Which child do you sell first?

31st

Which child do you sell first?

January 2009

If you hoped for change, you’re about to get it good and hard.

The Obama administration has asked the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent — about $55 billion — a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year’s defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend “burning the midnight oil” looking at ways to cut the budget — looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.

Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.

Good people are smoothing up alternatives for whatever USN size of the sandwich will be (yes, I like to mix my metaphors – wait for the volcano one).

Just use a USN 30% of the total as a baseline – $18.3 billion. What do we throw into the volcano first?

Posted by CDRSalamander in Uncategorized

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

UltimaRatioReg

Jay,

How is it that Max Boot gets a derogatory reference and an “oh please”, and Josh Rogin is considered unbiased in his comments?

Does Boot being a conservative make him somehow more biased than Rogin, who is a liberal, and therefore somehow not biased?
Jay

URR,

Dunno’. I copied the entire thing from the Wired.com site. Speak to the writers over there.
UltimaRatioReg

Oh, and Jay,

You said “mothballing close to half of our CVNS …is very likely a non-starter.”

Here is one problem I see. When we have retired ships with half of their service life remaining (a good article in Jan 09 PROCEEDINGS on recapitalization), none of those units were mothballed, or preserved in any way. Foolish. They were allowed to deteriorate to the point where, apparently, major work and cost would be involved in putting them back in commission should they be needed.

If we were to “mothball” some units, truly preserve them as we did after WWII and Korea, we would leave some flexibility to reactivate when needed. But(it would seem) as soon as they are decommissioned, these technically advanced, highly useful and expensive to replace vessels are not preserved at all, unless they might draw a dollar in FMS.

If we had preserved the Spruances, the FFG-7s, the non-VLS Ticonderogas, and perhaps CV-67, we would have a lot more flexibility in what our Navy’s mix of warships might look like.
UltimaRatioReg

I copied the entire thing from the Wired.com site. Speak to the writers over there.

You might get known by the company you keep!
Chap

The link tag works just fine. Let’s see if the blockquote tag does too.

Hey Phibs, this might change the game a little…

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 Defense budget, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday.

If enacted, that would be about $14 billion more than the $513 billion allocated for fiscal 2009 (PL 110-329), including military construction funds, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.

But it sets up a potential conflict between the new administration and the Defense Department’s entrenched bureaucracy, which has remained largely intact through the presidential transition. Some Pentagon officials and congressional conservatives are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it with a $584 billion draft budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal 2010.

The $527 billion figure is “what the Bush people thought was the right number last February, and that’s the number we’re going with,” said the OMB official, who declined to be identified. “The Joint Chiefs did that to lay down a marker for the incoming administration that was unrealistic. It’s more of a wish list than anything else.”

Defense budget experts have said the draft by the Joint Chiefs, which was never publicly released, was designed to pressure the Obama administration to drastically increase Defense spending or be forced to defend a reluctance to do so.

Defense officials in past outgoing administrations have left inflated budget estimates for incoming officials in the hope of raising the spending baseline. The Joint Chiefs’ draft budget was never scrubbed by President George W. Bush ’s OMB, which had told federal agencies to submit draft budgets based on current services.

Huh. Maybe a little gamesmanship instead?
RickWilmes

Chap,

Thank you for the link, it cleared up some of my questions concerning this topic and the related comments. Two issues remain for me.

1. How does the USNI blogging community solve the claim of bringing politics into the discussion when the topic IS about politics? For me, personally, when I see this issue being raised then I know the individual raising such a claim has a weak position on the issue. I think it is a subtle form of arguement from authority or intimidation. Not quite sure which but this issue needs to be addressed and solved so that it is no longer raised in future topics.

2. Back to the topic at hand, and this more from an economic perspective. In the link Chap provided the following was stated.

“Adm. Mike Mullen — the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who, like Gates, is a Bush appointee — has long advocated large increases in base Defense spending. He champions pegging the Defense budget to 4 percent of the gross domestic product. Along with conservatives in Congress, Mullen believes that number is feasible and could ensure steadily increasing investments, at least when the economy is growing.

In contrast, most economists and Defense budget experts believe Defense spending should be based on the need and the threat, not on an arbitrary economic figure.”

I am curious how the 4% number tied to GDP was determined? Is it an arbitrary number as claimed in the article?
http://cdrsalamander@hotmail.com CDR Salamander

Chap,
Here is an interesting thought, if

Defense budget experts have said the draft by the Joint Chiefs, which was never publicly released, was designed to pressure the Obama administration to drastically increase Defense spending or be forced to defend a reluctance to do so.

is accurate – then we do have a political problem.

A lot of our (Navy Officers) intellectual capital in our official capacity is our “best military advice” towards the civilian leadership. If we play other games, then we are just part of the political landscape, which in a representative democracy is perhaps not a good thing.

