The armed forces of the U.K., the U.S.'s biggest military ally, will need billions of dollars more than they have to spend, according to a government audit report, requiring what analysts say will be fundamental cuts to operations...

With Britain battling a record budget deficit, many political analysts say funding for the armed services will fall rather than increase...

The report underscores an evergreen criticism of modern British governments: that they ask their armed forces to project a global military presence without giving them the financial backing to do so.

Is America under funding our military while expecting them to maintain a global presence? At first glance, the answer is no.

Page one of Defense News reported on yesterday President Obama and the congress added $100 billion dollars to the defense budget to...

...cover the rising cost of operations, personnel and pressing modernization needs, officials said.

If approved by Congress, the money would allow defense spending to rise about 1 percent above projected inflation, analysts said.

DoD’s 2010 budget request called for $534 billion, plus $130 billion to cover the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...

Among other procurement efforts, the money will pay for new Air Force global strike programs — including work on new manned and unmanned systems — Army brigade combat team modernization, a Navy attack submarine and the Navy’s new Carrier Long-Range Strike system, sources said...

Analysts called the decision a victory for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has lobbied the White House for more funding.

At first blush, this appears to the act of a government backing its resolution with teeth as it sends men and women abroad in harms way. However, a closer look reveals this spending bill does not include...

...the estimated $30 billion that will be needed to fund President Barack Obama’s recent decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Now the Hill reports there is even less in this spending bill for the Pentagon to accomplish its missions...

The defense-spending bill written by Congress ignores cuts to several high-profile Pentagon programs proposed by the Obama administration...includes money for the General Electric-Rolls-Royce alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and for 10 additional Boeing C-17 cargo planes...It also includes a lifeline of sorts for the VH-71 presidential helicopter, which the administration has canceled due to cost concerns.

The Pentagon did not ask for money to continue any of these programs. The funding for the three programs makes up about $3.1 billion in the $636.3 billion Pentagon-spending bill agreed to by congressional negotiators.

Gates also told the Senate that he strongly opposed the $2.5 billion for 10 additional C-17s....But Democrats are also looking to the defense bill as a vehicle to raise the country’s debt ceiling and to extend unemployment benefits and healthcare insurance subsidies for the long-term jobless.

So it is unlikely that Obama will end up vetoing the bill, despite the previous threats.

There it is. These initiatives won’t fund the president’s war surge or critical programs identified by the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense. This bill is one big pork-barrel trough for initiatives already rejected by the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the generals in the Pentagon. Its also a domestic spending bill disguised as a defense bill. After this bill is signed a few contactors in key districts will benefit and the troops will get equipment they don’t want or need.  

The U.K. is only a few paces down the road to Hell ahead of us. In a few more budget cycles we’ll be in the same place. Every precious dollar congress spends on pork and not on real defense requirements is a bill our troops will pay later - when they’re stranded overseas and no one has their back. 

Our economic collapse will quickly be followed by our military collapse...unless the citizens of this nation reign in the mafia we call Congress.

This morning’s DOD Buzz over at Military.com hints the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will recommend slashing the carrier force from 11 to 9, killing the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, reducing the Joint Strike Fighter pro­gram buy, and chopping two Air Force wings.

The EFV is the centerpiece of the Marines’ future conventional warfare capability. Will the Marines fight for this one? According to DOD Buzz, “Reports are that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway will come out swing­ing to pre­serve the abil­ity to kick down the door and ensure forcible entry from the sea.”  Will Gates fire him? Nope.

After the demise of the F-22 program, the F-35 is the last active production fighter program in the US. The Air Force (after having its n*ts cut off and handed to it by Gates) gently rolled over on the F-22, handed over majority on control of tactical UAVs to the Army, rolled over on CSARX, and got bi*ch-slapped on the tanker. This service will mutter some weak-kneed platitude about “jointness,” meekly cut even more from it’s F-35 program (I’m sure the Navy and Marines will adequately defend their F-35 purchases) as well as a couple of combat wings. Afterwards, to make themselves feel better, the Air Force will issue a new policy about wearing reflective belts.

Secretary of Defense Gates recently discussed the cancellation of the CSAR-X rescue helicopter program with a group of Air Force officers.

“Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles behind enemy lines by itself to rescue somebody didn’t seem like a realistic op-con,” he said.

If it wasn’t realistic for a helicopter to go alone 250 miles behind enemy lines then US Special Operations Command would have shutdown years ago. Since Vietnam, both special operations and rescue helicopter crews have perfected the art of flying alone and unafraid into enemy territory. Even if it was unrealistic, combat rescue helicopters seldom go alone, but instead operate as part of a combat search and rescue task force, which may include platforms such as unmanned systems, A-10s, and AC-130s.

