The Congressional Budget Office is out with a new estimate (.pdf) of the Navy’s latest 30 year shipbuilding plan, issued in February. While that new plan reduces the total number of ships purchased between 2011 and 2040, and thus shipbuilding costs, CBO says the annual price tag is still much higher than the total shipbuilding funds the Navy has received in recent years.
The Navy’s new plan calls for buying 276 ships between now and 2040; the previous 30 year plan called for 296 new ships. Still, with the annual shipbuilding budget at around $15 billion (the average for the past three decades), the Navy can’t afford to buy all of those ships, CBO said.
CBO puts the annual shipbuilding price tag at around $19 billion versus the Navy’s projections of around $16 billion. If the costs to refuel aircraft carriers is included, the cost to buy and outfit new ships rises to about $21 billion a year.
Included in CBO’s projection is the cost to build a new class of ballistic missile submarines, the SSBN(X). The Navy estimates that building 12 SSBN(X)s will cost $86 billion, which is about $7.2 billion a copy. Based on the historical track record for building subs, CBO estimates it will cost $99 billion to build 12 boomers, at $8.2 billion a copy.
– Greg Grant
{ 77 comments… read them below or add one }
YEAH—-and by the time a new boomer is delivered the cost will double.
take the old ship re fit them and base the predators on them, base the predators at sea.
Ships have finite lives to them. Now that Navy has it's ships more and more at sea (putting miles on them) they wear out faster. We have fewer ships now and more requirements for them. It's like having 3 trucks do the work 10 used to. The 3 trucks you have will wear out faster. Refitting is an option for some ships but sooner or later it cost more to just 'maintain' them than to simply build new ones. Imagine having a car with 300,000 miles on it, would you take that car on a cross country trip?
Now if Obama would stop spending billions bailing out his Wall Street buddies maybe there will be a little left over for the Navy. "Too big to fail" Obama the bailout king say, well defense of our country is too big to fail.
A little left over? Give me a break, outside of social security, we spend more on Defense than anything else.
But Defense is one of the few functions of the federal government actually mandated by the constitution…
Oh Hell, why do I bother? Just bring on the ********’ meteors already.
Give me a break Dave, the number one job of the Fed gov is defense of this country! Please show me where in the Constitution Social Security is authorized. You sound like one of those whinny liberals who thinks the job of the Fed gov is to be a mommy and daddy to everyone, give everyone healthcare, give everyone a job, give everyone a house, give everyone a car, give everyone drugs, give everyone free education….now why don't you go back to Berkeley.
My point is we already spend enough on Defense, so don't pretend like we're barely supporting it and that the bailouts or whatever else is somehow diverting money away from the military.
I guess I struck a nerve with you though, I only mentioned social security so I wouldn't be factually incorrect by saying Defense was our biggest expense. I never said I supported SS, but nice rant though…
I don't think a status quo military budget argument is going to garner much support on a website about military acquisitions. Just sayin'.
Actually, you are factually incorrect. The department of Health and Human Services is programmed to spend $812 billion this year. 90% of that is Medicare and Medicaid. The social security administration will spend $770 billion this year. The DoD, if you include war-specific spending, will spend a little over $700 billion this year.
Got my numbers from:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html
Right on Dean!! Hey Dave soon the federal budget will be $4 trillion with the defense budget (not incl. war funding) of about $575 billion. Social Security and Medicare have a $37 TRILLION unfunded mandate. Defense is cheap compared to all the social spending.
Even if money was magically reallocated from SS and Medicare and the VA (yes, so all can suffer for the glorious military!) it doesn't addres the fact that /build costs are increasing/. It just means that the companies will plug in more cost overruns and gobble up the money again.
The funny thing is that you inevitably find these people living of the teat of the military their entire lives. Where does it say in the constitution that the US government owed you cradle to grave aid because you cant make it in the real world ?
Dean, no offense, and without weighing into the debate on either side, you may want to check into who started the bailouts (hint, it wasnt obama)
Yeah I know, Bush and Obama,-Dumb and Dumberer!
Bush screwed the dog, Obama saw that it was good so he screws the dog, the horse, the cat, the donkey, the cow, the chicken….
