Well, good luck to him, I don't think Congress is going to play ball, but we can always hope.
Did he give any estimates on how much this would reduce the defense budget? Also, what about a reset for the Army and Marines?
All,
Fascinating press conference. In summary:
Recommended Termination:
F-22 (stopped @ 187)
FCS vehicles (all - unsure of NLOS-C)
DDG-1000
Further C-17 Buys
Army BCT's halted @ 45 vice 48 to increase available manning, no change in endstrength increase though.
Presidential Helo
Next-Gen bomber (pending QDR)
JIEDDO and other ad-hoc organizations
TSAT cancelledWinners:
F-35 increase
F-18 increase
UAV Increase
TF Odin-like increase
More $$ for helos - crews and airframes (?)
More SF support
DDG-51 restart
LCS increaseNo change/limited info:
JTLV
EFV
Carriers (10)
FCS "Spinouts"
Gates told Congress basically to "do the right thing". That I will be interested to see.
Can't wait for Congress' and the defense lobby's reaction ....
Well, good luck to him, I don't think Congress is going to play ball, but we can always hope.
Did he give any estimates on how much this would reduce the defense budget? Also, what about a reset for the Army and Marines?
Gates Fights Last War
Kori Schake
Foreign Policy
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/post...t_the_last_war
And so it begins...Gates is setting a course to focus on counterinsurgency that will likely come at the expense of other military capabilities when budget trade-offs need to be made. The wars we are fighting do not refute transformation. Much of what Rumsfeld identified as the central advantages and central weaknesses of our military actually have been validated: our space infrastructure is too weak for the increasing demands we place on it; integrating battlefield information with long-distance precision strike allows U.S. forces to react with a dominating speed; and persistent surveillance is revolutionizing our operations.
Gates's emphasis on institutionalizing counterinsurgency sounds remarkably like fighting the last war, and too little effort has been directed toward redressing those vulnerabilities in U.S. military power most likely to produce losses in future wars. The United States is already reasonably good at counterinsurgency, as a result of the Iraq war, and the equipment has adapted relatively quickly despite a balky Pentagon bureaucracy. Gates is adopting a conservative approach that will make other, harder adaptations -- like handling cyber attacks -- more difficult in the future.
v/r
Mike
Two major surprises. Halting growth of BCT's at 45 in order for the manning levels to catch up is one of them, but in reality it's only two less (minus the EBCT at Bliss and since FCS is on the way out, there's no reason for this BCT to stick around). The other is the JIEDDO and organizations like that (ad-hoc). I wonder what the other organizations are - AWG?
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
This makes me cry inside:
Say goodbye to Air Force rotary wing aviation and the only dedicated personnel recovery force in DoD.Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.
That the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle survived. I'm rather surprised, actually. So be it. They'd better get it right, and soon, without the cost overruns and system failures that have plagued it.
Let me just express in a few words my thoughts that a conservative approach based on fighting insurgencies will impact handling cyber attacks. Since cyber attacks most closely align with low intensity conflict. Since never has a cyber attack manifested as a high intensity conflict. While large militaries may be capable of fighting on multiple fronts they have little in the way of capability of fighting cyber. Large unwieldily forces with strict hierarchies have absolutely no place in cyber. Boo hisss. Throwing cyber out as a lost capability is not only wrong it impeaches the writer.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
What I heard was intelligence and related fields tool sets expanded and a push upward in the number of those who are training to be cyber focused with the overall impression of agility in thought action and aquisition related to such.
May be wrong but I think it may be more of what your looking for and less behemoth then many might have expected.
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
That is what I am curious about - at some point in the not too distant future, the ground combat vehicle fleet is going to need to be recapitalized. Is there any provision for this? Most of what we have is 80s vintage and has been at war for years now. How much life can reset eke out of the existing fleet and will it continue to be funded?
He cloaked himself in a veil of impenetrable terminology.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
As for cost savings... they declined to comment based on the fact that they didn't discuss classified programs... Although Mr Gates made a distinct effort to clarify that the program recommendations were NOT based on a real or perceived budget top line... In his words (paraphrased) this was about doing the right thing...
As for FCS, and Army vehicle recapitalization, Mr Gates was specific in discussing the need to recapitalize the Army fleet, and that there was a cost in $ and time by cutting FCS vehicles, but that it was in his mind the right thing to do... so I think they have probably placed a wedge in for recapitalizing the fleet without really knowing what shape that recapitalization will take...
Live well and row
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
Hoover Research Fellow
"Expertise: national security strategy, the effective use of military force, European politics"
If the quality of thought in her article is representative of a Hoover Institute expert, they've fallen on hard times.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
I think you're responding to the secdef comments and I'm responding to the catch all at the end of the article written by Kori Schake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Shake closed her article with
I can't agree with that sentiment. Though I'm always willing to listen it just seems way off base.Gates is adopting a conservative approach that will make other, harder adaptations -- like handling cyber attacks -- more difficult in the future.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Wow... I was just musing posting on just this topic but considered it a little bit "bad form," ... but since you say it, I must concur.
I was underwhelmed as to both the assertions and the evidence or even reasons to support them. May be a smart chap, but it did not shine through in the article.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Gates said: "But it is important to remember that every Defense dollar spent to overinsure against a remote or diminishing risk or, in effect, to run up the score in capability where the United States is already dominant is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable." (Emphasis added.) I assume (yes, I know ) that he's referring to recapitalizing the current ground force vehicle fleet.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Just from my foxhole, it looks like a lot of this is targeted at incorporating things that were born in supplemental into the "regular" budget.
Obviously the writing is on the wall – we can't continue to fund transformation, expansions of Special Operations and good ideas for GWOT one supplement at a time.
Bookmarks