Let me outline it another way assuming that the JCS is not acting like a 4th branch of government or 3rd political party; if I am building a covered, wooden bridge with an honest contractor and he tells me in order to stay on schedule in the next phase to build the requested two lane bridge with a 20-ton carrying capacity he needs X amount of money to purchase 5,000 board-feet of lumber – and instead I tell him that, no, he is only getting .89x of the money he says he needs and probably less next year – then I should expect that he will tell me that either I am going to have a one-lane, an uncovered, and/or a lower weight carrying bridge as a result (not counting the additional redesign fees).

If, however, I am working with a dishonest contractor that I am sure is inflating his costs, then I would expect my .89x to be taken with a shrug, some noise; but he’ll get on with the program. Of course, if I am working with such a contractor, I am all in his business making sure that he is buying the right lumber, using the correct number and type of nails and fasteners. I will ensure he is using the correct number and type of supports, is hiring properly certified sub-contractors, qualified workers, etc …… generally we are going to hate each other because I won’t let him do his job, and I can’t do mine because I am too busy checking everything he does.

Then again – I would never hire a contractor I couldn’t trust – or would fire one that I lost trust in.

Which story do we match, if either? What problems as an institution do we have in each situation?

As for the comments RE censorship and such – I both appreciate and agree with most of them. You will also note that no one since FOD has been deleted, and most have raised the points in the same direction he was going in. The difference is with tone and intent. USNIBlog is not CDR Salamander or DailyKos. Free comments without oversight would if left to get out of control, degrade the standing of this institution.

Politics is a necessary part of what we do to build and equip our Fleet – but there is a difference between discussing the impact of politics and being political. USNIBlog is not a place for “Fox-is-evil to MSNBC-is-insane” type discussions. That is not why I came here, and I doubt why others post here (there is a difference between posting and commenting BTW). I invited FOD to make those comments at my home blog – a little less of a class joint than USNIBlog-, and would have left them there if he had if for no other reason than to let the deck crew there chew him up and spit him out.

All that being said, with just a few sharp elbows thrown here and there – I think the back and forth in comments after the Phib-vs-FOD throw-down has been about right. One news report comes out – another follows with more information and perhaps a different agenda, discuss – rinse;repeat.

I believe SECDEF Gates gets the final word.

The Pentagon refused to comment publicly on why it would need the higher amount. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said the fiscal 2010 Defense budget must contend with the realities of the bad economy and stop the trend of steep increases in military budgets since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Gates also has said the department will deliver Congress a formal request for a second tranche of fiscal 2009 war funding “in the coming weeks.” He sent Congress an estimate for that tab of $69.7 billion.

“I believe that the FY 2010 budget must make hard choices,” Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 27.

That being said, about our bridge contractors …..
RickWilmes

Actually, reality is going to have the final say on this one. As is being pointed out in the following, our economy is on the verge of bankruptcy.

California Economy Near Collapse .

As far as the bridge scenario, there no longer is any capital available to build the bridge. It doesn’t matter if the contractor is honest or not.
Compound Fracture

Thanks for the reply. I’m going to like it here. Let me be clear about something if I wasn’t already. I love the Navy. Always have, always will. I love our country. I’m disturbed by what I see before me, and here is a chance for the Navy to lead in a big way. I wonder though, has the power that comes with a large fleet of CVBGs become an intoxicant that those that guide that power? One they just can’t give up? I suppose that gets political, but somebody better do something before we’re forced to do so.
http://cdrsalamander@hotmail.com CDR Salamander

And they are deleted again – because you have moved to personnel insults.
Frank Antinucci

There is no 10% cut. CQ debunked that story yesterday:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003022493
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com CDRSalamander

Frank,
Read it again – and do a little research on Dr. Gordon Adams’ background, who is the primary source for the CQ. It isn’t so much a debunking as a different spin. I wouldn’t read that GQ bit as gospel just another angle from a DOD budget critic that some of us have been reading since Reagan was President.

Good for discussion though. SECDEF’s quote applies.

As a side note – as an example of someone who is trying to answer the question in the post (thank you for reading and not emoting) please look at Ken Adam’s blog.
Chap

Gosh, that link looks familiar.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com CDRSalamander

Smarty pants
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/ Yankee Sailor

CF said:

Our country, in the past 5 months or so, has created about one trillion in new money. Depending on what the Senate does over the next week or so, it looks like we’ll be creating close to another trillion. This is all debt. There are no assets to sell, or taxes to collect to create this two trillion.
…
We can no longer afford this giant Navy or military. This country is broke. We are rapidly moving toward insolvency while we enslave future generations to a debt they have no control over, and had no say in its creation. Not only is that foolish, it is immoral. Something must be done. The Navy should lead the way by mothballing at least five CVBGs.
…
Negatives? I read a post here about how cutting the Navy now, in this time of economic turmoil, would be foolish. Point made, and point taken. However, by not cutting now, we’re only going to make the inevitable crash that much more difficult to contend with.