Excuse me for being graphic but this is basically whats going on right now with 'our?' fed gov.
a truly bi partisan f***up.
CUT Navy Dept DC waste & from within Pentagon to cut costs
Change policies & procedures
Hire New Blood & give reign for.
Combine projects.
Scale back carriers.
Cut miscl DOD waste alone.
Merge Navy, AF & Army Air into 1 organz.
Merge like Air Force commands.
Change organz structure
Less flag officers?
Cut spending for weapons.
Think Outside the Box
Privitize R&D for defense more.
Time for a Nuclear Deterrent Agency to budget for the deterrent mission separately from the service budgets. The budget would deal with ICBMs, SLBMs, SSBNs, warheads, guidance systems and re-entry vehicles, etc.
OK…….. We got an app for that! (from:http://www.stratcom.mil/)
———-
USSTRATCOM is one of 10 U.S. unified commands under the Department of Defense (DoD). The Command, including components, employs more than 2,700 people, representing all four services, including DoD Civilians and contractors, who oversee the command's operationally focused global strategic mission.
The missions of U.S. Strategic Command are to deter attacks on U.S. vital interests, to ensure U.S. freedom of action in space and cyberspace, to deliver integrated kinetic and non-kinetic effects to include nuclear and information operations in support of U.S. Joint Force Commander operations, to synchronize global missile defense plans and operations, to synchronize regional combating of weapons of mass destruction plans, to provide integrated surveillance and reconnaissance allocation recommendations to the SECDEF, and to advocate for capabilities as assigned.
———
Here's a silver bullet to remember me by….
Key word missing from your post BUDGET. The agency I propose would have BUDGET authority. Understand the difference? Right now there is a thing called the Missile Defense Agency that has a budget approved OUTSIDE of the service budgets. If the Navy wants to build a new SSBN it now would come out of that services shipbuilding budget same as a Minuteman III replacement would come out of the Air Force budget.
This would be a SEPARATE nuclear deterrent budget that would be approved separately OUTSIDE the service budgets. Do I need to keep going or do you understand yet?
Sorry Bobymike, I didn't see you there as the thread had moved on. What you are describing then is a special circumstance that would in effect create a separate Defense Agency to add to the current list: DARPA , DCA, DCAA, DCMA, DFAS , DISA, DIA , DLSA, DLA, DSCA, DSS, DTRA, NGIA, NSA, PFPA, and of course your example: the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). Ask yourself why the MDA exists (hint: National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38). OK, I'll save you the research: The MDA was created to invent and develop a capability that heretofore had not existed, and here's the key point: to do so as rapidly as possible. Once that capability is mature , expect the capabilities to be absorbed into one or more Combatant Commands (probably Stratcom), and the responsibility for training and equipping to be allocated to one or more (probably all) services. Continued…
part 2: MDA is not a separate agency just so it can have a separate BUDGET (except to the extent it makes it easier for missile defense detractors to stop it dead without upsetting other apple carts. Which could have been the plan all along for some I suppose.)
Stratcom IS the BUDGET advocate for maintaining and modernizing strategic forces. It, along with all the other Combatant Commands are forced to recognize there are tradeoffs in allocating scarce resources. To advocate a separate agency for an operational mission conducted by one Combatant Command is to assert that one mission is more important than all the others. The problem is not that it will go over 'real swell' (/sarc) with the other Commands, but that it would subvert the effort to allocate the scarce resources as efficiently as possible to meet diverse needs. Continued…
finally…
It is in times like these in particular, when defense as a whole is doing more with 'not enough' that these kinds of tradeoffs and competition for budgets are MOST important. BUDGET authority 'Solutions' with magic healing properties do not exist: Tradeoffs and risk managment are how we manage REALITY.
I’d prefer firm, fixed-price contracts and if you lowballed the bid, well, sucks to be you. Oh yeah, and every flag-ranker that thinks his ego is entitled to stick his thumb in the procurement contract pie and screw with the design and increase costs after it’s sent to the builder gets taken out and shot. #$^*ing with the specs after the build is started has got to be a career ending move.
