Will Dems Cut Big Ticket Defense Items?

[Thomas Weyandt]

Now that the Democrats control Congress, will they cut the major weapons programs of the Services.
These programs are:
DDG-1000 Zumwalt guided missile destroyer-cost $3 billion-features 83 mile range guns, 80 vertical launchers for missiles, advanced technology radar and sonar, helos and stealth that makes a big ship look to enemy radar like a fishing boat. Seven are to be built for coastal ops.
Littoral Combatant Ship-Sixty relatively cheap vessels for coastal ops that employ modules that swapout according to desired mission-ASW, surface warfare, minehunting. Cost including modules: under $500 million per ship.
CVNX-New generation aircraft carrier replacing the seventies Nimitz class after decades of building to the old design circa 1974 Nimitz. Carrier has more powerful reactor needing only one refueling during 50 year lifespan. To incorporate new technologies and manning reductions but still costs several billion dollars.
Joint Strike Fighter-A single basic plane with three variants-F-35 Lightning II.
F-35A for USAF, carriers cannon and two one ton bombs and two radar guided air/air missiles. Has nine tons more stores externally mounted when payload is more important than stealth. Radius of 800 miles on internal fuel. F-35B for USMC-Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing Harrier jump jet replacement with reduced radius of 450 miles as fuel is displaced by the STOVL engine systems in the form of lift fan behind pilot. Can carrry two half ton bombs and air/air missiles internally. Cannon is external option. Same external payload as others of nine tons of extra fuel or missiles/smart bombs.
Radius is 700 miles. Radius is distance flown to target, allowance for combat, supersonic dash, return, reserves for holding patern and land with 5% fuel left. This means 450, 700 or 800 mile distant target can be bombed. Costs between 45 and 60 million. Will replace aging F-16, AV-8B, A-10, early mod F-18C/Ds Potential ten of billions in foreign sales as countries signup for it.
F-22A Raptor-USAF. Pricey at 183 million depending on whose figures are used. Low production rate keeps prices high and foreign sales, including sales to Israel are blocked by Congress. Absolute winner in air combat with 50? to one kill ratio. Replaces most F-15s.
Long Range Strike-Self defending bomber, manned and unmanned when necessary-Radius of 2500 miles w/o refueling-stealthy-Service entry 2018 but planning, prototyping and development will take next twelve years starting now. Costs in tens of billions.
Future Combat System US Army-Family of manned and unmanned vehicles for medium brigades that has system elements lightweight to fit current Hercules cargo plane limit of nineteen tons. Expensive but will give a rapidly deployable and formidable force that doesn't takes weeks to get where the fighting is.
And that doesn't included controversial land-sea-air based missile defense.
Land based anti ICBM interceptors-Sea Based interceptors on current missile destroyers and cruisers, Japan is buying sea based version-Airborne Laser on 747 able to kill missiles hundreds of miles away as they rise before decoys and multiple warheads can be deployed. Sea Based may have this capability down the line which makes engagements much easier.
And that is my rundown of costly programs that the services need. Replacements for older systems/ships/aircraft and new capabilities like stealth. How will Dems treat the Services? I hope they won't cut and run for our servicemen and women need up to date geear. Are some of these too costly? I'm just a laymen but I see justifiable need

[Joel Merrill]

The world is not a safe place. There are a lot of nuts in power with a military big enough to cause problems. We are hated by much of the world in spite of all the money we give away in foreign aid. We must have the best military. However, the military is the first place dems will cut while increasing taxes and wasteful social programs. It does not look good.

Years ago Iowa Senator Tom Harken said if he were elected, he would vote for a balanced budget amendment. Then he voted against it. I don't really think that would solve anything but because he said he would and then didn't, I wrote him about it. He wrote back and the first part of his letter blamed the deficit on Ronald Reagan. Then he said he was for a balance budget but it had to exclude this program and that program and basically, he wanted to balance the budget by cutting defense. The he assured me that he was all for a balanced budget and if it ever came up for a vote again with these changes, he would vote for it.

Joel

[BobHunt]

I think I heard they were going to cut back the naval destroyers to a few and the jet bombers to 10! LOL

[Jim Franklin]

bc cut back on defense in his first two years. carter did too so President Reagan had to build it back up so what should we expect from those whom President Johnson called "Nervous Nellies."

[Bruce Carriker]

One can only HOPE that some sanity will be returned to the defense budget. I am all in favor of a strong defense. I'm a retired veteran, for crying out loud. But it is simply ridiculous that the US spends more on "national defense" than the rest of the world combined. I would think that spending twice as much...or even five times as much...as the next largest spender should be sufficient. Presently we're spending about eight to ten times as much as China, our closest competitor in the defense spending race. We could reduce our defense spending by well over 25% and still maintain a lead of 5:1 or 6:1. That should certainly be sufficient to maintain our defenses.

Defense spending is, in many cases, simply a publically acceptable government jobs program. But for that very reason, I doubt that there will be a huge cut under the Democrats. They want federal money creating jobs in their districts, just like the Republicans. That's the only reason we have the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Nobody at the Pentagon wanted that thing, and the services tried for years during the late 80's and early 90's to get that thing killed, with no success.

[Brad Mercer]

But it is simply ridiculous that the US spends more on "national defense" than the rest of the world combined. I would think that spending twice as much...or even five times as much...as the next largest spender should be sufficient.... That's the only reason we have the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Nobody at the Pentagon wanted that thing, and the services tried for years during the late 80's and early 90's to get that thing killed, with no success.

I completely agree. Another way I'd be happy to see the U.S. make huge budget cuts would be to completely pull out of Europe over maybe a 5 year period. As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, our original rationale for being there collapsed as well. If the U.K. and France and Germany want to go straighten out the next Balkans-type situation, they are -- or within a very few years could be -- perfectly capable of taking care of it themselves. If they don't want to, I can't imagine why we should want to. Europe doesn't need defending by the U.S. anymore. I'd be happy to see us quit.

Brad

[Hans Deventer]

Europe doesn't need defending by the U.S. anymore. I'd be happy to see us quit.

I agree. I can imagine the US might like to keep one airbase in Europe though. Quite convenient for wars in the Middle East.

[Bruce Carriker]

I believe that keeping Ramstein AFB, the huge logistics center at Kaiserslautern (which is right next to Ramstein), and one ground division split between Grafenwohr and Hohenfels should be more than sufficient as a "forward deployed" force.

[Thomas Weyandt]

The F-35A/B/C Lightning II strike fighter is projected with around 2400 US buy in all three variants total with USAF variant being cheapest, the USMC STOVL variant costing millions more and USN version costing still more millions. Foreign sales of 2000 a/c are projected with Australia signing on to co produce along with UK, Italy, Israel and others.
However, the a/c offers great capability as an F-16, A-10, F-18C/D, AV-8B Harrier jump jet replacement.
For one thing, all variants are stealthy, so the so called 'stealth fighter' can be replaced as well and all variants incorporate substantial radius of action over their predecessors. All incorporate advanced technology radars and electronic eavesdropping gear or ESM and electronic countermeasures so well that an electronic intelligence function arises. AESA radars are built of a couple thousand individual transmit/recieve modules with each having a small antenna on the face of the radar. Like compound eyes of insects, the array can search, track, navigate, map, guide missiles and even jam hostile radars near simultanously.
Are the advanced capabilities of the new design worth the cost? I think so and the foreign sales mean many US jobs as well.

[William Hunter]

The dems have a history of being weak on national defense and to cut back at this point is to show a lack of understanding of the real world in which we live. They will not cut spending. They will only use the money in other places that are not necessaily what the country needs and put in place their big govt., tax and spend program. Just look at their history of doing this. One is inclined to believe they have not changed their spots but will pull money out of the pockets of working people in their usual tax and spend motif. When that is done, tax payers have less money to spend, thus the economy is weakened. Their history is in this direction. That cannot be denied except by those who have blinders on. The dems have stood for big and expensive govt. and tax and spend policies for generations now.




bc cut back on defense in his first two years. carter did too so President Reagan had to build it back up so what should we expect from those whom President Johnson called "Nervous Nellies."

[Bruce Carriker]

Can someone offer a rational explanation why this country needs to spend as much on national defense as the rest of the world combined? Are we at war with ALL the rest of the world?

