Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pending Pentagon Budget Cuts  
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4304 times:

With the recent (sort of) agreement in the US House & Senate on spending cuts, the Pentagon is apparently going to get whacked. Anyone care to speculate on what programs will be killed/trimmed ?

From my p.o.v. I think this marks the end of the F-35B. The Marines will be told to go with Super Hornets, or maybe simply go without and let the USN provide CAS for the grunts. F-35A/C purchases cut back.

CVN fleet gradually running down to 8 from 11. The 3 authorised Gerald R Ford-class vessels will be the only ones built.
So Enterprise goes (already planned), then Nimitz, Eisenhower, Vinson, Roosevelt and Lincoln. Perhaps the embarked Super Hornets are transferred to the Marines.

Slowdown in production of Virginia-class attack subs and a gradual run-down in the SSBN fleet.

C-5 upgrade program ends, and the C-5As are retired. B-1Bs possibly sent to the desert.

Not specifically mil-av, but I'd have to think the Army loses at least 2 divisions, but which ones ?


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4288 times:

While there will be cuts in several programs, my understanding is that much of the 'savings' will come from fewer and fewer activations of National Guard/ Reserve units to meet manpower needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bringing all those folks onto active duty is expensive and much of those wars has been/ is being fought by our weekend warriors.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4258 times:

Rather than "cuts" per se, Gates has said they are re-evaluating the budget explosion of the Pentagon, which got so big it is endangering our warfighting ability. Temporary increases in spending are being rolled back in order to improve our ability to fight wars in the future. Plus, any organization that big needs to constantly battle waste and rot in order to maintain its own existence. One of the Pentagon's problems is its budget may be too big.

[Edited 2011-08-04 07:44:01]

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Being an old retired fart, I get a bunch of e-mails from DOD and the various services every day.

Here is the lead of one on this topic that I received from yesterday's EOB batch.

Quote:
New Law Identifies No Additional Defense Cuts, Official Says

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3, 2011 - The legislation President Barack Obama signed into law yesterday to raise the nation's debt ceiling and control long-term spending does not specifically call for more spending cuts than Defense Department officials already were planning, a senior Pentagon official said today.

The president asked department officials earlier this year to find $400 billion in savings, and Pentagon officials have been working to identify that amount over the next 10 or so years, officials have said. "That is hard to do, but manageable," a senior department official told reporters during a background briefing today. All Pentagon-related spending cuts would come from the department's base budget, and not from its overseas operating fund, which supplies operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and other foreign locations, the official said.

Full article

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64917


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4047 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
From my p.o.v. I think this marks the end of the F-35B. The Marines will be told to go with Super Hornets, or maybe simply go without and let the USN provide CAS for the grunts. F-35A/C purchases cut back.

The F-35B should have been killed a couple years ago. It's a big reason why the whole JSF program is behind schedule and overbudget.

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
The Marines will be told to go with Super Hornets, or maybe simply go without and let the USN provide CAS for the grunts. F-35A/C purchases cut back.

If the F-35B were killed my money would be on the F-35C for the USMC.

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
CVN fleet gradually running down to 8 from 11. The 3 authorised Gerald R Ford-class vessels will be the only ones built.

Congress would have to buy off on that. Whether or not they would do that is open to debate. I could see one maybe two going away.

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
Perhaps the embarked Super Hornets are transferred to the Marines.

That would not happen, the CAG's would be decomissioned. Maybe with one staying around as a back up.

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
production of Virginia-class attack subs and a gradual run-down in the SSBN fleet

The SSBN's will not go away. It's one one part of the nuclear triad that that once deployed cannot be targeted, everyone knows where the airbases and ICBM's are. There are other areas the Navy could cut in the shipbuilding department. The Zumwalt class destroyer should be a no brainer. Only two are going to built at a much higher class that the Arliegh Burke's. And there are questions about the design. Then there's the LCS which the USN has has decided in it's infinite wisdom to build both versions of. IMHO the whole program should be killed. The LCS would make a great Coast Guard cutter. However as a USn ship operating in potentially hostile waters a single 57mm gun and a RAM launcher leaves a lot to be desired.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7647 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
The Marines will be told to go with Super Hornets, or maybe simply go without and let the USN provide CAS for the grunts.

Navy only doing CAS for the Marines, I'll have to see it to believe it.

