Obama to defense workers: Drop Dead

Evidently the President has identified the one federal program that was not underfunded by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The defense budget

I'll allow those more steeped in geopolitics to discuss the message this sends to Moscow, Beijing, Teheran and some cave on the Pakistan-Afghan border, but it certaintly doesn't convey the Reaganesque message of "peace through strength"  

The other problem, is much as I am a spending hawk, is we don't have a "peace dividend" to give away like we did in the 1990's. U.S. defense spending is only about 4% of GNP (relatively small compared to its 1980's level).  Moreover, what is spent is now largely devoted to the "boots on the ground" deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a result of needing to properly fight these wars, much of the planned technological upgrades to the U.S, military to apply the "revolution in military affairs".  haven't been rolled out quickly and are in dire need of being procured promply to avoid serious functional deterioration of American defense capabilities. (as part of the "peace dividend", a lot of 1990's era weapons like the Seawolf submarine weren;t purchased in bulk or cancelled in toto)

Case in point is the F-22.   This "shovel ready" aircraft already has had it's proposed deployment reduced, although the plane it is replacing, the F-15 has been beset with numerous crashes owing to age; the planes were originally developed in the 1970's.  So, the Air Force's idea to keep these planes in service beyond 2025 seems more based on political correctness than operational requirements. Not replacing the older F-15C's may make the numbers work. And that's it. 

And the Air Force was playing "nickel and dime" under the Bush budgets.   And this isn;t the only weapon system rolled out slowly to put off the cost.  The Virginia class submarines were procured at a rate of one boat a year.  Congressman Joe Courtney  has been vocal in pressing for a two sub a year procurement, which will keep both the EB yard in CT and Newport News in the sub business. This is likely to fall by the wayside, as will be the goal of building 30 new subs. Even at buildout, this fleet will be inadequate to replace the Los Angeles class fleet; maybe we can keep the 688i's running; but  even then we are talking about trying to secure millions of square miles of water with about 50 boats.

And let's not forget the aerial tanker debacle which the Obama team needs to address on their watch; or  the fact the Navy hasn't gotten a proper replacement for their surface warfare ships in the pipeline.. And if the budget gets cut, the U.S.S. Gerald Ford may be the last flattop we launch for a very long time.

So why do I think the hardware gets slashed. Because even if Obama cuts the cost of the Iraq deployment. he;s already proposed to recommit those troops and funds into an augmented effort in Afghanistan.. And cancelling weapons systems is what Democrat presidents like to do even when the world isn't at peace.

Now for the political ramifications. The defense industry is a major component of that long lamented sector known as American manufacturing. It's employees are well paid and highly skilled. And if you don't buy weapons, these workers are forced into lower paid service sector jobs.

Now perhaps the Obama team thinks that angering folks in Georgia, where the F-22 is built doesn't matter.  But the engines for new aircraft are made in Ohio   and Connecticut.. And naval vessels are built in Connecticut,  Maine ,  and Virginia . Hmm, didn;t Obama win these states---and by only a narrow edge in VA and OH?

So, look for this effort to be a major issue in House and Senate races in many states. I could readily see this being unpopular for Democrats in the open Senate seats in Ohio and Missouri (the F-18 is manufactured in St. Louis), as well as a number of House seats which have recently flipped to the Democrats ( OH 1; VA 2 ; CT 2).

The bottom line is that not surprisingly the former community organizer wants to hire more community organizers with tax dollars.     while putting people who make weapons out on the street.  I have to admit this is not a choice I would have thought John McCain would have made.

Yep, elections have consequences. Perhaps the trade unions at the defense plants who endorsed Obama ought to chew on that idea a bit. 

  

0
Your rating: None

Comments

We either need the F-22 or we don't.

We either need the F-22 or we don't. We either need more submarines or we dont. What I see in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that we should be spending more on ground troops right now.  You are arguing that we turn the defense budget into a jobs program, and possibly end up with an even more unfit for purpose military than we currently have. The defense budget is too important to play games with.

Well, Mead, I presume we needed the F-15 and the 688 subs

Since they won't last forever, they will need to be replaced. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the   air tanker debacle on what happens when necessary procurement gets put off and put off; now we are on the verge of serious program deficiency.

The bottom line is the F-22 and the Virginia class are a) "shovel ready" b) fit miliary strategy needs and c) were being procured pre-recession.

The choice is not running this as a job programs or not; it's whether Obama and co. create a new "unemployment program" when America's weapons need to replaced. 

  

Your presumption is fascinating but where is the proof?

Your presumption is fascinating but where is the proof? On the other hand, it is easy to prove that we need more body armour.

Facts drive my presumptions

The F-15 is inferior to competitive foreign weapons which it might face in a future conflict. Putin is shopping these planes to whoever will pay the freight. so even if we aren;t gonna fight him, we might be fighting his equipment.The Chinese aren;t standing still either.

And it's not a presumption the F-15's are falling apart; it's a fact.

As for the replacement of the 688 boats, the Chinese are expanding and modernizing their fleet.. The Russinas have a significant underwater fleet, and the Akula class is a rather good competitor with a better boat in the works..  

American defense strategy means we need to control the sea lanes at all times; mere parity ain;t enough.  You need a robust fleet to do that.

Thankfully, we've got a good Republican Sec. Def

Thankfully we've got a good Republican Secretary of Defense who has sources that are more reliable than Wikipedia and who is not afraid to speak the truth.

