if you want to go cheap and limit range, you’re ‘gonna need tankers to get it out and back. Then you delay the KC45 ?.
Perhaps someone can explain to me what good a 2000 mile range is on this aircraft ?.
SB
” it makes perfect sense for us to use boeing as the supplier. They already have 50+ years experience at making tankers so they would be a less risky gamble. Also, in light of the economic times we are in it makes perfect sense to keep these jobs and capital in the US. For those who worry about Europe not buying our equipment ”
Stop with this crap. We’ve been through this already.
I haven’t seen anything on Army programs. Is there anything available on that?
Also, what is the difference between each service’s NEEDS and their respective WANTS?
>i still don’t understand the need for stealth in a heavy bomber.
Stealth is critical to all programs now, it allows you to overcharge for less performance and say it
Stealth is critical to all programs now, it allows you to overcharge for less performance and say it
Stealth is critical to all programs now, it allows you to overcharge for less performance and say it
oops sorry about the double post could you delete one? thanks
The current defense budget is approximately $587 billion, according to the ArmyTimes. This is in addition to the $787 billion of combined tax cuts and spending in the stimulus package, which includes a couple of hundred million dollars. So that’s a lot of money, almost $600 billion for defense spending.
In the article on DoD Buzz cited by Christian, Colin Clark speculates that the plan as posted today is a way of having one’s cake and eating it too, as the Air Force has famously done with C-130s and to a lesser extent, F-16s for the last couple of decades. The kabuki theatre of claiming that we don’t need it or it can wait all the while knowing that Congress will ‘force’ new planes upon the Air Force. Unless, as Clark points out “…the tankers really aren
Are there any weapons systems you guys dont think we desperately need to spend trillions on?? A destitute future is upon us and warmongers lust for new death toys. We are not safer because of trillions in “defense” spending assholes. get a clue. America was never meant to be a global dominating empire. Restore real patriotism, reject warmongering.
“And the NGB…again, bombers have proven themselves to be highly adaptable platforms for a wide range of missions and munitions. They last a long time and evolve well to the threat. Our current fleet is either too small (B-2) or too old (B-52) to meet the long loiter, long range, heavy payload demands of operations, so it seems a big error to shunt this one to the side as well.”
Well, there are still several dozen B-1B, which is in itself more operational bomber force than the rest of the world has.
The amount of destruction that a single B-2 sortie can inflict with JDAM and similar ammunition is stunning – it’s a crippling blow to major economies – in one sortie.
Sure, loitering 24/7 at the end of the world, thousands of miles away from the next friendly airbase just in case some soldiers ask for a JDAM needs a lot of bombers – but the B-1B should actually be enough for that, too.
Yet, ask yourself – is that profile really justifying dozens of billions $ expenses???
20 B-2 sorties would easily cripple the economy even of the PRC (without nukes!), they would need years to recover. Seriously, that’s more bomber force than necessary.
I would rather suggest to get rid of the B-52′s and to keep the B-1B’s annual flying hours low.
That’s enough bomber force till 2030.
Btw, Cristian: You clearly didn’t understand the economic problems yet. This is no crisis that goes away in two to four years. It’s the end of the deficit culture.
Well, either that or you’ll see the next, much bigger, breakdown in less than twelve years.
warmongers lust for new death toys.
? dolls from china?
OO steve are you a paulian by any chance?
OK ive said it before and ill say it again…..you cant just say were not going to get involved anymore the world is interconnected.
and dipshites without a good offense your defense is just buying time to defeat
To Byron Skinner
UAV bombers make sense and would eliminate the costly stealth requirement allowing us to field more bombers.
So, here you go: okay, cancel tanker. but not new long range stealthy “bomber”.
Easy. AIRSHIPS. (No Blimps!)
Carbon fiber, amphibious, rigid shelled.
Solar powered with fuel cell back-up (no refueling, unlimited range) linger over target capability of DAYS/WEEKS. No airstrip needed, of any size. Payload, whether bombs, missiles, supplies, or troops….of over 200 tons per craft.
