Gates to cut several major weapons programs

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4BM00&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money.

Gates announced a broad range of cuts Monday to weapons spending, saying he plans to cut programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to ending production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet. The Army's modernization program would be scaled back, while a new satellite system and a search-and-rescue helicopter would be cut.

Outlining a $534 billion budget for 2009 that will slash funds for major weapons programs, Gates said Monday his moves amount to an "unorthodox approach" that would shift spending goals to concentrate on "wars we are in today and scenarios for the years ahead."

At a news conference to outline his budget, Gates says he closely consulted with President Barack Obama and top military leaders, but limited outside advice "because of the scope and significance of the changes."



It is about time.

[ChumpDumper]

Who appointed this pinko?

[boutons_deux]

Gates is just cutting corporate welfare/socialism.

The monstrous, obscene, often useless and still-born defense budget has needed cutting for many years.

I doubt Gates will succeed, since so much of the defense budget is really a smoke-screen for earmarks and pork that Congress whores need to get re-elected.

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4BM00&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money.

Gates announced a broad range of cuts Monday to weapons spending, saying he plans to cut programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to ending production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet. The Army's modernization program would be scaled back, while a new satellite system and a search-and-rescue helicopter would be cut.

Outlining a $534 billion budget for 2009 that will slash funds for major weapons programs, Gates said Monday his moves amount to an "unorthodox approach" that would shift spending goals to concentrate on "wars we are in today and scenarios for the years ahead."

At a news conference to outline his budget, Gates says he closely consulted with President Barack Obama and top military leaders, but limited outside advice "because of the scope and significance of the changes."



It is about time.

Why doesn't Gates support our troops?

[hater]

did he cancel Bush's 2000 strong trained monkey unit??

[DarkReign]

Shit, I hope there is a line-by-line report of what is exactly being cut so I know wtf I am going to do in 3 months time.

[ducks]

Gates is just cutting corporate welfare/socialism.

The monstrous, obscene, often useless and still-born defense budget has needed cutting for many years.

I doubt Gates will succeed, since so much of the defense budget is really a smoke-screen for earmarks and pork that Congress whores need to get re-elected.says who?

[1369]

It is about time.

Grunt type typing detected.

[MannyIsGod]

The F22 to me just seems like a its tomorrows plane for yesterday's wars. Its sexy as hell but really, who do we need it for?

[Nbadan]

....let's cut our nuclear arsenal to less than a 1500....I mean, do we really need more than that? Kinda scary that a pinko sub was able to pull up next to a battleship flotilla guarding a carrier, and well, the loss of control of 6 nuclear weapons for a few hours headed for Iraq...

[Nbadan]

...on the bright side, we have manage to finally supply Israel with a radar evading system that kinda works...

[ducks]

humm bailout companies with my money so now we can be less protective
damm he is so smart

[Cry Havoc]

The F22 to me just seems like a its tomorrows plane for yesterday's wars. Its sexy as hell but really, who do we need it for?

Well, we need SOME kind of new airplane to put in video games. Come on now, think of the gamers.

[PixelPusher]

Well, we need SOME kind of new airplane to put in video games. Come on now, think of the gamers.

Not to mention Michael Bay movies. You gotta admit, a F-22 Starscream is way more badass than than the old F-15 Starscream from the cartoon.

[Wild Cobra]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money.

I don't have a problem with scaling back new developments, but you don't stop an ongoing designed an approved project in the middle of a recession while you are bailing out those who don't produce.


It is about time.
About time for what? That we put even more blue caller workers out of work?

The F22 to me just seems like a its tomorrows plane for yesterday's wars. Its sexy as hell but really, who do we need it for?
One reason we are the strongest nation is we have kept the best military. I know we disagree here, but I think it's bad for our future to stop producing this amazing jet.

[101A]

Not to mention Michael Bay movies. You gotta admit, a F-22 Starscream is way more badass than than the old F-15 Starscream from the cartoon.

And Ironman.

F-35 is plenty bad-ass enough; and +- 1/3 the price.

[LnGrrrR]

The F22 to me just seems like a its tomorrows plane for yesterday's wars. Its sexy as hell but really, who do we need it for?

Well, it's nice to have a 'tomorrows' plane in case somebody else that ISN'T a terrorist tries to attack us.

[PixelPusher]

And Ironman.

F-35 is plenty bad-ass enough; and +- 1/3 the price.

I forgot about Ironman...and Die Hard 4...

It's the Hollywood-Military Industrial Complex. Even Ike didn't see that one comin'.

[1369]

About time for what? That we put even more blue caller workers out of work?

