Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Dems All Pork When It Comes to Defending Defense Spending
So it's not just Republican Congress critters who know how to bust the budget when it comes to wasteful and useless defense spending (ain't consensus grand?). From the Wash Post c/o of Instapundit and Alan Vanneman:
It was Democrats who stuffed an estimated $524 million in defense earmarks that the Pentagon did not request into the 2008 appropriations bill, about $220 million more than Republicans did, according to an independent estimate. Of the 44 senators who implored Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in January to build more F-22 Raptors—a fighter conceived during the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials say is not suited to probable 21st-century conflicts—most were Democrats.
And last July, when the Navy's top brass decided to end production of their newest class of destroyers—in response to 15 classified intelligence reports highlighting their vulnerability to a range of foreign missiles—seven Democratic senators quickly joined four Republicans to demand a reversal. They threatened to cut all funding for surface combat ships in 2009.
Within a month, Gates and the Navy reversed course and endorsed production of a third DDG-1000 destroyer, at a cost of $2.7 billion.
"Too many contractors have been allowed to get away with delay after delay in developing unproven weapon systems," Obama said, attributing $295 billion in cost overruns to "influence peddling" and "a lack of oversight" that produces weapons meant "to make a defense contractor rich" instead of securing the nation.
He did not mention that since 2006, Democratic lawmakers have presided over a 10 percent increase in the Pentagon's budget—it now amounts to 46 percent of the government's total discretionary spending—and have also voted repeatedly to keep funding weapons systems that have had hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns.
Boy, remember when $524 million was a number that seemed shockingly big?
Defense spending as a percentage of total fed outlays here.
|3.9.09 @ 12:41PM|#
I forget- how many A-10s (an excellent and extremely versatile airplane) can you build for the cost of a single F-22?
ed|3.9.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Of the 44 senators who implored Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates in January to build more F-22 Raptors...most were
Democrats.
It's true. Pigs can fly.
General Gates|3.9.09 @ 12:52PM|#
They don't care if the ships get blown to pieces. Their children are not on board.
Warty|3.9.09 @ 12:57PM|#
The champion was defense appropriations subcommittee
Chairman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who collected $743,275 of the
industry's money
I had the displeasure of listening to this tub of shit give a
speech once. I honestly think that might have been the lowest point
of my life.
|3.9.09 @ 12:57PM|#
Funding the Raptor and similar next-generation aircraft (Long
Range Bomber, refueling and cargo aircraft, CSAR, etc.) were what
led both SECAF Wynne and AF Chief of Staff Moseley to cut 30K Air
Force troops when they were supposed to be fighting a war in two
geographically separated countries.
Before they were both fired by SECDEF Gates, anyway.
After decades of failing to plan for future equipment needs by the
Air Force's leadership, these two guys were suddenly so focused on
the future that they were willing to cannibalize the current force
to buy more F-22's. They gutted the force of its future leaders in
favor of equipment.
They were so focused on the F-22 that they cut personnel to try to
afford more aircraft during war-time, when manpower is at its
highest premium.
In fact, they were so focused on flashy new gear that they took
their eyes off the nuclear ball AND the current conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
How badly do you deserve to be fired when you shift your focus from
the real-world fight to focusing on the possiblity of a threat from
a resurgent Russia and a newly powerful China so you can
rationalize the need for new equipment?
You need to be fired even more than the decades of leadership that
failed to plan for the future equipment needs of their
service.
The Air Force failed the most important test of leadership - you
lead people, not equipment. Equipment doesn't win battles, people
do. It's not about equipment, it's about the people who use it,
maintain it, repair it, support it and employ it against the
enemy.
The F-22 is an awesome piece of gear, sure, but not something to
sacrifice current mapower for.
But I'm probably biased, since I was one of the guys who got RIF'd
so that the Air Force could fail to meet the SECDEF's deployment
requirements.
On the other hand, I'm really happy with my cushy new civilian
job.
Other Matt|3.9.09 @ 1:10PM|#
The F-22 is an awesome piece of gear, sure, but not
something to sacrifice current mapower for
Obviously you don't understand the purpose. It isn't about the
platform, it's about how many backs can be scratched. Same
mentality that put the wrong powder into the M16s originally.
