Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Share

    Battalion0415
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 145
    Points : 152
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 30

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Battalion0415 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:40 pm

    I mean 300 Super Hornets in Navy and 2 division's of 20+20 in eastern and 2 division's of 20+20 in western and one division in Alaska of 20. Zero in soutern USA. Only air-ground defence in southern if Mexico or Brazil will attack. 100 Super Hornets in Air Force. And 300 in Navy for carriers. 30 Super Hornets in average on air craft carriers.

    Battalion0415
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 145
    Points : 152
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 30

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Battalion0415 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:20 pm

    I say 6500 M1A2 Abrams is good deal in smaller size like I write.

    Kyo
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 514
    Points : 563
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 67
    Location : Brasilia

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Kyo on Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:28 pm

    http://rt.com/usa/220931-pentagon-europe-bases-f35/ Very Happy

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:35 am

    Battalion0415 wrote:I say 6500 M1A2 Abrams is good deal in smaller size like I write.

    How about you follow the rules and avoid several posts and use proper english noone can understand the content...if there is one.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:23 am

    2016 Defence Budget

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:09 am

    F-35 Costs Stabilize, Army Program Breaches

    WASHINGTON — A number of the reforms in Pentagon acquisition and business practices over the past few years have started to pay dividends, a senior Pentagon official said.

    Pointing to the latest batch of Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR) released Thursday, the official said that the closer eye that chief weapons buyer Frank Kendall has insisted that the building keep on its acquisitions costs has led to a reduction in the number of programs that have shot past their initial cost estimates.

    "We have fewer programs than last year overrunning their unit costs," said a senior Pentagon official who asked to remain anonymous. "Sixty-nine percent of programs are underrunning their baseline for unit costs" as well.

    "Asking the services to do their affordability analysis, that's made a big difference," the official continued. "We've gotten more serious over time and more structured" in how the Department of Defense tracks its program costs.

    The annual SARs summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule and performance status of the Pentagon's biggest acquisition programs.

    The F-35 joint strike fighter alone accounts for about 20 percent of the overall portfolio, which in this reporting period covered more than $1.6 billion in spending on 77 programs.


    But not all the news in today's report is good. The Army's Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), an air-to-ground GPS guided munition, incurred a "critical" Nunn-McCurdy breach, something the Pentagon attributed to drops in procurement on the weapon in the fiscal 2016 budget request. The program unit acquisition cost ballooned by 45.8 percent as procurement of the AGM-154(C) "Unitary" variant dropped from 7,000 to 3,185.

    Good news for the Air Force came in the form of a 4.2 percent drop in costs for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, under which all military space launch is handled. That savings is the result of cost revisions in projected amounts from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2030, and came in spite of two additional launches being added and extra funds being set aside for the development of a new American rocket engine. Program costs on the FAB-T terminal system also dropped, to the tune of $555.2 million or 11.5 percent.

    On the other side, program costs on the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) jumped by 13 percent, or $939 million. No need to worry there, though — that cost is directly related to the fact the US needs more tail kits for the weapons, increasing its buy by 31,509 over last year as daily strikes against the Islamic State group continue.

    But perhaps the best news for the Pentagon overall is the $7.7 billion cost reduction for the F-35 joint strike fighter.

    The F-35 is set to be the backbone of American air power for the foreseeable future, but has a well-earned reputation as a budget hog. Program officials and industry executives have said they are focused on bringing costs down, and Pentagon auditors seem to agree, citing work by prime and subcontractors to drive down those price tags.

    The current average F-35A price is $108 million — with the engine — which is $4 million lower than previous estimates.

    A spokesperson for the F-35's Joint Program Office said the team has taken "a disciplined approach to analyzing and reducing sustainment costs. Ongoing activities include conducting a sustainment business case analysis and operating a cost war room to find program savings and attack operational, sustainment and total ownership costs."

    Lorraine Martin, F-35 program manager at Lockheed Martin, said in a statement that the company is "extremely pleased with the nearly $60 billion decrease in operations and support costs of the F-35 program during the last year alone." Martin added that there are numerous other initiatives in place, "including the Blueprint for Affordability, that will drive program costs even lower ... by the end of the decade."

