U.S. military programs at risk for cuts!

[F-15 Eagle]

I'm a bit worried that some U.S. Military programs might not survive and will ether be canceled or cut back in the 2010 defense budget. Some programs that could be at risk include:

1. F-22 Raptor
2. The U.S. Army's FCS or Future Combat Systems
3. National Missile Defense
4. DDG-1000 class Destroyer
5. V-22 Osprey
6. Next Generation Airborne Tanker
7. New 2018 Bomber
8. New U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Programs.

I think it would be a disaster if the Obama administration cancels these programs because these weapons programs are necessary to rebuild America's worn out military and defending America. I think all of these programs should be kept.

So what do you think?

[rjmaz1]

If some of the above programs are not cancelled then it puts all of the programs at risk.

If you cut funding of each program by even 10% it puts up the unit price and you end up with, for example, 25% less capability/numbers for only a 10% cost reduction.

This is why it is important to completely cancel a large project so that other large programs can get 100% funding. You do not want multiple programs to enter a death spiral.

The US will have to prioritise its projects.

The F-35 is without a doubt the number one priority and will not be canceled. If the budget is reduced then other programs will have to be canceled to fund the F-35. The obvious target is the F-22. Its production line will end up closing soon. The USAF will have enough F-22's to perform its niche mission, nearly all other roles the F-35 will be clearly superior on a capability per dollar basis.

The V-22 is costly but it can carry a lot more payload a far greater distance than a blackhawk for example. Being able to carry cargo at fixed wing turboprop speeds and distances while then landing vertically is worth its weight in gold. It eliminates the need of two aircraft, E.g A turboprop to carry the payload to the front line airstrip and then a smaller helicopter to carry it to the soldiers. You then have less pilots less double handling of payload and a reduced need for front line airstrips. Take all that into account and the V-22 is cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if more V-22 are ordered as they will become much cheaper.

Personally I think that the DDG-1000 destroyers should never have started due to being overkill. Conventional Arleigh Burke-class destroyers could be purchased off the shelf for a third of the cost. This would have provided a lot of money. If the DDG-1000 is cancelled with only two ships all the research will be extremely useful in the future.

Litoral combat ship is also a very expensive ship. Though in the long run its flexibility and reduced many will mean its lifecycle cost is reasonable. It will replace a patrol boat and frigate with a single expensive ship. So comparing costs to a simple frigate is unreasonable. Comparing the cost of a frigate AND patrol boat and the manning of two ships will be a better comparison.

Inflight refueling. The KC-135 has only reached a third of their fatigue life. Sure maintenance is increasing as the plane gets older and the availability will drop slightly due to maintenance but they are still good to keep flying for many years to come. I would cancel the tanker competition after talking to people in the know. Buying new aircraft is much more expensive than maintaining the current fleet. People often act like the KC-135's are dropping out of the sky.

2018 bomber, is probably not consuming much money at the moment. Its worth keeping running as it looks to be a very cheap bomber, using off the shelf technology.

Missile defense will still be a go for obvious reasons.

The Future Combat Systems for the army I do not know much about the scope of the program to give any kind of decision.


So in summary

Cancel F-22 to insure the F-35's success and domination.
Cancel DDG-1000 to improve the Navy's total ship numbers and help fund the LCS.
Delay the Tanker acquisition until well into next decade. Help fund the 2018 bomber which will reduce the need for new tankers

[Feanor]

You can't delay the tanker acquisition, from what I understand the airframes are too old. And the V-22 is not under threat. It's already operational.

[Driller]

It will be interesting to see what does happen with the obama administration and there commitments to military funding over the comming years. Some programs can easily be cut down and some not at all. Wonder what will happen to the Army and Marines options for replacing there MBR and the marines will continue with the IAR. I always thought through recessions/depressions the military always created more jobs?

[rjmaz1]

You can't delay the tanker acquisition, from what I understand the airframes are too old.
There is no such thing as too old.

If the aircraft has only one third of its fatigue life used up then it is not too old.

The fact is the maintenance cost of the KC-135 in a single year is a single percentage figure of the cost of a new aircraft. If all 500 KC-135 tankers were retired tomorrow and replaced one for one with 767's then the US would be $60 billion dollars out of pocket in the short term. Thats a huge amount of money for pretty much no capability increase.

The newer 767's best case might save $10 million per aicraft per year on maintenance and running cost. So with 500 aircraft thats a $5 billion per year in saving, however spending $60 billion on the new tankers means it will take atleast 12 years until you are better off.

So instead of spending $60 billion on new tankers with money that the US doesn't have they can instead spend a few billion simply maintaining their current old fleet. Once all the major projects are safe and money is available then the purchase of new tankers can be made.

Its good to see that the tanker porgram has pretty much been frozen.