Leave the name calling out of it. Leave the foolish rhetoric like "soft on defense", etc out of it. Just list the reasons it costs us as much to defend ourselves as it costs every other nation in the world...COMBINED.

[William Hunter]

No one on this board is the last word on anything and everyone's opinions are just as valid as anyone else's and they have a right to state them. I do not see name calling here unless of course an opinion is shared that someone else does not agree with.

Let's keep this open of all opinions instead of trying shut other's opinions off.

[Gary Swartzlander]

What would constitute an adequate national defense? Is it the ability to defend ourselves and our interests overseas or just to defend ourselves within our boarders? The implications are significant to the size of our defense spending, I think.

[Bruce Carriker]

What would constitute an adequate national defense? Is it the ability to defend ourselves and our interests overseas or just to defend ourselves within our boarders? The implications are significant to the size of our defense spending, I think.

Exactly what are our "interests overseas"? I don't deny that they do exist, but I think we've done a pretty poor job of determing just what they are, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

How much of Europe's defense bill should we continue to foot? Or Asia's? Or the Persian Gulf's (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait)? If they want us to be their mercenaries, shouldn't we at least ask them for reimbursement?

I don't know what constitutes an "adequate national defense", but intuitively at least, it seems that spending as much as the rest of the world combined; and nearly ten times as much as the next nation on the list, is excessive.

[Thomas Weyandt]

On the matter of the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, I've followed it's bumpy progress until now when it has passed operational evaluation and finally gone into production with the price high at 69 million per unit but coming down.
Marines fly 40 year old helos that are slow and have limited payload.
The old helos have to be replaced.
Osprey's ability to convert from helo to airplane mode gives it better range and speed and payload than the ancient H-46 helos. It's speed permits it to make two flights in the time taken by one helicopter and it can range to 200 nautical miles in to the LZ vice helo radius of H-46 being limited to 50nmi.
So if we're willing to pay for it, we can count on the productivity of the Osprey to replace H-46 helos on a one for two basis if necessary and that makes the high price easier to justify.
Bottom line, though Osprey fails on cabin space to load HUMVEES it does have a max payload of 15,000lbs. as a slung load or 20,000lbs. internally or 24 troops. Max payload does reduce range but Osprey can refuel inflight and the teething troubles have been fixed. If foreign sales can be secured after USMC adopting and further proving in the field, a larger production run than 300 some units may further reduce the price which USMC and Bell-Boeing feel can reach the target of 59 million apiece. Though costs will always be higher than any helo save the big Super Stallions, I believe, the capability and productivity in range, payload and speed will make the expense worth it. If only the cabin was wider though.
In this forum I'll be profiling the various big ticket projects that the Dems might cut.

[Bruce Carriker]

Why we REALLY have the V-22 Osprey:

1) The primary contractor, Bell Helicopter, is based in Texas.

2) Sub-contracting work has gone out to 45 different states, representing 276 Congressional districts. The engine is from Indianapolis; the de-icing system is made in Connecticut; an auxiliary power unit is built in San Diego; the starter for the main engine is built in North Carolina; other parts and much of the project management are being done from Pennsylvania.

3) Since the Osprey program started, Bell Helicopter has given more than $25,000 apiece to more than 20 different House members who have a direct influence in the Osprey program. Boeing Helicopter, Bell's partner in the venture, gave over $1.5 million dollars to House and Senate candidates in the last presidential election year. Bell Helicopter gave almost half a million dollars.


Why we should not have the Osprey:

1) It's a death trap. It falls out of the sky. So far the death toll is 30. It still can't do what its proponents claim, and the tilt-rotor concept goes back over 40 years. And these crashes have occurred under more or less ideal training and testing conditions. What happens when the thing flies into a sandstorm in Iraq, or flies at high altitude in Afghanistan and starts icing up?

2) The cost is not justified by increase in capability. Sure, it flies further than a traditional helicopter. But just how far do we need a helicopter to fly? And the cost has quadrupled during the two decades the V-22 program has been in existence. It was originally ticketed at $24 million a copy. Now that's approaching $100 million.
You can buy two Pave Low helicopters for the same amount of money, and have essentially the same capablilities.