The secretary also stated the Defense Department would continue to look to improve CSAR, but as a joint operation.  

CSAR, however, is already a joint operation. Because Air Force CSAR assets are low density and high demand they must lean heavily on other services for support. It’s not uncommon for Air Forced HH-60Gs to fight in conjunction with Army Apaches or Marine Corp Cobras or F/A-18s. This joint emphasis is one reason the other services often choose Air Force assets as their first choice for personnel recovery.  If the other services wanted a bigger piece of CSAR it would have happened before now.

The Army, Navy and Marine Corps pour billions into aviation programs they deem important, and vigorously engage in political turf battles to protect them.  The other services have far more helicopters than the Air Force and each, to some extent, dabble in personnel recovery. If they determined CSAR was critical to their operations they could have easily invested more resources and made a serious push to take CSAR from the Air Force. Instead, they’ve been willing to let the Air Force do the heavy lifting for personnel recovery for the same fundamental reason the Secretary of Defense is willing to axe it.

CSAR doesn’t put bombs on target, conquer enemy territory or sink enemy ships. It doesn’t directly add to combat capability, but is an insurance policy for those who do. The Air Force has been willing to foot this expensive bill since Vietnam and the other services have been more than willing to let them do it. Times are tough and the Pentagon is looking for ways to save money, lowering this insurance coverage is one way to do it.

If the rest of the military wasn’t willing to spend the money to bring their assets up to full CSAR capability in the good times, why would they allocate precious resources in the hard times? Just calling CSAR “a joint mission” won’t guarantee one more dime for this most critical of missions.

This article comes from today's Newsweek, its the Periscope column by John Barry and Evan Thomas. I think its a new insight into defense spending politics and well written.

The Few, The Proud, The Savvy

By John Barry and Evan Thomas

In his farewell address in January 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, the cozy relationship between the Pentagon, Congress and defense contractors. In April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposes to do something significant about it. He wants Congress to cut big-ticket items from all the major services: the Air Force's F-22 fighter, the Army's family of Future Combat Systems and the Navy's DDG 1000 destroyer.

One service was notably spared the budget ax. The how and why suggests that Gates can be politically cagey as well as bold. The Marines are the smallest, cheapest and, arguably, the bravest of them all —"The Few, the Proud, the Marines" is not just a recruiting gimmick. The Marines were quicker than the Army to think about how to fight nasty, small wars—and do it without spending vast sums of money. But the Marines are a proud service, and they worry about becoming too much like the Army. They want to preserve their historic mission of landing on foreign shores in small boats.

The Marines last major amphibious operation was in 1950, a highly successful maneuver at Inchon in Korea. Since then, landing troops by sea (which, historically, has been an often-bloody gambit—think of Gallipoli and Tarawa) has become an increasingly dodgy proposition. Today, all but the poorest countries are likely to possess radar, mines and ship-killing missiles. Even the take-that-hill ethos of the Marines recoils at sailing into slaughter.

For almost 40 years, the Marines' landing craft has been the AAV, the Amphibious Assault Vehicle. Carrying 25 men and three crew, it's meant to be launched two miles off shore and it pokes along at 8mph—a sitting duck at sea. It can move on land, but the old, thinly armored vehicles were taken out of combat in Iraq when IEDs turned them into death traps.

The Marines are working on a new landing craft called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. It would launch from 25 miles out ("over the horizon") and move at 25mph. Heavily armored (38 tons versus the AAV's 23 tons) it requires a turbojet engine, which makes it look like "a tank on water skis," according to its critics. And there are many critics. The EFV has been in development for 14 years and its cost has tripled to $23 million each. With ship-killing missiles getting ever deadlier, the EFV would seem to be a candidate for cancellation by a pennywise SecDef.

But Gates kept it in the budget he proposed last week. Politics had nothing to do with it, insists spokesman Geoff Morrell. Rather, as Gates explained, he wants to take up the whole issue of the amphibious mission in the coming year when the Pentagon engages in a long-term review of defense priorities.

There is another good reason to kick the issue down the road. The Marines are famous for their political savvy. The Army wheezily jokes that while an Army squad commonly has 12 men, a Marine squad has 13—the extra is a PR officer. Trying to kill a favorite Marine Corps weapons system can be an exercise in futility. During the Bush 41 administration, then–Defense secretary Dick Cheney tried no less than four times to eliminate funding for the V-22 Osprey, which flies today. The Marines have close ties on Capitol Hill—none better than Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a combat-decorated 37-year veteran of the U.S. Marines. Last week, Murtha praised Gates's budget. As they say in the Corps, Semper Fi.

