TransTracker 's Library tagged → View Popular
Obama Admin Crushes F-22 Supporters
-
Add Sticky Note“At a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money. Every dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can’t spend to support our troops, or prepare for future threats, or protect the American people. Our budget is a zero-sum game, and if more money goes to F-22s, it is our troops and citizens who lose,” Obama said.
- 1) So, buying military aircraft during a time of war is a wate of money, but trillions of dollars for "stimulus," health care, and on and on, is not? 2) Future threats. Assumption: Future threats won't require air superiority of the kind provided by the F-22. 3) Zero-sum budget. So then trillions on stimulus and health care will be "dollar[s] we can't spend to support our troops, prepare for future threats, or protect the American people," right? - on 2009-07-27
Obsolete? Pilots Face a UAV Future
-
Add Sticky Note
Already, though, some are envisioning the end of the Air Force as we know it.
Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution, one of Washington's oldest and most respected think tanks, predicts a vast array of missions for unmanned craft, from stealth bombing to electronic warfare -- even dogfights.
"It's not just intelligence and bomber pilots who will be replaced with machines," said a recent article by Singer, a campaign adviser on defense policy to President Obama.
"Planning is proceeding on UCAVs, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which will replace fighter jocks, too." Last manned fighter?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is among those gazing into the future.
- Well there you have it. I've said again and again that Gates intends to gut the Air Force. Several people have thought I'm crazy. But this is the second major influence leading him in that direction: the promise of UAVs. The first is faith in the theory of fourth-generation warfare, or at least the assumption that nation-state-level warfare is obsolete. These are two very big and, at least where the latter is concerned, dubious assumptions. Are we certain enough in our ability to predict both the future of global conflict and technological development to consciously choose to give up our greatest military advantage, advantages no one else has but many desperately seek? Are we certain enough to give up one of, if not the biggest enabler of U.S. military superiority--i.e. the proven ability to dominate the air domain--in favor of gambling on a very new, largely unproven technology? - on 2009-07-27
-
Already, though, some are envisioning the end of the Air Force as we know it.
Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution, one of Washington's oldest and most respected think tanks, predicts a vast array of missions for unmanned craft, from stealth bombing to electronic warfare -- even dogfights.
"It's not just intelligence and bomber pilots who will be replaced with machines," said a recent article by Singer, a campaign adviser on defense policy to President Obama.
"Planning is proceeding on UCAVs, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which will replace fighter jocks, too."
- 1 more annotations...
Obama's Pentagon Budget: Not Enough for Defense
-
Add Sticky Note
Procurement and research and development are the chief areas in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sought savings in the proposals he announced in April. He has proposed cuts to programs including the F-22 fighter, the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Army's Future Combat System, the presidential helicopter fleet, the transformational communications satellite, aircraft carrier production runs, the airborne laser missile defense program and the next-generation bomber. These are solid proposals; he could make additional cuts to the V-22 Osprey and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs, as well as existing nuclear weapons platforms.
It is important to note, though, that these aren't cuts in current costs; they are cuts in plans. When you eliminate a defense program, you still typically must buy something to replace aging equipment, even if the alternative is less expensive. Moreover, a lot of equipment (much of it purchased under Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush) is wearing out, and we need to replace it soon.- Or....here's a radical idea. Maybe it would be cheaper to buy the shit we've already paid to develop! Ya know, instead of paying for it, then shit canning it, and then paying AGAIN to develop other stuff!! The problem with these kinds of "analyses" is that they never take into account the money we have already spent. They only consider from today forward. Long term responsibility with our defense dollars means not making decisions now that, in effect, wastes all the money we have already spent. But alas, politicians don't think that way. - on 2009-06-10
FCS Faces Bleak Future
-
Add Sticky Note
The Army and senior OSD leadership are debating whether to eliminate all but one of the eight FCS vehicles, a Hill source says. The sole surviving vehicle would be, not surprisingly, the Non Line of Sight Cannon.
But the plan being considered would save a relatively paltry $500 million in 2010.
- And there you have it, the logic (or lack thereof) of the way we do defense. We're going to cancel an entire program, wasting the billions we've already spent, so that we can save $500 million in the short term. And in the process, we're going to end the main Army modernization program, ensuring that the backbone of our force is comprised of platforms developed in the 1970s. - on 2009-03-25
-
Also, an industry source pointed out that as the number of vehicles in the program shrinks, so does the viability of the network. “The development of the FCS network is linked to the development of FCS Manned Ground Vehicles. Each MGV acts as a node in the ground based aspect of the network. So cutting MGVs reduces the viability of the network,” the industry source said.