    For the Navy, costs increased $4.3 billion for the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer due primarily to a quantity increase of two ships, from 80 to 82. Costs also increased for the EA-18G Growler program by $1.5 billion due to the decision to buy 150 more planes, as opposed to the previous 135.

    The Pentagon also reported that the backbone of the Army's communications network breached Nunn-McCurdy thresholds.

    The Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) Increment 2 and 3 will be partially combined and reduced, a move which caused the breach. WIN-T Increment 2, the networking-on-the-move portion of the program, experienced a surge in unit cost when procurement of nodes was cut from 5,267 to 3,583 and the procurement schedule was extended by two years. It was classified as a "significant" breach.

    The program is seeking a full-rate production decision in May, according to Paul Mehney, a spokesman for Program Executive Office Command, Control Communication-Tactical. Meaney attributed the breach to, "anticipated fact of life program changes and does not require WIN-T Inc 2 fielding and development efforts to stop."

    In June, the Army announced it would defer Increment 3, the network's aerial tier, due to fiscal constraints. The move equates with a cost drop from $3.7 billion to $1.9 billion reported in the summaries.

    In 2014, the Army shifted hardware procurement from Increment 3 into the Increment 2 program and extended the fielding schedule for Increment 2 by 10 years.

    The Joint Tactical Radio System Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit Radios program costs fell from $12.2 billion to $10.5 billion, due primarily to revised estimates for manufacturing, initial spares and support costs.

    At the Army Network Integration Exercise at Fort Bliss, Texas, last May, the Pentagon's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, found the radio "not operationally effective when employed in dismounted operations, operationally effective for mounted operations, and not operationally suitable."

    Soldiers testing the Manpack, meant to serve tactical units with simultaneous voice and data communications in the field, faulted its range and reliability in certain cases, its weight and the heat it generated.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:47 pm

    What Budget Cuts? US Cyber Command to Double Its Spending



    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150317/1019627650.html


    Calling All Hackers! Pentagon Adds 3,000-Strong Army to Cyber Command




    http://sputniknews.com/news/20150307/1019174659.html


    Pentagon Promises Hack-Proof Weapons Laughing Very Happy

    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150306/1019156427.html

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:44 am

      It’s Way Too Expensive: Congress Cuts Funds for Next Generation Bomber

     



    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150429/1021498519.html#ixzz3Ye9kdLJJ


    Pentagon’s New Pipe Dream: An Affordable Next Generation Bomber



    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150423/1021253849.html

    High Airfare: the B-2 Bomber costs $135K per flight hour



    Airbornewolf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 338
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-02-05
    Location : netherlands

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Airbornewolf on Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:29 am

    max steel wrote:   It’s Way Too Expensive: Congress Cuts Funds for Next Generation Bomber

     



    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150429/1021498519.html#ixzz3Ye9kdLJJ


      Pentagon’s New Pipe Dream: An Affordable Next Generation Bomber

     


    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150423/1021253849.html

    High Airfare: the B-2 Bomber costs $135K per flight hour



    this is really just the top of the iceberg.

    american airforce bombs are on purpose designed to be "one time use only". in Afghanistan airforce pilots got the mandatory order to return home empty. this is purely for the fact it costs more manhours and money to take an bomb off the aircraft's wing, disarm it. store it and then take it out of storage and re-arm it back on an aircraft's wing. while taking an bomb straight out of the factory's package and straight on the aircraft's hardpoint is the most cheapest for the millitary.

    its an completely flawed weapon design, that said "we" where i was part off run into a lot of problems with our weapon systems that are supposed to be high-tech but are riddled with child diseases and vulnerabilities to both weather conditions and enviroment. like the "fabled" JDAM system. JDAM is not much more than a set of steering fins strapped to an guided GPS package. however this malfunctions all the time because various reasons. the two that most occur is accuracy error by solar interference with the GPS system or steering-fin errors.

    honestly, the only bombs i felth comfortable to work with during CAS where the Paveway series. they follow an laser, got an good pre-release diagnostic and because of those safety's the things dont pose an threat to friendly forces unlike the newest of U.S toys.