Social security is funded through a separate tax apart from the rest of the budget. The politicians have raided it from both sides of the aisles and the trust can't continue to provide the same level of benefits indefinitely without change. The really big fantasy about it is some believe that means no more money when it does run out, while the reality is benefits would have to be scaled back to something like 70% of current, hardly that big a crisis. I certainly hope no one in their 40s or 50s is counting on social security to keep them afloat when they retire.
Historically speaking we are spending a very modest amount of the GDP on defense. We were spending twice as much during Vietnam.
The single biggest point being the USN should take a hard look at actual mission requirements just like the USAF is in regards to the F22 and F35. Give an honest assessment of missions likely as opposed to Tom Clancy novels. If that is done, I'm sure there are significant savings potentially. Maybe with the Marine version of the F35 and VTOL UCAVs we could use the LHDs in ways not really considered. That might lessen the need for so many super carriers.
Blah Blah Blah. Sigh~
Wow, this response to the post is some News Flash! Usual flapjaws blathering (incorrectly) about ‘Defense’ spending out of control (again) without the full picture (again).
I need an answer to a question before I start hyperventilating: How much is this ‘increase’ is due to the new and rather untested Gov’t estimating groundrules? The ones that magically make every weapon system ‘unaffordable’. Why, it is almost as if the wankers in Congress WANT the price tag to scare the little children.
Dismissed.
I think we need more severe penalties for cost overruns to encourage honest bid estimates at the front end. We also need to ensure that competitions run longer so we don't end up in bed with the "wrong company". Then again it hasn't saved LCS, and LCS is theoretically a straightforward design.
Military equipment is getting more complicated, but the private sector isn't have weird tenfold cost issues with their equipment. It seems unique only to defense.
Well said comrade – keep the capitalists out of the defense system it will ruin the profits.
The Navy will have to figure out what it can do without…we simply dont have the money. Also…Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and someone (IE:President or congressman) needs to man up and do something about it. Like end it, or raise the age to 75-80, something big. I know it will mean that some of their constituents wont like it…but its their job, their job isn't to make everyone love them. I'd get rid of the carriers, problem solved.
Hey Howe, I agree with you on SS, it is a world's greatest Ponzi scheme, we need to end it now for everyone. Of course we'd want to grandfather in those
on the dough right now and those getting very close to retirement. But as for everyone else, stop the program now. As the the monies everyone has already invested, the fed gov can give everyone the equivalent amount in US saving bonds with a ten year maturity-problem solved
Now as for the carriers, they are essential strategic power projection tools, without the carriers we have nothing that can 'influence' people/nations. Subs are important but you and 'they' don't see them, bombers are strategic but you don't park a bomber off of someone's coast to influence them. So in peace and war carriers are essential part of our overall defense
hmmmmm.
true. But they need to try and get their costs down…remember, that price is ONLY for the ship.
As for SS, yup, were on the same page. I've personally given to SS for over a decade, and if the government gave me a choice today, I'd stop paying in, even if that meant that all the money I've put into it is gone forever…I don't care. I don't want to live in a nanny state where the government takes care of me, I have an IRA, I don't want the government forcing me to fund their slush fund.
The costs of everything defense related is out of control or simply too expensive. How we get control in by putting procurement/program officers in charge that have real backbones and who have real authority-who can hold the defense contractor's nose to the fire if costs start to creep. What they also need to do is to eliminate 'requirements creep.' Once something is designed you don't go changing it-this is what drove costs up in the LCS program. Lastly, as the saying goes-too many cooks spoil the stew, there seems to be a lot of that happening in all defense related programs.
Don't raise the age of the retired, chang e the rule so that the politicians use the social security and not their retirement private funds.
Remove our aircraft carriers and you might as well scuttle the whole fleet! without them what kind of power would we have? our ability to deliver a first strike assault with effective consequences would be severly curtailed. How would we get our aircraft out there to reach out and touch someone like they need? How about defence of our fleet on the open seas? Worried about cost of the ship, what price do you put on freedomand security?
"our ability to deliver a first strike assault with effective consequences would be severly curtailed"
Aw no….. Then we'd have to actually start listening to other nations, cooperate with them! Why, we might have to actually reason like an adult before we lash out like an idiot child!!
