Absolutely Shocking!!!

Pentagon, Lockheed see price of F-35 going up

The Next Generation of Warfare

A cyber risk to the U.S.

If this doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

Though the Pentagon has a cybercommand, it does not cover the domestic civilian economy, including vital infrastructure systems such as the electric power grid, water supplies and the financial system. Many of the computers controlling those utilities lack adequate security measures and could be devastated by viruses launched by hostile states or even hackers. As it is, U.S. companies, from defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin to e-mail carriers such as Google, are under continual assault from China and Russia, which seek to steal industrial or national security secrets and probe for infrastructure weaknesses.

Unfortunately, instead of more adequately funding programs that can protect the U.S. from cyber attack, our elected leaders continue to choose to fund wasteful programs like the Joint Strike Fighter, dubbed The Wild Blue Squander by The New York Times.  Here is a GAO chart illustrating the cost history of the Joint Strike Fighter:

Goodbye, HMMWV

Army Kills Humvee Upgrade Program; Shifts Dollars To JLTV

On Defense, Silver Linings, Golden Opportunities

RMA is back? This discussion should have never been backburnered... here is a quote from the article (commentary after):

Missing, so far, from the conversation that most of the American public has been exposed to is this question: What should the United States military be asked to accomplish in the first half of the 21st century, and is the awesome force slogging away in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, in more routine missions, across the planet properly organized, equipped, and trained to accomplish it? . . .


But the transformation that began during the late 1990s, aimed at pushing the military to evolve the Cold War-era divisions and air wings that dominated it at the time into a force more in tune with 21st century missions and (it was presumed at the time) lower appropriation levels, had real intellectual value. With cuts in the wind and ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan unlikely to recur any time soon, that debate deserves to restart.


For good reason, this debate got backburnered as counterinsurgency, urban combat, and other tasks the military thought it had left behind in Vietnam demanded fresh attention. But some on the intellectual side of the armed forces kept the idea, known as the "Revolution in Military Affairs," alive, and while it remains on life support, the basic outlines exist of a “win-win” plan to maximize capabilities while reducing the bloated Pentagon budget.

It takes years to develop personnel and, therefore, I don't agree with the idea of cutting personnel as I have said repeatedly. Here are some ideas I found odd in the article:

1. The idea that the U.S. Army should "retain[]at most a single heavy armored brigade for contingencies . . ." is ludicrous. This is the equivalent of telling the USMC that operating in the littorals isn't their job anymore.

2. In addition, the USMC force structure review is wrong in calling for "a 13%reduction in ground combat forces, to include an 11% reduction in infantry, a 20% reduction in cannon artillery, and a 20% reduction in armor." If the U.S. Navy is having trouble cutting the budget already, these personnel reductions are going to do nothing - they will merely allow a few expensive U.S. Navy R&D and weapons program to survive.

Boeing may exceed aerial tanker cost ceiling by $500 Million

Does this surprise anyone?

Budget cuts will mean troop cuts, chiefs say

Boy do I miss Secretary Gates (pbuh)...

I've said this a million times, but we need to focus on the current conflicts (and end them and not get into any more of them unless our national survival is imminently at risk) and keep personnel, while cutting R&D spending. We don't need "a leap ahead" defense policy. "Steady as you go" is all we need right now. We don't need to support an entire industry dedicated to war. The reason end-strength and personnel are cut and not R&D is this:
In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

See previous posts:

Republican hawks use sharp rhetoric to fight deeper Pentagon cuts

President Obama's Defense Cuts

Gates: The Pentagon's Accountability Cop

A Single-Minded Focus on Dual Wars

"It's been like pulling teeth."

President Obama's Defense Cuts

I still think that the last thing that should be cut from the DoD budget is manpower. It takes years to build. We can quickly build more planes, bombs, and tanks, but we can't quickly build up end-strength. Unfortunately, both Secretary Gates, who I agree with frequently, and President Obama, feel otherwise. We have a force that is tired and weary; cutting 40,000 of them will only make them more tired as we ask them to do even more.

How to cut $1 trillion from the Pentagon

In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

This is something I have been harping about for more than two years on this blog...

Gates: The Pentagon's accountability cop

Too bad he is one of the few accountability cops. I think back to Mario Cuomo's speech in the 1984 Democratic National Convention often. To paraphrase he spoke about President Reagan giving tax breaks to millionaires and buying missiles we couldn't afford. If we are going to cut spending, both parties need to dismantle the military industrial complex as we know it. Not on the personnel front, but in the R&D front where waste is plentiful.

Pentagon push to phase out top brass causing much consternation

GE and Rolls Royce woo the Pentagon

Once again, the military industrial complex and beholden politicians are making bad decisions. They don't seem to understand that when one door closes, another opens RE: killing this engine. There will be another project...

The GE-Rolls-Royce team is facing an uphill battle at the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already threatened to recommend that the defense bills be vetoed if they contain funding for the secondary engine.

The fixed-price offer comes less than a month before congressional defense committees are expected to start considering the fiscal 2011 budget, renewing their tug-of-war with the administration over the benefits of having two engines for the Pentagon’s largest fighter jet purchase.

The defense committees have provided funding to develop the secondary engine despite the Pentagon’s efforts to kill it over the last four years.

Gates makes pitch for major reforms of U.S. controls on sensitive exports

Could this be an argument for a nationalization of the defense industry? Can anyone really expect the developed defense industrial complex to ever get together and put profits second to anything (e.g. a modern day Manhattan Project of some sorts for something important)?

Critics for years have made arguments similar to the ones presented by Gates on Tuesday: The present system does not always control the export of dangerous technologies, while restrictions on the trade of some goods that are now widely available in the commercial market only have the effect of hurting U.S. companies.