From February, 2008, Time Magazine:

The effect is often jarring, in Washington, when someone inside the Beltway utters an uncomfortable truth. That's what Defense Secretary Robert Gates did at the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, putting a damper on pressure from his own Air Force for Congress to buy more F-22 fighters. Gates believes the 183 F-22s currently planned are sufficient. "I know that the Air Force is up here and around talking about 350 or something on that order," the Secretary said. But buying more of the costly F-22 will come at the expense of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is about half the price.

"The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater," Gates said. That's the kind of statement that sends generals up the wall — not only because it's true, but because it's the Secretary of Defense who's saying it. And the generals know that the next time some eager-beaver congressional budget-cutters want to trim Pentagon spending, they're going to roll out that quote.

Gates made clear he believes there is a need for the F-22. "It is principally for use against a near-peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is," he said coyly. He's referring to China, which today represents the only hope for both the U.S. Air Force and the Navy to justify spending billions of dollars on weapons initially designed to battle the Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War, the phrase "near-peer" has increasingly crept into Pentagon documents meaning a potential foe that could almost match the U.S. on the battlefield.

Well, do we need more F-22 to battle Beijing? Once again, Gates depressed the generals with his unassuming tone and logic. "Looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict with one of those near-peers over the next four or five years until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along," he said, "I think that something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy."

Deep in the Pentagon, Air Force generals know that the Bush Administration's decision to close down the F-22 assembly line won't come into effect until 2010. That gives them time to convince a new Administration that additional F-22s are vital to U.S. security. That's because what Gates finds reasonable, some Air Force generals will treat as treasonable.

 

Here is the problem

a) the F-15's are already falling apart

b) the F-22 is an ongoing program which is acknowledged to be a superior airplane to the F-35, which is being critcised as inadequate in various respects. and has been panned as overpriced and unproven. Maybe out of necessity this all gets fixed; sadly, some massive programs never got fixed enough to meet expectations (which is why the F-15 was developed in the first place)

c) the F-35 isn;t ready yet , isbehind schedule and may not  reach active service until 2013 at the earliest.  

If Gates is being given hard budget targets, well maybe it's prudent to spend money on immediate needs in theatre and hope that nothing blows up before the middle of the next decade at which point, maybe the F-35's kinks get worked out and it's deployed in sufficient numbers to matter. 

But let's not kid ourselves. We could buy another 75 Raptors now for a cost of about $10-12 billion dollars and not have to worry abou:t a) the F-15 fleet falling apart or b) more delays in the F-35 rollout. And that is a rounding error based on the way Obama is spending money.

We got away with a gap in procurement in the early 1990's.(i.e. cancellation of the A-12 and F-14D) I I'm not eager to gamble we get lucky twice.  

and just so you know, I was an aide to a member of House Armed Services during the Reagan years, so it's not like I just learned about this stuff on Wikipedia this morning.

You say F-22, Sec Def says no.

He's got access to the current information. I'm going with him.

The key to getting out of being the minority party is not to just sit on the sidelines and carp - it is embrace reality and convince the voters that you can govern better than the other party. The Republicans have always been better at defense - this is no time to start playing games with it.

I thought dissent was patriotic

Robert McNamara thought the F-111 was the only fighter plane either the AF or Navy needed. The flag officers convinced Congress the answer was the F-14 and F-15.

I'm familar with the game; indeed frequently Pentagon civilians kill stuff they know will be added back by Congress so they can put less popular stuff at the top of the list.

I'm familiar enough not to give any SecDef carte blache.  You may think blindly saluting is the way to go; I use my own judgment and form my own opinions.

   

As you are entitled to do.

Just don't be surprised when no one agrees with you.  And, moreover, don't complain when others who are involved in the same movement as you want to disassociate the movement from your wrong-headed ideas.

well, I listened to the experts

http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html

In recent weeks a number of highly critical reports and editorials have surfaced from both defense think tanks and the media. Critics such as Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey of the Center for Defense Information malign the aircraft as an underpowered, overweight monstrosity that will be easy prey for the latest generation of threat aircraft such as the Russian built Su-35BM that are being proliferated around the world.

Pierre Sprey was one of the guys who promoted such effective, relatively low cost weapons as the F-16 and the A-10 back in the 1980's. Probably unlike the guy who writes for Time magazine  whom you quoted, I actually know who this guy is. This artcile also postdates your Time article, so lay off the "recent information" meme.

Sprey is not a fan of the F-22, either, FWIW, but there isn't a simple, low cost single mission plane (like what he likes) in the pipeline right now. Right now the choice is: a) buy more  proven weaponswhich are 'shovel ready" now or  b) hope our existing planes don't fall apart faster than we can bring the F-35 into deployment.

You know, if wanted to be popular where I live I'd be a Democrat. So threatening ostracism over unpopular ideas is a pretty empty threat directed my way. I'm more worried about sending pilots out in planes that won't win battles than my ego, anyway. 

There is a minority opinion on EVERY issue

There is a minority opinion on EVERY issue - doesn't mean it is always, ever or even sometimes right. It just means it exists. 

at this point I'm not sure which is "majority opinion' on F-22

or what Gates's opinion privately is after further critics of the F-35 popped up. I'm inclined to buy the sure thing rather than wait for the "better, cheaper" version.

One thing driving this is the F-22 has been barred to export; (it's thought of as too "hot" to sell) while the intent is to sell the F-35 to dozens of foreign countries. This probably guarantees the F-35 won;t "fail", its a TBTF deal. But it also means we intentionally will buy more of a less capable plane if we choose to shutdown the F-22 line and buy exclusively F-35's going forward.   

Offshore skepticism re: F-35

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24403915-31477,00.html

I'm not sure "as good as Russian jets" is exactly a ringing endorsement