Out of work? Maybe not so much. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-defensecuts_07bus.ART.State.Edition2.4a5049c.html)

[LnGrrrR]

Another point to bring up is that the F-35s are cheaper in part because some of the R&D for the F-22 went into that as well, IIRC. Also, I'm not sure if the F-35 can perform all of the counter-electronics capabilities that the F-22 can. (Haven't researched that yet.)

[Wild Cobra]

Another point to bring up is that the F-35s are cheaper in part because some of the R&D for the F-22 went into that as well, IIRC. Also, I'm not sure if the F-35 can perform all of the counter-electronics capabilities that the F-22 can. (Haven't researched that yet.)

This may be true, and consider this if that is fact.

The R&D that makes the F-22 what it is would be part of their cost. If you reduce the production number, they end up costing more each, or the cost of the F-35 would end up costing more.

[AFBlue]

The F22 to me just seems like a its tomorrows plane for yesterday's wars. Its sexy as hell but really, who do we need it for?


Well, it's nice to have a 'tomorrows' plane in case somebody else that ISN'T a terrorist tries to attack us.

Absolutely correct. You have to keep in mind that the acquisition of a new weapon system takes the better part of two decades and these aircraft fly anywhere from 20 to 50 years.

In 20 to 50 years it's hard to tell who the enemy will be or what type of "war" they'll wage.

[AFBlue]

Well, we need SOME kind of new airplane to put in video games. Come on now, think of the gamers.

How about a replacement plane for the F-15 fleet that has been flying since the late '70s?

[AFBlue]

And Ironman.

F-35 is plenty bad-ass enough; and +- 1/3 the price.

The F-35 is being sold to dozens of countries in multiple configurations. Granted, the US is likely to hold back some advanced avionics technology...but with the F/A-22 you gain a distinct air superiority advantage.

Oh and the cost....the F-35 program has been running into all kinds of cost overrun issues. It's no longer 1/3 of the cost of a full-rate production F/A-22.

[AFBlue]

Having posted all that...what the Air Force really needs is a new close air support (CAS)airplane, or to make more A-10s. I know the ground troops will always need CAS!

And the notion that an F-35 can replace what an A-10 does is ludicrous.

[Marcus Bryant]

The defense budget is often nothing more than a massive government works/entitlement program. Remember what a drawn out affair it was to shut Kelly down, even though it was painfully obvious that it was superfluous?

The administration is doing something right with this move. Too bad the savings won't go to deficit/debt reduction.

[Cry Havoc]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

Are you daft? No country in the WORLD would attack the United States right now. It would be the most colossal military error of all-time. Not only would we absolutely wipe the floor with any other country's military right now, but any open, or even indirect attack against the U.S. would immediately place us into the favor of the rest of the world. The internationally viewed blunders of Iraq and Vietnam would be instantly pushed aside as most of the world rushed to advocate for a combined response.

We do NOT need the ability to completely dominate the rest of the world with our military. It's ridiculous to even think about that. Even without the F-22, what country even has a chance to gain air superiority over the United States? What country even has a third of the number of fighters we have?

We have a military built for Rome in a time that, short of World War III, will never be utilized. And it's sitting there wasting money.


That we put even more blue caller workers out of work?

Wow. It's blue COLLAR. Learn the reference. And you're saying that spending $65,000,000,000 on a plane plus $135,000,000 per aircraft purchased is a good way of putting "blue collar" workers to work, you have a very poor understanding of the process behind this. This is a guaranteed government contract to make millions of dollars for LM, and you're suggesting that it's American jobs at stake. At this point, you have so little credibility that I cannot really bother to respond to you any further. Stop opening your mouth when you are completely ignorant of the subject. Just stop.

[AFBlue]

The defense budget is often nothing more than a massive government works/entitlement program. Remember what a drawn out affair it was to shut Kelly down, even though it was painfully obvious that it was superfluous?

The administration is doing something right with this move. Too bad the savings won't go to deficit/debt reduction.

Superfluous? It's not like the jobs went away when Kelly shut down. They transferred the majority of the workload (i.e. C-5 & C-141) to Robins AFB in Georgia and I personally know about 30 people who relocated in order to keep their positions...though I'm sure the actual number was in the hundreds.

And I don't see how people working in defense of this country is viewed as a government works/entitlement program. Having worked around these people for years I can tell you...they actually do work.

[AFBlue]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

Are you daft? No country in the WORLD would attack the United States right now. It would be the most colossal military error of all-time. Not only would we absolutely wipe the floor with any other country's military right now, but any open, or even indirect attack against the U.S. would immediately place us into the favor of the rest of the world. The internationally viewed blunders of Iraq and Vietnam would be instantly pushed aside as most of the world rushed to advocate for a combined response.

