quote:

President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates want to leave the Cold War in the past—finally—and reshape the U.S. military into more of a counterinsurgency force. They have made reforming weapons acquisition a major priority, saying that some hardware designed for battling Soviet armies or other massive foes in vast open-field clashes ought to be replaced by lighter, less expensive gear. The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees. All told, a half-dozen major weapons systems have been eliminated for an estimated savings of more than $100 billion over coming decades.

But it's not like military spending is actually going down. At a projected $107 billion for 2010 alone—a 5% rise over this year—the Pentagon's base budget for planes, ships, missiles, and guns has grown more than 50% since 2000. Reforming and redirecting military procurement always riles members of Congress trying to protect jobs in their home districts. Lawmakers are teaming up with Lockheed, Boeing, and other defense contractors to push back fiercely on certain targeted programs, even when the Pentagon says it doesn't need the weaponry in question. In some areas, organized labor has joined the fight.

The C-17 Globemaster offers one illustration of successful opposition to the Obama-Gates push for control of weapons spending. C-17s are large cargo planes produced by Boeing that cost $250 million apiece. They have been used heavily since 1993 to transport troops, tanks, and supplies. Every year since 2006, the Pentagon has said that it has enough C-17s. And every year, Congress overrules the military and authorizes funds for additional planes. In October the Senate approved $2.5 billion in the 2010 budget for 10 more C-17s, which would bring the fleet to 215.

"It's about political engineering," says Mandy Smithberger, a national security staff member of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington nonprofit. "Companies design weapons systems to make them difficult to kill."

The C-17 by most accounts has served the Pentagon reliably and well. The cavernous Globemaster is flying in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the real reason Congress wants more of them has little to do with military need. Boeing has built the C-17's industrial base for political survivability.

The company has spread manufacturing across no fewer than 43 states. C-17 production lines employ more than 30,000 workers, many of them relatively well paid by factory-wage standards. Many of those jobs would be at risk if C-17 work ground to a halt.

The White House understands the challenge. "The impulse in Washington is to protect jobs back home, building things we don't need at a cost we can't afford," President Obama said in August in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Phoenix. "The special interests, contractors, and entrenched lobbyists—they're invested in the status quo, and they're putting up a fight."

Enthusiasm for the Globemaster crosses political lines. "We're fighting two wars and meeting humanitarian needs; we need these planes," says Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.). "It is a defense industrial-base issue, too. It produces jobs in 43 states. But that is secondary. We wouldn't push that unless there is a real need." Boeing's defense business has its headquarters in St. Louis.

Bond, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and 16 colleagues began circulating a letter in April urging members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to keep funding the plane despite clearly stated objections from the White House and Pentagon. In California, C-17 production employs 5,000 workers at a final assembly plant in Long Beach

Bond's fellow Missourian, Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, however, evinced ambivalence in comments to the media earlier this year about earmarking money for more Globemasters. Boeing noted that she didn't sign the letter to the Appropriations Committee. So the company mobilized to change her mind.

The aircraft manufacturer convened a strategy meeting with local labor leaders in mid-spring at its St. Louis offices. George C. Roman, a Boeing vice-president for government operations, helped lead the discussion. A key challenge described by the Boeing side was the need to shore up wavering support from legislators, including McCaskill, according to Robert A. Soutier, president of the Greater St. Louis Labor Council, who attended the gathering.

Shortly after the meeting, Soutier criticized McCaskill in the St. Louis media, questioning her support for thousands of local jobs. McCaskill responded quickly. She defended her C-17 bona fides and in May announced she was sending a letter to Obama and Gates emphasizing her backing for the Boeing cargo aircraft.

Since then, she has showed up at machinist rallies, met Boeing officials, and spoken out forcefully on the plane's behalf. Adrianne Marsh, a spokeswoman for McCaskill, called the earlier discord "a misunderstanding" and says the senator has advocated the program all along. McCaskill "believes the C-17 can stand on its own and compete for these dollars based on its merits," says Marsh.

