Rumors leaked out that the aerial refueling tanker and a planned long-range bomber might be on the Administration's chopping block. The Congress, which only yesterday acted concerned about the deficit, immediately began complaining.
But as the old bank robber story goes, he robbed banks because that's where the money was. So if members of Congress really want to make serious cuts that bring future budgets into line, they need to start where so much of the money is after Bush/Cheney--the Pentagon budget.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003070256
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Headline Says It Well!
"Global Opposition Movement Challenges JSF" is the headline in the Aviation Week, in an article setting out many of the key objections to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
One of the most interesting points the article makes is that the information-sharing possible via the Web means that opponents to the F-35 can share their critiques in ways that were not possible at a similar stage in the development of previous massive weapons systems.
I would add two comments to their article:
(1) The "sovereignty" question seems to me to be a potential problem, should opposition really begin to gear up in places like Italy, Canada, the U.K.--proud countries whose citizens might object if they knew they were becoming part of an enormously expensive weapons project, but not given complete control of the technology.
(2) The grassroots peace community is missing from this story, though I'm not criticizing the article, it's probably our own fault. Where are we? Surely, even as over-stretched as the U.S. peace movement is, we can find our voices in time to stop a dangerous, massively expensive, over-budget, already-delayed, unnecessary, destabilizing fighter plane, at a time when the U.S. is flat broke!
And what about Europe--isn't it in recession, too? Seriously, peace activists in Canada, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, the U.K., Turkey, Australia--do you really need this fighter plane? Can you afford it? Did you know your government ordered it for you?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/FIGHT030409.xml&headline=Global%20Opposition%20Movement%20Challenges%20JSF
One of the most interesting points the article makes is that the information-sharing possible via the Web means that opponents to the F-35 can share their critiques in ways that were not possible at a similar stage in the development of previous massive weapons systems.
I would add two comments to their article:
(1) The "sovereignty" question seems to me to be a potential problem, should opposition really begin to gear up in places like Italy, Canada, the U.K.--proud countries whose citizens might object if they knew they were becoming part of an enormously expensive weapons project, but not given complete control of the technology.
(2) The grassroots peace community is missing from this story, though I'm not criticizing the article, it's probably our own fault. Where are we? Surely, even as over-stretched as the U.S. peace movement is, we can find our voices in time to stop a dangerous, massively expensive, over-budget, already-delayed, unnecessary, destabilizing fighter plane, at a time when the U.S. is flat broke!
And what about Europe--isn't it in recession, too? Seriously, peace activists in Canada, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, the U.K., Turkey, Australia--do you really need this fighter plane? Can you afford it? Did you know your government ordered it for you?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/FIGHT030409.xml&headline=Global%20Opposition%20Movement%20Challenges%20JSF
Globe opines that Obama serious about cuts
A recent Boston Globe online article makes the case that the appointment of Kennedy School of Government prof Ashton Carter to be the chief weapons purchaser for the Pentagon shows that President Obama is serious about making some cuts in outmoded Cold War weapons systems.
The writer, Bryan Bender, points out that Carter has never worked for a weapons company (score!), and has been a critic of the DOD's bad habit of buying unnecessary weapons systems (score!).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/24/harvard_professor_named_to_pentagon_post/?page=2
The article specifically mentions several weapons systems that might be on the cut line (and suggests that Secretary Gates would back Carter): the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Future Combat System ground vehicles, and the Virginia class submarine.
fwiw, Mr. President, I applaud this choice...
The writer, Bryan Bender, points out that Carter has never worked for a weapons company (score!), and has been a critic of the DOD's bad habit of buying unnecessary weapons systems (score!).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/24/harvard_professor_named_to_pentagon_post/?page=2
The article specifically mentions several weapons systems that might be on the cut line (and suggests that Secretary Gates would back Carter): the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Future Combat System ground vehicles, and the Virginia class submarine.
fwiw, Mr. President, I applaud this choice...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Terminate it & save big bucks!
A spot-on quote from Winslow Wheeler & Pierre Sprey about the F-35, in the post below:
"The F-35, still in its early stages, is headed for major cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance calamities, perhaps even surpassing the F-22 mess. But will the new Gates team really save money in the F-35 program? Not a chance. The business-as-usual plan doesn’t terminate the F-35, which would save serious money; it just delays production. That allows temporary transfer of the money needed now to keep the F-22 slurping at the public trough and kicks the can down the road for the F-35. The stretch-out only makes the F-35 more expensive, which in turn further reduces the force size—all to keep alive a deeply flawed, unfixable design."
Catch that? The key is to terminate it, "which would save serious money"....
"The F-35, still in its early stages, is headed for major cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance calamities, perhaps even surpassing the F-22 mess. But will the new Gates team really save money in the F-35 program? Not a chance. The business-as-usual plan doesn’t terminate the F-35, which would save serious money; it just delays production. That allows temporary transfer of the money needed now to keep the F-22 slurping at the public trough and kicks the can down the road for the F-35. The stretch-out only makes the F-35 more expensive, which in turn further reduces the force size—all to keep alive a deeply flawed, unfixable design."
Catch that? The key is to terminate it, "which would save serious money"....
Monday, March 2, 2009
Wheeler & Sprey Talk to the Right
Winslow & Pierre tell the truth about both the F-22 & the F-35!
(Plus, they list some of the DOD's best over-spending tricks...)
And they do it in the American Conservative magazine.
http://www.amconmag.com/
(Plus, they list some of the DOD's best over-spending tricks...)
And they do it in the American Conservative magazine.
http://www.amconmag.com/
Budget Analysis & Contractors
Armand Biroonak has a good piece at the Institute for America's Future web site, discussing the current state of play surrounding the Congress, the DOD, and the Obama Administration.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020927/push-cut-defense-waste
Armand earlier had some good numbers on the military contractor scam--my description, not his--a scandal hiding in broad daylight if there ever was one! Talk about a place we could cut...
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020819/department-defense-contractors
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020927/push-cut-defense-waste
Armand earlier had some good numbers on the military contractor scam--my description, not his--a scandal hiding in broad daylight if there ever was one! Talk about a place we could cut...
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020819/department-defense-contractors
This Budget a "Course Correction"?
Miriam Pemberton of IPS, one of the smartest military budget analysts around, took a quick look at the Obama Administration's budget proposal with her colleague Suzanne Smith. Their conclusion was that it was a "modest course correction," but unfortunately not a "sweeping shift" of priorities.
Imho, since the Bush/Cheney years had set the nation on a preposterously expensive, overly militaristic, and clearly unsustainable course, "modest course corrections" are not enough. Duh.
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/1118
Imho, since the Bush/Cheney years had set the nation on a preposterously expensive, overly militaristic, and clearly unsustainable course, "modest course corrections" are not enough. Duh.
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/1118
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)