Survivability? check out:
militaryairships (dot) blogspot (dot)com
and/or
solarflight (dot) blogspot (dot)com
With all the coverage being put on the JSF and Raptor showdown I was wondering when we were going to here something about our bombers. While I do always like to see new or more technology, most of our bomber force could easily maintain our skies for another five to ten years. The B-2′s, B-1′s and even the old B-52′s are all still much more useful in our pilots skilled hands then most the world can evr dream of. The B-52 while old can still be retrofitted and requipped to fight another day for a cheaper price then some of these other bomber Ideas. I am no expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination, however in the economic climate I do think we can stand to hold back on a few of our endeavours. This is not to say that we can forget about the bombers, it simply means we should look into more ways to keep them around for say another ten to fifteen years if it is possible.
Moose has a good point below: the delay on the tanker deal might give Boeing a chance to put a 787 proposal together, and that might be superior to either of the current tanker proposals.
Apart from that, AVIATION WEEK’s been reporting that NorGrum already has an NGB prototype in the works, as a black program. If that isn’t canceled, too, then all the cancellation of the white program means is that Boeing and LockMart won’t get a chance to bid on NGB.
I mean, if you stand back from it a ways, it almost looks like a deal is being made: Boeing gets another bite at the apple on the tanker, in exchange for laying off on NGB, NorGrum keeps the black NGB, and LockMart gets an extended F-22 line. Everybody wins.
But, that’s practically Kremlinology. There’s no way the Puzzle Palace would pull a back room deal like that, is there?
Apart from that, some of you might want to rethink your attitude towards stealth. Apart from reducing RCS, RAM or refractive materials might offer benefits as the world moves to HPM or radio frequency DEW suites.
We may soon see the day when RAM isn’t just about stealth; it’s also about protecting a system and its operators from electronic attack.
How DOES the DoD manage to win all those wars year after year without listening to and adopting all these ‘better’ ideas? Heh.
Seriously, there are a few fine points brought up so far among the dross, such as the one concerning the rather abysmally-short range of the so-called bomber that ‘was’ planned.
Good job (in general) not feeding the ‘Steve’ everyone. If he gets his jollies here, he’ll just keep coming back. Remember, he’s just trying to save the $2.99/minute that Mistress Whippe has been charging to abuse him.
Stealth is not a bad concept and will be a factor for the foresseeable future. The problem is the U.S. Air Force is in my opinion unnecesarily making it a requirement on all future systems, though the technology is still in its nacency. This results in wonderous one of a kind weapons systems, with the caveat being they are overly costly;resulting in small deployed numbers, not as efficient as capable as their predecessors, and expensive to maintian and operate, which forces them to cut man power to afford these thinggs. On top of this the Air Force wants to field these things in numbers that you would legacy craft, when they are much too inneficient and costly to do so.
What is this chinese stuff? Can we adjust the language settings or something so we don’t have to read that? Are the web
servers settings being overridden?
The Air Force projects that KC-135 E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040.The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them
While, yes the Tanker is needed yesterday, I couldn’t disagree more with the utility of the NGB. I also completely disagree with the assertion “And the NGB…again, bombers have proven themselves to be highly adaptable platforms for a wide range of missions and munitions. They last a long time and evolve well to the threat.”
I invite everyone to read this section out of CDI’s newest report, written by Pierre Sprey and Col Robert Dilger describing the history of strategic bombing (begins page 129, chapter 7). After reading this along with other arguments over the years, I’ve found the usefulness of bombers more and more nonexistent.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8547655/Americas-Defense-Meltdown-Full-Text
and also
“Our current fleet is either too small (B-2) or too old (B-52)”
Well if you follow the hilariously corrupt and misguided construction of the B-1 and then B-2, it will look more like it is a miracle we have any bombers at all.
I think demophilus is spot on, some kind of deal was probably cut to ensure that each contractor/design bureau ended up with its own project. Capitalism is nice and everything, but what other choice do you have if companies are failing? These projects are too complicated to do twice or thrice over, might as well just have Lockheed do Air Force Tactical, NorthGrumman handle the Navy, and Boeing handle the big stuff. (Might have to reorganize a bit there, Northrop B-2 guys to Boeing, F-18 guys to Grumman).
The competition would still be there, it would just be a lot different. That NGB would end up being a contest between Lockheed’s FB-22, Northrop’s B-2 rehash, and maybe a new Boeing bomb truck, and not three proposals built to the same specifications.
RE: 787, Moose makes a really good point. Will Pentagon orders for the 787 jump start their production line as civilian buyers contemplate their purchases?
In regards to Stealthy special sauce, isn’t all that extra expense from designing the planes from the ground up as Information Age EW platforms? Just look at that Marine One program and all the extra cost from adding in new electronics and ECM. It’s less about being stealthy in 2010 than about have room for the electronics of 2025.