Each year the government reviews tens of thousands of license applications for export to European Union and NATO countries. In 95 percent of the cases the export is granted. Additionally, many components of a major piece of defense equipment — such as a combat vehicle or aircraft — require their own export licenses, Gates said.

Pratt and Whitney

But we don't want no stinking MEADS!

MEADS, which is scheduled to be delivered in 2018, is designed to intercept short-range and cruise missiles as well as shoot down planes and drones. Unlike the Patriot, the MEADS system is mobile and can be trucked around a battlefield, with its radar swiveling 360 degrees to track targets from any direction.

The only reason the Pentagon wants this thing is to appease Europe. Euro-free-riders need to spend more on defense, their own defense, not us... especially since they think supporting NATO operations is voluntary. Besides, from an angry bear perspective, wouldn't cutting off oil and natural gas to Europe be even more effective than missile strikes? Aren't Russian and Iranian missiles just for May Day and Revolution Day parades anyhow?

Transferring this project from the U.S. Army, which has tactical authority over ground to air defense, to the Missile Defense Agency, which is a strategic authority more in line with SDI/Star Wars type missile defense primarily led by Air Force officers, is a mistake. Where we need to transfer the authority to is NATO HQ and wipe this off of our budget. Oh wait, we basically are NATO. Catch-22.

Northrop Grumman pulls out of tanker deal

Boeing KC-767A

I love how the last paragraphs of the article allude to the most likely reason Northrop Grumman pulled out and Washington-based Boeing will win:

But with Northrop out of the competition, the Pentagon can now "move quickly to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135 tankers," said Washington Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks, who is in line to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as head of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

“I applaud the Northrop Grumman Corp. for its assessment and its decision not to delay the procurement by submitting a bid and requiring the government to conduct another lengthy competition,” Dicks said.

Gates orders Air Force and Navy to study joint weapons system

In the weapons field, the QDR talks of expanding the capability of a new Virginia-class nuclear submarine with long-range cruise missiles, and of pressing ahead with the Navy's unmanned combat aerial system, being worked on jointly with the Air Force. The latter is a fighter-size, carrier-launched unmanned vehicle that can be refueled in flight. It would provide intelligence and go on strike missions before returning to the carrier. The goal is to begin flight testing this year and get delivery of the first operational unit in 2015.
Studies are looking also at defensive and offensive advances in the electronic warfare field to protect U.S. weapons systems and disable those of enemies, in space, air or on land. The QDR says that "to counter the spread of advanced surveillance, air defense and strike systems, the department has directed increased investment in selected capabilities for electronic attack."

Britain's Defense Industrial Complex

Prince William (left) and Prince Harry are feeling the effects of Great Britain's defense industrial complex... Harry Wales can't even afford to get his haircut!

Good news! We aren't the only country with a "broken" defense industrial complex... or does "broken" (in a good government sense) mean that the defense industrial complex is actually healthy (in a "business of America is business" sense)?!

Anyhow, Great Britain's defense procurement process is broken too! The "United" Kingdom, who only spends about 2.4 percent of their GDP on their war machine, has new equipment arriving five years late and 40 percent overbudget and "the incompetence is helping enemies who "are unlikely to wait for our sclerotic acquisition systems to catch up."

"How can it be that it takes 20 years to buy a ship, or aircraft, or tank?" Gray wrote. "Why does it always seem to cost at least twice what was thought? Even worse, at the end of the wait, why does it never quite seem to do what it was supposed to? The issue is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded in an acronym."

The report warned of "too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification". It said delays in the shipbuilding programme meant Britain could not have fought a Falklands-style campaign in the last 20 years. "We would have risked significant casualties, the very significant costs of acquiring adequate equipment at short notice (if available) or the embarrassment of not fighting at all."

Air Force Training More Pilots for Drones Than for Manned Planes

The Air Force will train more pilots to fly unmanned aerial systems from ground operations centers this year than pilots to fly fighter or bomber aircraft, Gen. Stephen R. Lorenz, the commander of Air Education and Training Command, told an audience Friday... Will the unmanned aircraft ever completely replace either bombers or fighters? In delivering weapons on target, [Air Force deputy chief of staff for ISR, Lt. Gen. David] Deptula said, "Yes, you bet."

It is funny how much a few budget cuts and a cargo pilot chief of staff could do for the Air Force. ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaisance) used to be predominantly Army and Marine scout-speak... now it is increasingly rolling off the tongues of senior Air Force officers. If you ask me, Predators, Reapers, and Rovers (can you believe that ground troops can now speak to AF personnel without a TACP?!?!) are doing a whole lot more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than missile defense and 24/7 bomber patrols are doing...

Blasphemy!!!

The problem with the thesis of this article, which is reproduced below and I agree with, is that the U.S. Navy is a blue water navy ("mask of war") and its leadership wants it to remain that way. Its top leaders are almost always surface warfare officers and its service culture worships the blue water navy. How else has it kept up with all of its traditions like enlisted sailors serving officers on fine china and silver in the officer's mess? Navy personnel look down on operating in the littorals - afterall, that is what the SEALs do and what those Department of the Navy budget sapping U.S. Marines do. Blue water officers don't want to operate in the littorals; afterall, they might get mud on their dress whites if, dare I say it, they have to deploy and lead combat patrols on the Tigris, Euphrates, Amu Darya, Hilmand, Harirud, or Kabul Rivers.

There should be no question that the U.S. needs carriers, cruisers, and advanced aircraft andestroyers, but there are coming realities unless there are unexpected shifts in policy and funding. Without an investment in modern smaller craft en masse, the federal budget will continue to constrict the Navy’s size, limit its abilities in the littorals, and allow non-state actors to rise, hone and possibly share their skills with other actors. A well-balanced force structure is necessary for the U.S. to respond to a variety of threats, but there must be that balance.