I think the Democrats have not caught on to the Republicans reason for being strong in defense spending, the US military has been shrinking for many years in terms of number of items, many persons think only of the numbers.
Well, number of bombers, fighters, helicopters, submarines, ships, troops, tanks, a lot of equipment numbers are down from cold war days but the cost has risen dramatically over the years, the majority of that money is in the civilian sector creating jobs and not in military equipment, a billion dollars for a Burke class destroyer.
The bulk of the equipment buys will not be cancelled since they are defacto civilian spending, where I would expect to see initial cuts are in base improvements, more BRAC, the Guam developments, new projects not yet signed off on, delays in some rebuilding of equipment after the recent wars and possibly some research projects.

If the economy does not recover in a year or two then I would expect to see cuts in programs, right now there is only one weapons platform which is always in danger of a cut, and they need little of no prodding to cut.
The Hog as an endangered species has once again been elevated to the front of the list.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3820 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 4):
The SSBN's will not go away. It's one one part of the nuclear triad that that once deployed cannot be targeted, everyone knows where the airbases and ICBM's are. There are other areas the Navy could cut in the shipbuilding department. The Zumwalt class destroyer should be a no brainer

Sorry, should have been clearer. DIdn't mean the SSBN fleet would go away, just that numbers would be run down to some extent over time. I understand what an important part ofthe deterrent force they are.

Good point about the Zumwalts, I understand they are a hot topic amongst people in and interested in the defense area,



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Good point about the Zumwalts, I understand they are a hot topic amongst people in and interested in the defense area,

Questions about the design and cost abound. The cost is about a billion dollars over what a DDG-51 costs. Since the navy is only going to build two of them they are going to restart the Arliegh Burke line once they are delivered. Makes more sense IMO to just kill it and keep the DDG-51 line active. What would be a better option is maybe to clean up the superstructure on a new Flight of DDG-51 and incorporate some of the design features from the DDG-1000.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2750 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

How about bringing home the troops from Europe. Let Europe take care of themselves and bring those troops back to the states. Toss in closing down Iraq and Afghanistan and they should not have to touch any of the weapons projects at all. But Idi agree with cancelling the Marines F-35 order.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
C-5 upgrade program ends, and the C-5As are retired

They are already retiring many of the C-5As, 22 are confirmed 10 more are "in the air". The AMP program was already cut for the 10 that were supposed to get it.
They won't cancel to RERP program for the C-5Bs unless a bunch of problems pop up in the production fleet; the program will pay for itself over the years. There is some speculation of them cancelling it for the 2 C-5Cs however; as they really aren't used but for training locals. On the other hand, there are rumors that the 27 remaining A models may get upgraded so the USAF has one platform to maintain, rather than 3 that it currently has.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 8):
How about bringing home the troops from Europe. Let Europe take care of themselves and bring those troops back to the states. Toss in closing down Iraq and Afghanistan and they should not have to touch any of the weapons projects at all. But Idi agree with cancelling the Marines F-35 order.

Bringing the troops home from Europe, aside from some caretaker forces, seems to make sense to me. After all, the CCCP ended about 20 years ago, and Russia doesn't see to me (at least now) much more than a paper tiger. That might change, for sure, but prepositioned supplies for any force ramp-up should do.

F-35B is toast, IMHO. It was already at the doubtful stage.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Instead of dramatic weapons program cancellations and or ship retirements there are other non war fighting changes that can occur that would have a dramatic savings impact on budgets, for instance more co-locations / joint training of the services.

For instance right now there are 9 bases for initial basic training of military recruits;

US Army:
Fort Jackson SC
Fort Leonard Wood MO
Fort Benning GA
Fort Sill OK
Fort Knox KY

US Marine Corps:

Paris Island SC
San Diego CA

US Navy:
Great Lakes IL

US Air Force:
Lackland AFB TX

Those all should be replaced by 4-5 Joint services induction bases.

After that with regards to active duty/reserve/Guard bases there's still much redundant / under utilized military property, especially under utilized airfields. There's more co-locations to be realized, I think places like Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst where the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all have aircraft based are a good templet. Obviously they all can't be joint bases, it doesn't make sense to have the Army at Norfolk Naval Station Army/Navy/Marine Reserve bases at Willow Grove and Johnstown PA were closed and those assets consolidated with active duty Air Force units at McGuire AFB.

Fewer single service / reserve/ Guard stations and more Joint bases.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2750 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11):
After that with regards to active duty/reserve/Guard bases there's still much redundant / under utilized military property, especially under utilized airfields. There's more co-locations to be realized, I think places like Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst where the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all have aircraft based are a good templet. Obviously they all can't be joint bases, it doesn't make sense to have the Army at Norfolk Naval Station Army/Navy/Marine Reserve bases at Willow Grove and Johnstown PA were closed and those assets consolidated with active duty Air Force units at McGuire AFB.