[F-15 Eagle]

It will be interesting to see what does happen with the obama administration and there commitments to military funding over the comming years. Some programs can easily be cut down and some not at all. Wonder what will happen to the Army and Marines options for replacing there MBR and the marines will continue with the IAR. I always thought through recessions/depressions the military always created more jobs?

I think the Army should replace its M4 with the H&K 416, the Marines should keep the M16A4 but cancel the IAR.

Though thats just too good to be true and the reality is that the Army wants to stick with the M4 and the Marines will replace some of its SAWs with the IAR but still keep around 8000 SAWs. The Army will not buy the IAR will will likely replace its SAWs with newer ones.

You can't delay the tanker acquisition, from what I understand the airframes are too old. And the V-22 is not under threat. It's already operational.

I agree they need the new tankers. And yes the V-22 is operational but the program can still be cut and production stopped and only small numbers would be operational instead of the 400 or so aircraft that the military wants and needs.




So in summary

Cancel F-22 to insure the F-35's success and domination.
Cancel DDG-1000 to improve the Navy's total ship numbers and help fund the LCS.
Delay the Tanker acquisition until well into next decade. Help fund the 2018 bomber which will reduce the need for new tankers

No they should not cancel the F-22. I think the air force needs at least 60 more for a total of 243 F-22s and they should still keep the F35 going. But the F-15 fleet is too old and the F-35 wont be in full production for a few more years and there will be a gap in production between the F-22 and the F-35 so they should keep the F-22 line going until the F-35 is 100% ready to start full production.

I agree keep the 2018 bomber but the USAF says a new tanker is one of the top priorities and I have to agree with them a new tanker is needed ASAP.

There is no such thing as too old.

If the aircraft has only one third of its fatigue life used up then it is not too old.



The current KC-135 is over 50 years old and thats way past the 1/3 mark. Some aircraft are already showing cracks and fatigue in the airframes. A new tanker is needed soon and it can't wait.

[rjmaz1]

No they should not cancel the F-22. I think the air force needs at least 60 more for a total of 243 F-22s and they should still keep the F35 going.F-15 Eagle, If the F-22 and tanker programs are not stopped where do you suggest the extra money will come from to keep the other programs running at 100%?

By cutting the budget of the F-35 by 10% it will result in more than 20% reduction in numbers.

If you directly take money from the F-35 program to buy more F-22's, then vy ordering 100 additional F-22's it will reduce the number of F-35's by potentially 500 aircraft. By trying to do the right thing you end up with less capability as 500 F35's are far more valuable than 100 F-22's.

You say the F-15 fleet is too old but by ordering 100 additional F-22's you would have 400 LESS aircraft in total. That means by going with the additional F-22's you put MORE strain on the F-15 fleet not less.

We both agree that the F-22 has the best aerodynamic performance but it does not make economic sense. The true aerodynamic performance of the F-35 remains hidden from the public eye for good reason. In my opinion the USAF does not want the public knowing how good the F-35 really is as it makes the F-22 look like a huge waste of money.

Once the F-22 production shuts down the public will find out just how good the F-35 is at air dominance. Efficient is the best word to describe the F-35.

The current KC-135 is over 50 years old and thats way past the 1/3 mark. Some aircraft are already showing cracks and fatigue in the airframes. A new tanker is needed soon and it can't wait.Nope. The average number of flight hours on the KC-135 is only 12,000hours. The airframe is certified for more than 36,000 hours. At the current high level operational tempo the KC-135 can keep flying for another 30 years before the fatigue life runs out.

For your information, all aircraft as soon as they fly start growing fatigue cracks they are just extremely small. So even though the KC-135 has fatigue cracks in the airframe they are not an issue and can still fly for many decades before they reach critical size.

Please re read my post regarding the short term cost difference between keeping the older aircraft and buying new ones. It makes no logical sense replacing the tanker fleet now if you have a short term cash flow problem such as a recession.

The USAF can easily wait 10 years until the recession ends and the war in Afghanistan is over.

[swerve]

The current KC-135 is over 50 years old and thats way past the 1/3 mark. Some aircraft are already showing cracks and fatigue in the airframes. A new tanker is needed soon and it can't wait.
The design is over 50 years old. The airframes mostly are not: the newest is just over 40 years old. But age is not the same as fatigue life. IT depends on how much they are used, how many take-offs & landings, how many hours in the air, etc. A short-haul airliner can do more cycles in 10 years than some of those KC-135s have done in their entire lives, a long-haul airliner can spend more hours in the air in 10 years . . . . Compared to civilian airliners, USAF tankers are lightly used.

[bruceedwards]

Given the total 2010 defence budget seems set to rise by 12% over the year before (to around 663 billion USD) is it likely that any projects are in danger?

Or is the financial burden of fighting two wars taking a greater financial toll on the budget than previously?

Breakdown below from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf:

Funding Highlights:
• Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent
increase over 2009.
• Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to
support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and
drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.
• Supports a transparent budget process, which simultaneously and separately requests
estimated base budget and overseas contingency operations costs.
• Expands concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for
those disabled upon retirement from active duty.
• Improves efforts to care for wounded servicemembers and to treat mental health needs.

[rjmaz1]

Or is the financial burden of fighting two wars taking a greater financial toll on the budget than previously?
I think it has more to do with the JSF, FCS and DDX destroyer programs being the three most expensive US military programs in the history of each of the three services.

Also I believe this years budget is the first year to include the war spending in the defence budget. So that explains the large apparent increase.

A force sitting a home training is a fraction of the cost of being deployed overseas in combat.

If the budget of all major projects were halved you'll end up with a fraction of the required numbers. When the F-22's budget blew out in the 1990's they slashed the budget in half. The result of that was 180 aircraft instead of 750. Halve the budget and get a quarter the number of fighters. It is crucial the F-22 is placed on the chopping block so that the F-35 is guranteed to be a success.

[exported_kiwi]

Why is it essential to slash the F22 even before the F35 isn't even operational and/or proven?

[Sea Toby]

The F-22 has never been approved for multi-year aircraft production by any of the six agencies used to watchdog the program. The F-22s that have been bought have been bought under Congress' annual approval, not by any approved multi-year production program.

While the CBO has not given the green light for F-35 multi-year production, several of the six watchdog agencies have. This is the first year production models of the F-35 have been bought. During previous years, test aircraft have been purchased. While Lockheed has fallen behind a bit on testing, it expects to catch up when more test aircraft are built. And while testing is not completed, there are no anticipated problems expected.

The bird is passing its testing program with ease, so far. The main reason the testing program is behind is the fact that Lockheed has fallen behind on production. Can't test without aircraft. And why has Lockheed fallen behind in production, its suppliers have fallen behind. Its another dog chasing its tail again.

[rjmaz1]

Why is it essential to slash the F22 even before the F35 isn't even operational and/or proven?Because every F-22 you order you are robbing two F-35's from service. For every F-22 bought you are reducing the total number of fighters in the USAF. The F-22 is the only project listed in this thread that has another program that can perform most of its role.

This is like saying that you cant order any more Bugatti Veyrons and have to settle for Ferrari's.. Someone always going to be upset but when the competition are driving toyota camry's, who the hell cares?

The other programs if canceled has no such fallback. You'd be forced to buy older existing systems that ared a whole generation behind.

I dont see why so many people on various forums around the world are infatuated with the F-22. There is more to the military than an overpriced air dominance fighter. By the time a threat nation has a comparable 5th genration aircraft in service, the US will be flight testing its 6th generation aircraft.

[OPSSG]

The F-22 has never been approved for multi-year aircraft production by any of the six agencies used to watchdog the program. The F-22s that have been bought have been bought under Congress' annual approval, not by any approved multi-year production program.

How similar is the F-22 funding method to the funding obtained to build the 21 B-2s twenty years ago (which was the source of another GAO concern (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/gao94217.htm) at that time)? I'm a little confused and would appreciate any enlightenment by Sea Toby, rjmaz1 or the Mods. The FAS has more B-2 program details here (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/bombers/b2.html).

BTW, I've been observing threads on the JSF program and the FCS program, both of whom I hope will succeed. IMHO, at this stage, the JSF program is a sure bet, but I'm not sure about continued funding for the FCS program. Even if part of the FCS program succeeds, it would change in the way the US army fights.

[Feanor]

The design is over 50 years old. The airframes mostly are not: the newest is just over 40 years old. But age is not the same as fatigue life. IT depends on how much they are used, how many take-offs & landings, how many hours in the air, etc. A short-haul airliner can do more cycles in 10 years than some of those KC-135s have done in their entire lives, a long-haul airliner can spend more hours in the air in 10 years . . . . Compared to civilian airliners, USAF tankers are lightly used.

Then why replace them at all?

[IPA35]

Exports ould save the F-22.
I bet there are some interested nations.

(Japan especialy)

[F-15 Eagle]

F-15 Eagle, If the F-22 and tanker programs are not stopped where do you suggest the extra money will come from to keep the other programs running at 100%?

By cutting the budget of the F-35 by 10% it will result in more than 20% reduction in numbers.

If you directly take money from the F-35 program to buy more F-22's, then vy ordering 100 additional F-22's it will reduce the number of F-35's by potentially 500 aircraft. By trying to do the right thing you end up with less capability as 500 F35's are far more valuable than 100 F-22's.

You say the F-15 fleet is too old but by ordering 100 additional F-22's you would have 400 LESS aircraft in total. That means by going with the additional F-22's you put MORE strain on the F-15 fleet not less.

