The Pentagon Budget Is Out of Control

www.thenation.com...

Just for fun … and maybe a thought or two.

…the White House has repeatedly violated its constitutional authority by essentially stealing billions of dollars from the Defense Department for the president’s “Great Wall” (that Congress refused to fund).

Perhaps least surprising was a proposal to slash programs for operational testing and evaluation—otherwise known as the process of determining whether the billions Americans spend on shiny new weaponry will result in products that actually work.

My pet on-going absurdity.

Another proposal—to cut A-10 “Warthogs” in the Pentagon’s arsenal in pursuit of a new generation of fighter planes—suggests just how cavalier a department eager for flashy new toys that mean large paydays for the giant defense contractors can be with service members’ lives. After all, no weapons platform more effectively protects ground troops at a relatively low cost than the A-10, yet that plane regularly ends up on the cut list, thanks to those eager to make money on a predictably less effective and vastly more expensive replacement..

Then we have the boondoogle of all time.

Similarly, don’t imagine for a second that purchases of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the most expensive weapons system in history, could possibly be slowed even though the latest testing report suggests that, among other things, it has a gun that still can’t shoot straight.

And continues with some of the places money is ‘stashed’.

THE PENTAGON’S SLUSH FUND: THE OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

THE NUCLEAR BUDGET

And so forth.

Just imagine a world where that kind of money was spent on people, the security we (and the world) might have. Instead the US government spends it’s money on killing people.

www.thenation.com...

a reply to: FyreByrd

See, the problem is that just looking at your two examples, there's a lot more to both of them than people realize, or want to admit.

No one denies the A-10 is a great CAS platform. But, and I say this as a big fan of them, CAS and air defenses have changed drastically since they were introduced. The A-10 will only survive in a permissive environment, not going in early, like they did during Desert Storm. They're fine in a low end conflict, with low end defenses, but you can't plan around that. Against high end IADS, they'll get hammered until the defenses are effectively eliminated.

As for the F-35, the first point is that they're not going to use the gun much anyway, even in CAS. It only has 180 rounds. More importantly, the F-35 changes the battlefield without even using its own weapons. Some of the things they've done, even with low hour pilots, and other aircraft is pretty impressive.

As for the budget, look at the status of our forces. They've been worked far past the point they should have been replaced. Thanks, in large part, to idiotic decisions by the leadership. As much as some people would like to believe, if we stop spending on the military, the world won't suddenly get along. As long as we need resources, there will be a need for a strong military.

The military is an easy financial target. OT and E doesnt necessarily weed out bad or useless equipment. Lot of times senators and reps demand stuff the pentagon does not want. Like the alternate engine program for the f35.


I love the A10, BUT, in todayz environment? It has a very limited role.for the money spent on it.


If you sant to really cut an awful program....kill the Osprey. What a POS.

And the only reason America is a sulerpower....is her nukes. Remove that and you cut the balls off defense. And power is a vacuum. All of a sudden the dollar falls, your 401k tanks, etc, etc.



a reply to: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Zaphod58

As for the budget, look at the status of our forces. They've been worked far past the point they should have been replaced. Thanks, in large part, to idiotic decisions by the leadership. As much as some people would like to believe, if we stop spending on the military, the world won't suddenly get along. As long as we need resources, there will be a need for a strong military.

Imagination a world where we do not spend money on defense... I think it would be a world were everyone spoke Chinese...
Also every base has a fence or wall, so a southern border wall would kind of play into the whole security thing I would think.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Most of Asia would I suspect. They want those resources badly, but have to move carefully doing it.

a reply to: FyreByrd

A chicago talk show host (wish I could remember his name to give him his props, but heard it over 20 years ago initially) said
"any government budget is 25 percent waste , fraud and corruption"

in all honesty I believe he lowballed it but in no way is the percentage lower than this .

note he said ANY GOVERNMENT BUDGET..... that means not just the military.

in no way am I justifying the waste, fraud and corruption in the military budget .

but this CONTINUED (especially by the left and ALWAYS by the liberal radical left) claim that not only is it the military that is "out of control" but somehow they are the worst is pure BULL excrement.

again ALL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS / AGENCIES SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL.

