U.S. military programs at risk for cuts!

[Wall83]

I think its time that the US understands that it cant keep spending 500-600 bilion dollars on national defence every years. If the US cut defend costs by 50 procent they still would spend four times as much as China that is number two in the list. If they insted would spend that 200-300 bilion dollars on healhcare and help the big part of the US people that relly is poor, the country would be alot better of. If the USAF gets 400 or 700 new fighters in the next 10-15 years makes little differens to the everyday american.

 

[bruceedwards]

I think its time that the US understands that it cant keep spending 500-600 bilion dollars on national defence every years. If the US cut defend costs by 50 procent they still would spend four times as much as China that is number two in the list. If they insted would spend that 200-300 bilion dollars on healhcare and help the big part of the US people that relly is poor, the country would be alot better of. If the USAF gets 400 or 700 new fighters in the next 10-15 years makes little differens to the everyday american.

I believe that is underestimating the role the US Military plays in securing not just the physical security of the United States, but the Economic security.

The US has such a massive defence budget because of it's need to project power internationally. Strategic items such as carrier groups are expensive. And - when someone threatens your trade routes, allies, or economic interests - necessary.

Not to mention that a large portion of the defence budget gets funneled back into the US economy.

 

[TrangleC]

I agree with Wall83. No country needs a military force that gobbles up half a trillion Dollars each year.

@ bruceedwards:

Who should threaten trade lanes? With what and why? Were tradelanes any less functional before the USA started to go totally nuts with military spending?
Hell, we as the whole western world aren't even able to disrupt the illegal drug traffic lanes on this planet, with or without the huge US military.

I also don't see a significant fraction of that half a trillion Dollars at work in the Gulf of Aden, where commercial ships get attacked by pirates every day.

And the Chinese, Russians, international Terrorists, North Koreans, Iranians and all the others seem little impressed or detered by al this "projection of force" that costs so much money.

About the "back-funneling" of the money into the economy: That's another problem, because it implies that the USA need wars to keep it's economy running. There would be other ways to funnel that tax money back into the economy, without losing most of it in the private pockets of people like Dick Cheney.

Let's be honest, the whole thing makes little logical sense. It is all just about the Generals loving their shiny toys, the manufacturers making a lot of money and the average US military enthusiast getting a hard on when thinking about the F-22's cruising around over his head and when watching shows like "future weapons".

 

[bruceedwards]

I agree with Wall83. No country needs a military force that gobbles up half a trillion Dollars each year.

@ bruceedwards:

Who should threaten trade lanes? With what and why? Were tradelanes any less functional before the USA started to go totally nuts with military spending?
Hell, we as the whole western world aren't even able to disrupt the illegal drug traffic lanes on this planet, with or without the huge US military.

I also don't see a significant fraction of that half a trillion Dollars at work in the Gulf of Aden, where commercial ships get attacked by pirates every day.

And the Chinese, Russians, international Terrorists, North Koreans, Iranians and all the others seem little impressed or detered by al this "projection of force" that costs so much money.

About the "back-funneling" of the money into the economy: That's another problem, because it implies that the USA need wars to keep it's economy running. There would be other ways to funnel that tax money back into the economy, without losing most of it in the private pockets of people like Dick Cheney.

Let's be honest, the whole thing makes little logical sense. It is all just about the Generals loving their shiny toys, the manufacturers making a lot of money and the average US military enthusiast getting a hard on when thinking about the F-22's cruising around over his head and when watching shows like "future weapons".

That's a fair point regarding the economics of funnelling money back into the US economy - it may not necessarily be a good thing.

I also agree with your argument that the US Defence department needs to review it's spending more closely. For example, a figure on MilitaryBudget.Info reported that there are still 227 military bases in Germany (!).

However I would say that the drawback of a deterrent is you never truly know how effective it's been. You may say that Iran and North Korea are not impressed by Amerca's might - but has North Korea invaded the South to 'unify the nation' since the Korean ceasefire? Has Iran launched it's Jihad against Israel?

In the end Defence is answerable to the Government (as it should be) and the Government is (in theory) answerable to the people. If people start protesting the size of the defence budget, cuts will be made.

 

[AegisFC]

US SecDef Secretary Gates budget press briefing,

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/budget-press-briefing-as-prepared-for.html

A lot of good stuff but the main points are:

-Acceleration of the F-35 program.

-Capping F-22 production at 187.

-Rebidding of the USAF Tanker program.

-More LCS's.

-More money for Aegis BMD, and 6 more ship conversions.

-Funding for the Ohio Class replacement.

-The shift to 10 CVN's and funding for CG(X).

-No new C-17's.

-Termination of the VH-71 presidential helicopter.

-Limiting DDG-1000 to 3 ships all built at the same yard, while Ingalls continues DDG-51 production. He also talks about limiting DDG-1000 production to just one ship.

