| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pentagon May Cut Weapons Programs |
| 2005-11-04 |
| EFL ...[snip]... While Rumsfeld and other military officials declined to talk about specific spending decisions, defense analyst Loren Thompson said Gordon England, the acting deputy defense secretary, is looking to trim $12 billion to $15 billion from previous plans to spend $443 billion in 2007. Defense contractors have cited similar figures. The Army, Navy and Air Force would be responsible for cutting as much as $3 billion to $5 billion each, Thompson said. ...[snip]... Overall, the cuts would slice about 3 percent from each of the services' 2007 budgets that were envisioned last year. Among the programs being considered for significant cuts or delays are the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's next generation, all-purpose fighter, which is built in Texas; the C-17 transport plane, which is built in California; the Navy's new and expensive DD(X) destroyer, being built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems; and a reconnaissance aircraft called the Aerial Common Sensor, which is being developed by a team led by Lockheed Martin and has had a number of problems. ...[snip]... A Pentagon spokeswoman, Marine Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, said no decisions have been made on the fiscal year 2007 budget, which will be unveiled next February. But she said all the military services and Pentagon departments have been asked to think about possible changes, and "all options are on the table." Under the current defense budget, weapons purchases — for everything from fighter jets and destroyers to communication systems — would increase from about $78 billion in 2006 to $91.6 billion in 2007. Pentagon officials are looking to shave as much as $15 billion from the planned $91.6 billion, triggering what would be a rare reduction in procurement levels. ...[snip]... Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier — the CVN 21 — which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007. |
| Posted by:Fleger Sneretch6943 |
| #7 Isn't this news from many months ago??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-11-04 23:32 |
| #6 Considering there are already 120 in service, we don't need anymore. And the heavy armor came in from the south, since turkey was kind enough to hamper our invasion plans. What I want to see is powered armor suites for infantry, gauss rifles (mass drivers), Partical Projection Cannons and orbital combat drops. Enough of this 20th century thinking and planning! Dropping the 24th Mechanized division on top of Beijing in 24hours after the start of a war would be great. (I know, wishful thinking, but still....) |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-04 22:52 |
| #5 iirc it was the C-17 that permitted the deployment of heavy armor into Northern Iraq on a quickly cleared unimproved airfield during the opening phase of the operation against Saddam. So anything else in the inventory capable of doing the same job under the same conditions? |
| Posted by: Ulomolet Slitch1727 2005-11-04 21:02 |
| #4 I'm glad to see the DD(X) and the C-17 on the cutting block. They fill no need and are for a fight with a superpower (ie soviet union). What we have now is excellent against China, even for the next 15 years. The JSF has a lot of potential and can cut a lot of operating costs if every service uses them, such as one spare part made instead of 15 spare parts for 15 different planes. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-04 20:42 |
| #3 Ditto Moose, well spoken. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-04 20:05 |
| #2 I suspect that Rumsfeld is being an honest cop when raiding the whorehouse. Many of these programs are scams, and while well-intentioned in their inception, have just become another "big dig", that produces only growing budgets, not results. And that is the zinger. If you grow your budget, but you produce a quality product, it is one thing, but if it costs a fortune and is still crapola, then an honest man will call a halt to the nonsense. Right now, we need a defense that works. It is not time for peacetime pork games, and we no longer have the luxury of waiting 20 years from drafting table to prototype. The Pentagon is obsessed with the idea that if a weapons system is expensive enough, it must be good. However, much can be made of the contrarian position: that enough numbers can overwhelm even the best technology. (Ironically, there is a Chinese proverb to that effect, entitled "the rat and the dragon".) |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-04 20:03 |
| #1 I think this is a bad move, but if the DoD is the only place government spending is going to drop, it's better to kill whole programs than to let inventories of ordnance and spares drop, or to cut training. Still better, why not kill the Highway |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-11-04 19:49 |