We both agree that the F-22 has the best aerodynamic performance but it does not make economic sense. The true aerodynamic performance of the F-35 remains hidden from the public eye for good reason. In my opinion the USAF does not want the public knowing how good the F-35 really is as it makes the F-22 look like a huge waste of money.

Once the F-22 production shuts down the public will find out just how good the F-35 is at air dominance. Efficient is the best word to describe the F-35.



The USAF can easily wait 10 years until the recession ends and the war in Afghanistan is over.

Well for one I think the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many many years to come, the war will not end anytime soon. I don't know how long this recession will last but I hope it will be over in a year or so.

And I was not saying cut the F-35, that would be a stupid move to cut the F-35. What I'm saying is increase the budget some more to provide funds for 60 additional F-22s and all 2458 F-35s.

I think they should continue buying F-22s for at least 3 more years is because that way they don't have to lay off 100,000 workers at LM in this time of recession. Once the F-35 is ready for full production and its been proven for air superiority than they can transition from the F-22 to the F-35 with very little disturbance in the work force.

I agree the F-35 will be a great air dominance fighter, better than the F-15, Su-30/35 etc...but 183 F-22s is not enough and I think with some more F-22s it can preserve jobs and help the USAF retire at least some of its 35 year old F-15s in a couple years.

[eckherl]

Well for one I think the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many many years to come, the war will not end anytime soon. I don't know how long this recession will last but I hope it will be over in a year or so.

And I was not saying cut the F-35, that would be a stupid move to cut the F-35. What I'm saying is increase the budget some more to provide funds for 60 additional F-22s and all 2458 F-35s.

I think they should continue buying F-22s for at least 3 more years is because that way they don't have to lay off 100,000 workers at LM in this time of recession. Once the F-35 is ready for full production and its been proven for air superiority than they can transition from the F-22 to the F-35 with very little disturbance in the work force.

I agree the F-35 will be a great air dominance fighter, better than the F-15, Su-30/35 etc...but 183 F-22s is not enough and I think with some more F-22s it can preserve jobs and help the USAF retire at least some of its 35 year old F-15s in a couple years.

Do not write future F-22 purchases off just yet, I still believe that we are going to get additional planes and Japan will get it.

[metalkat 77]

Well in some way yes it is a situation to get in panic, but let see in this point, the economical crisis probally are demanding this cuts, and focus thew resources in open a new kind of job oportunities it feel like a :nutkick but in the last timne military have been consume a lot resources it is time Obama destinate this resources where the people really need it and well yea a dellay for a year will be healthhie

[F-15 Eagle]

Do not write future F-22 purchases off just yet, I still believe that we are going to get additional planes and Japan will get it.

I sure you your right my friend.;)

[Wall83]

I think its time that the US understands that it cant keep spending 500-600 bilion dollars on national defence every years. If the US cut defend costs by 50 procent they still would spend four times as much as China that is number two in the list. If they insted would spend that 200-300 bilion dollars on healhcare and help the big part of the US people that relly is poor, the country would be alot better of. If the USAF gets 400 or 700 new fighters in the next 10-15 years makes little differens to the everyday american.

[bruceedwards]

I think its time that the US understands that it cant keep spending 500-600 bilion dollars on national defence every years. If the US cut defend costs by 50 procent they still would spend four times as much as China that is number two in the list. If they insted would spend that 200-300 bilion dollars on healhcare and help the big part of the US people that relly is poor, the country would be alot better of. If the USAF gets 400 or 700 new fighters in the next 10-15 years makes little differens to the everyday american.

I believe that is underestimating the role the US Military plays in securing not just the physical security of the United States, but the Economic security.

The US has such a massive defence budget because of it's need to project power internationally. Strategic items such as carrier groups are expensive. And - when someone threatens your trade routes, allies, or economic interests - necessary.

Not to mention that a large portion of the defence budget gets funneled back into the US economy.

[TrangleC]

I agree with Wall83. No country needs a military force that gobbles up half a trillion Dollars each year.

@ bruceedwards:

Who should threaten trade lanes? With what and why? Were tradelanes any less functional before the USA started to go totally nuts with military spending?
Hell, we as the whole western world aren't even able to disrupt the illegal drug traffic lanes on this planet, with or without the huge US military.

I also don't see a significant fraction of that half a trillion Dollars at work in the Gulf of Aden, where commercial ships get attacked by pirates every day.

And the Chinese, Russians, international Terrorists, North Koreans, Iranians and all the others seem little impressed or detered by al this "projection of force" that costs so much money.

About the "back-funneling" of the money into the economy: That's another problem, because it implies that the USA need wars to keep it's economy running. There would be other ways to funnel that tax money back into the economy, without losing most of it in the private pockets of people like Dick Cheney.

Let's be honest, the whole thing makes little logical sense. It is all just about the Generals loving their shiny toys, the manufacturers making a lot of money and the average US military enthusiast getting a hard on when thinking about the F-22's cruising around over his head and when watching shows like "future weapons".