Obama Seeks to Delay Tanker, Cancel Bomber
Add this to the fact that SecDef Gates wants to cancel the F-22 and slow the buying of C-17s and one begins to wonder if he is not overseeing the dismantling of the Air Force entirely. No new fighters, no new bombers, no new tankers, no new transports. At this rate, in 10 years the Air Force will have gone extinct.
-
The White House has given the Pentagon guidance to delay procurement of aerial refueling tankers by five years and cancel plans for a new long-range bomber, according to three sources close to the discussions.
-
Air power advocates and military officials contend that the moves, if enacted, would hurt U.S. strategic might and put at risk missions that depend on the aging tanker and bomber fleets.
“The Air Force needs a new tanker desperately,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Dunn, president of the Air Force Association. “The KC-135 tanker averages over 47 years old, and the B-52 bomber is almost as old.”
Fear of Lost Jobs Is Hurdle to Reining In Defense Contracts
What we really have here is a perfect storm of ideologies overtaking common sense. Gates and Obama don't necessarily share the same ideology, but they are useful to one another nonetheless. Gates has bought into the 4GW, the future is in counterinsurgency and therefore airplanes, ships, tanks, etc. are irrelevant ideology. Obama, as many predicted, is just more focused on domestic issues than defense. He doesn't necessarily buy into a theory of future warfare, just sees these projects as money that could be spent elsewhere. So, none of this has anything to do with solving real problems. A true assessment of the difficulties facing the economy, along with a look at what is happening in the world, should indicate that canceling force modernization efforts across the board, which is the Obama-Gates plan, is good for neither the economy, nor the military. But this si not about doing what's good or makes sense; it's about adhering to ideology come what may.
-
Perhaps the most controversial program in Mr. Obama’s sights is the Air Force’s advanced F-22 fighter jet, which the Bush administration tried for years to halt, saying it was a cold war relic. Mr. Korb and other analysts say that if the president is determined to fix the contracting process, canceling the F-22 would send a strong signal.
-
Add Sticky NoteGordon Adams, a professor at American University in Washington, said parts of the $10 billion missile defense programs, which are still being tested, represent “low-hanging fruit” for Mr. Obama. His team might also cancel a radar-evading $3.3 billion destroyer that even the Navy says it can no longer afford. And the Army’s sweeping $160 billion modernization plan seems likely to be scaled back.
- Missile defense is so obviously irrelevant. With Iran test firing long range missiles, and North Korea preparing to do the same, and even threatening war if we attempt to shoot it down, anyone can see that there's no reason why we would want to develop missile defense systems. And beyond that, since when does the Air Force need airplanes, the Navy ships, or the Army new tanks, artillery, armored transports, etc.? [sarcasm] - on 2009-03-09
- 1 more annotations...
A Balanced Strategy
If by "balanced" you mean completely unbalanced, then yes, this is a balanced strategy.
U.S. Military: The War Within
Like Charles Dunlap, Jr., Mr. Weinberger criticizes SecDef Gate's short-sighted policies of seeing Iraq, Afghanistan, and COIN as the basis upon which to plan future forces, with the result that the Air Force is being systematically ignored, even slowly dismantled. Dunlap cites this piece by Weinberger. Both make very strong arguments about what's wrong with the dominant assumptions that underlay current DoD policies.
Forget the lessons of Iraq
The most recent piece by Charles Dunlap, Jr. He argues that the currently dominant thinking of what he calls the "New Establishment"-i.e. that counterinsurgency will be the main task of U.S. forces in the future--is both wrong and dangerous. Training and equipping our forces under these false assumptions, he says, will leave us unprepared should we find ourselves in a more traditional, high-intensity, state-on-state conflict, a possibility that he sees as far more likely than most in the "New Establishment" would like to admit. A great article, superbly argues and well-reasoned, that should be required reading right now, especially in the face of the "New Establishment's" attempts to eliminate or seriously cut practically every major weapon system currently in development.
Obama vows to help troops, cut weapon programs
-
Add Sticky NotePresident Barack Obama said his upcoming budget would increase the number of US soldiers, state the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut "Cold War-era" weapons programs.
Setting out his priorities for military spending, Obama said late Tuesday in his first address to a joint session of Congress that he wanted to provide relief to men and women in uniform with higher pay and more boots on the ground.
"To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines," Obama said.- Of course, "Cold War-era" is now an epithet that encompasses fighter and bomber aircraft, as well as tanks too. How is it that we are "providing relief" to or "relieving strain" from our forces by increasing their numbers but not giving them the weapons they need to fight? What will soldiers and Marines use for air support when the Air Force has no aircraft? Will soldiers and Marines feel relief or strain when they come under enemy air attack for the first time in decade because the Air Force wasn't given the tools to maintain air superiority? - on 2009-02-26
-
Add Sticky Note
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already warned of major cutbacks, citing expensive weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter aircraft as possible targets.