Soutier says that communication has improved between Boeing and McCaskill and that he's pleased with the senator's support for the C-17. A Boeing spokesman declined to discuss the company's lobbying but said in a prepared statement: "We routinely meet with our employees, their representatives, elected officials, and other key stakeholders to provide updates on our business operations." The spokesman added: "We greatly appreciate the support the C-17 continues to receive. We look forward to continuing to work with both our customer and the Congress to ensure this valuable airlifter is available to support our war fighters and our nation's future airlift requirements."

In late September, as Congress restored money for 10 additional C-17s, the Administration stated that "it strongly objects to" the funding. White House spokesman Thomas Victor told BusinessWeek: "The President never thought this was going to be easy, but he and Secretary Gates are committed to pushing for these reforms."

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prominent critic of Pentagon spending, went to the Senate floor on Oct. 5 to make a last-minute effort to strip funds from the defense budget for the new C-17s. "One would have expected the President and Secretary Gates to be outraged," he said. "However, we have heard barely a word of opposition from them." The next day, McCain's motion was defeated, 68 to 30.

John Murtha (D-Pa.), the powerful chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Oct. 21 that he expects the fiscal 2010 budget to provide for the 10 additional Globemasters. He urged Boeing to trim the price of the plane to about $200 million each, but it remains to be seen whether the manufacturer will lower its bill.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:
Of course you ignore the fact the Russian Federation and the PRC are all developing new fighters...
Then of course, the Russian Federation has begun flying down our coasts after a decade long hiatus...
Then of course the PLAN is shadowing the U.S.N. and our ASW assets have been cut to the bare bones...
Yeah, we won't need to keep up with technology at all will we...
Heck, the Sopwith Camel beat the Kaiser in the "Great War", let's go back to that!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

quote:

Originally posted by NSNN:
By show of hands; how many have actually read the article past the first paragraph? ………One, two…..nope, just one it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by NSNN:
By show of hands; how many have actually read the article past the first paragraph? ………One, two…..nope, just one it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

And yet Russia and China continue to field new and capable aircraft while potential enemies are buying the top technology available because the Pentagon says we dont need it. At this rate, EVERYONE else will have the best that the US defense industry has to offer and we will have nothing, but then again I pretty sure thats what Obama wants, global equality even at the expense of our global security.

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

And yet Russia and China continue to field new and capable aircraft while potential enemies are buying the top technology available because the Pentagon says we dont need it. At this rate, EVERYONE else will have the best that the US defense industry has to offer and we will have nothing, but then again I pretty sure thats what Obama wants, global equality even at the expense of our global security.

With 4500 operational thermonuclear warheads I seriously doubt we are in danger of the Russians invading anytime soon. That being said, we need to do defense spending intelligently...not just throw money at it.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

And yet Russia and China continue to field new and capable aircraft while potential enemies are buying the top technology available because the Pentagon says we dont need it. At this rate, EVERYONE else will have the best that the US defense industry has to offer and we will have nothing, but then again I pretty sure thats what Obama wants, global equality even at the expense of our global security.

With 4500 operational thermonuclear warheads I seriously doubt we are in danger of the Russians invading anytime soon. That being said, we need to do defense spending intelligently...not just throw money at it.

Do YOU think that Obama has the will to use them?...
The U.S. military is beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan, wonder how they feel about "him" strategically?...
One wonders...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

And yet Russia and China continue to field new and capable aircraft while potential enemies are buying the top technology available because the Pentagon says we dont need it. At this rate, EVERYONE else will have the best that the US defense industry has to offer and we will have nothing, but then again I pretty sure thats what Obama wants, global equality even at the expense of our global security.

With 4500 operational thermonuclear warheads I seriously doubt we are in danger of the Russians invading anytime soon. That being said, we need to do defense spending intelligently...not just throw money at it.