3) Even Dick Cheney, when he was Sec Def, tried to kill the Osprey. If Cheney's against a defense procurement item, it must be really bad. Cheney's opposition was quashed during the 1992 election, by Bush 41, who needed to make sure he carried Texas and Pennsylvania...the two states with the biggest slice of the Osprey pie.

The Osprey is the poster child for all that is wrong with the defense R&D and procurement processes.

[Billy Cox]

Now that the Democrats control Congress, will they cut the major weapons programs of the Services.
These programs are:
DDG-1000 Zumwalt guided missile destroyer-cost $3 billion-features 83 mile range guns, 80 vertical launchers for missiles, advanced technology radar and sonar, helos and stealth that makes a big ship look to enemy radar like a fishing boat. Seven are to be built for coastal ops.
Littoral Combatant Ship-Sixty relatively cheap vessels for coastal ops that employ modules that swapout according to desired mission-ASW, surface warfare, minehunting. Cost including modules: under $500 million per ship.
CVNX-New generation aircraft carrier replacing the seventies Nimitz class after decades of building to the old design circa 1974 Nimitz. Carrier has more powerful reactor needing only one refueling during 50 year lifespan. To incorporate new technologies and manning reductions but still costs several billion dollars.
Joint Strike Fighter-A single basic plane with three variants-F-35 Lightning II.
F-35A for USAF, carriers cannon and two one ton bombs and two radar guided air/air missiles. Has nine tons more stores externally mounted when payload is more important than stealth. Radius of 800 miles on internal fuel. F-35B for USMC-Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing Harrier jump jet replacement with reduced radius of 450 miles as fuel is displaced by the STOVL engine systems in the form of lift fan behind pilot. Can carrry two half ton bombs and air/air missiles internally. Cannon is external option. Same external payload as others of nine tons of extra fuel or missiles/smart bombs.
Radius is 700 miles. Radius is distance flown to target, allowance for combat, supersonic dash, return, reserves for holding patern and land with 5% fuel left. This means 450, 700 or 800 mile distant target can be bombed. Costs between 45 and 60 million. Will replace aging F-16, AV-8B, A-10, early mod F-18C/Ds Potential ten of billions in foreign sales as countries signup for it.
F-22A Raptor-USAF. Pricey at 183 million depending on whose figures are used. Low production rate keeps prices high and foreign sales, including sales to Israel are blocked by Congress. Absolute winner in air combat with 50? to one kill ratio. Replaces most F-15s.
Long Range Strike-Self defending bomber, manned and unmanned when necessary-Radius of 2500 miles w/o refueling-stealthy-Service entry 2018 but planning, prototyping and development will take next twelve years starting now. Costs in tens of billions.
Future Combat System US Army-Family of manned and unmanned vehicles for medium brigades that has system elements lightweight to fit current Hercules cargo plane limit of nineteen tons. Expensive but will give a rapidly deployable and formidable force that doesn't takes weeks to get where the fighting is.
And that doesn't included controversial land-sea-air based missile defense.
Land based anti ICBM interceptors-Sea Based interceptors on current missile destroyers and cruisers, Japan is buying sea based version-Airborne Laser on 747 able to kill missiles hundreds of miles away as they rise before decoys and multiple warheads can be deployed. Sea Based may have this capability down the line which makes engagements much easier.
And that is my rundown of costly programs that the services need. Replacements for older systems/ships/aircraft and new capabilities like stealth. How will Dems treat the Services? I hope they won't cut and run for our servicemen and women need up to date geear. Are some of these too costly? I'm just a laymen but I see justifiable need

I think that the most promising military technologies are unmanned drones and satellite surveillance. I would dump Cold-War style 'dumb' weapons in favor of smarter, cheaper weapons that could be produce in huge numbers.

As for big cuts in defense, the Democrats do not have a veto-proof majority - far from it - so they can't just do whatever they want.

[Stan Hall]

I think one reason for military expense is that if we want a truly effective defense, it must be better than anyone else's. That means the best and latest technology and that costs. Another reason is defense is and must be a government program which means it is inherently inefficient and costly.
A third reason is that our military is spread much too thin. (I must agree with Bruce here.) We have forces stationed all over the world but we can't secure our own southern border.

[Thomas Weyandt]

I would refer anyone interested in the Osprey performance to the global security.org website vice the H-46 and other helicopters. Granted, it's political but do the Marines want it and why? USMC also wants F-35B STOVL strike fighter and the EFV Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to replace Harriers and aging and slow AAV-7s that lack a 30mm cannon, have a water speed of less than 10knots vice 25kts and road speed of 20mph vs. 45mph to keep up with Marine Corps tanks as the EFV does.

[Bruce Carriker]

I think one reason for military expense is that if we want a truly effective defense, it must be better than anyone else's. That means the best and latest technology and that costs. Another reason is defense is and must be a government program which means it is inherently inefficient and costly.
A third reason is that our military is spread much too thin. (I must agree with Bruce here.) We have forces stationed all over the world but we can't secure our own southern border.

1. Government programs are not inherently inefficient and costly. It's only politics that allows that to happen.

2. Our military already is better than anyone else's. And I'm all for maintaining that advantage. But do you really think we need to spend what the rest of the world spends...COMBINED...to maintain that advantage?

[Bruce Carriker]

I would refer anyone interested in the Osprey performance to the global security.org website vice the H-46 and other helicopters. Granted, it's political but do the Marines want it and why? USMC also wants F-35B STOVL strike fighter and the EFV Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to replace Harriers and aging and slow AAV-7s that lack a 30mm cannon, have a water speed of less than 10knots vice 25kts and road speed of 20mph vs. 45mph to keep up with Marine Corps tanks as the EFV does.

Good website, Thomas, but I notice that are no mentions of any problems with any of the systems I looked at. So I question how balanced the presentations there may be.

The services always want new stuff. It's been that way for as long as I can remember, including the entire time that I served. The issue is not always capablity. Sometimes the decision must also factor in affordablity and necessity.

No country in the world spends what we do. In fact, all of them put together don't spend what we do. We spend more on systems than anyone else. We spend more on R&D than anyone else. And we already have the best military in the world.

I understand that the F-22 is an incredible piece of machinery. But if the F-16 is already the best air superiority aircraft in the world, why do we need the F-22? I understand that the Osprey (when it can stay airborne) has range, speed, and payload advantages over anything in the current rotary-wing fleet. But does that mean we need it? If someone comes along next year and builds something bigger, faster, and with more range than the V-22, does that automatically mean we should buy it?

Just because a military design is 20, 30, even 40 years old does not mean that the resulting piece of equipment is not still the best in the world at its assigned task. Should we always be racing to replace proven equipment simply because we can?

[Stan Hall]

Bruce,
Of course government is inefficient and costly. The only fundamental difference between doing something privately and doing it through government is that government is the only entity authorized to use force to achieve its ends. This is, of course necessary for such things as law enforcement and the military but it's still true. Any private organization must use persuasion to get customers and thus operating funds and that along with competition provides incentive to be as efficient as possible. Or the customers will go elsewhere. Government, on the other hand, may use force and thus doesn't have the incentive for efficiency and cost effectiveness. Any government agency, department or program gets its funding whether it's efficient or not. It's a simple fact of economics.

On your second point, as I said before, I fully agree: we should be able to maintain our military superiority at a fraction of the cost.

[Thomas Weyandt]

Aging means that the aircraft are more expensive to operate and require modifications to keep flying. CH-46 helos are very limited in payload and need some kind of replacement while the Corps wants to fly inland some 200 nautical miles in ship to objective manuever. CH-46 maxes out to 6000lbs. payload on 24,000lbs gross weight and is slower by half than the 275 knots cruise speed of Osprey which has a bigger payload. Now, maybye the new CH-53K sought by the Corps would be a suitable replacement for CH-46 and obtain the payload/range desired by Corps. Lack of military knowledge limits me to citing other's arguements and trying to pick through them to find the truth. So, all studies have proved that except a heavy lift helo, productivity of Osprey is superior. But Osprey can't load current vehicles and carrying vehicles as slung load reduces radius to the same 50 nmi of the CH-46.
Aging vehicles cost money but ships and aircraft like the B-52 have very long lives.
USMC wants this so much...I wonder why?
USAF has a new bomber forced on them by Congress to debut in twelve years, that is, by 2018.
Global Security.org is run by scientists not military so it may be balanced in favour of peace rather than military capability.
F-16 is good, the Block 60 F-16 with conformal 600 gallon tanks on either side of a/c is much better in range and has AESA radar but F-35A JSF variant can bomb out to 800nmi, much further than F-16 and has stealth and potential foreign sales like the F-16 has had up to now.
Eventually, a ship, plane, tank, ect. need a successor.
I continue my research on the net.