"It's obviously one of the programs that, along with a number of others -- many others -- that we will be looking at," Gates said earlier this month.- But of course it's obvious. I mean, when you're top-line fighter is 30 years old and has literally been falling out of sky lately, has been grounded almost as long this year as it has been flying, it obvious and makes total sense that you would seriously consider canning its replacement that you've already spent years and billions of dollars to develop. Makes perfect sense! [heavy dose of sarcasm] - on 2009-02-26
- 3 more annotations...
Reports: Gap in Future Defense Budget
-
Add Sticky NoteCongressional Budget Office (CBO) finding last month that carrying out the plans proposed in the 2009 FYDP would require long-term, inflation-adjusted defense spending at levels higher than at the peak of the Reagan administration buildup in the mid-1980s.
- And the so-called "Reagan build-up" (actually begun under Carter) is the last large-scale, systemic modernization of U.S. forces. All the major platforms still in use today were developed in the 1970s and early 1980s. It's about time for another systemic modernization effort. It doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon though. We will have to be back in the position were in during the early 1970s before we take action--i.e. waking after years of neglect to find that out equipment is out-dated, falling apart, and totally inadequate. - on 2009-02-10
Air Force neglects domestic mission, faces shortfall of fighters, GAO finds
-
The Air Force may face severe aircraft and personnel shortfalls in the near future that could present significant challenges to its ability to protect domestic airspace, a government watchdog agency has found.
The little-publicized findings by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will likely stir a tug-of-war between the Air Force and a number of factions in Congress over whether the Air Force should buy cutting-edge — but expensive — fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or continue buying and modernizing older aircraft, such as F-15s or F-16s.
-
Add Sticky Note
The Air Force may face severe aircraft and personnel shortfalls in the near future that could present significant challenges to its ability to protect domestic airspace, a government watchdog agency has found.
The little-publicized findings by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will likely stir a tug-of-war between the Air Force and a number of factions in Congress over whether the Air Force should buy cutting-edge — but expensive — fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or continue buying and modernizing older aircraft, such as F-15s or F-16s.
- It's amazing to me that these ridiculous arguments persist even in the face of such dire circumstances. We are literally on the verge of not having a viable Air Force, and part of the reason is that the paralysis that comes with these kinds of never-ending, ridiculous arguments keeps us from buying the necesary replacement aircraft. It is only "cheaper" to buy the older aircraft if money had never been spent for a replacement. But that's not reality. The reality is that if you don't buy the replacement, you really have wasted all the money you spent on its development, because you didn't get anything for that money. You also have to spend more development money on a new replacement. That is, if not the F-22 or F-35, then what? F-15s and F-16s won't last forever. They will be replaced. But by what? By the thing we've already paid to develop? Or some other thing that we have yet to pay, but inevitably will pay, to develop? - on 2009-02-06
- 2 more annotations...
Pentagon Outmaneuvers Congress on F-22
-
"The defense bill is the defense bill, and you will obey what it says -- period," a moderately unhappy Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of the House Armed Services air-land panel, told Young.
-
Abercrombie and members of both parties made it very clear to Young that they thought the Pentagon had flouted both the spirit and the intent of the law, which directed that $140 million be spent on advanced procurement of Raptors. The money would make it possible to fund an additional 20 F-22s and, perhaps more importantly, to keep the production lines open.
- 4 more annotations...
Military update: Vice chairman: ‘Exquisite’ weapons are too expensive
-
Add Sticky Note
The military must end its quest for “exquisite” weapon systems that are too
costly, take years to design and build, and don’t reach troops fast enough, or
in quantities large enough, to address ever-changing threats.The critic here isn’t a Washington think tank or a beltway consultant but
Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the
U.S. military’s second highest ranking officer.- This is standard "reformer" rhetoric: Hi-tech weapons are inherently more expensive, less flexiblt, etc.; quantity is more important than quality. It is not suprising to hear this from a Marine. Marines were more influenced by "reformer" rhetoric in the 1980s and 1990s than the other branches. - on 2008-11-22
-
Add Sticky Note“Building platforms that can have multiple purposes, that can modify very
quickly with software, that consume minimal amounts of energy for extended
periods of time … are critical,” the vice chairman said.- This, however, is not like "reformer" rhetoric of the 1980s. "Reformers" at that time argued against multi-role technologies, instead advocating highly specialized, single-purpose systems like the F-16 and A-10. - on 2008-11-22
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in procurem...
-
Procurement
Items: 6 | Visits: 1
Created by: Scott Laxton
-
Supply chain management
Supply chain management, pr...
Items: 5 | Visits: 1
Created by: Riccardo S
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo
