Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Mike E
    Mike E

    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2677
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:26 am

    I couldn't say, but the US armed forces will be downsizing in the next couple decades due to newer more expensive projects and a ever decreasing budget.
    nemrod
    nemrod

    Posts : 828
    Points : 1326
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:56 am

    Battalion0415 wrote:Which are planned after 2018?

    Noone knows exactly what will happen in the comming weeks, months. In spite of what we were said, american's economy is slowly crashed. The next big crash will simply spell the end of US empire and especially US military. US military lobby is slowed the cuts, nevertheless, they will have to accept the evidence. For that reason US will have no choice other than a world war against Russia and China, that they know they could not win, but just winning time.
    The real next cuts for US military will look like Soviet cuts during the 90's, far the from seeten cuts that we saw untill now.
    Battalion0415
    Battalion0415

    Posts : 115
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 33

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Battalion0415 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:37 pm

    I say 631,000 now in United States of America.

    Smaller troops that's Russia.

    Cool Cool Cool
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  George1 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:10 pm

    Battalion0415 wrote:I say 631,000 now in United States of America.

    Smaller troops that's Russia.

    Cool   Cool   Cool

    +200.000 of US Marine Corps (it is like 2nd army branch Smile )
    Battalion0415
    Battalion0415

    Posts : 115
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 33

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Battalion0415 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:14 pm

    Marines is allready deal in this size of 150,000 man. Wink
    Battalion0415
    Battalion0415

    Posts : 115
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 33

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    Battalion0415

    Posts : 115
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 33

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

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

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

    Posts : 5251
    Points : 5454
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

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

    2016 Defence Budget
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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


    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 B6wsss10
    Airbornewolf
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 372
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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


    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 B6wsss10

    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
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    nemrod

    Posts : 828
    Points : 1326
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty $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
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

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

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

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

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

    Army Fires 120,000 Soldiers
    Amid Budget Cuts
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5794
    Points : 5945
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:21 pm

    ...And yet we still have people debating whether the mismanagement of +$8 trillion wasn't an act of widespread corruption:

    Watchdog fumes over $43m Afghan gas station, Pentagon keeps mum
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  max steel on Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:58 pm

    U.S. aircraft carriers’ ‘unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close’

    The United States’ aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the U.S. military wherever they deploy. Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the U.S. carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States’ greatest military strengths.

    A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy’s carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either “operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges … or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure.”

    The report, titled “Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers,” focuses on China’s burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD refers to a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy an ability to move around the battlefield. Currently A2/AD strategy is much the same as it was when moats were dug around castles, except today’s moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft — all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.

    The report highlights China’s capabilities because of its “emphasis on long-range anti-ship missile procurement.” This, coupled with its growing tech base, qualifies China as the “pacing threat” to the U.S. military. China, however, is not the sole architect of an A2/AD strategy designed to deter U.S. operations. In the Baltic, Russia’s naval base in Kaliningrad is known to house a sophisticated air defense network and anti-ship missiles. NATO commanders also have warned of Russian A2/AD buildup around Syria, as Russia has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles into its airbase there as well as a flotilla of ships with robust anti-air capabilities.

    As other countries focus on creating sophisticated A2/AD bubbles by using new technology such as drones, advanced missiles and newer aircraft, the United States — by operating as it always has — is putting itself more at risk. According to the report, this is particularly relevant as carrier groups have reduced their long-range strike ability in favor of being able to fly more air missions but at shorter ranges.

    “Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict,” the report says. “An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult – if not impossible – to defend against.”

    Last week, China’s A2/AD strategy made international news after satellite imagery showed the deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, a disputed atoll in the South China Sea. Though small, the island is claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam. The CNAS report classifies the HQ-9 as a short-range A2/AD threat but indicates that the movement of such systems into disputed territory in the South China Sea, if properly reinforced, is a potentially long-term problem for U.S. naval operations. Medium and long-range threats discussed in the report include land-based Chinese bombers and anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D and DF-26. The two missiles “represent a significant threat to the carrier,” with an estimated range of 810 and 1,620 nautical miles, respectively. According to the report, if the DF-26 is as operational and as accurate as the Chinese say it is, the missile would be able to hit the U.S. territory of Guam.