Do YOU think that Obama has the will to use them?...
The U.S. military is beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan, wonder how they feel about "him" strategically?...
One wonders...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I think with the imminent threat of invasion no American President would be unwilling to use them. As to "the US Military" beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan...what actions would you be referring to besides increasing number of troops over those deployed by his predecessor. He has taken on additional actions that I am aware of. Those actions are pending his announcement of a new strategy and I'm not aware of a military analysis of the unannounced plans.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

And yet Russia and China continue to field new and capable aircraft while potential enemies are buying the top technology available because the Pentagon says we dont need it. At this rate, EVERYONE else will have the best that the US defense industry has to offer and we will have nothing, but then again I pretty sure thats what Obama wants, global equality even at the expense of our global security.

With 4500 operational thermonuclear warheads I seriously doubt we are in danger of the Russians invading anytime soon. That being said, we need to do defense spending intelligently...not just throw money at it.

Do YOU think that Obama has the will to use them?...
The U.S. military is beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan, wonder how they feel about "him" strategically?...
One wonders...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I think with the imminent threat of invasion no American President would be unwilling to use them. As to "the US Military" beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan...what actions would you be referring to besides increasing number of troops over those deployed by his predecessor. He has taken on additional actions that I am aware of. Those actions are pending his announcement of a new strategy and I'm not aware of a military analysis of the unannounced plans.

When military commanders inform the President of what they need to win and what will happen if those conditions are not met, they, like anyone else, question the will of their Commander in Chief...
How long to you think that the American people will support Obama's inaction?...
The elections being conducted today, just may be an indicator of what the American people think of the President, his plans and actions...
This just maybe a "wake up call" for the "democratic majority" in Washington, D.C....
IMHO...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

The Administration has pared billions from the budget for the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-22 fighter, a super-sophisticated plane conceived in the 1980s for dogfights against Moscow's best. The Pentagon has also reined in a sprawling high-tech infantry project called Future Combat Systems that Boeing (BA) oversees.

And yet Russia and China continue to field new and capable aircraft while potential enemies are buying the top technology available because the Pentagon says we dont need it. At this rate, EVERYONE else will have the best that the US defense industry has to offer and we will have nothing, but then again I pretty sure thats what Obama wants, global equality even at the expense of our global security.

With 4500 operational thermonuclear warheads I seriously doubt we are in danger of the Russians invading anytime soon. That being said, we need to do defense spending intelligently...not just throw money at it.

Do YOU think that Obama has the will to use them?...
The U.S. military is beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan, wonder how they feel about "him" strategically?...
One wonders...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

I think with the imminent threat of invasion no American President would be unwilling to use them. As to "the US Military" beginning to question Obama's actions in Afghanistan...what actions would you be referring to besides increasing number of troops over those deployed by his predecessor. He has taken on additional actions that I am aware of. Those actions are pending his announcement of a new strategy and I'm not aware of a military analysis of the unannounced plans.

When military commanders inform the President of what they need to win and what will happen if those conditions are not met, they, like anyone else, question the will of their Commander in Chief...
How long to you think that the American people will support Obama's inaction?...
The elections being conducted today, just may be an indicator of what the American people think of the President, his plans and actions...
This just maybe a "wake up call" for the "democratic majority" in Washington, D.C....
IMHO...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

IMHO the American people will do what they will do and in doing so, will get what they deserve. One of the items (unless I'm mistaken) that was brought up by the General was the need for a new strategy. So we should take one or more of his recommendations and just run with it, disregarding the ones that actually require a thought process? ... OK.

quote:

Originally posted by NSNN:
All this talent wasted......Pentagon needs to get its **** straight and hire all of you arm-chair generals pronto; seeing how some of you know better than all them stars combined.

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

Originally posted by NSNN:
All this talent wasted......Pentagon needs to get its **** straight and hire all of you arm-chair generals pronto; seeing how some of you know better than all them stars combined.

and you are the one on the right?

So the *new* strategy Obama had in March isnt working, eh?

maybe he should take a break from golfing and campaigning and actually work for a couple days and come up with a strategy.
Health care takeover and losing tax money on GM seems to be more important than Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by NSNN:
All this talent wasted......Pentagon needs to get its **** straight and hire all of you arm-chair generals pronto; seeing how some of you know better than all them stars combined.