    America already lost an future war with its ridiculous overpriced weaponry. lasers, rail guns, drones, full stealth aircraft. this is all fun when bombing some third world country to dust. but they blow their budgets on useless weaponry when they meet an military of similar capacity like China or Russia.

    in this regard the Pentagon and Congress is lacking any sense of reality is the same as the U.S had during the opening conflict with the germans in WW2. where they got manhandled by U-boat's that even managed to sail into their ports on east coast and take pictures of the skyline.


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:41 pm

    Surging Cost again !!This time Navy . tongue

    Congress tries to hide a submarine : Inside the fight to take a $90 billion ship program off the Navy's books.


    America’s next generation of nuclear submarines are supposed to have stealth capabilities. But at $5 billion a pop, they’re hard to hide in a budget. The dispute has its roots in the Navy’s need for a lethal replacement for its Ohio-class submarines, which were built in the 1970s and still carry a big chunk of America’s nuclear arsenal under the seas. As the subs approach retirement age, the Navy is gearing up to build their 21st-century successors, which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated will end up costing taxpayers more than $90 billion. That’s more than three decades worth of funding for all of America’s national parks, or about three times the annual Iranian defense budget.




    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/congress-tries-to-hide-a-submarine-000069


    Last edited by max steel on Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:38 pm

    Not Again: Soaring Submarine Costs Threaten Other Navy Programs

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150611/1023196971.html#ixzz3ckxtDXXp

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    $8.5 Trillion Lost. Pentagon: Business as Usual

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:37 pm



    http://anonhq.com/8-5-trillion-lost-pentagon-business-usual/




    $8.5 Trillion Lost. Pentagon: Business as Usual

    It’s one of those things; a given certainty that we must account for our finances in our daily lives. Every individual who receives earnings, by law, must report the figure on an annual basis for the taxation office to examine. In Australia, the rate sits around an average of 32.5 percent of each dollar. [1] For citizens of the United States, it sits in around the 25 percent mark for an average wage. But, this isn’t about our tax system in the west, or how much we have to pay per dollar we earn for every working hour. This is about the $8.5 trillion of American tax money handed to the Pentagon via Congress since 1996, and the inability to account for its expenditure without repercussions.

    ace1

    But that’s okay. According to employees of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the Pentagon’s primary accounting agency, this is business as usual. In 1996, new audit laws were mandated at the beginning of the year to force federal agencies accountability in their expenditures. Yet, as Scot Paltrow at Reuters uncovered in an investigation, rather than the Pentagon reporting and justifying their finances, the federal agency has never had to account for the trillions spent in the last 20 years. Fudging the numbers, according to Paltrow, is standard operating procedure for the Pentagon.

    Employees of DFAS, have reportedly received routine instructions to take “unsubstantiated change actions,” amounting to falsifying the books. The “plugs” used brought the military numbers into an acceptable line with the Treasury when discrepancies appeared. One employee, Linda Woodford, stated that “a lot of times there were issues of numbers being inaccurate. We didn’t have the details . . . for a lot of it”. She goes on to say “this so-called plugging isn’t unique to DFAS—when it comes to resolving lost or missing information, it’s just business as usual in every branch of the service“.[2]

    DOD-Budget-Pie-Chart-Explosion

    chart_defense_spending_top

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048300

    In 2014, the military budget cuts of $52 billion were announced. In response, Secretary of Defense-Chuck Hagel, told a defense conference that “[the cuts are] too deep, too steep, and too abrupt. This is an irresponsible way to govern and it forces the department into a very bad set of choices”. In light of the budget that year, reporting to a total of $581 billion – larger than Russia, China and Saudi Arabia combined, you wonder what Hagel’s fuss was about.