I can pick ANY DEPARTMENT from the individual representatives/senators/judges/ect , to the dept of education to yes even Social programs (like SS) and find "out of control" budget.

but notice only (universally) its the military that this accusation is made, that demands for cuts are made, and (what pisses me off the most) is that the "cuts" are then to be used for (pick your social cause of the day).

sent to other agencies, causes, and programs that are (at best) just as mismanaged, waste , fraud and corruption as the claims of the military.

but suggest cutting other programs and you hear the same people scream bloody murder and how "sacrosanct", important, and beyond reproach they are.

look as a TAXPAYER (aka the ONE WHOS MONEY YOUR TAKING ) i want ALL PROGRAMS, AGENCIES, ECT held to SAME STANDARDS. I want ALL OF THEM to use their money AS EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY as possible.
I want ALL TO REALIZE THEIR IS ONLY SO MUCH and they MUST PRIORITIZE what they will spend it on

they CANNOT HAVE IT ALL..

but hey OP just pick on the military...
not because you are not right (because there is waste, fraud, and corruption in the budget).
but because it isnt only the military
along with any "cuts/savings" isnt for you to give to some other agency to misuse.

scrounger

BTW your last comment at end shows your true feelings.
you dont like the military and any other points you make are to that end.
hate to break it to you but the military is necessary to the republic (and all rights it provides) you enjoy

originally posted by: lakenheath24
The military is an easy financial target. OT and E doesnt necessarily weed out bad or useless equipment. Lot of times senators and reps demand stuff the pentagon does not want. Like the alternate engine program for the f35.


I love the A10, BUT, in todayz environment? It has a very limited role.for the money spent on it.


If you sant to really cut an awful program....kill the Osprey. What a POS.

And the only reason America is a sulerpower....is her nukes. Remove that and you cut the balls off defense. And power is a vacuum. All of a sudden the dollar falls, your 401k tanks, etc, etc.



a reply to: FyreByrd

This post doesn't make any sense, other countries have "nukes" and China can't force project and they are the second most powerful country.

Stick to cartoons my friend.

a reply to: Arnie123

China is rated a second tier military because of their nuclear arsenal and size. Size plays the bigger role. Add a true ability to project power, and they're probably first tier.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think the species has a problem with this spending

the US budget on military alone is enough to feed clothe and educate every man woman and child on earth for like ten generations probably more.

I dont understand why we keep increasing the spending

if as Zaphod has said, if there are resources which they require they will keep spending

however if the planet continues to go through these climate changes, then its likely no one will be left around to use the resources we are all fighting over


to increase spending is idiocy

a reply to: sapien82

We're not increasing though. The budget this year is flat compared to last.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FyreByrd


As for the F-35, the first point is that they're not going to use the gun much anyway, even in CAS. It only has 180 rounds. More importantly, the F-35 changes the battlefield without even using its own weapons. Some of the things they've done, even with low hour pilots, and other aircraft is pretty impressive.

I take your points and find them valuable. Okay - if the F35 is not going to use their guns (which are used in more then Close Air Support), why have them then.

As for the budget, look at the status of our forces. They've been worked far past the point they should have been replaced. Thanks, in large part, to idiotic decisions by the leadership. As much as some people would like to believe, if we stop spending on the military, the world won't suddenly get along. As long as we need resources, there will be a need for a strong military.

You you mean the status of our 'forces' or our 'armament' (not sure of the spelling)? I assume you mean 'weapons' of all sorts and yes, I agree that it is poor if not bad procurement. The decisions to put money into 'flash' rather then utility is always a bad decision when material is going to be used in the field - hence the need for testing and reevaluating that material (another point in the article). And this 'direction' in procurement has changed under 'Reagonomics' and has become mearly 'feeding' the military-industrial complex.

Multi-funtion machines are never good at any of their functions, perhaps adequate on a good day, but prone to disfunction or difficult function which is detrimental in an active environment.

The article speaks of many of these 'flash' money-pit weaponry contracts. Not to mention 'no-bid' contracts ....