RE: “Well if you follow the hilariously corrupt and misguided construction of the B-1 and then B-2, it will look more like it is a miracle we have any bombers at all”
I pray you hither, thou do thee expand upon “hilariously corrupt and misguided construction”. For methinks thy could useth a sound pounding about the rhetorical head and shoulders.
Good Ol’ CDI: The last employment stop for so many of DoD’s worst malcontents. And I invite you to see how that CDI POS propaganda piece fared here. See: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004565.html
Fighters make noise and kill things.
Bombers make policy and change governments.
Oh no! The “fighters v bombers” argument.
The CDI article was a little ridiculous. It overlooks the whole Cold War… the AF wasn’t buying bombers because it was under the iron grip of the dreaded “bomber mafia” but because it kept expecting to fight Russia (and that fight was gonna need long range bombers). The article’s argument that we should have bought mostly fighters in the past is Monday-morning-quarterbacking at its worst, and its argument that we should buy mostly fighters in the future fails to recognize the new ground-support capabilities that JDAMs give bombers.
But Senior, come on. When have bombers changed a government? Didn’t happen in Germany. Didn’t happen in Korea. Didn’t happen in Vietnam. Didn’t happen in Serbia. Didn’t happen in Iraq. An effective (key word) ground presence wins the war / changes the government. Granted, you can’t do the ground presence nearly as well without the air cover (and bombers rock for that), but it isn’t the bombers that win it. Semantics, maybe, but a really important difference. The AF is the world’s best artillery battery. It isn’t a stand-alone war-winner.
None of which is on topic for the article under discussion…
I’m curious how saying we needed more fighters and ground attack planes is monday morning quarterbacking. Sprey was largely responsible for the A-10 back in the 1970s DURING the Cold War. His view was (and still is) fighters and low and slow fighter-bombers make a bigger difference on the battlefield than high altitude strategic bombers. His numbers showed how effective ground attack planes were during WWII, Vietnam, and Desert Storm at affecting the ground game versus the rest of the air force inventory. You said it yourself that an effective ground force wins wars. Sprey believes the Air Force’s job should be to support that ground force as best possible. If a JDAM makes the strategic bomber such a wonder-weapon, then design a unmanned 747 with a bomb bay since all its doing is orbiting waiting for grid coords (modern B-52). However, a ground attack plane that can fly low and slow enough to hunt the enemy in support of the ground commander can do far more damage and move the battle forward.
To TB’s point, an unmanned 747 with a bomb-bay would actually be wonderful in my (ground-biased) opinion. If I recall the CDI paper correctly, that was one of the recommendations. My problem with the paper was more that it focused on the tactical context while ignoring the strategic context in which decisions were made.
Brian is making the big point which the CDI paper and many comments on here miss altogether: no one has defined our national strategy yet. We can’t build a force until we know what we want it to do.
Sprey and Co. say that AF decisions didn’t reflect the reality of war, but those decisions weren’t being made to support the reality of war. They were being made to support the strategy of containing and deterring Russia. The US decided what it wanted to do (the strategy of containment and deterrence) and the AF built a force that it thought (rightly or wrongly) would accomplish that strategy.
So what do we want to do now? Contain China? Stop suicide bombers by onesies and twosies? Fight a (possibly nuclear) war with Iran? Plink camels in Desertestan? Change hostile regimes with medium-sized armies? Fight a conventional war with Russia? And don’t say “everything, everywhere, all the time”, ’cause there ain’t enough money for that. Weapons make sense for tasks and for every increase in task-flexibiilty, you sacrifice performance in some niche task. Until someone decides what our national strategy is and what specific role the military must perform in its accomplishment, no one can decide what kind of weapons we need.
Although I’d think tankers are pretty much a given no matter what, so Demophilus might be right about what’s going on there.
Charles,
Bombers have always been more expensive to build than other aircraft. They’re bigger, need to fly farther, and have larger aircrews. As TDS said, it depends on what we need the Air Force to do what kind of bomber we buy. Are we trying to penetrate a thousand miles through contested airspace, provide ground support to the army, or circle the battlefield all day waiting on a CAS mission?
Each task requires different aircraft and aircrew skillsets to be done well. Trying to make a single aircraft (or any weapon system) that can do everything costs more, takes longer, and usually doesn’t perform as advertised.
