Posted on 01/30/2006 10:34:57 AM PST by Blogger
Bush to propose cuts in fighter plane production, Army Reserve
By Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press Mideast edition, Sunday, January 29, 2006
WASHINGTON — President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs.
The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs. Bush will send his 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.
The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.
The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.
Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.
Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.
Some in Congress have vowed to fight the National Guard cuts. Its soldiers and resources are controlled by state governors unless Guard units are mobilized by the president for federal duty, as Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
“I remain convinced that we do not have a large enough force,” Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Proposals to cut funding in two key jet fighter programs were described by defense analysts and congressional aides, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because the reductions have not been announced.
One plan would eliminate funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s next-generation combat plane.
The second would cut money for F-22 fighters during 2007. But it is actually a contract restructuring that would add that money back — and more — over the long run by stretching out the program for an additional two years and buying up to four more planes. The new plan calls for buying 60 aircraft through 2010, rather than 56 in the next two years.
The Joint Strike Fighter engine is being built by General Electric and England-based Rolls Royce, and the plan to dump them as suppliers has triggered intense lobbying, including a handwritten note from British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush.
On the homefront, the close to $2 billion cut would hit General Electric engine plants, and possibly jobs, in Ohio and Massachusetts and a Rolls Royce plant in Indiana.
“This is a big question for GE,” said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank. “They could get shut out of the fighter engine business over the next 10 years.”
The proposal would benefit Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney, which got the original contract for the Lockheed Martin aircraft, and delivered its first engine last month.
GE spokesman Dan Meador said the alternate engine program provides competition for Pratt & Whitney, helping to drive down costs while also providing a back-up if problems arise.
“It’s very important to GE and Rolls Royce, and we’re performing well,” he said.
Defense officials, however, said the Pratt & Whitney engine has performed well and within budget, and noted that a number of other jet fighter programs — including the F-22 — have just one engine maker. Pratt & Whitney also makes the engines for the F-22.
AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report
Cut foreign aide! Cut foreign aide! Cut foreign aide! Cut foreign aide!
Cut social services and student loans.
absolutely
Doesn't sound like a 'cut', more like a restructuring. More AP posturing.
This is stupid. Why are they cutting programs we need to defend ourselves?
Reduce expenditurtes on something else instead.
This is not wise.
Why don't we just stop giving $$$$$ to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Paleosteinians? That's several billion dollars right there.
Short term funding gain. Not wise in the long run. On either the JSF or the Reserves.
Not with the JSF. The alternate engine program is slated to be CUT. That means no competition to keep prices down and if there is something wrong with the primary engine, no backup.
Don't believe MSM spin for starters - The fact is these are wise and needed moves within our military. We are moving some of our Reserve Units to be replaced by "Active Units"....this is very much needed and the correct course of action.
As for the F-22 program...over the full 7-9 years more planes will be added....there is just a decrease in the numbers in the next several years (and we are only talking less then 6 total aircraft here!....which is my understanding at this point).
JSF????
The JSF is a dog in many aspects to begin with - And the other reality is we are moving "Reserve Units" into "Active Duty Units" - This is a wise move in both the short and long term.
And, what is taking it's place? Maybe new and improved engines? This article doesn't go into that, it's just a bash Bush because some restructuring is going on. Funny how the liberal media takes this 'pro military' position, only to get conservatives riled up. The details haven't been elaborated upon.
I disagree on the JSF. Plus, they aren't doing away with that program altogether. Just the alternate engine (produced by GE and Rolls Royce). Blair has written and spoke with Bush on 3 occasions asking him to save the program. Bush has basically turned his back on Blair. Not wise.
I suspect that this is a play to the left. Remember when Bush announced wupport of the assault weaposn ban? He did so knowing fully well that he was writing a check that would never be cashed. He pissed off a lot of the pro-gun types, but eventually they settled down and realized that it was just stragery.
Apparently nothing. The JSF is the future. If this decision stands, it is in the hands of one engine company (on the American side).
I hope you are right. I know there is opposition on Capitol Hill regarding killing the program. Don't know about the reserves part. But, I would just as soon he not do anything but enhance our military.
So, you have knowledge of future military plans not yet disclosed? Should we have abandoned muskets for new and improved rifles? We don't know all the details, and keeping some things quiet from the media is good. Remember when the stealth fighter was first shown to the public? That was in the works for years before anyone knew about it. I still believe this is nothing more than a hit piece to get conservatives mad at this adminstration.
it also means slapping the UK in the face after their investment and commitment to the program from the time it was awarded to LM.
I don't think it could be politically feasible to do that. At best it would be hideously stupid.
Then what, we spit on the other 6-7 allies who also have invested in the JSF?
The JSF is starting to roll off the assembly line. Not a great time to do a 180 with any part of it.
And coming from Ohio where we are still depressed in certain areas (Dayton for one), we don't need any more bad economic news. It would be a good way to turn the state completely blue (and then I would have to move).
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.