Yes we need upgraded hardware, but hardware that works and can be serviced in the field. It's a practical matter as well as a morale issue.

originally posted by: lakenheath24

I love the A10, BUT, in todayz environment? It has a very limited role.for the money spent on it.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It actually could have an expanded role in the 'drone' environment. A remote drone operator only has a 2-dimensional view of the situation on the ground. An A10, flown in support gets actual human eyes on a target(whether a for a drone strike or in a ground forces support role) which is 3-dimensional and an order magnitude more accurate. Battle (real life in general) takes place in a 3 (4) dimensional world not in flatland.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Zaphod58

As for the budget, look at the status of our forces. They've been worked far past the point they should have been replaced. Thanks, in large part, to idiotic decisions by the leadership. As much as some people would like to believe, if we stop spending on the military, the world won't suddenly get along. As long as we need resources, there will be a need for a strong military.

Imagination a world where we do not spend money on defense... I think it would be a world were everyone spoke Chinese...
Also every base has a fence or wall, so a southern border wall would kind of play into the whole security thing I would think.

Would that be so harsh price to pay for peace. Think what you will of the Chinese but they have been around for millenia not just a few centuries.

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: FyreByrd

A chicago talk show host (wish I could remember his name to give him his props, but heard it over 20 years ago initially) said
"any government budget is 25 percent waste , fraud and corruption"

Government budgets are more efficient then Corporate Budgets. There is corruption and waste everywhere because the incentives build into Religious, Government, Corporate, even Family hierarchies make corruption imperative. It's a feature of autocracy not of democracy.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: FyreByrd
the US budget on military alone is enough to feed clothe and educate every man woman and child on earth for like ten generations probably more.

It most certainly is not.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: FyreByrd

A chicago talk show host (wish I could remember his name to give him his props, but heard it over 20 years ago initially) said
"any government budget is 25 percent waste , fraud and corruption"

Government budgets are more efficient then Corporate Budgets.

Also inaccurate.

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: FyreByrd

BTW your last comment at end shows your true feelings.
you dont like the military and any other points you make are to that end.
hate to break it to you but the military is necessary to the republic (and all rights it provides) you enjoy

And you are ignorant of the facts. I was raised in the military, may Dad saw combat in WWII and Korea and was awarded the silver star and the bronze. He was in the military for 30 years.

My family was stationed around the world. These things were dinner table conversation. So many things did we talk about, I learned so much. True the military today is not the military of today because corruption has - lol - corrupted the mission of the armed services.

I have the utmost respect for the military service. Remember our founders were adamant against a standing army - the draft and a 'citizen's' army in time of WAR - not this police crap - which is a Congressional power per the Constitution.

So kept your uninformed opinions to your self.

Respect is shown by criticizing organizations and working together in order to improve them, not be a non-thinking drone. And that, I learned from my lifer Army dad.

a reply to: FyreByrd

They have them because they probably will occasionally use them, just not a lot.

I mean our forces in general. In 2006 or 2008, something like 85-90% of the F-15 fleet had flown over 90% of their planned life cycle. Another 5% was past their planned life cycle. That same time period saw Block 25 F-16s seeing cracks in the wings, and another block seeing cracks in one of their bulkheads. It was the first time the Navy had to cancel Top Gun, because they couldn't fly their Vipers.

Readiness rates have dropped for years. In FY18, the last we currently have numbers for, 10 aircraft increased their readiness by between 1% and just under 7%. Eighteen types dropped between 1% and just short of 11%. Another 10 types saw increases or decreases of less than 1%.

The two best readiness rates were the MQ-1B at 92.2%, and the MQ-9 at 90.24%. The MQ-1B was retired in March of 2018, part way through the FY. The lowest of aircraft with significant numbers was the F-35A (which has since improved) at 49.54%, and the F-22A at 51.74%.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Would that be so harsh price to pay for peace. Think what you will of the Chinese but they have been around for millenia not just a few centuries.

Your assumption is it would be some form of peace...humans don't play that way. Would you like to live in China as one of the poor?