Why do you believe that such a dramatic cut in forces won’t increase regional instability and conflict, thereby slowing the global recovery and lengthening the time it takes to pay off all that debt? After all, as economic activity increases, so usually do tax revenues.
CF

YS,

I didn’t realize I was challenged before. I must have missed that post. I think I see what you’re referencing now, but I never took it as a challenge.

I see this as math. Twelve trillion? Somebody tell me how we’re gonna pay that bill. That’s just the known debt. How are we going to pay our government’s unfunded promises – e.g., Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, military retirement, military health care, VA, etc. How? The estimate on that bill is somewhere between 40 and 55 TRILLION.

I do not know that such a dramatic cut won’t lead to regional or even national instability. It very well could. I’m still not sure why we need 10 more CVBGs than any other nation in the world. Moving to six or seven would suddenly cause the world to fly apart? Bringing our Army home and structuring it more in line with the vision of our founders would cause the world to explode? I’m not saying you don’t have a point. I can’t deny that such moves would create some vacuums – maybe more than I’m seeing.

I guess, YS, it comes down to beliefs. I believe we need to quit interfering with other countries. With the cessation of interference, it is my opinion we will find we don’t need this gigantic military. While I don’t miss Saddam, I still view that entire operation as a mistake. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Completely. It seems that after 8 years of presence there, we’re just now getting spun up for an even bigger fight – with an enemy who’s greatest weapon is nothing more than a .50 caliber mounted in the back of a Toyota, and a particularly good cave-hopping skill. But we’ve got 600 legacy Hornets and at least a couple hundred Super Hornets to cover it.

I think I’m kind of getting all over the place here. Let me see if I can pull this together. Math tells me whether or not we like a giant military, in short order, we’re going to have some very difficult choices to make. It’s my personal belief that our military has been abused because it is there to be abused. I believe that by aligning ourselves with the vision for the military our founders had, we can give great pause to politicians wishing to use the military for anything but the defense of the U.S. My position is that the Navy, our proud and wonderful service, can and should lead in this matter. Our Navy has always set the pace, and should do so now – leading – rather than being forced into difficult decisions brought forth because there is no other choice. Yeah, I know, I’m naive. Congress would probably cancel any plans the Navy made should the Admirals actually try and mothball a few CVBGs.

Thanks for the chance at back and forth. Keep making me think. I may have this all wrong, but the math is there. This is unsustainable. Printing money to pay the bills for our present profligate ways is foolish, and as I mentioned above, it’s immoral to tax our future, our offspring and so on.
UltimaRatioReg

CF,

Some excellent points. It would seem that the size and effectiveness of a military force is not always related to how much it costs. Hence, our myriad debates regarding project costs, etc.

Two points:

Iraq, comparatively, represents what was a MINOR operation in WWII. The current force levels are roughly equivalent to MacArthur’s forces in New Guinea, with significantly fewer ships.

Second, a drastic reduction in the size of the US military is always an option on the table. However, doing so would relegate the US to the role of observer in world affairs, with limited ability to influence or react to events.

And the THIRD of my two points (*cough*) is that a small military does not preclude foreign involvement, witness the large number of US commitments in and around the Caribbean between 1914 and 1935.

But the question remains, regarding our present “profligate ways”, does CVN-77, at $6.4 billion, provide enough increase in capability over CV-63 to justify the cost?
Byron

URR, you do mean CVN68, don’t you?
Byron

Oh, and one more thing to remember:

“When your enemy is strong, retreat; where he is weak, attack”

Sun Tzu

And by the way, the US military are by far not the the only people to read “The Art of War”
UltimaRatioReg

Byron,

Nope. I mean Kitty Hawk. Her place in the fleet is being taken by CVN-77. Was she so out of date as to require replacement? I know she was an oil-burner, and refueling requirements were a drawback, but how much of one? Was she no longer capable of completing missions assigned? Were there not mods and upgrades that could have kept her in service another decade or so?

I equate this to the LPD-17 situation. At $1 1/2 billion, apiece, they are NOT going to replace the LPD-4s one-for-one, or even at a pace that would allow maintenance of amphibious lift capabilities. So we fall away yet further from the 2.5 MEB lift capacity we set as a bottom limit, and replace older and less advanced, yet still highly capable, vessels with units that are many times more expensive. A net increase in procurement and operating costs, a net loss in capability.

“And by the way, the US military are by far not the the only people to read “The Art of War”” Amen. You think we’d have learned that by now. Ditto for Mao.
http://www.usni.org admin

CDR and FOD:
“She-who-must-be-obeyed at USNIBlog may overrule me, but for now … I’m guarding my porch.”