    In 2009, Congress reportedly passed a law requiring that the Pentagon and Defense Department be audit ready for 2017.[3]

    [1] Retrieved from http://www.paycalculator.com.au/info.html

    [2] Paltrow, S. (2013) Behind the Pentagon’s doctored ledgers, a running tally of epic waste. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/investigates/pentagon/#article/part2

    [3] Retrieved from http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/military_act_2009.pdf





    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:11 pm

    US Army to Cut Force by 40,000 Soldiers and 17,000 Civilian Employees


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:42 pm

    Army Fires 120,000 Soldiers
    Amid Budget Cuts

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:05 pm

    10 Most Blatantly Wasteful Defense Items In The Recent $1.8 Trillion Spending Bill


    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Militarov on Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:37 pm


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:00 pm

    2.83 MILLION.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:59 am

    Pentagon: Next Administration Must Address Sequestration Cuts

    Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer Mike McCord said that if the next administration does not address sequestration automatic budget cuts for the US military, the Department of Defense’s current plans for its forces will likely be unsuccessful.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — If the next administration does not address sequestration automatic budget cuts for the US military, the Department of Defense’s current plans for its forces will likely be unsuccessful, Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer Mike McCord told reporters in a fiscal year 2017 budget hearing on Tuesday.

    "As we hand this [budget] off to the next administration… the sequester issue is still hanging around like a bad cold, it needs to be taken care of," McCord stated. "Our plans have been consistent and we’ll talk about that across several years, but our plans aren’t going to work if we can’t get the sequester problem solved and get back up to the level of resources that we need to keep this progress going."

    Earlier on Tuesday, President Barack Obama sent his $4.1 trillion budget proposal to the US Congress. The budget includes a proposed $582.7 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund the Department of Defense.

    Automatic budget cuts known as sequestration were agreed to in 2011 by President Barack Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress led by Congressman Paul Ryan, who later went on to become the US House Speaker.

    The proposed budget portion for the US military would quadruple last year’s request for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) to $3.4 billion in a bid to reassure NATO allies against Russia and also requests some $145.8 million to support Israel.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160209/1034480113/pentagon-cuts-address.html#ixzz3zk4FHiE9


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:12 pm

    US Army Axing More Than Fifth of Brigade Combat Teams by 2017

    The US Army is planning to dismantle 17 of its brigade combat teams (BCTs) by the end of the next fiscal year, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The GAO noted that the US Army prioritized retaining combat units, such as BCT and combat aviation brigades when planning to reduce its end strength to 980,000 soldiers.

    "The Army completed analyses showing that it could reduce its BCTs from 73 in fiscal year 2011 to a minimum of 52 in fiscal year 2017; however, the Army plans to retain 56 BCTs," according to the report on Wednesday.

    The US Army "plans to eliminate proportionately more positions from its support or ‘enabler’ units, such as military police and transportation units," the report added.

    By redesigning its combat units, the US Army plans to retain 170 combat battalions — units that fight the enemy — totaling only three fewer battalions than in fiscal year 2011, the GAO observed.

    A brigade is subdivision of an army usually consisting of a small number of battalions.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160414/1037974869/us-army-dismantling-brigade-combat-teams.html#ixzz45omHNf9t


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Wed May 04, 2016 1:23 pm

    U.S. Not Matching Defense Spending To Threats

    The central objective of U.S. Cold War security strategy was to sustain an effective nuclear deterrent against one or two peer or near-peer opponents through mutual assured destruction, escalation dominance and alliance linkage.

    It is why the U.S. has almost 10,000 nuclear weapons of all sizes and effects. It is the answer to the perennial question “How much is enough?” Enough to do this. And it worked.

    Today, the world of threats the West faces are substantially different from those of the Cold War, but the strategy remains the same. For example, while Western alliances have remained intact, Russia’s have not. Russia has slipped from a presumed peer to near-peer status. While China has moved forward as a near-peer competitor, it has done so without a client state or alliance buffer. The Middle East remains of strategic importance to the U.S., as it does for many other countries, but military alliances in the region are shallow and radical Islamic movements are tied to no global power.

    Today the U.S. has 70,000 troops in Western Europe and more than 80,000 in South Korea and Japan. During the Cold War, we had almost three times as many. Our declaratory policy was that these forces were there to oppose and repel conventional attacks by the Soviet Union, China and North Korea. The reality was that these troops were actually “trip-wire” forces aimed at engaging the U.S. military in combat operations quickly and substantially backed up by early, limited and accurate use of tactical nuclear forces. In the 21st century, the threads of this tattered strategy are fraying.

