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
But I'm not at least theoretically answerable to a board of directors.
But with the loss of human ingenuity one could argue we would ultimately lose out with regard to both those variables (dangerously so regarding the latter).
Tiy are on it exactly. I think we are going to see Long Range and Long loitering UAVs that will pin down a area and region much much quicker than trying to deploy and entire fighter wing. Anytime we see a potential problem brewing we swarm and area.
I wonder if they are working on any search and Rescue UAVs (helo) that can be remotely called in, pilots or walking wounded crawl aboard and out they go. If you had a swarm standing by lurking waiting to be called in, you could have one pilot controlling many and then include a homing program in them to fly them to where ever you wanted them to go... that would be amazing.
Now imagine the cluster of enhanced UAVS are deployed by a mach 20 transporter, and are able to deploy mini-UAVs(insect-sized) that can fly into buildings and ID bad guys... Damn.
Because I don't want the taxpayers to spend millions in pork for an engine that isn't needed?
I don't have any finanical interests in this other than as a taxpayer. I doubt that you can say the same.
The engine is needed.
Your arguments have been all over the map.
And, my financial interests are my own. I would not suffer financially without the Joint Strike Fighter Engine. I strongly believe, however, that it is a stupid idea to get rid of it. For diplomacy's sake. For safety's sake. It's a bad move.
"With fricking lasers coming out of their foreheads.."
Well, at least it's the Army cutting the numbers back, not government.
And 4 billion is a drop in the bucket for our Air Force when compared to just maintenance/fuel/training costs of our current fleets.
Not a bad touch, the lasers...
Seriously, the future of warfare will be unlike anything seen or imagined, well, except for the imaginations of a few really sick and twisted folks...
Some Clintoon leftover in his administration gave him this number, and he has to do it as some sort of "Give" to the Dimorats.
We are to heavely disarm our forces once the "War on Terror" is over. what is worse...If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will lose almost 90% of current forces.
It isn't a meaningful cut, financially. It has a whole lot of meaning elsewhere.
I agree, they are already creating simulators with laser weapons in them now. I think warfare will change quickly when you have renewable weapons like that. Weapons that have infinite ( relitivly speaking) amount of shots rather than a plane that drops a load of bombs returns and then re loads.
I disagree with that. If that was the case, then why is the top speed for the yf23 with the GE engine still classified? I believe that f-15 and f16 are using the GE 110 engine also.
Since you have trouble following them, I'll boil them down.
The plane has a perfectly good engine. Paying another company to develop a second engine to do the same job is pork and corporate welfare. And given GE's corporate hostility to Christianity, I'm glad they are getting the short end of the deal, and I hope, but don't know, that given that the commander in chief is a Christian, that there is a cause and effect between their irresponsibility and the loss of the engine contract.
Cut subs and some of the fancy aircraft programs. Create another five light infantry brigades and bring the SF groups to 100% fill.
The airborne lasers being considered (chemical oxygen iodine lasers) use a chemical fuel which is broken down in the process of firing. There's nothing infinite about it, you get as many shots as you have chemical fuel to take.
The 747 based airborne ABM laser system has fuel for about 20 shots.
If you cut the help for the Israelis they will cease to exist. If you cut the help for Egypt it will turn into a islamic theocracy.
true......except for this.....http://www.blacklightpower.com/
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.