Can't have that. More carriers! Dozens more! Our credit card is good, right?
Are you out of your mind? If you get rid of the carriers then you weaken this nation. The answer is not to weaken us. The carriers are the power in the oceans of the world that protect everyone,
Build unmanned missle/ torpedo boats instead of ships for defense. Our enemies were building missile boats for years.
…
Missile boats didn't do much against Operation Praying Mantis.
As previously stated, we cannot afford the ships the Navy wants. Maybe they could build cheaper smaller ships that are not gold plated. Besides we don't need such a large military/navy. It has to shrink and it will shrink. Throught the most formative years of our history we had a small military. The federal government is soon going to have to spend billions on teachers and more billions to bail out union pension funds. The nation cannot do all that and buy huge gold plated ships for the admirals to play with.
The President has a plan, which he outlined at West Point. Instead of a large expensive military, we are going to depend on diplomacy and the military of our allies. Obama has shown that he can think outside the box.
Diplomacy? Like the current six party talks involving North Korea? Almost 7 years and during that time they have committed multiple violations in regards to ballistic missile tests, they have test detonated two nuclear devices, they have sunk a South Korean warship. This is the diplomacy Obama thinks will protect America?
How about the on going non sense with Iran? Same there, 7 years and we've uncovered more and more secret facilities, they have thumbed their noses at the UNSC with Russia and China being their guardian angels.
Diplomacy and our 'allies'? Only the UK and France maintain any level of independent expeditionary capacity, as for the rest of NATO, they hitch a ride and meal with us.
Obama and his staff are clearly out of their depth. They have placed faith in their new approach and out reach that has fallen flat on its face.
I'm all for realistic threat assessment and insuring we aren't buying legacy systems that are essentially gold plated hammers, but l am not going to place trust for national defense in the hands of a naive insulated politico from Chicago or a carpet bagger from Arkansas that bought her way into the senate.
Peace through strength
Thinking outside the box? It sounds more like he's thinking like Wilson did back with the League of Nations, and that woked out real well. How does diplomacy deal with unconventional threats, anyway? Are they going to give al Qaeda a seat in the UN? States like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela are like barking dogs. Just telling them to be quiet will not make them stop barking. You have to hit them on the snout if you want them to shut up.
And what happens when (not if, but when) others decide that their interests are not aligned with our and we are left holding the bag? What happens when diplomacy fails and we are threatened? What happens when the US pulls back from all areas of the globe and a power vacuum is created?
This is not thinking outside the box, it is tangerine dreams and marmalade skies. The plan leaves us with little or no recourse if diplomacy fails. And it has failed numerous times throughout history.
"We're going to use diplomacy…" I am so sick and tired of hearing that phrase. Since the last election cycle, the President and our now-Secretary of State keep using that phrase as if "diplomacy" is an ingredient in spagetti sauce or a can of paint you just apply. Diplomacy is negotiating for something you want, often from someone who doesn't want to give it to you. You negotiate from a position of strength, whether that be the threat of violent force, economic incentives, or some psychological/moral advantage you have over the other party. Contrary to what you and the President seem to think, "pretty please" is not an effective negotiating tactic.
WHAT AN IDIOT!!! Reduce the size of the Navy? Why not just give the rule of the seas back to the British? and then we can let the french fight for us? Or maybe even the spanish armada can come rescue us when we need to send our troops out. NO SIR, we are the only super power left and if we fold then we will be speaking chinese or mandarin in two or three years. Oh yeah, and the ships aren't gold they are brass!!
The Navy could save billions if they would give up on the fantasy of opposed beach landings which is what all those ships that start with an "L" are built for.
We have not done an opposed beach landing, one that really mattered to the outcome of a "war" since Inchon and that was what 60 years ago?
That is not likley to change.
Amphibs are very expensive very slow "troop transports" that invariable are never where you need them when you need them, Murphy's law says that they will always be at least days most likely weeks and possibly months away from where ever you want/need to attack and if that place is an inland "country" like Afghanistan they are totaly useless.