    As U.S. forces deplete and age and the size of the American military shrinks, the temptation to test the strength and resolve of a strategy of nuclear deterrence through escalation dominance and mutual assured destruction surely will increase. It already has. For many current threats—especially terrorist ones—the credibility, even the general applicability of this strategy is already gone.

    So where do we go from here? First, we need to come to grips with the limitations of strategic nuclear deterrence for all threats.

    We should have one strategy for dealing with large stocks of weapons of mass destruction and another for only a handful. Sometimes we deter, sometimes we defend, sometimes we preempt. We should link levels of deterrence sparingly and highly selectively.

    For conventional forces without nuclear or chemical weaponry, we must deter by overwhelming superiority, active opposition, alliance resistance, strategic threats to homeland security, all delinked from nuclear guarantees. We need more forces, more agile forces and more discriminating forces.

    By clinging to a Cold War strategy and force structure, we are mismatched for the actual threats we face today—primarily overmatches on our part.

    One example is the B-2 bomber. This weapon is so expensive and so fragile that it cannot be used as a credible conventional threat because we cannot risk the loss of a single aircraft. We are building more and more expensive platforms that become harder and harder to use because they must service deterrence at all levels of conflict.

    As a result, we are forced to place a huge requirement on proxy operations. The problems with this approach are becoming painfully obvious and the results decidedly mixed. Worst of all, we communicate a muddled foreign policy. Think of Libya, think of Benghazi, think of Crimea, think of Syria.

    The time to develop a new strategy is now. Regardless of the outcome of the elections in November, U.S. forces will be in for a major rebuild and refresh. If we hew to the current strategy, we will misapply new resources. We will underinvest in fast, flexible and affordable new conventional, nonnuclear technologies and much larger force structures. And we will continue to overemphasize strategic nuclear deterrence over strategic defenses on the ground and in space.

    The U.S. has enjoyed the benefits and results of exclusive, offensive nuclear deterrence for almost 60 years. It may be time again to defend ourselves and our interests the old-fashioned way—with overwhelming military superiority.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Wed May 25, 2016 9:36 pm

    Western Defense Industry Future Imperiled by Local Programs

    A global push to grow domestic defense industries will have a dramatic impact on the Western defense export market over the next decade, a new report is warning.

    Authored by Daniel Yoon and Doug Berenson, the report by Avascent, “Dynamics of International Military Modernization 2016,” concludes that while many challengers will emerge, the trio of Israel, South Korea and Brazil provide the most immediate threats to Western markets.

    Ironically, the market threat is one with its origins in Western exports, with the authors noting that “in many cases, these emerging players developed through diffused technology via prior export arrangements with Western suppliers, often through offsets requirements and domestic industry participation.”

    Over the last five years, American firms have aggressively pursued foreign sales to try and offset a slowdown in US military funding. By and large American firms were successful in that strategy, the authors found, with “foreign sales have partially offset the decline in domestic demand since 2010, when only 17 percent of defense equipment manufactured in the United States was exported; by 2015, that number jumped dramatically to 34 percent.”

    That plan is even more critical for the UK, Germany, France and Italy, which represent the four largest defense industrial bases in Western Europe. Those first three nations rely on exports for roughly half of their military sales, while Italy relies on exports for a stunning 82 percent of its military sales.

    However, the dominance of Western exports will face challenges in the near future – with the biggest threat coming from the customers themselves.

    “The growing trend of homegrown defense industries is behind much of the competitive change in the international defense market,” the authors found. “Many countries desire indigenous defense industries on strategic or economic grounds, or both. They have often nurtured these nascent industries through political protection and stringent offset requirements in deals involving foreign suppliers, often absorbing these suppliers’ technical expertise in the process.”

    These measures “allowed the host countries to source increasingly from domestic producers rather than foreign ones, thus ‘crowding out’ many legacy players in that particular market,” the authors added. “Several of these industries have since even become competitive against Western exports in other markets, a trend expected to be reinforced over the next 10 years.”

