Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE THINGS THAT DIDN'T GET CUT...
Some posts to read on the Gates announcement:
Jason Sigger sees this as a compromise proposal, but one that supports Gates' vision of warfighting. Republicans are going nuts about the missile defense cuts -- the ghost of St. Reagan endures, apparently. Noah writes about the cuts to Future Combat Systems, and Spencer has a good overall roundup.
As the focus has largely been on the cuts, it's worth taking a short look at some systems that weren't touched:
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: This is a much-troubled program that is supposed to result in an amphibious vehicle that can travel fast on both land and sea. It's suffered from severe cost overruns and serious reliability problems. It's also not clear where this capability fits into the new focus on irregular warfare, although it's not difficult to imagine some counterterrorism applications for such vehicles.
- F-35 Lightning II: The F-35 prospective buy was actually increased. This should make the Navy, the Marine Corps, and a host of collaborator nations happy. I'm of two minds about the F-35; it's much more of a multirole attack aircraft than the F-22 but has suffered its own cost overruns and technical issues. It's possible that the F-35 plans represent a punt; on any buy this large, cuts can come much later if you want them.
- Littoral Combat Ship: Gates maintained plans to buy a large number of littoral combat ships, which are fast, small, modular warships designed to operate near the shore. Galrahn has some questions about the applicability of these ships to irregular warfare, given their low endurance.
- MV-22 Osprey: The Osprey, a tilt-rotor tactical transport aircraft, was not mentioned by Gates. Although its development has been deeply troubled, the Osprey has actually been deployed to Iraq, where reviews have generally been good. Questions about the program were renewed two weeks ago, however, when the entire fleet was grounded because of loose bolts.
--Robert Farley
COMMENTS (5)
The EFV has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either irregular warfare or - as you call it - counter-terror applications - per se.
Not that it cannot be used on counterinsurgency operations or MOUT, but the point is that it is the only vehicle capable of doing forcible entry.
The justification for the vehicle, right or wrong, has nothing to do with what you are apparently assuming. It has to do with the expeditionary nature of the Corps' vision.
Posted by: Herschel Smith | April 7, 2009 1:32 PM
Did you know that the price tag for the canceled Presidential helicopter fleet is would pay for education for every kid on earth? ($13b for the helicopters, $12b for education).
If education's not your thing, $2 billion more gets everyone clean water and sanitation ($15b).
More facts available at borgenproject.org
Posted by: Ryan | April 7, 2009 1:57 PM
Perhaps Ryan can cite that part of the Constitution which requires the United States to provide an education and/or clean water to everyone on earth? He can't because it's not there. Providing for the common defense of the republic in which we live is, however.
If people like Ryan are truly concerned about saving money, let us start by getting rid of the Department of Education and nonproductive social welfare programs. Let us do something about the out of control nondiscretionary spending in the budget; which accounts for 2/3 of the total, and the reckless spending and additional debt accumulation which we've witnessed in the inital 77 days of the Obama administration.
Posted by: A.A. Cunningham | April 7, 2009 2:56 PM
It should also be noted that future F-22 purchases are not completely off the table. I think the idea is that the USAF gets a couple more in this budget and then new orders may be attached to future defense budgets. The door is still open for the F-22. The F-35 is not a pure air superiority fighter, but these days anything with an AESA radar and AWACS support will pretty much kill anything without them.
A.A.: Ryan's post does not mention saving money, only a reorientation of spending priorities. I don't agree with Ryan's comparisons. However, after looking the other way on the Bush administration's budgetary binges for eight years, conservatives cannot now credibly argue for spending restraint. Besides, which "social welfare" programs should be eliminated in your view? Social Security? Medicare? Unemployment insurance? All student loans? Yeah, good luck with that crusade.
Posted by: Marshall | April 8, 2009 5:30 PM
The V-22 is the Pentagon's biggest scandal. see www.g2mil.com
Posted by: Robert | June 15, 2009 12:29 AM