[Thomas Weyandt]

I have been researching the Quad Tilt Rotor, a double winged (forward and aft wing) variant of the tiltrotor which has four swiveling engine nacelles with four large or eight Osprey sized engines tilting for helo operation or aircraft mode and has the engines connected by crosshafts in each wing and a fore and aft shaft that allows one engine/two engine failures but the aircraft to fly safely. It is also faster than Osprey and could have from 250 to 500 nmi radius with cargo loads of 16 to 26 tons and cargo areas over 20 meters long with capacity for 150 passengers and vehicles such as the Future Combat System that exceed the 19 ton weight limit of the C-130. Rotors fold in this heavy lifter but wing folding isn't used. Gunship and command variants are possible and QTR is a possible candidate for a C-130 replacement known as AC-X. Vertical or short takeoff and short landing operation is possible with the landing gear able to handle 100knots on rough fields. Unlike V-22, QTR could handle the Army Stryker, Hummers, even helicopters and FCS vehicles.
Bell and Boeing are in partnership on the USA study contract for the joint heavy lift. The a/c is to be sea base ship-objective compatible and eight of them can be handled on an aircraft carrier or several more could be stowed on maritime prepositioning vessel designed with flight deck and hangar deck able to accomodate them. The a/c could be ready for demonstrations by 2013 and be operational a few years later. It seems a good solution to the mediumn lift requirements of the Army if the cost is reasonable. Either four engines of 13-15,000 shp or eight V-22 engines of 6,150 shp paired two to each of four nacelles driving a common gearbox are needed along with proprotors larger than V-22 at 50 plus vs. 38 foot diameter of Osprey are needed. It seems doable and desirable again if cost issues are addressed adequately.

[Thomas Weyandt]

I guess this thread is running out of steam. It has been a good discussion though. As to the big ticket items, they are:
USAF F-35A, USMC F-35B STOVL, USN F-35C Carrier Variant total of domestic production is 2500 planes plus exports of 2000 to allies using mass production to achieve costs from 45-60 million. Stealthy fighter attack but cannot supercruise like Raptor and less capable but more affordable.
F-22 Raptor-189 for USAF, Congress has forbidden exports so far, very high unit costs of 140 million? apiece. Stealthy, shoot first. Japan and Israel could use a few if allowed.
Joint Heavy Lift-Study of quad tiltrotor, helicopters, ect. for a heavy lift vehicle that can through V/STOL move large 20 plus ton loads from ship to shore and to objective on front lines for Army. Marine have pulled out and are updating their CH-53 force with CH-53K for 14 ton lift at shorter than Army's 250-500nmi range. Potentially large program for Army as in not cheap but could go where and carry more, maybeye, than C-130 which has replacement being thought of as AC-X.
DDG 1000 Zumwalt destroyer program cut from 24 to 7 ships. Keeps two yards busy. Very stealthy, good air defense, very long range (83nmi)guns, good ASW, manning reductions. Costly because new technologies are being such as integrated electric drive, fight through power, vertical missile launchers that don't blow up the whole ship when hit, new dual band radar system, very survivable but has been downsized to cut costs to three billion per ship.
CG(X) area air and ballistic missile defense cruiser to replace Ticonderogas when they wear out.
Virginia class submarine produced at one ship per year, never needs nuclear refuelling, well adapted for coastal operations.
CVN-21 is a program of three advanced nuclear powered aircraft carriers to replace carriers that wear out when 50 years old. Costly, reduced manning, higher capacity and less wear on aircraft electric catapaults.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is high speed on water and land amphibious vehicle for USMC with big 30mm cannon but lacks armour to protect crew.
MV-22 Osprey for USMC is controversial but more productive than any heli-copter replacement and runs 69 million apiece.
Long Range Strike Platform is program for a bomber by 2018 that is both stealthy and able to shoot back at enemy fighters. Less bombload than B-1/B-2/B-52 put can penetrate hostile airspace day and night with precision and nuclear weapons. Will supplement current force until their replacement and could operate either manned or unmanned.
UCAV-N is program for USN to produce stealthy bomb and recon unmanned aircraft that has occupies less space and is cheaper than F-35 and has radius of over 1200nmi vs 700nmi for stealthy F-35C.
Personel Rescue Vehicle is program for helo able to pickup pilots behind enemy lines.
CV-22 USAF Special Ops variant of Osprey.
That's the big ticket list.
It costs alot of money.
Claimed to be needed.
The truth is out there, somewhere.
Thankyou.