-Major restructuring of the US Armies FCS.

Overall I like this budget. It kills or restricts programs that need killing (sadly though LCS continues) and accelerates F-35 production.

 

[Firn]

I was thinking the same. I gave the LCS a relative good look and it seemed a great waste of money on a petproject. The DDG-1000s line seems more promising but also have the air of an white elephant searching for missions to justify their immense cost. I would have cut them too

 

[operand]

"We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement."

Can someone explain to me the justification of cancelling the multi-kill-vehicle program? i mean we've seen some simple tests already, so its not just a concept on paper, working prototypes have been around for a decade :

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=multi+kill+vehicle

Last test was in a controlled environment in December 2008; Testing the MKV in space would be the next major hurdle but we have already accomplished this feat before, with a single-kill vehicle. I can understand the need to focus defence spending on helping US win wars in guerilla warfare, the unmanned drone portion of FCS is still intact which is a good sign (more situational awareness = good).

 

[Sea Toby]

The LCS program will continue. The US Navy has plenty of cruisers and destroyers at the moment. What is needed is a replacement for the FFG-7s ASW ocean escorts. The US Navy requires a ship that can do that role as well as a ship that will be more useful in littoral areas, to fight the wars we are fighting now. Not a third world war which at the moment isn't promising.

While there have been significant cost overruns, a lesser ship won't suffice to do the missions required. Most likely three or four LCSs can be bought for the price of one Burke class destroyer. Frankly, the US Navy has never considered FFG-7s as much more than ASW ocean escorts, much less front line warships.

The other alternative to LCS will be the Coast Guard's Bertholf class designed with a better ASW sonar, whether hull mounted or array.

 

[Driller]

Wonder if they are still thinking about replacing certain weapons in the Army/USMC etc.

 

[Vivendi]

The LCS program will continue. The US Navy has plenty of cruisers and destroyers at the moment. What is needed is a replacement for the FFG-7s ASW ocean escorts. The US Navy requires a ship that can do that role as well as a ship that will be more useful in littoral areas, to fight the wars we are fighting now. Not a third world war which at the moment isn't promising.

While there have been significant cost overruns, a lesser ship won't suffice to do the missions required. Most likely three or four LCSs can be bought for the price of one Burke class destroyer. Frankly, the US Navy has never considered FFG-7s as much more than ASW ocean escorts, much less front line warships.

The other alternative to LCS will be the Coast Guard's Bertholf class designed with a better ASW sonar, whether hull mounted or array.

Sea Toby,

Would you mind educating me at bit?

I am absolutely no expert in naval matters however I have done a bit of reading on the LCS, and I still don't comprehend why it's worth the high price tag? It seems to me similar ships from other parts of the world offer 90% of the capabilities for 60% of the price. The LCS is supposed to be quite fast, but perhaps there are also other features that I have so far failed to appreciate?

V

 

[Merlöwe]

I think its time that the US understands that it cant keep spending 500-600 bilion dollars on national defence every years. If the US cut defend costs by 50 procent they still would spend four times as much as China that is number two in the list. If they insted would spend that 200-300 bilion dollars on healhcare and help the big part of the US people that relly is poor, the country would be alot better of. If the USAF gets 400 or 700 new fighters in the next 10-15 years makes little differens to the everyday american.

4% of budget isn't crazy military spending. The american health system needs major reforms, not more money thrown at it. We spend one of the highest amounts on per-person medical care, while achieving lesser results.

 

[HK_Thoughtful]

Not to get this thread off-topic, but I also do not see the value of the LCS program. Granted that its original intent of having a small and cheap, modular platform capable of performing a number of tasks in coastal waters was and still is a good concept; the current LCS vessels are costing too much for what they are built for. Additionally, even with all the money being spent on the LCS, the vessels don't have any VLS systems *although I read that surface warfare module of the LCS includes NLOS-LS missiles*.Maybe they were designed this way?

 

[Sea Toby]

The Obama administration wants to buy three this year, and possibly more next year. The price is $US 460 million each this year for three ships, next year the price for more ships will be $US 440 million each. Many in Congress want to build up to six ships a year.

While the first two different ships have blown out to over US$ 600 million each, there were many changes done while under construction. The Obama administration wishes to buy three ships this year for US$ 460 million each. The administration wishes to start buying up to six a year, reducing costs even further. By no means have multiple production been introduced.

The US$ 200 million was a low ball figure of several years ago. Even the USCG's Bertholf class went over US$ 400 million. The Arleigh Burke's Obama wishes to order are over US$ 2 billion each. All of the ships have citadels against gas or nuclear attack, 57 mm gun mount, ASW torpedo tubes, and Sea RAM surface to air missiles. There is also a new combat data system as well with a 3D radar never seen on a US frigate before.