[bruceedwards]

I agree with Wall83. No country needs a military force that gobbles up half a trillion Dollars each year.

@ bruceedwards:

Who should threaten trade lanes? With what and why? Were tradelanes any less functional before the USA started to go totally nuts with military spending?
Hell, we as the whole western world aren't even able to disrupt the illegal drug traffic lanes on this planet, with or without the huge US military.

I also don't see a significant fraction of that half a trillion Dollars at work in the Gulf of Aden, where commercial ships get attacked by pirates every day.

And the Chinese, Russians, international Terrorists, North Koreans, Iranians and all the others seem little impressed or detered by al this "projection of force" that costs so much money.

About the "back-funneling" of the money into the economy: That's another problem, because it implies that the USA need wars to keep it's economy running. There would be other ways to funnel that tax money back into the economy, without losing most of it in the private pockets of people like Dick Cheney.

Let's be honest, the whole thing makes little logical sense. It is all just about the Generals loving their shiny toys, the manufacturers making a lot of money and the average US military enthusiast getting a hard on when thinking about the F-22's cruising around over his head and when watching shows like "future weapons".

That's a fair point regarding the economics of funnelling money back into the US economy - it may not necessarily be a good thing.

I also agree with your argument that the US Defence department needs to review it's spending more closely. For example, a figure on MilitaryBudget.Info reported that there are still 227 military bases in Germany (!).

However I would say that the drawback of a deterrent is you never truly know how effective it's been. You may say that Iran and North Korea are not impressed by Amerca's might - but has North Korea invaded the South to 'unify the nation' since the Korean ceasefire? Has Iran launched it's Jihad against Israel?

In the end Defence is answerable to the Government (as it should be) and the Government is (in theory) answerable to the people. If people start protesting the size of the defence budget, cuts will be made.

[AegisFC]

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/budget-press-briefing-as-prepared-for.html

A lot of good stuff but the main points are:

-Acceleration of the F-35 program.

-Capping F-22 production at 187.

-Rebidding of the USAF Tanker program.

-More LCS's.

-More money for Aegis BMD, and 6 more ship conversions.

-Funding for the Ohio Class replacement.

-The shift to 10 CVN's and funding for CG(X).

-No new C-17's.

-Termination of the VH-71 presidential helicopter.

-Limiting DDG-1000 to 3 ships all built at the same yard, while Ingalls continues DDG-51 production. He also talks about limiting DDG-1000 production to just one ship.

-Major restructuring of the US Armies FCS.

Overall I like this budget. It kills or restricts programs that need killing (sadly though LCS continues) and accelerates F-35 production.

[Firn]

I was thinking the same. I gave the LCS a relative good look and it seemed a great waste of money on a petproject. The DDG-1000s line seems more promising but also have the air of an white elephant searching for missions to justify their immense cost. I would have cut them too

[operand]

"We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement."

Can someone explain to me the justification of cancelling the multi-kill-vehicle program? i mean we've seen some simple tests already, so its not just a concept on paper, working prototypes have been around for a decade :

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=multi+kill+vehicle

Last test was in a controlled environment in December 2008; Testing the MKV in space would be the next major hurdle but we have already accomplished this feat before, with a single-kill vehicle. I can understand the need to focus defence spending on helping US win wars in guerilla warfare, the unmanned drone portion of FCS is still intact which is a good sign (more situational awareness = good).

[Sea Toby]

The LCS program will continue. The US Navy has plenty of cruisers and destroyers at the moment. What is needed is a replacement for the FFG-7s ASW ocean escorts. The US Navy requires a ship that can do that role as well as a ship that will be more useful in littoral areas, to fight the wars we are fighting now. Not a third world war which at the moment isn't promising.

While there have been significant cost overruns, a lesser ship won't suffice to do the missions required. Most likely three or four LCSs can be bought for the price of one Burke class destroyer. Frankly, the US Navy has never considered FFG-7s as much more than ASW ocean escorts, much less front line warships.

The other alternative to LCS will be the Coast Guard's Bertholf class designed with a better ASW sonar, whether hull mounted or array.

[Driller]

Wonder if they are still thinking about replacing certain weapons in the Army/USMC etc.

[Vivendi]

The LCS program will continue. The US Navy has plenty of cruisers and destroyers at the moment. What is needed is a replacement for the FFG-7s ASW ocean escorts. The US Navy requires a ship that can do that role as well as a ship that will be more useful in littoral areas, to fight the wars we are fighting now. Not a third world war which at the moment isn't promising.

While there have been significant cost overruns, a lesser ship won't suffice to do the missions required. Most likely three or four LCSs can be bought for the price of one Burke class destroyer. Frankly, the US Navy has never considered FFG-7s as much more than ASW ocean escorts, much less front line warships.