[Bruce Carriker]

The info you've provided is outstanding, Tom. But I'm still waiting for the answer to the very first question I asked...a long, long time ago...back before this thread ever started.

Is there some lucid, logical explanation why the United States needs to spend more on weapons than the rest of the world combined? That looks like this:

US - over $515 BILLION dollars when you add in the "off budget" costs of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan

THEM (ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD) - just over $500 billion

That's ALL the rest of the world. Every other country that's not us, or U.S. We spend more than ALL of them...put together!

We spend more on bullets and bombs; and tanks and airplanes to deliver them than the GDP of all but 16 of the nations of the world. We spend more on weaponry than the GDP of Switzerland, Beligium, Turkey, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Poland, Indonesia, Norway, Denmark, South Africa, Greece, Ireland, Iran, Finland, Argentina, Thailand, Portugal, Venezuela, Malaysia, Israel or the Czech Republic. (From South Africa on down, we spend more than the GDP of any two countries combined.)

Can anyone rationally justify this kind of spending? Can you imagine the uproar from "conservatives" if we spent more tax dollars on healthcare than the rest of the world combined?

As I've stated repeatedly, I'm all for a strong defense. But I don't believe we need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined to achieve that goal.

[Thomas Weyandt]

A significant amount is spent in pay and benefits. In the USN, that accounts for half if not more of the budget and we are nearing the limits of financing our defense, I believe with belt tightening down the road. We pay our troops well so that in the service a man costs $50,000-$100,000 per year in pay and benefits. After that you figure the costs of a bueracracy and the constant cancelling of programs after large amount of money have been spent, a Big wastse. And then the question of how much advanced systems are needed for the weaponry, ships, aircraft, satellites. These are said to be 'gold plated' with many addons that enhance performance but are bought in very high costs for small improvement. JSF program tries to limit costs by accepting lessor performance than the murderously expensive F-22 Raptor and lean manufacturing techniques combined with very large orders for mass production savings. The Zumwalts spend money trying to bring, all in one platform great technical advancements to benefit future ships. LCS is an attempt to get numbers of cheap ships that can switch roles by swapping out modules.
That is where the money goes-expensive add-ons that are questionable, low production runs, cancelled programs but the bigest single driver is pay and benefits. We pay better than anyone other countries.
So the question is where do we cut to achieve the cost reductions you desire? Pay and benefits? No. Fewer troops/sailors/airmen to save on pyroll costs? Cancel high price systems? Have to be careful what and how much we cut. Reduce our worldwide committments? That's a cost saver since we are the current superpower though China is building up it's capabiltiy and Russia is increasing it's military machine after years of neglect.
We would have to give up our role as superpower to China and eventually, Russia. I apologize for not having better figures but I am answering the question off the top of my head.
I hope I help a bit to answer your question.

[Bruce Carriker]

In the FY-2006 budget, military personnel costs account for just under 25% of the military budget...$108 billion out of $441.6 billion. Add in the $75-80 billion in military spending in Afghanistan and Iraq that is "off budget", and personnel costs are closer to 20% of military spending.

BTW, how does that "off budget" thing work? I'd like to move my mortgage and car payment "off budget", if somebody could show me how to do that.

[Thomas Weyandt]

I stand corrected. Have to do some more research I guess.