Skip to comments.US Air Force tells suppliers to tighten belts
Posted on 05/06/2010 8:30:17 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The U.S. Air Force's top civilian warned his aerospace suppliers to expect an increased Pentagon focus on affordability amid mounting international competition.
Nearly all components of the service's budget, including personnel costs, are growing faster than the overall Air Force budget, Secretary Michael Donley told a kickoff meeting of a Senate caucus aimed at promoting a strong, secure and competitive U.S. aerospace industry.
"Global competition alone would make it imperative for our friends in the defense industry to reduce costs if they want to continue to be competitive in an increasingly sophisticated and capable international market for defense goods and services," he said.
The co-chairs of the new caucus are Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, and Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican. Both are strong Boeing Co backers in a potential $50 billion rematch with Europe's EADS to build an initial 179 refueling aircraft for the Air Force.
Other big U.S. Air Force suppliers include Lockheed Martin Corp, Northrop Grumman Corp and Raytheon Co .
Donley mentioned the Air Force tanker competition in passing but did not discuss it. Instead, he echoed a tough message to industry increasingly sounded by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"Affordability," Donley said, "is a key criterion in acquisition, now more than ever."
"We're working very hard to cut and control costs and we're looking for our long-time partners in the industry to help us do the same," Donley said.
Gates is to address issues surrounding what he has called political will and the defense budget on Saturday during a visit to the presidential library in Kansas of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned about a "military-industrial complex" in a Jan. 17, 1961, farewell speech.
Gates, in remarks on Monday to a conference of U.S. Navy supporters, said the Defense Department had to accept some hard
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I heard they are shopping in China :)
Just another tiny, but deliberate and strategic, step being taken to destroy USA military superiority for the benefit of Commies and Islam (aka Satanism)! IMHO
The list, ping
So what the hell happens if China decides not to sell us spare parts for our military equipment in the middle of a conflict??? Buying our military equipment and spares overseas is as stupid as it gets!!!!!!
You might be right, but I have an alternative view. Obama's goal is to nationalize corporations in the defense industry. Failing that he will regulate the h3ll out of them and get them to slash prices. The MSM is amplifying leaks from the administration and military to put the fear of God into the military suppliers.
You just can't nationalize an overseas entity very easily. Unless you want to be called an "empire builder."
” ... Obama’s goal is to nationalize corporations in the defense industry. ...”
You could indeed be Correcto Mundo, except what is the motive? To reduce defense coasts, while maintaining superiority? I sincerely doubt that!
To control priorities - that is already accomplished by Government funding.
To attenuate technological base - yes most probably is a secondary goal by depriving defense industry the profits necessary to continue independent research and development that supports and maintains technology advances, military cannot compete with Russia and China in coming years!
You ask good questions that make sense to ask in a typical democrat vs. Republican debate, where both sides are debating defense from similar paradigms. Obama's defense paradigm does not seem to have any consistency, which to me implies there is more to it than meets the eye. Putting it in the context of his radical upbringing and past, it is not a stretch to assume he wants socialism (gov't ownership of businesses) everywhere and that this goal trumps national security. I am fairly certain Obama wants to slash military spending (helps pay for social programs, and keeps his base happy) and wants to nationalize as much of defense industry as he can. By nationalizing the defense corporations, he can shrink them, and then offer laid off workers other jobs in the federal gov't. Of course, this is a decade long implementation spanning presidential campaigns.
My alternative view statement was made in reference to the article being part of the Obama PR machine. It is meant to send a signal to the defense industry -- not really meant to signal that he will go overseas for defense.
Now that you dumbed down your explanation in words that a 5th grader could understand, even I get it! Actually, what you have stated makes a lot of sense as well. However, I cannot completely reconcile Obama wanting power while simultaneously giving it away in such a treasonous manner.
This guy, besides being out of step with America, is a complete conundrum to me.
IMHO The Usurper is not completely formed (mature), and pursues ideological goals, only lusting for power to attain those goals. He is not directly seeking world governance as an exercise of his power, but rather is seeing himself as the transformer who first and foremost, dethrones the enemy of Islam and his dream of a Marxist Utopia, the USA. He is guilty of deliberate and planned treason and deceit, aided and abetted by NWO evil doers
Thanks. I don’t disagree with what you have stated — it is very consistent with his past. At some point he must realize that giving away power (military might) puts his dream of a Marxist Utopia at risk. You did say he was not completely formed.
The key point is that it’s not his Marxist utopian goals that motivate him in a personal way of owning or accomplishing. He is content to see Russia or China assume ownership of this Marxist utopia. He is not masculine in the sense of wanting ownership and power.
He wants dictatorial power only to pursue his idealogical goals as a transforming god-send. This is what makes him so dangerous, he is idealistic, first and foremost, and completely detached from reality. He is self-absorbed and truly detached from the consequences of his actions as they relate to human beings on a personal level. IMHO
Case in point: He destroyed the successful school voucher program in DC to appease unions, robbing many young black kids of their opportunity to achieve!
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.