This is important because everything which sustains the military (money, personnel, and technology) comes from the economy, not government. Government only allocates those resources and sets policy, the economy creates the resources. I think our generals and defense secretaries might have forgotten this important point. If America is the economic engine of the Western world then those professionals who defend it should know how that engine works.  

This is why I stand on my Townhall soapbox and preach to the few readers who stumble in here about the dangerous road our government is taking. If I’m becoming a one-note blog, so be it. I can’t think of anything more important to talk about.  

The mainstream media (MSM) is talking about the mounting pressures to cut the defense budget based on the slowing economy and massive bailout spending. I point to the two articles below as examples.

From the 10 November Boston Globe:

A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable," and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs…It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities…

And a few cuts here or there won't do the trick, they add. "Taking cuts at the margin won't work this time, nor will pushing things off to later years."
     

And this is the 3 November New York Times:  

After years of unfettered growth in military budgets, Defense Department planners, top commanders and weapons manufacturers now say they are almost certain that the financial meltdown will have a serious impact on future Pentagon spending.

Across the military services, deep apprehension has led to closed-door meetings and detailed calculations in anticipation of potential cuts. Civilian and military budget planners concede that they are already analyzing worst-case contingency spending plans that would freeze or slash their overall budgets...

In all, the Defense Department now accounts for half of the government’s total discretionary spending, and Pentagon and military officials fear it could be the choice for major cuts to pay the rest of the government’s bills…

Some critics, citing the increase in military spending since Sept. 11, 2001, say it would be much easier to cut military spending than programs like Social Security and Medicare at a time when most people’s retirement savings are dwindling because of the financial crisis. Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has raised the idea of reducing military spending by one-quarter.

I’m glad the MSM is finally paying attention to the subject, but I think they’re missing the real point. It’s not that the current spending spree and recession will hinder defense spending; its quite possible America might be wrecking her currency and economy to the point we cannot sustain basic government functions like defense at all. If you think I’m exaggerating, read this article from CNBC:

The United States may be on course to lose its 'AAA' rating due to the large amount of debt it has accumulated, according to Martin Hennecke, senior manager of private clients at Tyche…"The U.S. might really have to look at a default on the bankruptcy reorganization of the present financial system" and the bankruptcy of the government is not out of the realm of possibility, Hennecke said…In order to solve or stem the economic slowdown, Hennecke suggested the US would have to radically reduce spending across all sectors and recall all its troops from around the world. As for a stimulus package, there is not much of an industry left to stimulate back into life, Hennecke said.

Tyche, a respected international finance corporation, goes further in this online article, “The Coming Cash Crash” by comparing the US to Zimbabwe. Both nations are destroying their currency with out of control debt and by relentless currency printing. In Zimbabwe it resulted in reduction of its national bonds to less than AAA status and panic selling of its debt and currency. Bankruptcy. 

America’s bankruptcy is a real and imminent possibility. What happens in a bankruptcy? Simple, an entity is reorganized in a way which allows it to function in the best interest of it creditors. Who are America’s creditors? I’ll let the reader answer that one and then ponder this question…

Can a bankrupt nation defend its international interest at home and abroad?

The Defense Department wants a rocket ship. Defense planners state we have a valid requirement to blast a small force of troops anywhere on planet earth in less than two hours. According to the 17 October edition of Stars and Stripes

Civilian and military officials held a two-day conference at the National Security Space Office (NSSO) to plan development of the Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion — or SUSTAIN — program…the Marines (need) the "capability to transport small, mission-tailored units through space from any point on the globe to a contingency at any other point on the globe" within minutes of an order, the paper reported, sourcing to a Marine document…Private rocket pioneer Burt Rutan says the plan is technologically possible, “…This has never been done," Rutan told USA Today in an e-mail. "However, it is feasible. It would be a relatively expensive way to get the troops on the ground, but it could be done."

I was just wondering if the Defense Department could invent a rocket ship to bring these “civilian and military officials” from the NSSO back to Planet Earth. If the Pentagon is struggling to acquire more terrestrial, conventional weapons systems how can it hope to build a “Buzz Lightyear” system like this?  

For example, the Air Force takes 20 years just to field new fighters like the F-22. It’s failed to acquire a new aerial tanker after a decade of trying. It took both the Marines and Air Force over 20 years to field the V-22 Osprey, the tilt-rotor aircraft. The Marine’s current new version of the venerable H-1 Huey, the UH-1Y, just entered service with severe performance limitations to the irritation of John Young, the Undersecretary of Acquisitions. According to Inside the Pentagon, Young commented on the likelihood that DOD would have to pay roughly $72 million to fix the UH-1Y’s major deficiency even though the problem prevents the aircraft from maneuvering as required. This was just a Huey upgrade program, the ancient and relatively simple helicopter of Vietnam fame. The Marines aren’t the only ones having problems buying helicopters. The Air Force is still unsuccessful in its half-decade old quest to buy a common, off-the-shelf helicopter to replace its 1980-era H-60s. The Army, perhaps the leading authority in military helicopters, just had the $6.2 billion Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program cancelled by Secretary Young. The Bell ARH-70, designed to replace the 40 year old OH-58 Kiowa scout helicopter, was 40% over-budget and underperformed.