From the start of the two wars we are in now, Marines have flown directley from the US to in country and returned and those all those"L" ships that we have spent trillions on building, maintaining and manning since the 70's with the LHA have had nothing to do with it.
But yet we keep building them because someday we might just maybe possibly do another opposed beach landing.
You might want to do a little research before opening your mouth. With our MEBs we can reach anywhere with a coastline within 48 hours with a fully equipped expeditionary brigade that's self sustaining for an extended period of time. No one else in the US military can react as fast with as much force as the Marine Corps MEB can, only the airborne can reach places faster but that means sacrificing a lot to do so; things like heavy vehicles, armor, and artillery larger than an 85mm mortar, and they have limited supplies for something like two days or so. You also forget how Marines sitting off the coast of Iraq tied up a goodly number of Saddam's troops during the 1st Gulf War. Also, saying that just because we haven't conducted an opposed amphibious landing since Inchon doesn't that it can't and won't happen again, much better to have a tool/capability and not need it then to need it and not have it.
I'd say forced landings are as much of the past as horse borne cavalry charges. They were utilized when they were out of necessity, not desire. We needed a way to move equipment ashore and via ports/water, was the only option, hence we had to hit the beach. Now with the advances to include helicopters and aircraft that can move modern MBTs if necessary, taking a contested beach just isn't necessary.
Having said that though, that doesn't mean l for one minute support doing away with amphibious task forces. I do think sea basing is a good idea and the LHDs and such are a critical component of that. While l think forced entry onto contested beaches is history, having to operate from the littorals for a lack of land options is a distinct possibility.
MEUs aren't just there for beach assaults. They bring helicopters, strike aircraft, and a fully supported infantry battalion task force with logistics to anybody's shore for a list of uses. Guess what one of the first (if not the first) US force to Haiti was? An LHD. When US citizens need to be evacuated in a hurry from some coastal European or African country going crazy, how do they do it? With a ship beginning with an "L". Even if they don't have to fire a shot, the threat of having a Marine infantry task force and a dozen aircraft sitting off your shore does give us some leverage when we need it. And as far as spending "trillions", most USMC operations are done fairly cheaply – at least until the EFV finally comes online.
I'd say forced landings are as much of the past as horse borne cavalry charges. They were utilized when they were out of necessity, not desire. We needed a way to move equipment ashore and via ports/water, was the only option, hence we had to hit the beach. Now with the advances to include helicopters and aircraft that can move modern MBTs if necessary, taking a contested beach just isn't necessary.
Having said that though l do think sea basing is a good idea and the LHDs and such would be a critical component. I can definitely see us having to operate from the littorals with no land option as a scenario.
Hello!! Have you read the news lately?! Just take a look at Korea. Dont forget we still have troops there and we are still under a sease-fire order and the North Koreans are about to end that, oops they already did!! And we all know who their allies are,. Now, how do you say" Can i have a beer please" in chinese?
Reduce the Navy reach and you reduce the nations projection of power in the world. And you keep the military out of overseas adventures embarked on by some politician that at most gets his 8 years in the captain's chair.
It's time to simply suck it up and accept that we need reform of the military-industrial complex. We've built a monster that simply imitates competition instead of accomplishing it. Even more sickeningly, this coalition can't even temporarily suspend its games in crunch time and deliver a product at its original (and merely crushing) cost.
Heh. Nothing exposes someone as having only a glimmer, of a germ, of a seed, of a modicum, a hint, of even a superficial knowledge set on the topic of military acquisition programs as popping off about an imaginary Military-Industrial Complex. There isn't one.
However, if one were to seek an Entitlement-Special Interest-Congressional Complex, you can't swing a dead cat without hittting a product of it
Mac, what would you call it when between the industry and the military they can't pin down requirements or write a good contract and costs spiral out of control, there's very little if any market competition, and Congress is often unwilling to put the hammer down on either of them because they want to preserve a few jobs at taxpayer expense in their districts?
Not saying the above situation qualifies as the MICC, but I think it describes much of what upsets us.
Therein lies the problem with this forum. There is no way anyone can adequately address dilettantes’ questions in “2500 characters and spaces”, much less all of them. This board used to be dominated by people that had active working backgrounds in the subject matter, with a few old cranks, and since being more closely cross-linked with other sites, the ratio has largely reversed.