We do NOT need the ability to completely dominate the rest of the world with our military. It's ridiculous to even think about that. Even without the F-22, what country even has a chance to gain air superiority over the United States? What country even has a third of the number of fighters we have?

We have a military built for Rome in a time that, short of World War III, will never be utilized. And it's sitting there wasting money.


If this was addressed in any way to me, then you're talking to the wrong guy. See, my perspective is that it's the main priority of the government to protect its citizens. Not to place financial resources in programs that make this nation a welfare state.

Don't get me wrong, I don't lack compassion for the less fortunate...but if you're asking me whether the government should spend trillions on defense programs, then I'll say "whatever it takes to keep this nation and its citizens safe is priority #1".

[Wild Cobra]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

I'm all for stopping unnecessary spending. When are we going to stop subsidizing the lazy asses who refuse to work? We need to get a handle on the welfare programs we have. A strong military is important. Redistribution of wealth isn't.

[LnGrrrR]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

Are you daft? No country in the WORLD would attack the United States right now. It would be the most colossal military error of all-time. Not only would we absolutely wipe the floor with any other country's military right now, but any open, or even indirect attack against the U.S. would immediately place us into the favor of the rest of the world. The internationally viewed blunders of Iraq and Vietnam would be instantly pushed aside as most of the world rushed to advocate for a combined response.

We do NOT need the ability to completely dominate the rest of the world with our military. It's ridiculous to even think about that. Even without the F-22, what country even has a chance to gain air superiority over the United States? What country even has a third of the number of fighters we have?

We have a military built for Rome in a time that, short of World War III, will never be utilized. And it's sitting there wasting money.



Wow. It's blue COLLAR. Learn the reference. And you're saying that spending $65,000,000,000 on a plane plus $135,000,000 per aircraft purchased is a good way of putting "blue collar" workers to work, you have a very poor understanding of the process behind this. This is a guaranteed government contract to make millions of dollars for LM, and you're suggesting that it's American jobs at stake. At this point, you have so little credibility that I cannot really bother to respond to you any further. Stop opening your mouth when you are completely ignorant of the subject. Just stop.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with all the cuts. I'm not sure if 180 or whatever the number of F-22s that the AF wanted is necessary. However, as AFBlue said, these planes last a LONG time. Some of the planes we have right now are only running due to the fact that they are constantly repaired, with airmen coming up with smart fixes in alot of cases. Plus I understand getting rid of the helicopters, among other things.

I'm just saying that's it wrong to assume we WON'T need F-22s because we're currently fighting terrorists. Sure, we're the strongest military now, but that's cause we take pains to keep our stuff up-to-date. We will always have some sort of a 'classic warfare' need.

The F22 will be in use until about 2040/50 I'm guessing. Look at the F16. Production started in 1976 on those, and they're still being flown today (33 years later), and scheduled to remain in service until 2025, making a total lifetime of 50 years for the planes.

Again, I'm not saying we need ALL the fighters we have. I'm just pointing out that I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't continuously upgrade our fighters/tanks/etc etc. The Air Force is saving money now by placing civilians/contractors in the place of military. Also, the AF is very technology-focused, and often looks to eliminates jobs through better equipment. (My shop has gone from 15 people to 9 in the five years I've been at Keesler.)

[LnGrrrR]

Also, that's why I'm for isolationism in most cases. Let's us keep a strong defense while spending less. :D

[Cry Havoc]

I'm all for stopping unnecessary spending. When are we going to stop subsidizing the lazy asses who refuse to work? We need to get a handle on the welfare programs we have. A strong military is important. Redistribution of wealth isn't.

PLEASE provide data for the people you claim are "lazy asses who are unable to work". My goodness, we should just let the poor people starve, because clearly they deserve to be poor and have no desire to put in an honest 9-5 job every week. :rolleyes It's such and old, tired argument that the poor are just lazy. Give it up.


If this was addressed in any way to me, then you're talking to the wrong guy. See, my perspective is that it's the main priority of the government to protect its citizens. Not to place financial resources in programs that make this nation a welfare state.

Because protecting our citizens means going so far into debt that we cannot even afford to continue putting money in things that are obviously less important than defense. Like education. And medicine. Gotcha.


Don't get me wrong, I don't lack compassion for the less fortunate...but if you're asking me whether the government should spend trillions on defense programs, then I'll say "whatever it takes to keep this nation and its citizens safe is priority #1".