    So who will be the competition? Japan and India are the obvious examples, but the analysts argue neither will emerge as major exporters due to cultural reasons (Japan) and bureaucratic ones (India). Singapore and Turkey have some capabilities, but lag behind. And while Russia and China are both capable of producing high-end tech, neither nation is likely to take a huge chunk out of the markets that the Western nations currently export to.

    Instead, the big challengers will come in the form of South Korea, Brazil and Israel, with each nation has its own strengths.






    “The growing trend of homegrown defense industries is behind much of the competitive change in the international defense market,” the authors found. “Many countries desire indigenous defense industries on strategic or economic grounds, or both. They have often nurtured these nascent industries through political protection and stringent offset requirements in deals involving foreign suppliers, often absorbing these suppliers’ technical expertise in the process.”

    These measures “allowed the host countries to source increasingly from domestic producers rather than foreign ones, thus ‘crowding out’ many legacy players in that particular market,” the authors added. “Several of these industries have since even become competitive against Western exports in other markets, a trend expected to be reinforced over the next 10 years.”

    Israel, for example, has grown significantly in the radar, missile, and particularly unmanned system markets. Israel’s unmanned systems are already competitive with US hardware globally.

    South Korea’s T-50 trainer design, as well as its upcoming indigenous fighter, could drive gains in the aerospace market, while its “ability to domestically produce advanced destroyers, frigates, amphibious assault vessels, and attack submarines will provide significant export opportunities over the next 10 years,” the authors write.

    Brazil will likely lag behind those two nations, but has wisely targeted several niche markets to go after. Write the authors, “Embraer’s entry into niche regional and lower-tier markets with light attack aircraft, light transport aircraft, and low-end ISR and maritime patrol aircraft will allow it to compete in a modest manner over the next 10 years. Moreover, its partnership with Saab in the co-production of the Gripen fighter ensures an industrial connection to Western markets into the future.”

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Sun May 29, 2016 10:28 pm

    US Navy Faces $848 Million Ops & Maintenance Shortfall


    US Navy leaders have made no secret the fleet’s maintenance accounts are underfunded. The situation – exacerbated by several years of sequestration-mandated budget cuts, a government shutdown, Congress’ chronic ability to pass a budget before the end of each fiscal year, a high operating tempo and the cumulative effects of all those problems – is affecting the readiness of ships, aircraft and sailors.

    The Navy has an $848 million shortfall in its current operations and maintenance accounts, a service official said, and while there will be no impact to forces already deployed, continuing problems “would likely delay some deployments.”

    As the Navy moves through the fiscal year’s third quarter, officials are preparing to take several actions to limit 2016 spending:

    1 Deferring overhauls on four surface ships and one submarine from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 into fiscal 2017’s first quarter;

    2 “descoping” or deferring continuous maintenance for the assault ships Makin Island and America amphibious ready groups and the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group;

    3 Restricting Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW-1) flying hours, including imposing a four-month no-fly period, and limiting other flying hour program costs; and

    4 deferring “various other contracts.”

    The Carl Vinson, America and Makin Island recently completed major overhauls and are expected to deploy in the coming year. CVW-1, on the other hand, completed a full deployment in 2015, is now in a “maintenance phase,” and is not expected to deploy again until 2019.

    The Navy also notes that a decision announced May 2 to extend the current deployment of the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group by one month to combat ISIS will require an additional $91 million in operations spending.

    Pushing the five ship overhauls into next year, the Navy official noted, will add to 2017’s scheduling problems and increase required funding by $473 million.

    Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., is urging Congress to increase maintenance funding and Thursday, he chaired a combined hearing of his Seapower and Projection Forces and Readiness subcommittees to focus on the issue. Forbes had hoped to draw special attention by holding the hearing in Norfolk aboard the soon-to-deploy carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, but the effort was scotched by the Pentagon, although Forbes and other House Armed Services Committee members on Monday toured the flattop and several other ships and facilities.

    “We are not currently providing our Navy with the resources it needs to do what we ask,” Forbes said Thursday in his opening statement. “At least not without burning out our ships and our planes and our sailors and undermining our long-term readiness.”

    The Navy itself, Forbes said, notes that the service is at its “lowest readiness point in many years.