The other alternative to LCS will be the Coast Guard's Bertholf class designed with a better ASW sonar, whether hull mounted or array.
Sea Toby,

Would you mind educating me at bit?

I am absolutely no expert in naval matters however I have done a bit of reading on the LCS, and I still don't comprehend why it's worth the high price tag? It seems to me similar ships from other parts of the world offer 90% of the capabilities for 60% of the price. The LCS is supposed to be quite fast, but perhaps there are also other features that I have so far failed to appreciate?

V

[Merlöwe]

I think its time that the US understands that it cant keep spending 500-600 bilion dollars on national defence every years. If the US cut defend costs by 50 procent they still would spend four times as much as China that is number two in the list. If they insted would spend that 200-300 bilion dollars on healhcare and help the big part of the US people that relly is poor, the country would be alot better of. If the USAF gets 400 or 700 new fighters in the next 10-15 years makes little differens to the everyday american.

4% of budget isn't crazy military spending. The american health system needs major reforms, not more money thrown at it. We spend one of the highest amounts on per-person medical care, while achieving lesser results.

[HK_Thoughtful]

Not to get this thread off-topic, but I also do not see the value of the LCS program. Granted that its original intent of having a small and cheap, modular platform capable of performing a number of tasks in coastal waters was and still is a good concept; the current LCS vessels are costing too much for what they are built for. Additionally, even with all the money being spent on the LCS, the vessels don't have any VLS systems *although I read that surface warfare module of the LCS includes NLOS-LS missiles*.Maybe they were designed this way?

[Sea Toby]

The Obama administration wants to buy three this year, and possibly more next year. The price is $US 460 million each this year for three ships, next year the price for more ships will be $US 440 million each. Many in Congress want to build up to six ships a year.

While the first two different ships have blown out to over US$ 600 million each, there were many changes done while under construction. The Obama administration wishes to buy three ships this year for US$ 460 million each. The administration wishes to start buying up to six a year, reducing costs even further. By no means have multiple production been introduced.

The US$ 200 million was a low ball figure of several years ago. Even the USCG's Bertholf class went over US$ 400 million. The Arleigh Burke's Obama wishes to order are over US$ 2 billion each. All of the ships have citadels against gas or nuclear attack, 57 mm gun mount, ASW torpedo tubes, and Sea RAM surface to air missiles. There is also a new combat data system as well with a 3D radar never seen on a US frigate before.

Compared to the FFG-7s today, they have a close range surface to air missile system. They have at least 10 knots more speed, a small vehicle deck, and are more automated. They will do more missions than any FFG-7 or minehunter, better, and with less crew.

While they may be more expensive than other nation's frigates, the other nation's frigates can not do the littoral missions as well either. If the US Navy had to buy minehunters as well along with a new frigate class, the price for the two new classes would be higher. Bang for the buck, four to five ships for the price of one DDG.

[OPSSG]

Not to get this thread off-topic, but I also do not see the value of the LCS program. Granted that its original intent of having a small and cheap, modular platform capable of performing a number of tasks in coastal waters was and still is a good concept; the current LCS vessels are costing too much for what they are built for.

I'm not very well informed about naval matters but you should look at:
(i) the Israeli FMS (http://www.deagel.com/news/FMS-Israel-Requests-up-to-Four-Littoral-Combat-Ships_n000004736.aspx) on their LCS purchase (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/LCS04116.xml&headline=Israelis%20Could%20Buy%20Two%20LCS%20Buil t%20By%20Lockheed%20Martin); and
(ii) what the LCS class of vessels (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/) are designed to do before being too critical of the LCS program.
Cost overruns is a separate issue and these problems does not change the reason why the USN created the specification for the LCS. The LCS ship design is in response to an expressed need coming from USN's strategy. This need was identified by naval planners in the form of a LCS design brief. :D

LCS Video

Delivering Transformational Capability in the Littorals (http://www.lmlcsteam.com/overview.html)

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is designed to defeat growing littoral threats and provide access and dominance in the coastal water battlespace. A fast, maneuverable and networked surface combatant, the LCS provides the required warfighting capabilities and operational flexibility to execute focused missions close to the shore such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.

A flexible and reconfigurable seaframe, LCS derives combat capability from rapidly interchangeable mission modules and an open architecture command and control system. Modularity maximizes the flexibility of LCS and enables commanders to meet changing warfare needs, while also supporting spiral development and technology refresh. LCS will be networked to share tactical information with other naval aircraft, ships, submarines, joint and coalition units and LCS groups, providing commanders with the right information quickly and efficiently. With low manning and reduced operations and maintenance requirements, LCS is an affordable means to increase fleet size.

