Gates proposes weapon program cuts

[Michael]

This week Secretary of Defence Gates listed a bunch of weapon procurement programs for which he'd like to see funding killed.

All of these programs have been plagued by cost-overruns and/or an inability to meet the specifications to which they were originally funded.

1. No more F-22s.
2. Replacement Air Force bomber delayed indefinitely.
3. Ballistic missile defense funding leans toward the Navy.
4. Aircraft carrier acquisition slowed, with the fleet eventually dropping to 10 carriers.
5. Next generation cruiser (CGX) delayed indefinitely.
6. VH-71 Presidential helicopter dead.
7. No more than three DDG-1000, and maybe only one.
8. Future Combat Systems funding slashed.

Article (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341)

If you are interested on details about these programs - click on the link for some excellent information.

Personally, I've been following the DDG-1000 debacle for a few years and I'm not surprised to see this one up for a permanent chop. This program is absurdly impractical to begin with and doomed by dozens of critical failures. That this program is still alive is amazing.

So, what do you think of these weapon procurement cuts?

Personally, I think this is just window-dressing. Getting a handle on defense spending in the US is a good thing and this is a good start, but this barely scratches the surface of the bloated US defense budget.

Nevertheless, one can expect Congress to fight tooth and nail to defend every one of these useless and massively expensive programs.

[Donkey]

I think it's all well and good to cut programs, but as you said, it's just cosmetic chops.

The fact is, the budget is larger than it was last year, and that is insanity.

[The Drunk Guy]

I think it's all well and good to cut programs, but as you said, it's just cosmetic chops.

The fact is, the budget is larger than it was last year, and that is insanity.
But I think it's more of a stockpiling effort that will ease the dramatic decrease of spending throughout the next three years.

[Michael]

But I think it's more of a stockpiling effort that will ease the dramatic decrease of spending throughout the next three years.
Obama's budget plan doesn't appear to support this assertion. Obama campaigned on increasing the size of the US military and increasing the military budget. Admittedly, Obama has offerred increases at less than the military has requested, but that's about it. As far as I'm aware, we can expect increases in the Pentagon budget in every year of Obama's Administration. The best that I think can be reasonably hoped for is that these increases will be less than the large increases Bush passed pretty much every year.

US defense spending has increased 72% since 2001 - and that's using just the 'official' government figures that ignores a few hundred billion in defense expenditures classified in other ways. In reality, US defense spending is about 50-75% higher than it is officially acknowledged at, once you include the rest of the money funneled through other channels.

Killing these particular weapon systems is what is needed just to keep a lid on the present level of spending. Keeping these weapon systems will put further upward pressure on the already increasing military budget.

[drgoodtrips]

I've found myself wondering if the current state of the US military hasn't reached some critical mass and there is no going back to the traditional idea of the military in the US. The military, with its own class of citizen and juggernaut status, strikes me as being like any other government program in that adding to it is easy while subtracting is virtually impossible (look at the DEA, for instance, and the military actually serves some constructive purpose).

It may sound alarmist (especially for my usual posting tone), but I sometimes wonder if the US isn't headed down a road toward the eventual end of civilian government. I can't think of a lot of civilizations that have become this military-oriented as a matter of standing policy and not eventually been ruled by it in one form or another. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any, though history is not my area of expertise.