    “The resources we have been allocating to that critical function of government have been woefully inadequate,” he intoned.

    While Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Phil Davidson read an opening statement, the hearing sought to bring the readiness issue closer to the deck plates, and four Navy captains testified as to the effects on their commands and communities.

    Capt. Randy Stearns, commodore of Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, said one in four aircraft were usually deployed and noted there were extreme issues with older F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters and CH-53 helicopters. Non-deploying aircraft were regularly being robbed of parts to keep deployed planes flying, he said, with the result that the fleet had little surge capacity should more aircraft be needed in action.

    Asked where the problems began, Stearns replied, “sequestration – we’ve never caught up.”

    Problems are being compounded, he noted, as new aircraft are being used at rates far higher than anticipated.

    “We’re chewing up about 40 aircraft hours a month” on each F/A-18 E and F Super Hornet, he said, adding to the maintenance load to deployed aircraft, Fleet Readiness Centers and naval aviation depots.

    Capt. Greg McRae, deputy commander of Submarine Squadron Six at Norfolk, detailed a particularly egregious case of a submarine overhaul that, for a variety of reasons, has nearly doubled in length and is leading to further issues.

    The Los Angeles-class submarine Albany, McRae told the subcommittees, had been scheduled to enter Norfolk Naval Shipyard in October 2013 for a planned 28 and one-half month overhaul – known as an availability in Navy parlance. But at the time, he said, “we were going through sequestration and there was a lot of instability, so the availability was pushed to January 2014.”

    Once in the shipyard, workforce challenges due to hiring freezes and funding shortfalls began to affect the overhaul. “About every three months we would get a new schedule pushing timelines to the right,” he said. As a result, the Albany is still in the shipyard. “Today, we’re looking at a 43-month overhaul.

    “The impact is significant,” McRae added. “Certainly the operational days lost – days we will never recover those. It’s also had an impact on other submarines and crews.”

    The submarine Boise, he said, was to have entered the shipyard after Albany. “But because of Albany’s delays, we’ve been extending Boise in three-month intervals,” he said. Because of needed maintenance, “we are no longer capable of operating Boise at sea after this summer,” he cautioned. “Any more delays after that,” he said, and the ship will remain pierside.

    “It’s almost double the lost [operational] days if you think of it in that perspective,” McRae noted. “Clearly it’s a significant impact.”

    The Albany’s crew has suffered from the prolonged shipyard period.

    “One of the tertiary effects is the impact to crew and families,” McRae said. “Because of the Albany delays, many sailors will start and end their submarine tour in the shipyard – not something they signed up for.”

    The ship’s commanding officer, McRae noted, expected to wrap up the overhaul period, prepare the ship to deploy and take her to sea.

    “But he will be relieved with his ship still in the shipyard. Because of that he has decided to retire from the service.”

    McRae added that Albany’s executive officer and chief engineering officer, unable to demonstrate their proficiency at operating a nuclear submarine, were not selected for command or to become XO.

    “The engineer was by all measures a great performer,” McRae said, “but in the shipyard he could not demonstrate that expertise and he did not select for XO. Inhibiting their ability to go to sea certainly inhibits their professional development,” he declared.



    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:38 pm

    'Non-deployable' soldiers becoming problematic for US Army

    Medical problems are keeping too many US Army soldiers from deployment and, as the overall force shrinks, the numbers are beginning to affect unit manning levels, a top service official said.

    The US Army has about 187,700 soldiers deployed across the world (about 25,000 are National Guard and Reserve personnel). However, the service also has around 100,000 soldiers (around 10% total) considered to be 'non-deployable', about 80% of those are due to medical problems, General Daniel Allyn, army vice-chief of staff, told reporters on 21 June.

    When end-strength levels were higher, the service was able to keep formations at 110-115% manning levels, meaning it could absorb 10% non-deployable soldiers and still field a fully manned unit.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  George1 on Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:42 am

    Clinton Criticism Could Mean Doom for LRSO

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/clinton-criticism-could-mean-doom-for-lrso


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: US Military Budget: Cuts and reductions

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:56 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:56 am