[HK_Thoughtful]

Thanks for the information, but I did look at the FMS for the Israeli varient of the LCS. My original statement about the VLS was directed at the US LCS and my primary worry is that the US LCS seems to be lacking in missile armament. Granted that the LCS was not designed to conduct air defense as a primary mission and that the 57mm gun and NLOS-LS (ASuW module) are credible threats to most coastal vessels, I am uneasy about the prospect of a LCS encountering an opfor frigate-type vessel. With this in mind, I guess that in that case, the LCS will have to rely on other friend assets in the area and on its superior speed and handling.

In the way Sea Toby explains it, with the LCS effectively supplanting the need for a dedicated minesweeper class, in conjunction with its other attributes, I see where the LCS can be effective. The question still remains about the cost. Although the Obama administration will probably increase the number of LCS being built, how certain is the cost reduction from 600 million per ship to mid-400 million? Sea Toby can you provide sourcing? Thanks

[Sea Toby]

The best source for US Navy news is its own website. The Obama administration wishes to buy three this year for $460 million each. The intention is to eventually buy up to six ships a year.

The first ship in any program is always the most expensive. Follow on ships usually cost less. Buy them in larger numbers, cost efficiencies do exist.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/defense_lcscosts_080205n/

[Sea Toby]

The best source for US Navy news is its own website. The Obama administration wishes to buy three this year for $460 million each. The intention is to eventually buy up to six ships a year. The Obama administration is wishing to buy three this year for an average of $530 million each, including a system module.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/defense_lcscosts_080205n/

[F-15 Eagle]

Some of the cuts are ok such as the cuts to the FCS, combat search and rescue helicopters, new presidential helicopters, some part of BMD.

But they should keep the carrier fleet at a bare minimum of 11 active ships, keep the air force tanker, new bomber and the F-22 Raptor.

I'm most worried about the plan to reduce the carrier fleet from 11 to just 10, that would be the biggest mistake in this god awful budget mess the military is facing right now.:mad:

[Firn]

So to you, Sea_Toby the LCS seems a sensible addition to the fleet, even at a total end cost for the Independence of 660 million $ and for Freedom of 631 million $? The price for further ships will of course drop, but I really wonder like HK if it reaches the 460 mill. $ per Ship as fast as the administrations plans.

[AegisFC]

I'm most worried about the plan to reduce the carrier fleet from 11 to just 10, that would be the biggest mistake in this god awful budget mess the military is facing right now.:mad:

Enterprise is OLD and the most expensive ship in the fleet to operate by a large margin (8 reactors are not cheap, and they are of an obsolete design). She is also almost out of nuclear fuel. To decomm it in the next few years and leave a gap until the Ford comes on line makes sense and the risk is small, there are no immediate threats that need 11 carriers, and the the Fleet Response Plan can handle 10 carriers until Ford is up and running.

[tphuang]

So to you, Sea_Toby the LCS seems a sensible addition to the fleet, even at a total end cost for the Independence of 660 million $ and for Freedom of 631 million $? The price for further ships will of course drop, but I really wonder like HK if it reaches the 460 mill. $ per Ship as fast as the administrations plans.

depends on what dollar. Considering the inflation we are likely to see with all this money printing they are doing, 460 million USD in a couple of years may be much less than it is right now. And the other issue is with the kind of debt they are running, it's anyone's guess what the administration will do.

btw, saying that it is a glorified minehunter that has no AD past 10 km isn't really a great sales pitch for LCS.

As for bang for the buck, that depends what you are comparing to. For the same cost for building one LCS (let's just say 600 million), China can build:
40 Type 022 FACs
or
3 054As
or
1 052D with money to spare.

[Patsfan86]

Not too far from where i live here in Maine B.I.W (Bath Iron Works) will build 3 new DDG-1000 stealth destroyers .Cant wait to see this thing being built as the S.Y is right by Rt.1 .My cousin and uncle work there doing welding.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_DDG-1000_Features_lg.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html?em

[Sea Toby]

As long as we maintain enough ships similar to the good destroyer Bainbridge we'll manage. Oh, by the way, anchors aweigh Billy B. You made all of us and your namesake proud.

[OPSSG]

btw, saying that it is a glorified minehunter that has no AD past 10 km isn't really a great sales pitch for LCS.

As for bang for the buck, that depends what you are comparing to. For the same cost for building one LCS (let's just say 600 million), China can build:
40 Type 022 FACs
or
3 054As
or
1 052D with money to spare.

tphuang, I see the USN as having it's unique needs (given their current blue water naval capabilities) and the LCS design as their strategic response via ship specification. If they wanted to build cheap, a US shipyard is not the place to go. Further, if they wanted the same air defence capabilities in this class of ship, the USN might as well build more destroyers.

