Marines Under Fire From Pentagon Cuts

Never let it be said that President Obama lacks political instincts. When his "deficit reduction panel" outlined planned cuts to Pentagon purchasing this week, he made darn sure the news came out on Wednesday -- rather than yesterday, Veterans Day.

Otherwise, his panel might have made headlines for suggesting that the Pentagon axe the V-22 Osprey, and cut one-third of Textron's orders; kill Lockheed Martin's warplane, the F-35B; and cancel orders for General Dynamics' amphibious assault craft. As it happens, the U.S. Marine Corps relies or would rely on all of these costly weapons systems.

The President's panel proposed a wholesale reduction in Pentagon hardware spending, destined to deprive BAE, Navistar, Lockheed and General Dynamics of billions more in revenue destined for the increasingly irrelevant JLTV program. (America's Next Top Humvee ain't looking as pretty as it once was.) In the process, it seems the Marines will bear the brunt of the budgetary axe. At this rate, they may have to stage their next invasion armed with little more than M-16s and rubber dinghies.

Ah, well. If anyone can get the job done, sans equipment, it's the Marines. Plus, the proposed cuts aren't set in stone just yet. We'll keep you updated on how this plays out. Meanwhile, there are a couple of winners we should highlight on the Pentagon funding front.

First up, the folks in Congress do recognize that if they kill the Osprey, they'll still need to find some way to get Marines to the fight. Thus, the deficit panel suggests a few United Technologies Black Hawk helicopters might do the trick. They're cheaper than the Osprey -- and soon, they might not even need pilots.

The other a big winner: Boeing. After losing the F-22 and F-35 competitions to Lockheed, and after Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen declared the latter plane the last manned fighter that the U.S. will ever build, it seemed that Boeing was out of the fighter game for good. But Pentagon penny-pinching has turned this theory on its head.

As plans for F-35 purchases ratchet back, we may instead buy more Lockheed F-16s, and Boeing F/A-18 variants, for some time to come. If nothing else, it's about time Boeing investors got some good news.

What do you say? Are defense spending cuts essential, or irresponsible? Scroll down, and sound off.

There are four major weapons systems listed in this article:

1. V-22. Already in-production. The Black Hawk (UH-60) already in production as well, can't meet the standards currently set by the CH-46 fleet, so it isn't an option because replacing CH-46s would degrade the Marines' capabilities. The S-92 might be able to meet, but isn't really an off-the-shelf option and would require quite a bit of R&D funds to get into production. The EH-101 could be an off-the-shelf option, but would either send a heck of a lot of $$$ and jobs overseas, OR if built under license here in the states would require $$$ to stand up production capability.

My analysis is that even given the higher per-unit fly-away cost of the Osprey, the fact that its R&D costs are sunk means that it's a cheaper (or at least presents a much better ROI) day-forward option than any other alternative. Threatening to kill it is either a negotiating point, or payback for how Texas and Pennsylvania (Senator Toomey) are moving, politically.

2. F-35B Not in production, but well into R&D with a lot of sunk costs. F/A-18E/Fs and F-35Cs can meet all the requirements (and in some areas more, actually) ... except the ability to operate off unimproved/non-existent airfields and the LHA/LHD fleet. Which is pretty damn important given that the CVN fleet keeps getting cut back and the LHA/LHDs are going to be expected to step into the gaps more and more. The AV-8B is an aging platform, but could be SLEPed (or the Marines could just buy the Harrier GR.9s that the RAF/RN is losing). But even SLEPed the airframes will need to be retired in the mid-term, leaving a gap. Additionally, several of our allies (Italy, Spain - yes, I know, I know, and maybe the RN - should they actually make up their minds) are stragicially dependent upon the F-35B for their carriers.

My analysis is that while the F-35B isn't as cut/dried as the V-22, it still makes a heck of a lot of sense to keep it in production from a long-term military and diplomatic outlook.

3. EFV/AAAV Scheduled for production in 2012, I think, but still has major teething problems that have been difficult to resolve over what has turned out to be a ~30 year development timeframe. Planned unit buy has been cut back by half (although if it gets into service and works well there'll be pressure to ramp the numbers up again). The current vehicle (AAV) is aging, but effective in it's designed role and SLEPable (and might even be capable of being put back into production).

This is definitely a candidate for cutting, but could cause issues with the Marines' overall "over the horizon" forced-entry mission. Wouldn't eliminate it, but would bring it into very limited service before committing to go further.

4. HUMVEE Replacement The Hummer is in production and has shown itself to be versatile and upgradeable. Alternatives to it are currently available/in production for specialty missions (MRAP vehicles, for instance). Don't see a need to go down the replacement road just yet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.