Sweeping generalized oversimplifications such as ‘can’t pin down requirements or write a good contract’ (You never hear about the overwhelming majority of contracts without problems or see highlighted Congress’ role in those that do) or ‘costs spiraling out of control’ (more like cost estimation doing the spiraling these days) or ‘little if any market competition’(I’ve lost enough contracts to disagree and who here understands how a market works in a monopsony?)
Add in the faux-peaceniks and odd bitter-ender hippies and this place has become a swamp.
You're right that I and many others here don't see the whole picture. You're neck deep in the industry and I'm still down on the line as the end user. When I see that the new whizbang that we're supposed to get any time now that will 1)revolutionize warfare and 2)suck up funding for things I could actually use in the present, isn't happening like its supposed to, I get upset. We've been waiting for years for certain improvements to our small arms but told there's no money because they sunk their whole R&D budget into FCS. Now that that waste of money is over with, we're finally seeing basic nickel and dime upgrades that mean the world to us. The majority of contracts I actually see in action down at my level are maintenance and support contracts that don't have enough enforcement language in them or aren't worth hiring a civilian to do what the soldier ought to be doing for himself.
As a civilian, I don't understand the strategy.
If we get to the holy grail of speed of light weapons, rail guns and advanced air borne threats, we reduce the threat of ANY foreign force, land sea or air, yes? The money has got to come somewhere. See this:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/ scram cruise….than add a beefier X-37 capable of quick release and add deployable 1000kw lasers and you have unprecedented power. Real game changers that can't be quickly countered. It seems these things are such game changers I am not sure they are less important than a carrier or two. In fact, incorporating new technology in flat tops seems mandatory. The US and SK can't even track NK subs right now. So I don't see the question here as more v less, but rather X v Y. Am I wrong? Should we be focused on our cutting edge the enemy is not likely to surpass rather than rolling out hardware that is becoming more vulnerable?
With Obey out, what are the chances the F-22 will be reborn? And….these new carriers have titanium decks that can take F-35's vertical thrusters?
Weaponized lasers will be very important to the warfighters quite soon. Having said that, here's a key thing to remember whenever you think about war and strategy. It is my number one rule. I quote it often, and I've been given mementos with these words iinscribed upon them: "The ultimate weapon is the mind of man".
For every weapon, there is eventually a defense, and the term 'game-changer' is reserved in my mind for those technologies where not only is there no counter to it that can be readily developed, but there is no perceived strategy for defeating/countering it – the strategy itself must be conceptualized befoer technology can be applied.
continued…
Not just any strategy will do – it must also be cost-effective. This was (and still is) the case with low observables. The utility of weaponized lasers will vary greatly by application. Their biggest drawback is that they are 'line of sight'. I can think of any number of attack strategies that could neutralize a laser system before it could strike back at the source of attack. The only two that are so obvious that my employer wouldn't mind me mentioning are low observable or ablative-coated high speed kinetic weapons and/or EMP weapons employed either against the weapon(s), the network C4I system that controls them, or their power sources.
ps. if 'we' could track AIP/battery subs in littoral waters, we wouldn't admit it.
Thank you,smart answer. I am in way over my qualifications to ask….Just a follow up if you could as I understanding the restrictions of time and content. To clarify after your reply.
Air borne platforms extend the line of sight as do land and sea mobility. That is quite feasible. And even line of sight with sufficient strength is quite a grail. Lasers also provide their own defense. Low observables at high speed either scram or rail can like-wise be released from land sea or air soon enough. This is within reach. With these two legs as well as serious rail tech, I am not sure what counters are in the immediate future for our potential enemies. Well, besides setting back the economy required to afford these things.
The obvious counters are things most adversaries don't have. That would involve more laser ablative coatings active or passive, something that requires advanced science and production. If the game is to get us 40 years of superiority while the few that can, catch up, the lower level threats (the more likely ones) get less threatening. Of course I'm leaving out terrorism and WMD and unrestricted warfare which these game changers don't address directly…
If you take the "parts" of the game-changing strategy, from the X/37 and 51, the laser and rail technologies, we must be on the cusp. So isn't it a trade off how fast we get there besides the necessary development time, choosing between things like the above and boomers etc that might not have been designed in the same light were these new technologies to break loose?