The fact that we had thousands of aircraft and fleets of carriers around the world definitely protected us from 9/11. You're totally right. Throwing more money into the military is the best way to keep our nation from being safe. :rolleyes

[Cry Havoc]

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with all the cuts. I'm not sure if 180 or whatever the number of F-22s that the AF wanted is necessary. However, as AFBlue said, these planes last a LONG time. Some of the planes we have right now are only running due to the fact that they are constantly repaired, with airmen coming up with smart fixes in alot of cases. Plus I understand getting rid of the helicopters, among other things.

I'm just saying that's it wrong to assume we WON'T need F-22s because we're currently fighting terrorists. Sure, we're the strongest military now, but that's cause we take pains to keep our stuff up-to-date. We will always have some sort of a 'classic warfare' need.

The F22 will be in use until about 2040/50 I'm guessing. Look at the F16. Production started in 1976 on those, and they're still being flown today (33 years later), and scheduled to remain in service until 2025, making a total lifetime of 50 years for the planes.

Again, I'm not saying we need ALL the fighters we have. I'm just pointing out that I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't continuously upgrade our fighters/tanks/etc etc. The Air Force is saving money now by placing civilians/contractors in the place of military. Also, the AF is very technology-focused, and often looks to eliminates jobs through better equipment. (My shop has gone from 15 people to 9 in the five years I've been at Keesler.)

Why do we need fighter upgrades? What country is going to even pose a potential threat to our military superiority, let alone dominance in the air? The United States currently accounts for 45% of the WORLD's military budget. But yes. Putting enough money into the military to ensure we have 10x the arsenal of all of Europe combined is more important than making sure our economy doesn't completely collapse.

[Marcus Bryant]

Superfluous? It's not like the jobs went away when Kelly shut down. They transferred the majority of the workload (i.e. C-5 & C-141) to Robins AFB in Georgia and I personally know about 30 people who relocated in order to keep their positions...though I'm sure the actual number was in the hundreds.

And I don't see how people working in defense of this country is viewed as a government works/entitlement program. Having worked around these people for years I can tell you...they actually do work.

ROFL. Obviously someone wasn't working in Kelly's maintenance wing.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do we need fighter upgrades? What country is going to even pose a potential threat to our military superiority, let alone dominance in the air? The United States currently accounts for 45% of the WORLD's military budget. But yes. Putting enough money into the military to ensure we have 10x the arsenal of all of Europe combined is more important than making sure our economy doesn't completely collapse.

Well, first off, the F-22 is already produced, and the F-35 is near production, so we don't need a fighter upgrade NOW. It's just a question of how many we put into production. (And I'm not a commander, and haven't seen research, on how many fighters they think they need. Of course commanders will fluff that number up as much as they can.)

Also, you're throwing strawmen my way. Just because I am for keeping our air force and other technology ahead of our enemies, does not mean I don't think it's ok for the budget to be cut in some areas. For instance, I'm ok with the BRAC process, including overseas areas. I would rather see us less involved with international incidents in order to spend less. I'm alright with the presidental helicopters not being updated. Etc, etc.

Finally, countries don't dare to threaten us because we DO have that much superiority. If we didn't, we'd be more at risk. (Obvious, I know.) It's a balancing act to see exactly how much we should spend. We do spend alot, yes, and I'm ok with some reductions. But also don't forget that funding does not just go to war machines, but also to new medical procedures, new communication methods, etc etc that find real use in the civilian world.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, I'm active duty AF, so of course there's a slight conflict of interest there. I'm a homer. :D

[AFBlue]

ROFL. Obviously someone wasn't working in Kelly's maintenance wing.

Worked on the program office side and with the maintenance wings at both Robins AFB and Hill AFB on multiple platforms and systems.

And I guess you missed the point I was trying to make. Those jobs at Kelly didn't just go away...they weren't superfluous. They consolidated the workload to three Air Logistics Centers because of BRAC and shut down a couple bases, but the workload stayed the same.

And if depot maintenance wasn't done on the aircraft, wherever it may be, then we'd have no planes to fly. Those jobs are important.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. Those jobs were important and were sent somewhere else where a better job was being done.

[Marcus Bryant]

And $500+ fucking billion a year to maintain this standing army around the globe?

It is a public works program when congressmen advocate weapons programs simply because jobs with contractors are tied to those. Nevermind if this nation actually needs $500+ bil a year to defend itself.

[AFBlue]

Because protecting our citizens means going so far into debt that we cannot even afford to continue putting money in things that are obviously less important than defense. Like education. And medicine. Gotcha.

I didn't say anything about debt. I'm actually a fiscal conservative that believes in spending restraint. I simply stated my opinion on what a government's priorities should be with regard to spending.