Fewer single service / reserve/ Guard stations and more Joint bases.

And much of the empthy space at some of these bases would be filled we reurning units from overseas. Not sure about your joint training bases though. Maybe the army could drop a few but I still think they need to keep their original identity at the beginning.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11):
Instead of dramatic weapons program cancellations and or ship retirements there are other non war fighting changes that can occur that would have a dramatic savings impact on budgets, for instance more co-locations / joint training of the services.

For instance right now there are 9 bases for initial basic training of military recruits;

US Army:
Fort Jackson SC
Fort Leonard Wood MO
Fort Benning GA
Fort Sill OK
Fort Knox KY



As far as the Army is concerned, it's more complex then simply combining basic training bases. Combining training centers has been going on in the Army for many years through the BRAC program. The list you provided above is misleading because only one (Ft. Jackson) of those bases has Basic training as its primary mission. The other's are primarily MOS (Military Occupational Specialties) training installations. They also all host various active duty, reserve and NG units.

For example:

Fort Jackson, SC - 50 percent of all soldiers and 3/4 of the female soldiers entering the Army each year receive their BCT there. In addition to BCT, Ft. Jackson provides AIT (Advanced Individual Training) MOS training for the Adjutant General, Financial Management, Recruiting and Retention Schools, Chaplain Center and School and the Drill Sergeant School.

Fort Leonard Wood, MO - Primary mission is MOS related, the Engineer School, the CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) School and the Military Police School are located there. Incidently, the CBRN & MP Schools were located there through one of the previous BRAC's. FLW (Lost in the Woods)  was the first base to conduct BCT combined with AIT called OSUT (One Station Unit Training). Soldiers seamlessly transfer from BCT to AIT with same DI's, with no need to move training locations. In some cases, combat arms MOS's like 12B (Combat Engineer) are not open to female soldiers. And they would not be allowed in that OSUT training program.

In addition to the Army training conducted at Ft. Leonard Wood... The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have training detachments located there. In the case of the Marine Corps, FLW host the largest MC training detachment outside of a Marine Corps base.

Fort Benning, GA
Fort Sill, OK
Fort Knox, KY

I could go on about the other bases you listed, But they would be very similar to the Ft. Leonard Wood example above...

Rgds,



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
One of the Pentagon's problems is its budget may be too big.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Some problems become more intractable when decisions are shirked by throwing money around instead.

Quoting par13del (Reply 5):
The Hog as an endangered species has once again been elevated to the front of the list.

How so? That would be truly alarming ( again - I still remember Deptula's conceited plans ), but I detected the workings of a sanity attack when I read just recently the A-10s would be kept on much longer.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26147 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

What Washington must first properly decide is the posture and role they wish the US Military to play going forward.

Former Sec. Gates about a year back made mention that cutting the budget at the Pentagon is not the hard issue, the bigger issue is defining what the policy makers expect the military to do into the future.

For example if the military no longer requires the capability to simultaneously fight two ground wars, deploy multiple combat expeditionary forces at the same time, plus maintain foot prints in many continents, its budgetary needs would be much smaller as it could get a way with a different force structure.

The worst thing that could happen would be what was done under both Carter and Clinton where the day to day demands of the military remained the same while the it was neglected and gutted internally.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):

From my p.o.v. I think this marks the end of the F-35B. The Marines will be told to go with Super Hornets, or maybe simply go without and let the USN provide CAS for the grunts. F-35A/C purchases cut back.

Given the kinds of battles we seem to find ourselves in, it'd seem we should cut the Blue Water Navy instead of the Gator Navy.

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
C-5 upgrade program ends, and the C-5As are retired. B-1Bs possibly sent to the desert.

Please, no. One of the more sensible programs out there.

It'd be even more sensible to re-engine more KC-135Es but we've been through that already.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
They won't cancel to RERP program for the C-5Bs unless a bunch of problems pop up in the production fleet; the program will pay for itself over the years. There is some speculation of them cancelling it for the 2 C-5Cs however; as they really aren't used but for training locals. On the other hand, there are rumors that the 27 remaining A models may get upgraded so the USAF has one platform to maintain, rather than 3 that it currently has.

It's pretty clear to me that there are some roles that only the C-5 can fill, so I'd love to see them all brought up to the same standard.

The real interesting thing is will the CA congress members stop putting money for more C-17s into the budget every year?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
The real interesting thing is will the CA congress members stop putting money for more C-17s into the budget every year?