For your cruise missile comment, they tend to be limited in number, take up lots of space, and cost a lot of money for the firepower they offer. They’re accurate, hard to shoot down, and needed, but are not meant to replace a conventional bomb.
RE: But Senior, come on. When have bombers changed a government? Didn’t happen in Germany. Didn’t happen in Korea. Didn’t happen in Vietnam. Didn’t happen in Serbia. Didn’t happen in Iraq.
I believe we need to refocus on my original statement. This requires clarification and correction on several levels. One, my quote is a comparison between fighters and bombers. Fighters are enablers of the strike mission. When used as bombers, fighters accomplish a strike mission. The differences between bomber and fighter effectiveness in performing the strike mission, is stark. Endurance, range (NOT the same thing as endurance), and payload advantage as well as ability to carry onboard systems necessary to precision and targeting all come down on the Bomber
Who in the world still believes that the US has money to spend on ‘Next Gen Bombers’ or anything else like that.
The deficit this year will be 12%(!) of GNP. The risk of default is becoming more and more acute. If America doesn’t come to its senses and start prioritizing, the IMF will surely do it.
It was fun, but the party is over. Ditch the new toys and start paying off the debt.
In a perfect world, each mission would have the proper number of systems of an optimized type assigned to accomplish each missions. But we do not live in a perfect world, so if we must buy one system, we need to buy the one system that can do the most things that need to be done.
RE: Downsizing the AF. Been done too much already. Last weekend I saw off my Daughter in Law to Afghanistan. She is deploying from an overseas assignment in another theater for a year and will have to return to her overseas assignment when her deployment is over. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul and would not be happening in an Air Force of sufficient size. The expeditionary AF is a sham that covers up the shortcomings of a too small force. Thank you Les Aspin (spit) and your B.S. Bottom Up Review.
The problem is this approach is unsustainable; Air Force’s aircraft shortfall is testament to the folly of this approach, which the Air Force itself is partly responsible.
SMSgt Mac:
I always find something to think about in what you write. Agree completely about fighters v bombers, but then you go on to say some things that I don’t think are justified.
1. The Japanese surrender was clearly due to the atomic bomb, not “bombing” in general. They didn’t quit when we fire-bombed them. They did quit when we atomic bombed them. The atom was the game-ender, not the bombing.
2. The whole quote about allied air power in WWII. I agree that air power is decisive, I just think it is decisive to winning the ground war, and on the ground is where you win “the war”, not in the air. As an aside, I question the morality of murdering civilians as a way of bringing “home to the German people the full impact of modern war with all its horror and suffering.” That should absolutely not be one of our military goals.
3. Fact: Churchill was wrong. What bombing did for England was shift the Luftwaffe’s focus off of military targets (which were close to annihilation) and onto civilian targets. In that way, English bombing of German cities allowed the RAF to survive. It didn’t cause capitulation of the German government. Invasion did that. And only invasion has ever done that.
4. Nobody who is counting Kosovo among their victories has any victories to count.
@SMSgt Mac:
Waste in one place does not mean waste in another place becomes suddenly a good idea.
Talking about logic…
Seriously, the USA is in a much bigger mess than just a financial system crisis and such. The media focuses on symptoms and doesn’t tell the extent of the problems.
The U.S. consumed and invested about a fifth more goods in 2008 than it produced.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/02/extent-of-economical-problem-because.html
The age of deficit culture is ending, and unnecessary military adventures, military toys and prestige nonsense is simply not affordable.
Learn it. Times have changed. The U.S. wasn’t able to afford its military in 2008, and will much less be able to afford further increase of military power. No way.
The stimulus is also a poor idea, but that’s a long and different story.
RE: toys and such
Suggestion Read more. Watch network news less.
Mortgage crisis? mostly found to be caused by idiots in only 35 counties in the US.
Let them fail instead of making everyone else pay for them. Pick any other facet of this manufactured crisis and I can show you how it doesn’t have to play out the way it looks like it’s going to play out.
Make a big pie chart populated with all government expenditures in the budget for last year. That really thin slice you can hardly see is ‘defense’. Take out everything that isn’t part of the constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government and you’ve more than financed needed defense spending.
I have NO doubt the Obamanites will truly crash the economy on the current path. It just doesn’t have to happen.
Wearing out existing weapons systems while refusing to recognize the need to modernize approaches the level of criminality. Labeling needed systems as ‘toys’ while it happens only self-identifies an utterer of such tripe as simplistic and unworthy of serious debate.