Doesn't matter how many people die.
|3.9.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Other Matt - Yeah, silly me, here I was thinking about the
mission to win America's wars, which went out the window even
before the Air Force started paying games with its Mission
statement and added a bunch of nonsense about "sovereign options"
and flying and fighting in "Space and Cyberspace."
Last I checked, the USAF was completely unable to get the F-22 into
outer space OR into anyone's broadband connection.
creech|3.9.09 @ 1:24PM|#
I read somewhere there are 183 F-22s right now, and NONE have
been used in Iraq/Afghan..
And they want to double the number of squadrons.
The Navy also presses ahead with building new carriers, which
require a huge fleet to supply and protect them, instead of
building a swarm of smaller blue-ocean ships that are much harder
to target.
EJM|3.9.09 @ 1:35PM|#
But, what about those 95,000 American jobs that the industry says depend upon the F-22? ;)
|3.9.09 @ 1:41PM|#
NONE have been used in Iraq/Afghan..
Jesus Christ! Those planes are too valuable to be
sent where somebody might shoot one down!
|3.9.09 @ 1:53PM|#
The DDG-1000 class is a waste of money until we develop a
working rail-gun. Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke
class destroyers are still a generation ahead of anything our
potential adversaries have in the way of surface combatants.
Yep, that's a retired, salt encrusted Master Chief Fire Controlman
talking. You'd think I'd refexively give support for the Zumwalt
class destroyers, and maybe I would if I were still active duty. Or
maybe not. I mocked the Spruance cans from the beginning.
Hell, I could make a better case for building nuclear powered
beef
barges (BBs).
LarryA|3.9.09 @ 1:57PM|#
"Too many contractors have been allowed to get away with
delay after delay in developing unproven weapon systems," Obama
said, attributing $295 billion in cost overruns to "influence
peddling" and "a lack of oversight" that produces weapons meant "to
make a defense contractor rich" instead of securing the
nation.
Note that all those "evil greedy contractors" must play the game
following the rules established in the procurement regulations
written by the U.S. Congress.
|3.9.09 @ 1:59PM|#
P Brooks - Good one!
But seriously, about the only way an F-22 is going to end up as a
lawn dart is catastrophic system failure, pilot error, or some
combination of the two. It puts the "superiority" in "air
superiority" and then some. Not only are there no jet fighter
rivals that could hunt it down (probably not even the Sukhoi
Su-35BM) and shoot it out of the sky, it's a standard fast-mover
that is too high and too fast for a lucky shot from a mujahideen
Stinger (like HIND helicopters back when people used to say that
"Afghanistan is Russian for Vietnam.")
Paul|3.9.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Note that all those "evil greedy contractors" must play the
game following the rules established in the procurement regulations
written by the U.S. Congress.
Strengthening our regulatory regime will fix this.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 2:13PM|#
it's a standard fast-mover that is too high and too fast for
a lucky shot from a mujahideen Stinger
1980's technology. While impressive, I can't imagine the U.S.
Military doesn't have the technology or made the advancements to
evade or spoof the infamous stinger with...it's own equipment.
|3.9.09 @ 2:16PM|#
Who is this J sib D?
A poort ypist. Pronne to misspalling and tiepos.
But he obviously knows that building a platform for a weapon that
doesn't yet exist is somewhat less than thrifty.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 2:19PM|#
building a platform for a weapon that doesn't yet exist is
somewhat less than thrifty.
Pessimist.
|3.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
But, they are JOBS! Who cares if what they are making is
necessary as long as people are working, eh? It stimulates the
economy! it keeps the money circulating!
Seriously, in the Democrats fantasy world, an economy based
entirely on exchanging colored rocks for amusing fortune cookies
would be just as good as one where people actually build useful
stuff that other people want.
What do consumers know, after all? We can't let such a small matter
as consumer preference get in the way of our ideal society! People
aren't buying enough cars? Subsidize the car companies! People
aren't buying enough houses? Cash incentives for house buying!
Hambone|3.9.09 @ 2:24PM|#
"Yep, that's a retired, salt encrusted Master Chief Fire
Controlman talking."
I have a 1948 Navy Fireman's coat (wool, winter). It is so
cool!