    While the report discusses possible countermeasures for a sophisticated A2/AD network, including the Navy’s future rail gun project, the United States probably would employ a variety of systems and strategies, including hacking, to defeat the enemy threat. However, long-term strategies suggested in the report include putting U.S. combat power into systems such as submarines and long-range carrier-based drones. Submarines could evade A2/AD by remaining undetected, while carrier based drones — with their increased range — would give carriers much-needed standoff from potential A2/AD threats.

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14564
    Points : 15063
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:16 pm

    Can America's Navy Save the U.S. Army's Helicopter Fleet?

    The U.S. Army faces a budgetary dilemma when it comes to its aviation portfolio, the largest single cost item in its budget. In essence, it is being required to maintain a large but aging fleet. While there is money going to the Future Vertical Lift program, it is by no means clear when or even if this effort will produce a set of affordable next-generation platforms. In the meantime, not only does the Army have to keep its existing helicopter fleets in the air but invest in some critical upgrades such as improved engines, defenses against manportable anti-aircraft missiles and guidance systems to address flying and landing in inclement weather and during brownouts.

    The National Commission on the Future of the Army made several recommendations that, if implemented, will only complicate this picture. It recommended retaining the 11th Combat Aviation Brigades (CAB) and forward deploying one of these to South Korea. The cost of this decision alone is several hundred million dollars annually. It also found a face saving but expensive compromise to the Army’s Aviation Restructuring Initiative which kept a reduced number of Apache helicopters in the National Guard. Retaining Apaches in the National Guard would have a one-time cost of at least $420 million plus as much as $165 million a year in increased upkeep. The Commission recommended slowing the rate at which new Black Hawks (UH-60s) were procured, a decision that would undermine at least some of the savings garnered from the current multiyear procurement contract, as well as ensure that the existing fleet ages even faster and costs more to maintain.

    The Commission’s recommendations regarding aviation might be less of a problem if Army aviation assets weren’t in such high demand. Helicopters are in constant use in Afghanistan and increasingly so in Iraq. A CAB may end up back in Europe shortly as well as one in South Korea. The greater the demand, the more wear and tear on these assets and the higher the maintenance bills. So the Army faces the unenviable position of having to maintain an aviation force that will be large, but potentially less capable and certainly older and more expensive to maintain.

    How can the Army save money in its aviation portfolio? One obvious way is to do what the U.S. Navy has done with its fleet of Black Hawks, the H-60 Sea Hawk. Since 2004, original equipment manufacturers Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin, operating as the Maritime Helicopter Support Company (MHSCo), have been responsible for sustaining much of the Navy’s Sea Hawk fleet under a performance-based logistics (PBL) contract. Traditional sustainment contracts are a fee-for-service arrangement. In essence, the providers get more money the worse the platform performs. Under a PBL contract, the contractors are paid based on specified outcomes such as level of readiness, number of platforms available and even number of hours in the air. In essence, it is in the interest of the contractor to make sure the platforms work well. Moreover, under a PBL arrangement the contractor bears the risk burden and has the motivation to take prophylactic measures to ensure optimum performance of the platform and its systems.

    The Sea Hawk PBL, an award winning program, manages some 5,000 parts and supports more than 300 helicopters around the world. Since 2004, the program has exceeded availability requirements by 10 percent, and achieved a 97 percent success rate in providing needed replacement parts and spares. More significantly – U.S. Army take note – the Sea Hawk PBL has resulted in a reduction in spares inventory of more than $1 billion, provided process savings worth $22 million annually and reduced costs per flying hour by 17 percent. Last year, the Navy awarded MHSCo its third five year PBL contract. The new contract awarded last year will manage a larger number of parts and will encompass the entire Sea Hawk fleet, more than 500 aircraft.

    The Army took one right step when it agreed to a multiyear procurement contract for new UH-60s. It should take another one by pursuing a PBL-based sustainment contract for the existing fleet of Black Hawks. The requirements for this new contract should reflect the successes of the Navy’s current Sea Hawk PBL contract. The results would be greater availability, more responsiveness and reduced costs. The Army aviation community needs all three.
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2937
    Points : 2962
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    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.

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 635996987792353169-AVASCENT2

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 635996987798125243-AVASCENT1


    “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.”

    Sponsored content

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 3 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:12 am