SECDEF's DoD Budget Proposals

[MikeF]

Village Light, Urban Heavy? Strkyers medium fill the void?

Yeah, I know. I've been reading too much poetry.

About time you voiced 699- much better than grumpy old NCOs grumbling over lambs and rice, of mice and men.

v/r

Mike

[Entropy]

A bit off topic, but a question for you armor guys: Is the Abrams still competitive today against the latest from the Russians and others?

[Cliff]

was the most interesting part, especially when compared to previous reporting.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=4396

One good exchange:

GATES: For me, it was not a close call. And the basic conclusion was that, first of all, we have fulfilled the program. I mean, it's not like we're killing the F-22. We will have 187 of them. That has -- the 183 of that has been the program of record, as I recall, since 2005. So we are completing the F-22 program. And the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187.

Q: What about the Air Force advice? They've been (allegedly ?) badgering you with all sorts of analysis that they need 60 more.

GATES: That was their advice as well.

Q: Excuse me. It was their advice as well that --

GATES: Yes.

Q: -- that you didn't need more than 187?

GATES: Yes.

Which is even more interesting when you compare it to this interview by the CSAF (by law responsible for military advice to SECDEF):

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...F22s021709.xml

“We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way” and produced a number that “I feel is credible,” Schwartz said during a Defense Writers’ Group breakfast this morning in Washington. The general said he would not release his new number until presenting it to Defense Secretary Robert Gates - but he noted he would not disagree with statements from Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress 60 more F-22s were needed.

Hmmm... it seems like there is a disconnect somewhere. I will be curious to see what the congressional testimony by the uniformed folks ends up being.

Also interesting to look at the National Military Strategy and its requirements vs. the air superiority assets we will have with 187 F-22s and 250 less F-15Cs/F-16s...

I fully agree on the need to re-orient and have a "full spectrum" force... but if your strategy results in you needing X aircraft, X-310 = strategy-capabilities mismatch. A lot of risk is going to be accepted if this goes through.

Anyone out there involved in QDR/know when a new NMS might be out?

V/R,

Cliff

[Ski]

Yes. The only two tanks that the Abrams would have difficulty against are the Leopard 2A6 and the Challenger2.

A bit off topic, but a question for you armor guys: Is the Abrams still competitive today against the latest from the Russians and others?