The USN is trying to innovate and IMHO, the LCS is much more than a glorified minehunter. But I do get your point that that the LCS is expensive for a vessel of this size class. :D

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy will use their carriers, cruisers, and destroyers for operations on the front line, and use the LCSs for ocean escorting of convoys across an ocean. However, under the air umbrella of carriers, cruisers, and destroyers LCSs will be used in littoral areas close to the shore. The LCSs aren't being deployed individually, they will be part of a fleet.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The US Navy will use their carriers, cruisers, and destroyers for operations on the front line, and use the LCSs for ocean escorting of convoys across an ocean. However, under the air umbrella of carriers, cruisers, and destroyers LCSs will be used in littoral areas close to the shore. The LCSs aren't being deployed individually, they will be part of a fleet.

Although without DDG-1000's they aren't going to have the same level of AAW in the littorals, SPY-1D cant handle the littorals in the same manner as SPY-3. Might be a sticky issue for a relatively AAW deficient LCS. .

[funtz]

Any thoughts on this version of the lockheed martin LCS

Surface Combat Ship (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/Surface-Combat-Ship-Brochure.pdf)

Seems like when all that empty space is utilized the ship can pack a lot of fire power for its size.

[Sea Toby]

Any thoughts on this version of the lockheed martin LCS

Surface Combat Ship (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/Surface-Combat-Ship-Brochure.pdf)

Seems like when all that empty space is utilized the ship can pack a lot of fire power for its size.

Yes, it does look good, with ESSM and harpoons. More than likely though it will cost nearly the same as LCS. The problem is the US Navy has already built too many destroyers with similar weapon systems. We are only building more Burkes because the next cruiser design isn't ready.

What is needed right now is to build open ocean escorts to replace the frigates with something a bit more capable in other missions. Our minehunters we have now are showing their age, and are incapable of steaming across the oceans. In other words they weren't designed for six months deployments.

What I am worried about is that for every extra Burke is built, we will end up with one less cruiser.

[luca28]

06:27 GMT, June 11, 2009, defpro.com | On January 23, 2009, President Obama stated that the VH-71 presidential helicopter programme was “an example of the procurement process gone amok.” In fact, the VH-71 programme has experienced significant schedule delays. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said April 6 that the programme has fallen six years behind schedule and runs the risk of not delivering the requested capability. He recommended the president to terminate the programme which has seen already more than $3 billion invested to cover the R&D and production costs of the first phase.

As a result, Ashton Carter, the DOD acquisition executive, issued an internal DOD memorandum directing that the VH-71 programme be cancelled on May 15, 2009. The Navy announced a stop-work order and a termination of the programme on June 1.

Since the termination of the VH-71 programme, which had the aim to provide 23 new helicopters replacing the 19 aging VH-3D and VH-60N rotorcraft used to transport the president, the US Congress has now to approve the Administration’s proposal and initiate a successor programme.

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released on June 5, CRS is exploring the costs of alternatives to canceling the VH-71 presidential helicopter programme. In this report the CRS stated that continuing with the VH-71 programme in more or less the current form would result in acquisition costs of $13 billion or more, including sunk costs on the VH-71 programme of more than $3 billion bill, thus taxpayers would have to pay about $10 billion.

Since its beginning, the programme was divided into Increment I and Increment II helicopters. The Increment I meet some but not all the operational requirements as stated in the VH-71 Operational Requirements Document which was approved by the DOD In December 2003. It was intended that the Increment I enter service first as near-term replacements while Increment II which meet all the requirements in the ORD, were to enter service later.

An alternative proposed by the CRS would see 18 Increment I aircraft procured while Increment II would be cancelled. Including the five pilot production Increment I aircraft, this would make a total fleet of 23 presidential helicopters. Terminating the Increment II would save $3.6 billion leaving less than $6.4 billion to taxpayers, the report stated. Another option could see 14 rather than 18 additional Increment I aircraft procured saving another hundreds of millions of dollars.

This estimate of both proposals, however, does not include the costs of keeping the 19 existing presidential helicopters in operation until they are replaced by the new aircraft.

Alternatively the 19 existing presidential helicopters could be upgraded and their service lives extended. Such an upgrade could cost $4.4 billion according to US Navy estimates. According to the CRS an upgrade could extend the service life of the VH-60Ns from 10 000 to 12 000 flight hours and thus provide another 6.9 years in operation. The VH-3Ds would have their service lives extended from 14 000 hours to 16 000 hours, providing another 6.7 years of operation. However, the 19 existing aircraft would not meet many of the operational requirements in the VH-71 ORD.

Be this as it may, due to the advanced age and technological limitations of the current fleet, a new fleet of presidential helicopters are still necessary. The proposed live extension of the current fleet of presidential helicopters, which are already 35 years old, would just postpone the date for a new programme which still will be needed. The US Congress has now to find out if a total termination of the programme would be even more costly than completing the current program under one of the above mentioned option.

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego is the prime contractor and systems integrator for the VH-71 programme with overall responsibility for the programme and aircraft system. AgustaWestland, the principal subcontractor, has responsibility for the basic air vehicle design, production build, and basic air vehicle support functions.

Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/330/)