Each Guest blogger here has the permission to delete comments or call into question those who comment. The authority to block an IP rests with the moderator.

Well, after having the double wammy of moving and spending an inordinate amount of time at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, I have come late into the game on this issue – I apologize.

We are trying to take a very light hand in the commentary; to inspire the free exchange of ideas – which is our charter, from 1873. Apart from spam, we have deleted less than 3 comments and blocked no one.

Make no mistake: personal attacks and belittling comments are beneath the type of discussion we hope will happen. That discussion is now being played out in the post http://blog.usni.org/?p=1084 Bringing Politics to Sea…

Not trying to distract from the thoughtful debate happening here, just trying to address CDR’s comment and remind all of you that yes, I must be obeyed. (kidding)

Mary – Moderator
Compound Fracture

Ah, see, I like this place. Forced to think. Thank you, URR!

“Iraq, comparatively, represents what was a MINOR operation in WWII. The current force levels are roughly equivalent to MacArthur’s forces in New Guinea, with significantly fewer ships.”

And with the troops on the ground our military leaders had originally asked for, we’d probably be gone by now. However, I stand by my original position: we shouldn’t be there in the first place. And I assume you mean “roughly equivalent” in numbers? Because the lethality and speed of the forces in the Iraq war theater has got to be at least 2x magnified over what MacArthur put to field. If I’m reading you correctly, in a round about way you might be missing, you’re telling me one F4U Corsair is equivalent with a Super Hornet in terms of ordnance carried to strike a target.

“Second, a drastic reduction in the size of the US military is always an option on the table. However, doing so would relegate the US to the role of observer in world affairs, with limited ability to influence or react to events.”

That is a possibility. Personally, I’m tired of “influencing” events, though it’s probably better to influence them before they influence you. I still don’t see how having 7 or 8 CVBGs is going to suddenly relegate us to “observer” status. I do see your point though.

“And the THIRD of my two points (*cough*) is that a small military does not preclude foreign involvement, witness the large number of US commitments in and around the Caribbean between 1914 and 1935.”

True. Only good leadership equipped with good sense and lessons learned can do that. In my opinion, the number one problem plaguing the entire country is lack of good, solid, real, damn-the-consequences-we’re-seeking-truth leadership. That sort of leadership would, if you ask me, be very careful – judicious with a capital “J” – when it comes to using our military.

Hmmm. I don’t think I’ve made my main point very well. Remember back in my original post where I said our Navy is the only Constitutionally authorized, standing military force? I want that Navy strong and well-trained. I want it to be the very best. I’m not educated enough to know exactly what that means in terms of size. All I know is we can’t, math and money being what they are, maintain our current force. Hard choices must be made. In the end, all I’m advocating for is that the Navy lead and make those hard choices before they are forced to do so. If I could underline that last sentence, I would, for that is my polemic. Maybe the Admirals are making some hard choices and I just haven’t recognized it yet.

I’m not comfortable with spilling my personal story here – the waste that I see – waste our Navy pays for, without, I’m convinced, really knowing the waste is even taking place. Let me put it this way, there are people in the DON, and I mean a lot of people, that are strictly there to enrich themselves while gaining a higher position. We must all check ourselves and be sure we’re serving with the interests of the nation at heart, but honestly, at least around me, I see so little of that.

As to your last question, I do not know.

I ran long on this, but thanks for the interaction.
UltimaRatioReg

CF,

“And with the troops on the ground our military leaders had originally asked for, we’d probably be gone by now.”

Yep. War is not a business. Fighting it on the cheap wound up not being cheap at all. Whether or not we should have gone is immaterial in many ways.

“And I assume you mean “roughly equivalent” in numbers? Because the lethality and speed of the forces in the Iraq war theater has got to be at least 2x magnified over what MacArthur put to field. If I’m reading you correctly, in a round about way you might be missing, you’re telling me one F4U Corsair is equivalent with a Super Hornet in terms of ordnance carried to strike a target.”

Actually, in terms of raw numbers, yes. I am not intimating that combat power is equivalent. However, I would argue that MacArthur’s forces represent a much larger comparative effort. A task force of 140,000 from a nation of 135 million in the middle of a World War was a hell of an undertaking. And the numbers of F4Us TBDs, artillery pieces, Stuart tanks, and CVLs, CVEs, CAs, CLs, DDs, involved was a much larger outlay of national treasure than present effort. Yet, in the scheme of things, it was a small corner of the secondary theatre of the war for the US.

The argument as to the size and mix of the Navy is the age-old question. But your secondary question is a good one as well. Even if it is not so small, does it have to cost so damned much?

That point is VERY WELL TAKEN.
Compound Fracture

“Whether or not we should have gone is immaterial in many ways.”

Definitely. I mean, we’re there. We broke the place. From my perspective, we broke it – we bought it. It would be immoral, in my opinion, to leave without a functioning, well-equipped government in place. And I believe we’re going to do that. It was a bad idea to go there, and I’m still not exactly sure what the real plan was beyond our strategic interest in oil, but I am proud of Bush for sticking it out – and especially proud of the troops for turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse (seemingly). Leaving with the job unfinished would have been a huge mistake, and hopefully President Obama will back away from a quick exit without some reasonable assurances of Iraqi government success. And from everything I now know, we’re not in any particular hurry to bail. Last I heard they were talking about 16 months. That seems about right, though I’m sure there is still much work to be done.

Have a good evening, URR.
pk

if kitty hawk is 48 years old then she was built in 1960 and is probably a 1200# plant.

a lot of the deckplate repair skills for those beasts is gone. an awful lot of it lived in the public shipyards who are mostly gone (remember when we had 7 yards in conus)[and no it dosen't take 10 years to realize savings/losses from a brac decision].

also those old boats have a habit of rusting right through the hull plates along the seam lines at the structural members and that takes an awful lot of work to fix.

C
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/ Yankee Sailor

CF,

I think I’m seeing two overall points from your posts: first, that America can and should scale back its role in the world, and second that the Navy need to be much more judicious in distinguishing between needs and desires.

On the first point, the opportunity costs for dramatically scaling back our position in the world could be very high indeed. Power abhors a vacuum, and unfortunatly the nations that are vying to fill the gaps go by names like Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. They may not succeed in trying to fill those gaps, but is the risk they might succeed worth the savings to America’s bottom line?

On your second point, it’s an important one that I believe many advocating a high-end Navy don’t give adequate consideration. It’s true that China and Russia appear to be preparing to build 6-9 carrier groups. However, the people beating that drum haven’t yet convinced me that, even if the Chinese and Russians realize their dreams, American can’t significantly alter the shape of our fleet–and reap significant savings–while still maintaining our leading role.
Compound Fracture

“I think I’m seeing two overall points from your posts: first, that America can and should scale back its role in the world, and second that the Navy need to be much more judicious in distinguishing between needs and desires.”

I believe I am making those two points. Unless I’m missing it, I’m not seeing where you acknowledge my main point. Let me clarify. Our country is on the verge of financial ruin. Printing more fiat money is only going to band-aid the problem – ultimately making the collapse that much more violent. Assuming I’m right, and a financial collapse is imminent, it seems to me that the Navy will, at some point in the not-to-distant future be forced to make drastic cuts. Here, it would seem to me that Navy leadership would want to lead – and here flows my main point, i.e., Navy leadership should take the lead NOW and set the pace by shedding several CVBGs, their attendant aircraft, personnel, expenditures, etc. The ships can be mothballed, the personnel, those that wish, can be put into reserve, and at least some of the savings can be put toward recapitalizing the fleet, buying more Super Hornets while consolidating the legacy Hornet fleet down to the lowest FLE aircraft, and any number of other ideas. It is my personal belief, with the right leadership, we could actually come away with a stronger, more capable Navy, while cutting our costs by several billion.

It’s possible Navy leadership is already considering these things, and I want to allow for that possibility.

I believe what I’m saying about this country. Very bad times are ahead. They may prove to be a blessing in disguise, but heavy seas are on the horizon, folks. Look at the math.
RickWilmes

Compound Fracture,

I agree with the your main point that our country is on the verge of financial ruin and that the cause of that ruin is fiat money or the printing of paper. I also agree that the Navy and its leadership have the opportunity to take the lead and set the example.

Unfortuneately, I do not think that the majority of the readers and commenters on the USNI blog understand that Keynesian economics is the problem that needs to be addressed. However, given time and the right arguments I think your main point which you are trying to address will eventually be understood. I just hope it won’t be too late.
CF

Rick,

While I agree that understanding how this came about is important, that is not the point I’m making.

Basically, the die is cast. All of us are now just holding onto the train wondering where it is going to stop, and what sort of shape it’s going to be in when it stops.

What each of us must do with our personal finances – not spend more than we make – the government must do as well. We are coming in for a multi-trillion dollar crack-up landing. It will be addressed one way or the other. The question is: will Navy leadership address it now, or be forced to address it in the future? Our civilian representatives in congress, and now apparently our new president, have decided that throwing money at the problem (created, printed money) is the solution. I think they know better, it’s just that the alternatives are too painful.
sid

Our civilian representatives in congress, and now apparently our new president, have decided that throwing money at the problem (created, printed money) is the solution.

It might be noted that you don’t see companies supporting defense in that group. In fact some are doing right well for themselves…

(From WSJ aFeb 3 2009)

At a time when captains of the auto industry and Wall Street are seeing their compensation wiped out, defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. has raised its chief executive’s target bonus and is doling out special stock awards to a handful of other senior executives.

After doing so well for us taxpayers…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402375.html

The Army ordered Lockheed Martin Corp. to stop work on a $6 billion manned spy plane program yesterday after determining that the company’s proposal would not meet the project’s requirements.
RickWilmes

CF,

CF,
I agree. It looks like Dick Armey also is thinking along the same lines.

Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek .

“In reality, no one spends someone else’s money better than they spend their own. The charade of the current stimulus package, chockablock with earmarks to favored pet constituencies and virtually devoid of national policy considerations, is the logical consequence of Keynesianism in action. It is about politics and power, not sound economics, and I believe that the American people will reject it.”

This American has rejected Keynes and his ilk, so should my Navy. Thats my politics
Byron

The primary econmic focus of the Navy should be the deadly mathematics of warfare.
RickWilmes

Sid,

There is nothing wrong with companies earning and keeping the wealth they created. They “should be doing right well for themselves” otherwise they would cease to exist.
sid

There is nothing wrong with companies earning and keeping the wealth they created. They “should be doing right well for themselves” otherwise they would cease to exist.

I would agree with you Rick…IF they created anything other than a hefty bill that we all got to pay.
sid

There is nothing wrong with companies earning and keeping the wealth they created.

And how much of that wealth was created/preserved while we get to make up this difference?
CF

Agreed, Byron.

Talking about private companies and the like sort of takes us away from the drift of this thread: the Navy faces budget cuts. My point, in a nutshell was: I say the Navy embraces the cuts and leads the way by doing radical surgery on itself. If not, the cuts are going to lead the Navy someplace it may not wanna go.
UltimaRatioReg

CF,

“I say the Navy embraces the cuts and leads the way by doing radical surgery on itself. If not, the cuts are going to lead the Navy someplace it may not wanna go.”

Indeedy. How radical the surgery seems to depend on what other things they are willing to fix/forego.

So, what is the surgery?

A FRAM/SLEP to keep older but still highly useful units in service and delay the re-cap of new ones? (Austin LPDs and Perry frigates)

A replacement of F/A-18 airframes at high time with new F/A-18s?

LCS/DDG-1000 scale back?

Mothballing of 1-2 CVs? (REALLY mothballing, and not leaving to rust!)

All of the above?
sid

Talking about private companies and the like sort of takes us away from the drift of this thread

I disagree CF. They are an integral part of the broken acquisition process which has led to unsustainable costs…
CF

If it were me, and I could have my wish list, I’d take at least the four oldest carriers and mothball ‘em or ready reserve ‘em. I’d take the equivalent in support ships from all the CVBGs – meaning the oldest of the support ships – enough to make up the requisite number of CV battle groups mothballed, and mothball or razor blade those support ships.

Is it possible to put carriers like Nimitz & Enterprise into the ready reserve? Actually make them pier-side ships except for a month or so a year? And attach reserve squadrons and reserve ship’s company personnel?

Take all legacy Hornets, figure out which have the most fatigue life left and keep only those jets. Let’s say it makes for about 200. Take the rest, part out the very oldest, mothball the remainder – or give the remainder to the reserves. Obviously, you could do the same with all the aircraft types in the inventory.

Use the savings to buy more Super Hornets. Buy more LCS. SLEP the oldest remaining active carriers. Better, beefier, real-world training. Whatever. Shedding at least 4 carriers and everything that goes with them would supply a huge chunk of change.

There’s got to be a way to do this. And I wouldn’t keep harping on this if I didn’t think we were going to be forced to do something like this in the very near future.

Of course, all this assumes we quit being the WPF (World Police Force). That’s step one. And it assumes congress will go along with reduction, and congress will not cut the budget relative to the CVBGs we park. Sure, this is about leading, and we should lead and go back with some savings, but the point of this exercise is also to put some savings back into recap, training, etc. In other words, if this was done, and we went to congress saying, “Look, we led the way. We cut 30 billion out of our budget. Here’s ten billion back. We’re keeping the remaining 20 billion to make our force stronger, better-trained, leaner.”

I know. I live in a dream world. Hey, at least we can express our views. There may be good reasons why we have ten more CVs than any country in the world. I can’t think of any, but it doesn’t make me right. I’m all for having the biggest stick, but isn’t six or seven of those sticks enough? If we quit with the WPF it could be. Right?

Okay, I’m whipping the horse, but let me kill it some more – we’re gonna be forced to do this. It’s coming, and it’s coming fast.
CF

You’re right, Sid. I think I got a bit selfish there. What I should have said was nothing, but what I ended up saying was, “We got away from the drift of this thread I was taking it on.”

Sorry! By all means, carry on.
Byron

World police force? Not going there, not interested. Leaving nuke carriers pierside for 11 months out of 12? No way, Jose, it don’t work that way, and it’ll still have to be manned in engineering and supply, not to mention security on a nuclear powered vessel.
RickWilmes

World police force? I am willing to go there because the future of our country depends on addressing this issue and it directly relates to North Korea which has been brought up in this post earlier. North Korea is a statist nation that either steals its means of survival from its people or relies on handouts from other countries. As the world economy continues to collapse the handouts are going to dry up. For the statists in Korea to remain in power they have two choices continue to steal from its people who don’t have much in the first place or look abroad(i.e. South) Samsung, one of the wealthiest and most sucessful companies hails from South Korea.

The United States has some hard choices to make and unforetuneately the direction of those choices are going in the wrong direction. Government bailouts and nationalization of banks and mortage companies is statist in nature and we will suffer the consequences of these bad decisions.

As our involvement in Afghanistan increases along with our increasing statist policies at home, we do not have to look that far back into history to see the results of such policies. In other words, look at the Soviet Union’s involvement in Afghanistan and its subsequent economic collapse.

Not interested? I suggest some premise checking is in order.
Byron

Nope, just not interested in the whole political argument here. At the ‘manders, sure, at Lex’s, yup. Here? Nope, not going there. My guide lines for discussion in this forum are fairly restricted, and politics in micro are not included. Third person abstract? Maybe. I’m simply applying the same rules I use at my forum…and since that’s lasted since the late 80s back when it was a Prodigy BBS, my rules work.

You, on the other hand, may follow your own guide lines, matters not to me.
CF

I think I see where you’re coming from, Byron. There’s a chance something like this could spiral out of control. And you’re correct. Not with me, but I’m not the only one here. To me, it was just part of the case I was making. I understand there are people that think we should be the WPF. I respect that opinion – or fact – actually.

I think what I’m trying to say, and didn’t say very well with regard to WPF: we can’t do it anymore. We’re broke, and swiftly falling into an abyss – a black hole of unknowns. Whether it is right or wrong to be the WPF isn’t what I was angling for. I apologize for not explaining myself clearly.

Perhaps the USNI could at least consider a more traditional message board format where compartmentalizing could take place. That way, a section could be called “Politics Only.” Just a suggestion. This is fine. I’m not a political type myself. I fall between the cracks. I will discuss it, but the subject is nothing I get wild-eyed over. It’s just not worth it.
CF

Sid, getting back to what you’ve brought up, I’m not sure what I can say. I’m a paranoid individual when it comes to this stuff, and I certainly wouldn’t want to divulge anything that shouldn’t be divulged, or that would cast embarrassment toward our Navy. This isn’t the place for that – I would think. I see things in my day-to-day work. Weird things. Pieces of aircraft, identical, one fits port, one fits starboard – they look identical on the outside. Both perform the same function, yet one side costs fifty thousand, and the other costs fifteen. Strange. I see these things all of the time. Pieces of rubber that cost four thousand, etc.
sid

I certainly wouldn’t want to divulge anything that shouldn’t be divulged, or that would cast embarrassment toward our Navy.

The ultimate embarrassment for this Navy would be if its called upon to fight one day…And it can’t.

I am just bringing up some glaring manifestations of a very, very broken acquisitions process that is forcing that scenario ever closer to being a real possibility.
CF

So you see it not just as something that is bleeding the Navy financially, but as something that could reduce material readiness, operational capability, etc.

I can see that, although I’ll admit until you mentioned it above, I have always mostly considered the cost aspect. In other words, it might take us a day or two or three to get a part from the system, but we do get it. Although, I will say, I do remember aircraft parked on the ramp for weeks at a time for lack of one specific, fairly common part. That particular memory is from back in the mid 1990s.
sid

Although, I will say, I do remember aircraft parked on the ramp for weeks at a time for lack of one specific, fairly common part.

It is getting to the point there aren’t enough aircraft on the ramp to make up for those that are down…or lost.

Have you seen any EP-3E replacements flying lately…?
b2

This 10% bogey came up at a Flag Panel I was at just the other day. The question followed: what to cut first Sir? The first thing out of the 3-star VADM’s mouth was F-22…I wonder what comes out of a USAF 3 stars mouth? I can offer them some advice…

CF-

You gave a rational (I’m not going to flay you), if not, wide view of cuts for the Navy including 6-7 big decks carriers. You said “mothball five”?

Why 5, why not all of ‘em CF? I mean, hey, if’n you’re on the anti-carrier kick you’re not alone- a lot of ground pounders, AF global reach advocates and Navy shoes who don’t understand airpower always make that assertion and have since I was an Ensign back in the ’70′s..BTW, you really got me when you said to buy more Hornets…At that I just did a doubletake anmd choked on my joe…Y.G.B.S.M. do you work for Boeing?

The bottomline on this “10% floated trial balloon” is that, believe it or not, investing in defense stimulates our economy directly and provides for a common defense as a by-product. Pork aside, elected officials on both side of the aisle agree..It’s up to us who care about on the delivery end, that what they fund is what we really need. Really need. To that end the services acquisition plans have been atrocious and nearly negligent.

CF, just what do we fund with that ‘dividend’ you propose in this spiraling economy of low confidence; buy STD prevention, condoms or global warming info packets? The protection of a condom is nice to have but when it comes to real defense of this nation I’d rather have a Nimitz class carrier do my speaking 6-7000 nm away.

Obviously, you work in supply somwhere or purchasing. In your workspace within the defense or the defense industry there is a 1-800-number for reporting F,W, & A. Ask your HR official where it is. If you think the USN is paying too much for a part AND YOU”VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, please call and report it. I encourage it.

b2
CF

Thanks for the reply, b2.

“You gave a rational (I’m not going to flay you), if not, wide view of cuts for the Navy including 6-7 big decks carriers. You said “mothball five”?”

I did say that. I should clarify. I’m not so caught up in exact numbers as I am in “cut at least a few.” Does that help?

“Why 5, why not all of ‘em CF? I mean, hey, if’n you’re on the anti-carrier kick you’re not alone- a lot of ground pounders, AF global reach advocates and Navy shoes who don’t understand airpower always make that assertion and have since I was an Ensign back in the ’70’s..BTW, you really got me when you said to buy more Hornets…At that I just did a doubletake anmd choked on my joe…Y.G.B.S.M. do you work for Boeing?”

Ha-ha! No, I do not work for Boeing. What I’d really like to see is about 7 carriers. Three east coast, three west coast, and one in the gulf, and if I was given my wishes, they’d never go out past about 250 miles – unless our security was threatened and it was necessary to take an offensive posture. Let me guess, you used to drive Tomcats? Intruders? Corsairs? Man, I miss Corsairs. That bird put a lot of meat and potatoes on my table. What a great jet. The Hornet is a good jet. It has its problems, and it is not perfect at anything, but it is a good at many things, and it is a good jet.

“The bottomline on this “10% floated trial balloon” is that, believe it or not, investing in defense stimulates our economy directly and provides for a common defense as a by-product. Pork aside, elected officials on both side of the aisle agree..It’s up to us who care about on the delivery end, that what they fund is what we really need. Really need. To that end the services acquisition plans have been atrocious and nearly negligent.”

Actually, buying bombs consumes money without any real, lasting benefit – speaking economics here. In other words, we spend X dollars building a MK-84. That MK-84 ends up in Iraq. It explodes. Those dollars are lost forever – not to say the expenditure didn’t result in a tangible benefit – but it’s not the same as building a road – which creates commerce – which creates jobs – which must be maintained – the jobs add to the tax base – etc. There is a difference.

Acquisition plans are atrocious? No doubt. Is it possible to fix that?

“CF, just what do we fund with that ‘dividend’ you propose in this spiraling economy of low confidence; buy STD prevention, condoms or global warming info packets? The protection of a condom is nice to have but when it comes to real defense of this nation I’d rather have a Nimitz class carrier do my speaking 6-7000 nm away.”

This is easy. That dividend goes to funding the incredibly massive unfunded obligations our government has got us into, and paying down the multi-TRILLION dollar debt. If you’re a civil servant or military retiree, this means “your paycheck, your retirement, your healthcare, etc.” As for the things you imagined to be my wish list for the dividend, I do not support them. Also, if we mind our own business, why do we need to project power “6-7 thousand miles away”? And, if we are minding our own business, and we are called upon to strike targets at that distance, we can be sure we’re doing it for the right reasons. If I am anything, I am about seeking truth. I admit that I am often wrong. That my ideas are unworkable, that I dream dreams of the foolish, but I am here. I am trying.

“Obviously, you work in supply somwhere or purchasing. In your workspace within the defense or the defense industry there is a 1-800-number for reporting F,W, & A. Ask your HR official where it is. If you think the USN is paying too much for a part AND YOU”VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, please call and report it. I encourage it.”

No, I do not work in supply. I’m not comfortable divulging what I do. Maybe someday I will be, but that’s my decision. I appreciate your encouragement to report fraud, waste and abuse, and I will take it to heart. That said, there are things that I have accomplished for our Navy, and I am proud of those things. I can do better. I care very deeply about NAVAIR. It has been my life since day one. I was born on a naval ordnance test station. We’ll leave it at that.

Again, thank you for the mental jousting. Well done.

Which child do you sell first?

Recent Posts

Pages

Guest Bloggers

Links

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

video title