As for brains and man power, that must be the finest otherwise the conception and execution of strategy goes out the window.
If we had such a strategy and assets discussed in the wings, I was amateurishly suggesting some present cuts and advocacy don't make sense. Sorry so long. I left out kinetic energy and emp obviously to be worked into the same basic delivery structures and strategy above. Wouldn't altogether, the evolution of the synergy between these thing be game changing reality for adversaries?….
Provided the right people deliver the optimum results…
I think you can survive my typos…..
PS I hope we do have more unspoken capabilities in littoral waters. Its like playing two games of chess at once.
You people that quote the Constitution can't be serious. You might want to read more than just the preamble. Read some history too. There was plenty of in-fighting amongst the writers. Complaining about SS in the same article as defense? Really, it's different money taxed differenlty. Oh, yeah that's right, you tea-baggers don't want it now that it's hurting because it was tapped into so heavily during the 80s so you could enjoy tax cuts and reap the benefits of a large defense budget that we couldn't sustain. Without SS we may not have won the Cold War. Now we are all paying for it. Reality, it's our system in general. Politicians vote for things to get re-elected, not because it might be the right thing to do. So they support those that give them money whether it be the constituents or businesses.
Oh yeah, and don't complain about bailing out Wall Street. What do you think the the govt is doing to defense industry with their "cost overruns" ? Don't get me started on the no-bid contracts.
Heh. A little late in the thread for a troll-by isn't it? Must still have your training wheels. Anyhooooo. If you were perhaps a little more widely read, and laid off the wackyweed a bit, perhaps your rants wouldn't be so random and whith the cranial-rectal inversion thus corrected , you could be 'eyes out' instead of eyes up.
Oh, do tell us about 'no-bid contracts' little one. Begin by explaining under what circumstances they are permitted.
Is it just me or are weapons procurement costs spiraling outrageously of control even when factoring inflation?
Requirements creep?
Loss of technical expertise?
Collusion?
Happy to help:
"Total (development plus procurement) cost growth is dominated
by decisions, which account for more than two-thirds of the growth.
Most decision-related cost growth involves quantity changes (22 percent),
requirements growth (13 percent), and schedule changes (9 percent).
Cost estimation (10 percent) is the only large contributor in the
errors category. Growth due to financial and miscellaneous causes is
less than 4 percent of the overall growth."
source: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG670/
Note that Congress is almost always the driver of quantity changes, and that at least half (probably closer to 2/3rds) of schedule delays in fielding a system are driven by Congress drawing out the development or production phases. See also SMSgtMac's Acquisition 101: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2006/10/f-22-…
…for the 'Slash and Whine Detractor Strategy"
Chicken and the egg question Mac: which usually comes first, the quantity drop, or the requirements or schedule changes? Does one drive the other in any particular order?
just an estimate, but from experience I would say what comes first 90+ percent of the time is that politics are the initial driver,including times when initial technical challenges,perceived or real, are used as an excuse to really impact a program. The remaining times are when something random happens before something can be concocted by the politicos.It is that bad. Congress makes the rules and isn’t smart enough to keep the game rigged the way they want it, so all the players end up getting creative in the end.
I think its a combination of factors that contribute to the higher price tag. With the level of automation some of these ships are going for your basically taking the money you'll save paying the sailors over the life of the ship and putting it towards R&D of the automation tech. So high cost upfront vs high cost later on running the ship.
I didn't combining Medicare and Medicaid. (they were separate on the site I got my numbers from). Either way it's besides the original point I was trying to make in refuting Dean's initial claim that the bailouts took priority over defense spending…
Haha :-)
True dat !!!
We are not talking about the reallocation of resources we are talking of where the real budgetary problem lies, try and keep up with the debate or try to critically think before posting.
100 contracts worth $100 million go off without a hitch – great. 3 contracts go overbudget and overschedule and cost the taxpayers an extra hundred billion dollars – which one do you think is going to get the press coverage?