Compared to the FFG-7s today, they have a close range surface to air missile system. They have at least 10 knots more speed, a small vehicle deck, and are more automated. They will do more missions than any FFG-7 or minehunter, better, and with less crew.

While they may be more expensive than other nation's frigates, the other nation's frigates can not do the littoral missions as well either. If the US Navy had to buy minehunters as well along with a new frigate class, the price for the two new classes would be higher. Bang for the buck, four to five ships for the price of one DDG.

 

[OPSSG]

Not to get this thread off-topic, but I also do not see the value of the LCS program. Granted that its original intent of having a small and cheap, modular platform capable of performing a number of tasks in coastal waters was and still is a good concept; the current LCS vessels are costing too much for what they are built for.

I'm not very well informed about naval matters but you should look at:

(i) the Israeli FMS on their LCS purchase; and
(ii) what the LCS class of vessels are designed to do before being too critical of the LCS program.​

Cost overruns is a separate issue and these problems does not change the reason why the USN created the specification for the LCS. The LCS ship design is in response to an expressed need coming from USN's strategy. This need was identified by naval planners in the form of a LCS design brief.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eebc86ha1LI]LCS Video[/ame]

Delivering Transformational Capability in the Littorals

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is designed to defeat growing littoral threats and provide access and dominance in the coastal water battlespace. A fast, maneuverable and networked surface combatant, the LCS provides the required warfighting capabilities and operational flexibility to execute focused missions close to the shore such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.

A flexible and reconfigurable seaframe, LCS derives combat capability from rapidly interchangeable mission modules and an open architecture command and control system. Modularity maximizes the flexibility of LCS and enables commanders to meet changing warfare needs, while also supporting spiral development and technology refresh. LCS will be networked to share tactical information with other naval aircraft, ships, submarines, joint and coalition units and LCS groups, providing commanders with the right information quickly and efficiently. With low manning and reduced operations and maintenance requirements, LCS is an affordable means to increase fleet size.

 

[HK_Thoughtful]

Thanks for the information, but I did look at the FMS for the Israeli varient of the LCS. My original statement about the VLS was directed at the US LCS and my primary worry is that the US LCS seems to be lacking in missile armament. Granted that the LCS was not designed to conduct air defense as a primary mission and that the 57mm gun and NLOS-LS (ASuW module) are credible threats to most coastal vessels, I am uneasy about the prospect of a LCS encountering an opfor frigate-type vessel. With this in mind, I guess that in that case, the LCS will have to rely on other friend assets in the area and on its superior speed and handling.

In the way Sea Toby explains it, with the LCS effectively supplanting the need for a dedicated minesweeper class, in conjunction with its other attributes, I see where the LCS can be effective. The question still remains about the cost. Although the Obama administration will probably increase the number of LCS being built, how certain is the cost reduction from 600 million per ship to mid-400 million? Sea Toby can you provide sourcing? Thanks

 

[Sea Toby]

The best source for US Navy news is its own website. The Obama administration wishes to buy three this year for $460 million each. The intention is to eventually buy up to six ships a year.

The first ship in any program is always the most expensive. Follow on ships usually cost less. Buy them in larger numbers, cost efficiencies do exist.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/defense_lcscosts_080205n/

 

[Sea Toby]

The best source for US Navy news is its own website. The Obama administration wishes to buy three this year for $460 million each. The intention is to eventually buy up to six ships a year. The Obama administration is wishing to buy three this year for an average of $530 million each, including a system module.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/defense_lcscosts_080205n/

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Some of the cuts are ok such as the cuts to the FCS, combat search and rescue helicopters, new presidential helicopters, some part of BMD.

But they should keep the carrier fleet at a bare minimum of 11 active ships, keep the air force tanker, new bomber and the F-22 Raptor.

I'm most worried about the plan to reduce the carrier fleet from 11 to just 10, that would be the biggest mistake in this god awful budget mess the military is facing right now.

 

[Firn]

So to you, Sea_Toby the LCS seems a sensible addition to the fleet, even at a total end cost for the Independence of 660 million $ and for Freedom of 631 million $? The price for further ships will of course drop, but I really wonder like HK if it reaches the 460 mill. $ per Ship as fast as the administrations plans.

 

[AegisFC]

I'm most worried about the plan to reduce the carrier fleet from 11 to just 10, that would be the biggest mistake in this god awful budget mess the military is facing right now.

Enterprise is OLD and the most expensive ship in the fleet to operate by a large margin (8 reactors are not cheap, and they are of an obsolete design). She is also almost out of nuclear fuel. To decomm it in the next few years and leave a gap until the Ford comes on line makes sense and the risk is small, there are no immediate threats that need 11 carriers, and the the Fleet Response Plan can handle 10 carriers until Ford is up and running.