Well, SOME of us have to go back to work…
“Make a big pie chart populated with all government expenditures in the budget for last year. That really thin slice you can hardly see is ‘defense’.”
@SMSgt Mac:
You have either no clue or you’re a liar.
4-5 % of the GDP aren’t really a “thin slice” in the overall economy, much less in the total government spending and it’s a big chunk of the federal budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
The constitutional job of defense is pretty much what the NG does plus some naval capability.
Pretty much all else of the “Defense” budget is for offense and not a constitutionally required government activity itself.
USA don`t be worried ! I talked to a friend who was on Tornado F3`s he says the RAPTOR sits at 50000ft invisible to radar and shoots everything out the sky at redflag . The latest Russian jets would be taken out easily by Tornado F3s never mind the Raptor or Typhoon , when its avionics are fully integrated . He said the Russian radar and missile warning systems are just plain useless against US/UK radar and missiles and it would be a turkey shoot .
You own the skies and will do for the future unless China spends trillions on fighter development and training !
Heard Murtha wants both teams in on the tanker deal(facepalm). Is it me or are all the good ideas coming from congress these days?
Exonerated Haditha Marines are murderers Murtha? Give me the Gitmo detainees so I can get a federal earmark Murtha?
The most vocal opinions in Congress on the tanker issue are from the members who represent Boeing and NG. When Congress makes a “bright idea” its usually because there’s some money in it for them.
My my my Sven…
I wrote: “Make a big pie chart populated with all government expenditures in the budget for last year. That really thin slice you can hardly see is ‘defense’. Take out everything that isn’t part of the constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government and you’ve more than financed needed defense spending.”….
And you intend to count some sort of coup over my ‘really thin slice’ euphemism?
Fine.
I concede that I over-enthusiasticly diminished the size of the slice: it is not so thin it can hardly be seen. It is ‘only’ much thinner than it should be.
And it has also been getting relatively thinner since the end of the Cold War. (See “http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges15.png” for a sequence of pie charts showing the shrinking portion of discretionary spending that makes up defense, up to 2007, using the same CBO source as your wiki reference.)
The essence, the meaning, of my comment stands. Other, non-constitutionally mandated spending is crowding out needed defense spending.
By way of housekeeping, and since we are caviling about slice sizes, it should also be observed that the defense slice is probably slightly (~2-3%)thinner than in the chart you referenced as well, as it looks like your ‘wiki’ author lumped things into the Defense budget that are traditionally kept in a separate category, such as military retiree pensions and benefits, when he graphed the data.
Most interesting in your response is your honest expression of what shapes your views of American defense spending. You prove a point for me that I often try to make: that those who think we need less defense spending are those who would like to see America’s freedom of action and position on the world stage diminished.
Bring your ‘A’ game next time.
Hi TDS4S,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you but you know how it goes: when dealing with people you always spend more time on the
Good Morning Folks,
I of the opinion that the best way for the DoD to go on the tanker deal is to back away from it for 5 years then revisit it, for the following.
This has moved into the political arena and has become the bread and butter for lobbyists and regardless of who win the loser will challenge. Congressman Murthas idea of splitting the contract is a non starter with both contractors. Let Congress figure it out, that’s their job.
It appears from postings on this site and others that the Air Force clearly over stated it need for replacement tankers. Accident or not, I’ll leave that up to others to decide. The apparent facts suggest that the need is not all that urgent for replacement tankers.
With the merging introduction of UAV’s into the AF their many be a less of a need for tankers since the typical UAV has a greater range on a tank of fuel and thus needs fewer in air refueling stops.
Lastly with the current economic down turn there are scores of 767′s and 330′s being taken off lease early and put into storage. I’m sure in this down economy AIG (Gov’t. owned for all practical reasons) is a major owner of these resting aircraft. It would be a double hitter for the AF to buy some of these low hour surplus aircraft for the tanker fleet and remanufacture to AF spec’s.
I would not be surprised that this would cut the costs by $20-$30 billion and the AF could buy as the needs arise not committing to a fixed number of aircraft in a production contract.
This option would seem to be the best deal for the tax payer and would save the jobs that Boeing says would be lost if the doesn’t get the contract. The remanufacture work could be geographically spread out between both of the bidders.
Before any one scoffs at the last suggestion, I will remind you that that is how most of the current tanker fleet can from, and these planes have and still are serving the AF well.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner