Congress has inserted language authorizing Navy to procure more Super Hornets than the service has asked for:
Citing concerns about the “strike-fighter gap,” the House Armed Services Committee last week inserted into its final version of the national defense authorization bill a provision giving the Navy permission to forge a multi-year contract with Boeing, maker of the Super Hornet.
“The committee supports procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft to mitigate the naval strike-fighter inventory shortfall and believes that procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft through a multi-year procurement contract is more cost effective and prudent than procuring new aircraft through an annual contract,” the final version of the bill said…
The committee says the fighter gap is far larger than the Navy’s recent estimates. The committee said this year’s shortfall is 110 aircraft, the shortfall in 2010 will be 152 aircraft and the peak will be 312 — or about 30 percent of the fleet’s target size — by 2018.
“The committee believes such drastic shortfalls in strike-fighter inventory are unacceptable,” the bill said.
Authorizing procurement is not the same as providing funding, however, so with no increase to the budgetary top line, I’m sure that NAVAIR – and probably OPNAV as a whole – views this authority with something of a jaundiced eye.
In a parallel development, the White House threatens to veto any defense spending bill that contains additional money to keep the F-22 line open.
I’ve seen this in shipbuilding too, such that the OPNAV planners magically plan so that the ship they want–which Congress will add in whether or not it’s in the budget–is left out to pay for something else.
How stupid can the White House and the Administration be? Just because we’re fighting a war against terrorism that doesn’t have an enemy with hi-tech weapons doesn’t mean that you won’t one day in the very near future.
Infinitely stupid.
Particularly since if there is anything that SHOULD have been learned over the last six years, it is that the United States does not fight counterinsurgency campaigns well. We would do far better to focus on bringing our strengths to bear against the foe, instead of trying to play his game by his rules.
“Infinitely Stupid.”
Oh, Yeah, Mike M, that about says it all in a nutshell. Thanx, we really don’t need to go further and delve any deeper with longed-winded, detailed examinations of why various moves by this current Congress and Administration occur as they do. Your two-word offering will suffice as an appropriate generic answer suitable for a one-size-fits-all reply to any and all questions: Why “X’” ? Ans: “Infinitely Stupid.”
A right handy, very concise and highly descriptive little analytical tool. Yes indeedee.
General Giap has admitted that we defeated him militarily, that it took the cut off of funds by Congress that allowed him to take over South Vietnam. While there were US Forces involved, niether the VC, nor the NVA could make any appreciable headway. That does not sound like a country that does not do COIN well. It is Congress, and the media, who demand instant, Hollywood style, solutions that don’t do COIN well.
The Navy would be well justified in looking at such authorization with a jaundiced eye. Congress routinely authorizes and fails to fund.
Cutting off F-22 procurement is beyond stupid, it’s criminal. But then, the Dems have been criminal since Wilso took the country into WW1, while promising otherwise. Arguably, even earlier than that.
The Messiah’s misrule is going to be felt for a very long time.
@Byron, *Don’t ask how stupid these people in Congress or the Administrations, yes, that is plural, can be.* This includes both parties and both branches. As soon as you think you have figured them out, they do something worse worse to prove you wrong. Part of the problem is this, in some ways Obama is following the Bush precedents. Only if they go back and actually prove it wrong, will they really change it. “Shame, on you*, you’re asking these people to “think”. This is above their “pay-grade”. First, they need to do a “cranial-rectal extraction”, to get some oxygen to their brain.
@Lex, I figure you’ll blow me out of the water, I’ve got this sinking feeling that the F-35 will follow the F-22. I think you may see some upgrades to legacy technologies, with that, I would include the Super Hornet. But we must remember, there are end of life issues with these airframes.
Guys, this is beyond the dems vs repubs. The gap just didn’t occur in the last 150 days or so. We’ve been robbing Peter to pay Paul far too many years, and now the debt is due. Whilst we can certainly blame the current admin for the failure to address we can’t lay all the blame at his feet. But the numbers are staggering aren’t they? A 30% shortfall in 9 years? We’re already providing over 40% of air support for AfPak off the CVNs. And we’re probably gonna be there for at least the next 4 and probably 8 years. A $45 million Global Hawk may be the answer we’re forced into. The clubs are gonna be real empty at happy hour.
Either that or go up post on Lex’s blog and we’ll go steal them Hornets from the Spanish after they have a couple of post-flights beers!
A very valid point. This is not a new issue. Both parties rode the military hard, put it up wet. Clinton replaced nothing, Bush replaced nothing more than expended ordnance and some spare parts.
And you sure won’t replace them with an RQ-4. It’s not a bomb-dropper (not to mention that it’s just as expensive as a new F/A-18). It’s a great system for what it was designed for, but not a strike asset.
Now what happens here in this kind of “tug-o-war” over the supposed “fighter gap”? Does approval in this bill with or without funding an acknowledgement of a fighter gap? If so, who then should determine what size it is, can’t go back to the people saying there is not one to begin with unless you fire them – right? What happens if congress goes along with the numbers proffered by the Navy and we get out there in the 2014 time frame and run out of fighter jets, do we then go and fire these guys? Or do they get promoted and moved onto the F/A/E/C-35 follow-on program? Just wondering where all those “smart” people went that were pushing the A-12 into non-existence and if any of them are the ones talking about how well we are doing in fighter numbers game right now?
Just saying, where is the accountability?
BT: Jimmy T sends.
It is truly amazing how, despite the mountains of past evidence to the contrary (a literal equivalent to the Himalayas in size and scope), Gates seems to think that the F-35 will be one of the very few programs in history to come in at or under budget. I think we all know what will happen. F-35 cost will continue to increase (it already costs close to the $140 million figure thrown around for the F-22), and the number bought will plummet, sending up unit cost ever higher (the procurement death spiral). So, instead of USAF purchasing 1800 odd F-35s and the USN 480, they may buy half. And so it goes, fighter wings and CVWs will be shut down or operate with half the usual number of aircraft, while a proven world beater is terminated at 187 units in order to save less than $2 billion in procurement a year. An amount which Herr Obama is prepared to spend in literal seconds as part of the socialization of America.
Is there anyone who can take the reins at DoD and really fight for the long term best interests of our national defense? Rumsfeld was a disastrous nut, Cohen a vapid pretty boy, and Gates appears to be nothing more than a pure politician whose only concern is his own power base. I guess it comes down to leadership and priorities, and we haven’t had a President truly take an interest in defense procurement since Reagan.
“World beater” ? I thought you said “wife beater”.
Jimmy T./
Where are all the really “smart” guys now, you ask? Do they get promoted, you ask? Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. You obviously are in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, else how could you POSSIBLY forget el Numero Uno rule of military life for senior officers for everyone save those in direct command of a *Naval vessel? : “F**k Up and Move Up.”
(an exception to the rule, as is too hard to fob off the blame and the damage is too obvious to bystanders and occasional civilian passers-by)
deleted by author
VX
By that def Lex – who made O-6 – hadda made a couple of boo boos along the way!
Larry – a little fairy whispered in my ear that the JSF will melt our current flight decks without major and costly mods. Byron can probably refer. So it comes with a new set of warts all its own. Single engine warts at that. Oh my. Back to leaning out the cockpit with the wind-proof Zippo. Nope, it ain’t a cure in my book. Just a new disease.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/062309cdam2.htm
sorry to be late but another article. Who made a Navy friend of out Carl Levin? And looks like he ain’t no friend of the BIB, sorry Virgil.
G-Man/
Naw, it simply means that all too many of the undeserving waft their way upwards along with the deserving in all too many cases–usually shunted aside after their screw-up to staff positions in obscure directorates where they can do minimal harm, to be sure, but still in the system nonetheless–and often continue to advance in rank as well, to add insult to injury.
PS to G-Man/
I should have added that, although I fully realize kicking them upstairs to a major command HQ to a staff slot with minimum responsibilities and maximum supervision is the quickest and easiest way to immediately get them out of operational line positions where they can do real harm, it still rankles based on general principles alone.
Wrong bandage for the wrong wound. Believe it or not the Navy can get through its fighter woes-but if it does not fix its other aircraft and shipbuilding issues-the only place those fighters better be flying is in a permissive environment.
For the money they are going to take to buy more Hornets they could buy enough E-2’s, pay for helo re-work and procurement and probably SLEP or SLAP (I can never keep it straight) enough P-3’s to get them to the end of the trail.
Skippy, you’re right as far as it goes–only problem is, we NEED ‘EM ALL!!!
But we can’t afford them all. And the folks who were in love with the Hornet buy put us in this miserable position. Like B-2 said a while ago-Mr. Nathman and Uncle Vern deserve to be called on it.
In the late 90’s Naval Aviation faced choices. It made all the wrong ones. It had options then to fix the support side of the house. It put all of them off to make sure the Hornet buy was huge and successful. The rest of the replacements were shoved five years down the road. Or retired like the S-3 to pay for the shiny new Hornets and JSF. All of the aircraft that are coming on line like the E-2D, the Growler, the SH-60R, the P-8 could have been IOC by now if there had been a more prudent approach earlier. Replacing the Tomcat with F-18F’s to get the technology boost while pushing the “E” to the out years; Quitting JSF-since, as a very wise two star told me in 1997, the Navy could not afford both and if it tried for both it would pull down the house with it.
Smart man. So many good ideas for fixing naval aviation were thrown under the bus in the 1999-2003 timeframe. Now the folks whose oxes were gored can say, ” I told you this would happen”.
Skippy-san/
Although I’m not Navy, everything you say rings true from what little I know looking in, but that logic all takes place within the bounded budget universe your service has meekly accepted. Can’t afford it when Obama is tossing around TRILLIONS willy-nilly? Or providing Billions with a B to outfits like Acorn for community “organizing?” Surely you jest. Time for another “Revolt of the Admirals,” my man–that is, if the big kids REALLY care for the service they profess to so love and to which they claim to swear their fealty.
If they were prepared to sacrifice their lives in defense of their nation as JOs, should they not be willing to sacrifice their careers to protect their nation now? Whether their lives or careers, the threat is no less now than then. Should they not answer the call?
VX,
You know, the Navy actually had money it could have used within its TOA, if it had been willing to set aside its internal politics and work for the good of the entire battle group. The time for the revolt of the admirals was 1999 not 2009-they could revolt now and it would not solve very much. The damage is already done.
Here are a couple of examples: EP-3 replacement aircraft. A lot of good work was done in the 97,98,99 time fram to point out that by using the 737 airframe, the Navy could meet its airborne electronic surveillance requirements. The idea was considered heresy by the P-3 community who owned the airframes-but really was not concerned about nuturing the ES folks. Now ten years later the Navy will get the same sloution only at a much heftier cost.
S-3’s. The airplane was overcoming its “issues” and was really coming into its own. Had the navy put in the fixes that were discussed, it would have been equal or superior to the P-3 AIP that is so much in demand now. And it would have been armed. The costs of the upgrades were cheaper than what it was going to cost now to keep the P-3 program executable. It got rejected because certain flags saw easy pickings to keep a 550 aircraft Hornet buy financed. It would have been useful in the war on terror-would have given the BG a long range surveillance capanility and would have reduced total Hornet FLE expenditure.
I would submit the real issue though was not money-it was cutural. Naval aviation had spent the bulk of the 1980’s learning to work together as a team and in the next decade, undid all of that so as to return to the mindset of the 60’s.
Skippy-san/
Agree about the S-3 for sure. From what little I knew it seemed to be a REALLY nice, versitle aircraft. But bad decisions aside, I STILL maintain that the service chiefs and dept secretaries–ALL OF THEM–are being recreant in their duties by not more forcefully advocating for an expanded, NOT a shrunken defense budget. And it cuts no ice with me to say that there has been gross waste and programmatic mis-management and that the Navy, Air Force, etc., should better manage the resources they have. All true, but bottom line, ALL government IS ABOUT WASTE. In point of fact, practically EVERY government program is wasteful and mis-managed to one degree or another. To be “efficiently effective” is much to be desired, but that is a nirvana rarely achieved by ANY government agency. And when one is putting the fate of the nation at risk it is far, far better to error on the side of being “inefficiently effective” by having a force as large as necessary–as opposed to having an “efficiently” managed reduced force which, however valiant, is too small and/or too ill equipped to successfully do the job.
What all this boils down to is that we are saying by our actions that we don’t want to pay for the defense necessary because we’d rather spend it on social programs buying votes–and that we will rationalize away the threat as we whistle past the grave-yard. In warfare, attrition at some point becomes a mathematical certainty like trading pieces in Chess when one has the advantage: At first, the advantage seems slight–eventually it boils down to two to one–game over.