Paul|3.9.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Seriously, in the Democrats fantasy world, an economy based
entirely on exchanging colored rocks for amusing fortune
cookies
Way, way back when I was a kid, my dad described this line of
economic thinking as "A bunch of men in a burlap sack trading hats
for a living."
|3.9.09 @ 2:32PM|#
I think we should dedicate our strategic arsenal strictly to weapons that make other nations say, "Oh my God, they have that?" Like giant killer robots, that kind of thing.
|3.9.09 @ 2:40PM|#
PL,
That's to the plot of Philip K. Dick's The Zap Gun. The
Cold War becomes creating one-off super weapons, filming the
results on an unpopulated areas, and scaring the shit out of each
side's population. WepFash (weapons fashion) designers take
enormous amounts of drugs and dream the weapons up in a trance.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Like giant killer robots, that kind of thing.
Well, I think when your culture is currently at the level of
donkeys with pots clanging on the sides, the F-22 is kind
of like a giant super-killer robot.
Kolohe|3.9.09 @ 2:41PM|#
Like giant killer robots, that kind of thing.
I would wait until our insurance industry is more stable.
|3.9.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"We've secretly replaced the word 'close' in SugarFree's last post with nothing at all. Let's watch the results."
|3.9.09 @ 2:45PM|#
Boy, remember when $524 million billion was a
number that seemed shockingly big?
Fixed that for ya.
|3.9.09 @ 2:49PM|#
I think we should dedicate our strategic arsenal strictly to
weapons that make other nations say, "Oh my God, they have that?"
Like giant killer robots, that kind of thing.
Which brings us back to nuclear powered BBs. Just think - 16 inch
guns (3 triple turrets) capable of tossing 2,700 pound gps equipped
guided projectiles 25 miles appears off your coast with an
attitude.
It is protected by 16 inches of armor plate with a reactive armor
exterior.
It's not practical, but damn, wouldn't that make the mayor of
Bandar Abbas shit bricks?
Kolohe|3.9.09 @ 2:49PM|#
rob-
It should be clear that the AF CoS and Sec were fired specifically
for the nuclear weapons thing. Both Clark and Mullens took steps to
reduce manpower requirements for the Navy for most of the last 8
years.
And there is the larger issue that manned aviation may just be like
a 15th century knight - obsolete, but both users and adversaries
are unaware of it yet.
|3.9.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Well, then, who am I to argue with Philip K. Dick?
We could just give every American citizen some PyrE. Then even our
tourist incursions would be feared.
Kolohe|3.9.09 @ 2:59PM|#
It's not practical, but damn, wouldn't that make the mayor
of Bandar Abbas shit bricks?
I would predict he would be nonplussed. We have enough conventional
firepower to turn Iraq into rubble twice over on top of the once we
already did.
I know the comment was a joke, but the real problem is that shock
and awe is actually quite easy. It's hearts and minds that's the
tough nut to crack.
Kolohe|3.9.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Don't get me wrong Master Chief, I love war pr0n possibly more than anyone here. And have a personal financial interest in the expansion of the nuclear navy.
|3.9.09 @ 3:06PM|#
PL,
The Transmigration of Souls by William Barton. America
goes extreme isolationist and American tourist who go abroad are
all fitted with explosives in case they are attacked or
interrogated about American technology, usually enough to destroy a
good hunk of a city.
Not much of a novel otherwise.
|3.9.09 @ 3:10PM|#
I have a cunning plan. We should claim to have invented a device that sucks souls out of people, then threaten to use it on Islamic terrorists if they don't surrender. We could back up our claim with CGI video. It can't lose.
|3.9.09 @ 3:12PM|#
We should claim to have invented a device that sucks
souls out of people, then threaten to use it on Islamic
terrorists if they don't surrender.
So, you're suggesting we show them Will Smith movies?
|3.9.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Kolohe - That's the one to hang your hat on, no doubt. But when
you hand the SECDEF a laundry list of reasons, you really have it
coming:
1. the failure to focus on the war at hand in favor of buying gear
for a fight with Russia and China that the SECDEF refers to as
"borderline insubordination"
2. the attempt to grab the entire UAV mission while spectacularly
failing to provide said assets per the SECDEF's orders
3. sending nuclear warhead fuse technology to Taiwan and failing to
realize the error for a 1.5 years
4. You've done more damage to the manpower of your branch of
service than the total number of casualties of all branches that
have been caused by the Iraqi Army, the Taliban and al Qaeda
combined
This article sums it up pretty well:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/breaking-air-fo.html
|3.9.09 @ 3:48PM|#
Just think - 16 inch guns (3 triple turrets)...
I forget where, but I was just reading that the tooling and
capacity to manufacture 16-inch barrels 66 feet long no longer
exists anywhere. How long (and and what cost) it would take to gear
up is a big question. The Navy is keeping a stock of spares just in
case.
Also read the Marines would like at least one Iowa class BB
recommisioned. So Iowa remains on the register and one of the
others has to be returned if the Navy ever wants it back. I'm sure
it's costing a boatload (pun intended) of money to keep those
suckers up just sitting tied up.
These are ships that according to my old man and his buddies
(pre-WWII officers) thought were obselete before their keels were
even laid. Of course, that's mostly in hindsight I think.
LarryA|3.9.09 @ 3:56PM|#
And there is the larger issue that manned aviation may just
be like a 15th century knight - obsolete, but both users and
adversaries are unaware of it yet.
Quibble: I'll agree when it comes to fighters and bombers. But if
there are people riding in back, they're going to want people
driving in front.
Kolohe|3.9.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Larry-
yes, I agree, I should have said manned combat aviation.
rob-
I agree entirely with the UAV point. The institutional capture was
explified by the fact that the drones were driven by Tech Sergants
during the development phase, but the AF insisted on them driven by
certified pilots.
I don't know enough about the personnel issues in the AF. I can say
in the Navy that the fifteen years I've been in the Navy been
alternatively feast or famine wrt current and projected levels. I
was lucky to be a notcher. But it's one of the toughest issues the
military faces precisely because it takes around a decade before a
service memeber is performing at peak 'productivity' (which is to
say, the ability to operate more or less independently and
simulataneously lead a few other people)
Re: #1. There is a case to be made however, that the air force (and
the navy) should in fact be focused on other stuff and let the army
and marines take the lead in the field so to speak of their
expertise.
|3.9.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Way, way back when I was a kid, my dad described this line
of economic thinking as "A bunch of men in a burlap sack trading
hats for a living."
Thanks! That's the phrase I was looking for. I couldn't remember
what it was, so I had to make something up.
|3.9.09 @ 4:36PM|#
A bunch of men in a burlap sack trading hats for a
living.
There's a gay marriage thread for that kind of thing, you know.
|3.9.09 @ 4:56PM|#
"the drones were driven by Tech Sergants during the development
phase, but the AF insisted on them driven by certified
pilots."
This is clearly a maddening example of why being proficient in a
technical skill such as flying aircraft is something that requires
the "O"-designation. Similarly, pilots tend to be Warrant Officers
in the Army, while in the Air Force it's a serious belief that
being able to fly qualifies you for command via the alchemy of the
Universal Badge of Command (pilot's wings).
"...it takes around a decade before a service memeber ...operate[s]
more or less independently and simulataneously lead a few other
people"
No argument here - it's amazing to me how hard it is to get the
mission done for the first few years and then magically it's like
the skies open and everything becomes much easier.
"There is a case to be made however, that the air force (and the
navy) should in fact be focused on other stuff and let the army and
marines take the lead in the field so to speak of their
expertise."
So to speak... But seriously, the Air Force's desire for
fast-movers at the expense of actually useful aircraft like
helicopters and A-10's is one of the primary reasons that it's
essentially now duplicating much of the effort of the other
branches. Want helicopters? Check with the Army. Want fast-movers
on the "cheap"? Check with the Navy and the Marines. Want a branch
of service that has purposefully created an enclave specifically
for long-range bombers and totally overwhelming air-to-air
superiority? The Air Force is here for you.
I blame doctrine, and I think Billy Mitchell is probably spinning
in his grave over the last 20+ years worth of Air Force
"leadership." And he's spinning at 2x normal RPM's because all of
those leaders fancy themselves Mitchell mavericks and Curtis LeMay
tough guys invoke those two to justify bad decisions.
But it's style and lip-service rather than substance and sweaty,
bloody training for the worst-case scenario. ("Oh that? We just
simulate conducting that part of the exercise and treat it as
completed, then we END-EX and go home...")
I threw up in my mouth a little every time Moseley invoked "What
Would Curtis LeMay Do?" as his justification for conducting the
RIF.
|3.10.09 @ 2:50AM|#
rob, that was very illuminating. I've spent almost 3 years (we'll call it 3 years) in the Army and had no idea that AF culture had become like that (re: acquisitions and RIF).
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245