Helicopters and airplanes are not ‘rocket science’ - NASA’s area of expertise. Has anyone in the DoD talked to them lately? Their Orion spacecraft, an Apollo rehash, is delayed again. From 2010 to 2015 American astronauts will hitch rides with our dear and old friends the Russians. NASA is the world’s leader in rockets and they’re having a hard time getting its “retro” rocket into space; and the Pentagon is seriously entertaining the idea of fielding something this cutting edge beyond the atmosphere?  

It’s funny they call this rocket ship “SUSTAIN,” because we’re having a heck of a time just trying to sustain the run-of-the-mill weapons systems we already have. This week the Air Force announced it will cut a massive portion of its frontline fighter force, about 300 fighters including F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, by 2010. The money will be used to sustain other current programs, including manpower. There’s a technical term for this: cannibalization. The Navy announced it is cutting the purchase of one of its much needed half-billion dollar littoral combat ships, citing budget issues. The new Hollow Force is starting to take shape, and this is before the emerging budget crisis really kicks into gear.  

According to the 17 October The Washington Times: 

The spiraling financial crisis and the ballooning costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will force U.S. military planners to make hard choices about defense spending, which has risen at unprecedented levels since 2001, defense officials and experts say…Jeremy Potter, a senior analyst for federal industry with the government contractor consulting group INPUT, said the full impact of the bailout´s cost would not be felt until fiscal 2010, which begins next Oct. 1…A year from now, "defense program managers are going to be scrambling to get their programs funded," he said.

I know, some of you thinking, “Hey, it was just a meeting, it doesn’t mean we’re serious about building a new rocket.” I think even entertaining the concept shows the lack of serious focus within the Pentagon about where we find ourselves:

The services are starting to cannibalize mainstay programs, the Pentagon can’t buy new weapons systems with the money it already has, money for future force modernization is drying up, and the threats to our nation are growing stronger.

There, I just boiled America’s strategic military position down to one sentence. I, the military equivalent to Joe The Plumber, just did what all the brass, consultants, and think tanks in the Beltway can’t or won’t do. Everything the Pentagon does, every penny it spends, should exist within this strategic prism. Building a multi-billion dollar rocket to throw a platoon from one side of the planet to the other is about as far outside this box as one can get. It’s dangerous because it shows our friends and adversaries an unnerving lack of focus within our defense establishment.

Its time to get serious.

According to CQ.com the Pentagon wants $450 billion in more spending over the next five years:

The new estimate, which has not been publicly released, would raise the fiscal 2010 budget number announced by the administration this year from $527 billion to $584 billion, not counting operations costs for the ongoing wars. 

Experts note that releasing such documents in the twilight of an administration is a well-worn tactic, and that incoming presidents often disregard such guidance in order to pursue their own priorities…

But the numbers also seem to contradict the National Defense Strategy released recently by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, which called for tough tradeoffs in spending in an environment of limited resources…

The numbers also contradict reality. America is hemorrhaging wealth and the tax base will not support increased federal spending – defense or otherwise. The only way to raise new revenue is to borrow it or print it. Either option is bad news for inflation, interest rates and jobs.

I fully stand by my analysis Pentagon planners are most likely conducting serious budget cutting drills in expectations of massive roll-backs in discretionary spending in next budget cycle. My assessment is backed up by a 9 October Miami Herald news story:

With the U.S. economy in crisis and military spending at its highest level since World War II, military officials and experts are worrying that America may have to start reining in defense spending…

Eight years of borrowing to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars, coupled with an aging baby boomer population, growing healthcare costs and a push to enlarge the Army could force legislators to make tough decisions about which needs should take priority, and the next president to reassess how much the military can do…Congress' decision earlier this month to approve a $700 billon bailout for the financial industry adds to the strain on the federal budget, and the stock market decline and the credit crunch could slow economic activity and eliminate jobs, which in turn could reduce tax revenues.

Pay close attention to the sentence “push to enlarge the Army.” If they Army adds 30,000 soldiers over the next 24 months as originally planned I believe the Pentagon will slice portions of the Air Force and Navy to pay for it. The only other place to find additional cash is medical and retirement benefits…and congress won’t let that happen

Air Force modernization and re-capitalization is about to come to a sudden and brutal halt.