The fact that we had thousands of aircraft and fleets of carriers around the world definitely protected us from 9/11. You're totally right. Throwing more money into the military is the best way to keep our nation from being safe. :rolleyes

That's a pretty short-sighted look at the global situation. Just because it's urban warfare and suicide bombers right now doesn't mean it always will be. Just look at the shift that's about to take place....from a ground campaign with large urban areas to an open moutainous regions. Don't you think the fighters and bombers are going to play a big part in that campaign?

[AFBlue]

Sure. Those jobs were important and were sent somewhere else where a better job was being done.

Still with the government.

[AFBlue]

And $500+ fucking billion a year to maintain this standing army around the globe?

It is a public works program when congressmen advocate weapons programs simply because jobs with contractors are tied to those. Nevermind if this nation actually needs $500+ bil a year to defend itself.

The amount spent and how they choose to employ the military forces isn't part of my debate with you. You made a comment about government work basically being a handout to keep people employed...that I disagree with. There are plenty of people who work for the government and do meaningful work in defense of this country.

As for the congressmen, I don't control their agendas and I know the vast majority of contractor selections are made without political pressure/involvement.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not every position survived.

[AFBlue]

The F22 will be in use until about 2040/50 I'm guessing. Look at the F16. Production started in 1976 on those, and they're still being flown today (33 years later), and scheduled to remain in service until 2025, making a total lifetime of 50 years for the planes.

Again, I'm not saying we need ALL the fighters we have. I'm just pointing out that I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't continuously upgrade our fighters/tanks/etc etc. The Air Force is saving money now by placing civilians/contractors in the place of military. Also, the AF is very technology-focused, and often looks to eliminates jobs through better equipment. (My shop has gone from 15 people to 9 in the five years I've been at Keesler.)

On the F/A-22, think 2050/60....F-15E came into service around '85 and is currently scheduled to go out to 2035, which is probably more similar than the F-16.

And I don't know if the 180+ is the right number either. Funny thing is that the 180+ came from the last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) under Rummy, down from a proposed 380+...and this defense budget holds to that. So in retrospect, this move was a long time coming...it just got solidified with the SECDEFs comments.

[AFBlue]

Not every position survived.

I'm not justifying every government position, but the vast majority are not still around just to keep people employed. That's my opinion and you can choose to agree or disagree.

[AFBlue]

Well, first off, the F-22 is already produced, and the F-35 is near production, so we don't need a fighter upgrade NOW. It's just a question of how many we put into production.

One final thought on the F/A-22 v. F-35...

I'm not sure if people realize that 70% of the overall life cycle costs associated with a weapon system are in the sustainment phase. I mean, all the hoopla over $50M/unit in cost difference up front means what when you're sustaining 1,000 F-35s versus a few hundred F/A-22s for 40 or 50 years?

Just a thought...

[sabar]

Why do we need fighter upgrades? What country is going to even pose a potential threat to our military superiority, let alone dominance in the air? The United States currently accounts for 45% of the WORLD's military budget. But yes. Putting enough money into the military to ensure we have 10x the arsenal of all of Europe combined is more important than making sure our economy doesn't completely collapse.

The world isn't going to wait for us.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Mig-144.png/800px-Mig-144.png

There are, in fact, countries with the technology to compete with us. Namely, China and Russia.

Any 5th generation fighter should beat a 4th generation fighter, so holding onto our F-15s isn't going to help if we get into a fight with Russia or China over the next century.

The F-22 can take any current or planned fighter. The F-35 may or may not, it depends on how good Russia's new Su fighter ends up being.

We could probably save money by getting rid of our ridiculously sized nuclear arsenal and all the maintenance that goes into it instead of pulling back our edge in air superiority. Small tactical nuclear weapons aren't even used in war, what's the point in keeping them?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I like this move. Surprising to see us actually scaling back. In Gates' words, he's actually sticking to original contracts, but just not buying as much as the private industry hoped we would.

The media twist about it impacting more jobs at home is incredible. I don't think I've ever heard defense expenditures so quickly tied to job loss in constituent states.

[LnGrrrR]

And $500+ fucking billion a year to maintain this standing army around the globe?

It is a public works program when congressmen advocate weapons programs simply because jobs with contractors are tied to those. Nevermind if this nation actually needs $500+ bil a year to defend itself.

Sure, alot of projects are probably pork. But I think it's silly to reject ALL weapons projects/programs as pork.

[Winehole23]

Inside baseball, but this article (http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964) examines US Naval procurement in light of the new Chinese *mission kill system* (https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp)


After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html), a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.
The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.


The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.