Well, they haven't bought anymore since FY10; so thats a start; The thing we DO need to do is fund the preservation and storage of the unique tooling for the C-17 when they shut the line down. The government still has a commitment to fund the last 10 C-17s, so if you read that C-17s are being funded. its for the last ones ordered; not new ones being added. 10-0222 (P-222) will be the last C-17 for the USAF.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

The Marines are going to have make some tough decisions. They want to make one final 122+ lot purchase of V-22's at $65m a pop at something like $8B total. Thing is, they can buy MH-60S or better yet, EH-101 for less than half that price, not to mention much less in operating costs. Maybe the Osprey after decades behind schedule and $12 Billion plus invested into it, we can finally say it works - but no one will ever be able to make the case that the aircraft was or will ever be worth the price paid. When the rest of your Air Wing is still rotary winged, you have no argument in which to make.

They want to replace what were relatively inexpensive legacy Hornets (that's why they didn't replace their F-4's with F-14's like the Navy did,) with expensive F-35's as opposed to Super Hornets, and they think they will have money to develop a jamming version of the JSF instead of again doing what the USN has, and just buy the EA-18G Growlers.

The Marines have already overpaid via what can only be described as an economic stimulus to Bell helicopter in the H-1 upgrade fiasco; dare we ask how much less money the Marines could have acquired MH-60S and AH-64D's (like the ones the British have proven you can successfully fly combat missions off Naval vessels offshore of Libya,) and resulted in a much better fleet?

Hows about taking the amphibious well deck out of the amphibious assault ship, build a larger hangar bay to house more F-35B's to you know, support the ground side (the one and only mission of the Marine Air Wing,) and let's call the class of Navy aircraft carrier, or my bad, amphibious assault ship the America, LHA-6? Just like a WWII straight deck carrier too, with no catapults to launch aircraft, and in this case, no arresting wires to recover aircraft. Translation: the "Teats on a bull" of the Seas.

If the Marines don't get fiscally a hold of themselves, there will be no money left for the CH-53K, something that is much more so needed at this point than another 122+ MV-22's, that's for damned sure. The Corps doesn't need F-35C's operating in CVW's 2x+ the price of F/A-18F's, which are what they really need when they are to hang CAS munitions under the wing and stealth at that point is a moot point.

The Marine Corps is going to have some tough decisions to make here soon or if they are unwilling, some legislator who has never even played the board game Risk will be making the cuts for they, to the tune of cutting the entire Corps out of the Navy all together.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3003 times:

Crazy idea (sorry) regarding reorganizing the Marine Corps and some supporting Navy assets on the East Coast; It would also require some Army consolidation, but again I think it would allow for better utilization of existing facilities.

1.) Close Camp Legeune and move the resident Marine commands to Fort Stewart Georgia, which would become entirely a Marine Corps base. (resident Army units would relocate to Fort Knox KY.)

2.) Close MAS New River and move Marine commands to Hunter Army Airfield. (relocate AAF to Fort Benning)

3.) Move amphibious ships from Little Creek and Norfolk VA to Mayport Naval station ( to make room move Cruisers and Destroyers from Mayport to Norfolk).

Moving the Marines to Fort Stewart would bring Logistics base Albany GA, Blount Island, and the Amphibious group at Mayport into close proximity to the Marine forces at Stewart. Moving the 3rd ID Brigades from Fort Stewart to Fort Knox would take advantage of the remaining Armor school infrastructure at Fort Knox. The 3rd ID would be split between Fort Knox and Fort Benning, ideal for armor training. The 3rd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division would consolidate to Fort Riley.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pending Pentagon Budget Cuts
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
UK Defence Cuts - 2nd CV Offered To India posted Wed Sep 22 2010 22:33:02 by Shmertspionem
Boeing Military Cuts Jobs Amid Restructure posted Thu Sep 9 2010 02:47:36 by BMIFlyer
A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170 posted Fri Aug 6 2010 11:58:39 by Lumberton
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
F-35 Costs About To Soar, Says Pentagon posted Wed Apr 7 2010 16:41:41 by UH60FtRucker
NASA's FY2011 Budget posted Mon Mar 22 2010 01:30:17 by ProPilot83
RAF To Order 22 Chinooks - Cuts To Pay For Them posted Tue Dec 15 2009 04:30:40 by Ant72LBA
Pentagon: Less V-22 And More Helos? posted Wed May 6 2009 14:10:53 by AirRyan
US Auditer; Mil. Programs Over Budget And Late... posted Mon Mar 30 2009 22:50:01 by JoeCanuck
Britain's BAE Becomes Pentagon's No. 5 Supplier posted Mon Feb 9 2009 15:19:46 by Lumberton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format