Gates Proposes Cuts To Several Major Weapons Programs

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined a "fundamental overhaul" to defense acquisition, the Associated Press reports.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces. [...]

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents. [...]

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

Story continues below

advertisement

Congress is expected to push back hard against the cuts, fearing lost defense contractor jobs.

Gates anticipated some criticism. "Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats," he said. "But, it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk - or, in effect, to 'run up the score' in a capability where the United States is already dominant - is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take."

Wired's Noah Shachtman describes the plan as "the Defense Secretary trying to shake the defense establishment free of the Cold War, finally."

And on the Huffington Post, National Security Network analyst Max Bergmann writes, "The budget laid out by Gates gives a clear indication that the Obama administration is serious about finally shedding the legacy of the Cold War and building a military that is suitable for the 21st century. In fact, this budget closely resembles what many progressives have been calling for on defense over the last few years."

UPDATE: The Hill notes that Gates' budget also means no new helicopter for President Obama:

President Obama will continue flying in a stripped-down Marine One helicopter that matches the tough economic times.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended that the controversial $13 billion program to develop a supped-up helicopter be canceled -- at least for now.

Gates said at a Pentagon press conference that he is recommending the termination of the new Marine One program, whose costs escalated from an initially estimated $6.5 billion to $13 billion.

Technology in the new helicopter geared toward keeping the president secure and allowing him to perform his duties uninterrupted while in the air contributed to the cost of the helicopter, which also was to include a small, functional kitchen and a bathroom.

Comments

[popart]

for a "peace loving nation" we americans love to spend money on fancy war machinery and weapons...all the better to engage in warfare on foreign soil.....we have a huge standing army and thousands of anerican military forces on bases all over the world....we supply arms to all the major nationsof the world and not doubt as many underworld criminal organizations. for a "peace loving nation" we "rattle" the sword a lot.....what if all that money that goes to "war stuff" went to making life better for all us "peace loving americans"­.......hea­lth care, education, parks and rivers, roads and highways....you get the idea....all those things that the government "cuts" in order to buy F-22s and aircraft carriers and weapons systems.....and keep our folks in military bases all over the world.

[higgins1990]

And of course the AP fails to mention the cuts to the Missile Defense Program. That might, you know, be embarrassing after N. Korea's recent launch.

[ersf]

Time to cut some of the Pentagon largesse and stop making Pentagon spending some sort of patriotism test - because it is not!!! It is time for our Military to live within their means, and focus on needs, not weapons for weapons sake.

[pokemon]

We have been on a war footing for years, they have already bought enough to replace everything, why do you think we owe so much. I just bought a 40 year old military vehicle they had replaced with new. This does not hurt the military in the least.

As for Obama disappointing some people.. please, no matter what he does you will not be happy.

[kalidescopemind]

How come no-one is talking about the President's plan to eliminate nuclear weapons? The pentagon wanted 14%, he gave them inflation dollars, and re-oriented spending toward personnel and away from flakety weapons systems. We are in the presense of greatness.

[Natures]

Finally people can get a real job instead of use the Army to play Video-Games.

[pokemon]

Like teaching grammer.

[johnsonc20]

The Pentagon proposed a $60 billion increase in their budget. That was what was cut back by Gates. So, it is actually a sizable increase that he is proposing, not a cut. He also is buying 4 F-22s in this budget. By the time Congress adds back this, that, and the other thing, it will be more of the same. Obama continues to disappoint.

[sansego2000]

Most money is spent on the military because that is what humans do best, kill and destroy. There is so much the military has in the way of funding, that a lot of it no one is really sure where it all goes. I am not just talking "black projects". I have seen companies that have government contracts that end up having so much non essential spending that it is criminal. Spending over-runs, billing for many people doing the same job, over pricing... Some things are needed, but the majority of this is just B.S. I know it will never happen, but the U.S. government needs to audit the military and the companies that contract with them. They will find billions. Things will probably not change much until people change the way they think. Like i said at the beginning, what humans do best is destroy.

[DuganS1]

Some of the best jobs in the country are in the defense sector. And a large number of manufacturing jobs come from defense too. We need to manufacture more airplanes, not less. We need to stop wasting the huge amounts of money we do on health care. Obama is doing us great service by cutting Medicare Advantage but needs to cut more.

[IndianaJohn]

We should build more planes, but they should be built for the civilian sector where they will add productivity to the economy, not for defense against planes that don't exist, flown by enemies we don't have.

[Yaaawn]

Might as well. Obama is not interested in doing anything except throwing out empty resolutions for "severe consequences"

[113]

I am very disappointed about them scrapping the F-22 program and instead spending $1 Trillion! on the JSF which we are selling to other countries as well and is subsonic and can't match the maneuverability of the F-22...That makes absolutely no sense at all..ugh.

[observer151]

They could always buy SU-35's from Russia and put US made engine and electronics in them.

Call them SU-35USA models - they'd be more than a match for the all-Russian models, and way cheaper than F-22's.

[Unsunder]

Everybody should read this:

"Gates anticipated some criticism. "Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats," he said. "But, it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk - or, in effect, to 'run up the score' in a capability where the United States is already dominant - is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take.""

[zaz33]

No one is threatening to invade us.

No one is capable of invading us.

No more wars of "choice"

[Airmail56]

Another Democrat President looting military spending. "President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed."

Dig the link while it lasts... http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/

[Unsunder]

Sounds like you may have accidentally skipped over this part of the article:

"Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents."

[Airmail56]

No, I didn't skip it, I just don't believe the money will be put back in military hardware. Do you really believe it will?

[lessbs]

How are those trillions spent on star wars programs working out?

[Airmail56]

They gave us systems to deploy against N.Korean and Iranian threats...

[kevenseven]

Anyway, shortbus is boring the cr ap out of me. I'm going to go do something more constructive than rubbing his nose in his illogic.

See if you can get him to explain his position that it is pointless to ki ll terrists.

And if he can explain how Saddam could have attacked anyone, seeing as he had no WMDs, and that rule #1 in Saddam's life was that Saddam must remain in power.

[Z-Liberator]

Gentleman come down, I thought this was about Defense Spending!

[postman606]

I'm happy to see Gates on board, he worried me at first.

[kevenseven]

BoSoxFanNC3 (shortbus) writes:

I think that is a great deal....chiapet of your King paid for by a Republican

Posted 07:31 PM on 04/06/2009

----------­----------­----------­---

King? You mean the president who received the votes of 70 million American patriots?

You are just jealous because there is no question that Obama was elected president.

Unlike Bush Who?