Our Toughest President...Here's The Proof

I know his admin is preparing to gut our military; it seems to be the thing to do when libs get in the White House.

Pentagon Pushes Weapon Cuts

By AUGUST COLE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday unveiled a sweeping overhaul of weapons priorities to reorient the U.S. military toward winning such unconventional conflicts as the war in Afghanistan rather than fighting China, Russia or other major powers.

With thousands of jobs at stake, political battles over the proposal are likely to be intense. The defense secretary is seeking a wide range of cuts, affecting pet programs at almost every major U.S. contractor, as well as several high-profile contracts with European companies.

Mr. Gates's proposed baseline 2010 Defense Department budget of $534 billion is up 4% from last year. But it signals a major departure from business as usual at the Pentagon, with a heavy emphasis on overhauling a procurement process that he and congressional leaders have decried as being too heavily influenced by powerful contractors.

The new budget halts new orders of F-22 fighter jets and allocates billions of dollars in new funding for such low-tech weapons as the unmanned drones being used to hunt insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Pentagon chief said his plan represents "one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity; to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements," and that politics played no role in his analysis. "There's no doubt a lot of these decisions will be controversial," he said, adding that he hoped lawmakers would rise above "parochial interests."

Defense Overhaul Draws Wide Rebuke
Mr. Gates's proposed shake-up is expected to stoke debate about the importance of weapons-manufacturing jobs and appears to mark a turning point for an industry that enjoyed record business during the Bush administration.

Mr. Gates said Monday he planned to halt new purchases of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet from Lockheed Martin Corp. after delivery of 187 of the aircraft already ordered. He also said there would be no more orders for Boeing Co. C-17 transport planes beyond the 205 planned.

Both companies said his decision would prompt thousands of layoffs, handing congressional opponents a potentially potent political weapon. Mr. Gates tried to pre-empt criticism, saying Monday that any job losses would largely be offset by new positions to be created by companies receiving additional Pentagon money in coming years.

The Army's $200 billion Future Combat Systems program, led by Boeing and SAIC Inc., would be trimmed through a call to cancel an $87 billion high-tech ground-vehicle effort. Mr. Gates said plans for the program "do not adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Other cancellations included an advanced satellite communications program, and the replacement of Air Force search-and-rescue helicopters. Shipbuilding is also getting trimmed, with the Navy holding off on a futuristic cruiser program. An older destroyer design will go back into production.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers denounced the decision to discontinue the F-22 jet as unwise. "We simply cannot afford to cannibalize our national defense to repair damage caused by reckless financial institutions and greed-crazed corporate executives," union president Tom Buffenbarger said in a statement.

Contractors, including Boeing and Lockheed, said they were still studying Mr. Gates's decisions.

Defense stocks rallied after the budget announcement, ending a drawn-out period of uncertainty. Lockheed shares rose $5.97, or 8.9%, to $73.28; Northrop Grumman Corp. gained $3.96, or 9%, to $47.94; Boeing was up 47 cents, or 1.3%, at $38.16; General Dynamics Corp. rose $2.90, or 6.8%, to $45.56; Raytheon Co. was up $3.19, or 8.3%, at $41.66.

One big test for the defense plan will be winning over key Democratic lawmakers. Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said the plans were an important "first step in balancing the Department's wants with our nation's needs," but would require careful review.

Missouri Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the proposed budget was a "good faith effort," but that "the buck stops with Congress."

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe urged in a letter "not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles." The Missile Defense Agency budget is being cut by $1.4 billion.

Mr. Gates's plans have clear international implications. His decision to increase spending on the F-35, which involves European nations and defense companies, from $6.8 billion in 2009 to $11.2 billion in 2010 secures the program's future and will help keep costs in check for such allies as the U.K. and the Netherlands.

Mr. Gates also said he intended to cancel the Lockheed-led effort to build a new fleet of Marine One helicopters for the president.

Finmeccanica's AgustaWestland is a partner on that program, which had called for heavily modifying a US101 helicopter into a flying limousine. Mr. Gates said he decided to cancel the program because costs doubled to more than $13 billion and the schedule slipped to six years overdue. Finmeccanica said in a statement that the move would have no impact on the company's financial guidance and is in no way related to the technical characteristics of the helicopter."

Beyond military hardware, Mr. Gates said the Pentagon plans a 5% increase in the number of special operations forces, or 2,800 people. He called for plans to recruit more cyber-warfare experts, and to add Army helicopter pilots and maintenance crews, in a move that will help support operations in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gates also plans to hire more than 30,000 new civilian officials over the next five years, gradually reducing the number of contractors to 26% of the Pentagon work force, down from a current 39%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123903026250593091.html

Let's create $9.1 trillion in debt for entitlement programs, but cut weapon systems that keep us ahead of China and protect us from stray missles from Iran and Korea.

I sure hope we survive these morons...

You do realize that the missile systems that N. Korea and Iran have are far from being serious military threats, right?

I would suggest that if you see a moron, you might be looking in a mirror.

And China is far more of an economic threat than a military one.

Quote:

You do realize that the missile systems that N. Korea and Iran have are far from being serious military threats, right?

I would suggest that if you see a moron, you might be looking in a mirror.

And China is far more of an economic threat than a military one.

Korea is sure improving their missle capability with every launch, aren't they? Iran, as the Obama admin continues to waffle and allow their capability to expand, might very well catch up in a few years, especially with the way they are purchasing Russian technology.

If China is only an economic threat, why are they rapidly increasing their military?

They may be a much greater threat to other Asian nations, but not to us. How exactly do you think they are going to transport that military over here to get at us? We own the ocean and the skies and that isn't going to change based on Obama's budget cuts, not in the slightest.

Right now, N. Korea is where we were 50-60 years ago with missile technology, if that. They are not going to 'catch up' any time soon.

They may be a much greater threat to other Asian nations, but not to us. How exactly do you think they are going to transport that military over here to get at us? We own the ocean and the skies and that isn't going to change based on Obama's budget cuts, not in the slightest.

Aren't you assuming they are starting from scratch? With technology theft, possible assistance from other countries, (such as that nuclear scientist from Pakistan who provided help to some countries) and other means, most experts don't believe it will take them 50 to 60 years.

And with NK throwing the UN out again, who knows what they are up to?

I guess the question is, how long will we own the skies? China is rapidly building their air force and navy, and they of course already have a huge standing army.

China invade us? Not as long as we have nukes, right? Just as we wouldn't invade their country. MAD and all.

First, I didn't say it would take them 50-60 years; just 'no time soon.' Which is true. Even with help, it takes advanced production facilities to create and shoot reliable missiles. Please recall that this last 'test' of theirs ended in failure.

How long? As long as we want. Our current fighters are unmatched in any capacity by Chinese fighters. We can kill them before they even see us on the radar. It is unthinkable that they could match our level of air superiority within the next decade or two, whether we keep building more F-22's or not.

Why is it unthinkable they might match us in a few short years?

Is it safe to assume China is standing still? How many years cushion are you willing to gamble with?

If we get our act together on renewable energy generation, they can have all the resources they like; we won't need to fight over them. We're more likely to get into a fight over fresh water than anything else.

If we get our act together on renewable energy generation, they can have all the resources they like; we won't need to fight over them. We're more likely to get into a fight over fresh water than anything else.

Many years. See, we are not standing still either; I don't know why you presume we are. Just b/c some programs got axed, doesn't mean that others aren't moving forward. I know for a fact that many advanced weapons systems are still being researched and produced...

I find this alarmism about a 4% increase in the budget to be an uncompelling argument, to put it simply. There is a lot of fearmongering about the 'red scare' of China but precious little data showing they are actually a threat.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy


U. S. Naval Institute
March 31, 2009

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp

Many years. See, we are not standing still either; I don't know why you presume we are. Just b/c some programs got axed, doesn't mean that others aren't moving forward. I know for a fact that many advanced weapons systems are still being researched and produced...

And how long did it take do get the F-22 up and running? These systems take an inordinate amount of time.

Bush and Rumsfield were idiots for the way they fought the war in Iraq. And Obama, like those morons, is also being shortsighted here.

And this is just Year One of an Obama admin. This is what is most frightening of all...

The replacement for the F22? Still being funded and researched. We have 180-something F22s as it is and none of them can be touched by any other intercept fighter on the planet. The program doesn't need any more money and we don't need any more interceptors right now.

If the Obama admin were really smart, they'd be spending their money in space research. Own the sky, own the ground...

As for the resource thing; those who claim we will be wedded to fossil fuels lack both imagination and the ability to read a graph of the nature of scientific development, in it's exponential glory.