The Center for National Policy, which has top former Clinton aides Leon Panetta and Dan Glickman on its board of directors, will publish a report tomorrow calling for a two-year pause on weapons projects. Reuters journalist Andrea Shalal-Esa reports today:
The Obama administration should review all major arms programs and set clear priorities about which should continue to be funded, and take steps to cut costs across all military branches, it said.
Specific recommendations included ending production of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-22 fighter; scaling back purchases of the F-35 fighter, also being built by Lockheed; focusing more on unmanned aerial vehicles; and increasing the size of the Navy fleet, but with more submarines and lower-cost, smaller ships.
on December 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply
This may be inevitable to an extent, for projects that have already spent more than 80 percent of their lobbying budget and whose major manufacturing centers are almost exclusively in bright red states. This is reminiscent of LBJ's closure of the SAC base in Abilene, as punishment for not supporting him in the Pres. election.
Politicians always have a different time horizon than military procurement systems. Here; the Dems are preliminarily looking to "what (spending) will (reciprocally) help us in 2010?" The F-22 and F-35 are, simply, losers in this analysis. Naval shipyards on the "Blue" coasts, however, will need to be kept busy.
on December 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply
Yes, its always the wet dream of the ultra-left wing of the Democratic Party to stop the development and procurement of weapons. I doubt Obama will buy into this garbage- he's too smart. Also if he wanted to govern from the ultra-left wing- he wouldn't have made the appointments he did.
on December 8, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply
The very first thing one needs to do in a situation like this is decide what it is we (the USA) wants to accomplish with our spending.
Do we want to project power? If yes, where and against what range of likely enemies? What assets and platforms do we need to do that, what weapon systems, and what sort of infrastructure do we need to maintain in order to accomplish all that?
First we define a goal. Then we design a strategy to accomplish that goal. Then we choose assets and weapons to accomplish the strategy.
Lastly, we assign senior officers to oversee the carrying out those goals (including development and procurement) and if they are failing at their mission we fire them.
All of that sounds good in theory. It's a pity it has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the real world.
on December 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply
I was 14 when Ronald Reagan was elected and for the next 28 years all I hear from the left is cut defense, eliminate weapon systems and unilaterally disarm. Notwithstanding what Obama says today the famous Youtube video where he expresses his "real" anti-military agenda is from the heart.
As for his appointments these people are all power hungry egotists who will do whatever Obama wants them to do. Gates is already inserting "coded language" that should be interpreted as cutting procurement.and weapons. The government has appartently provided trillions for various bailouts but somehow Defense spending and procurement should be cut. The US could easily double the defense budget and still be slightly under the Cold War average as a percentage of GDP.
on December 9, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply
More Submarines and ships! Where is Billy Mitchell when you need him. You might as well just hand Japan and Taiwan over to China along with the rest of the South Pacific.