As I commented earlier on another post, we have apparently achieved what I thought to be physically impossible–the act of putting one’s head in the sand while simultaneously whistling past the grave-yard.
we don’t want to pay for the defense necessary because we’d rather spend it on social programs buying votes–
I submit that is any easy excuse. The defense budget is 535 Biliion dollars-700 billion when you throw in the cost of the wars. It has gone up not down every year.
Even with a “waste” overhead cost-the money was there. Even more so if the wars had been run on a pay as you go basis-e.g. a fuel surcharge to pay for them -and drive the point home to the American people that GWOT’s are not free.
Skippy-san/
You’re counting in nominal dollars, not constant ones adj for inflation. Hell EVERYTHING costs more each year in nominal dollars, but that doesn’t mean we’re spending more as a per-centage of our salaries. A far, far, better measurement is spending as a % of GDP. By this measure we are barely spending more as % of GDP than we were just prior to Pearl Harbor! Now, granted, we had almost a zero base at that time, so we are working from a larger foundation, but still, defense spending is small potatoes and has been shrinking as a % of GDP for the last decade. In other words, real, constant dollar, defense spending is going DOWN, and NOT up! We’ve a 17 TRILLION $ GDP, for crissakes! The REAL pac-man spending is SS and Medicare plus interest on the debt.
I don’t understand you, Skippy. OTH you make sophisticated and knowledgeble criticisms of the wpns acquisition and program development process and assoc. philosophical strategic trends, but on the other seem blind to the difference between constant (real) dollar and nominal (current) dollar costs as a measure of defense spending. My only conclusion is that your bitterness towards the admitted stupidity of many of the service’s acquisition policies have blinded you to the larger problem of ever shrinking defense budgets (in real terms) which not only do not allow for any mistakes and/or inefficiencies in the acquisition process, they are still inadequate to buy/build everything that is needed even if all decisions are the right ones and there are no inefficiencies getting from A to B–design to operationally fielding.
And WHATEVER combination of wrong-headed decisions as have been made and inefficiencies as have happened/are happening, they are AS of NOTHING compared to our “affordable” public housing programs, medicaid/medicare fraud, etc. Money down the rat-hole in these civilian areas, while deplorable and serve to deprive deserving projects
of funding, are unlikely to destroy the nation. Refusal to fund the defense budget at a level needed to meet the identified potential threat out of pique at inefficiencies can cause the utter destruction of our existence. I would further remind you that history has shown time and again that even poorly designed ships, tanks and aircraft can triumph over a superior armed foe via superior tactics and better trained personnel if the numbers are there. But this has no chance of happening if there are no ships, planes or tanks of any kind–or at least enough to be meaningful–for better trained soldiers, sailors and airmen to utilize however sub-standard they may be. And currently we are neither funding adequate numbers of superior systems OR “cheapeer” “B-” type systems. We currently have the worst of both worlds…
erratum: “neither…NOR” and “cheaper”
re the present “shape” of our beloved Naval Aviation:
Go, Skippy, Go! right on, right on.
It is what it is though. We gotta stop this slide into a “Sand Pebbles-like” Navy somehow. I wish I had the answer. There isn’t any one answer except perhaps a need for some stinking competence applied to the problem. That’s too much to ask of today’s society. It ain’t gonna be easy.
b2
@b2, You write, “There isn’t any one answer except perhaps a need for some stinking competence applied to the problem.” Where do you find this type of competence? What are you going to do, grab an *old school Navy Master Chief” and throw him into the mix for answers. (Before I forget, “Master Chief, same to you!”) There are many issues F-22 and F-35 are only the tip of the iceberg. To gain the real perspective is to first understand what we are really talking about is “Total National Security”. This F-22 vs. F-35 is only a very small portion of it. We always talk about “Total National Security”, but what do we mean? Let’s invite the old sea hag, named “History” into the discussion. Let’s go back to the early 50’s, the then President of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower determined there was a serious National Security issue, which must be addressed. Today, many people use that solution without the knowledge of the real reason for “The National Highway System”. The purpose was to get the military from point “A” to point “B” on the ground. This shows the real importance of infrastructure to our Nation.
As we look at the F-22 and F-35, stop and think about the logistical support for either aircraft. In my own personal and probably flawed view, there’s a great deal more to be considered, before we decide.
The real question about all that social spending, non-strategic infrastructure spending, and such niceties as National Parks and Forests, is studiously avoided. Under the constitution, the FedGov has very few responsibilities. They boil down to two things, foreign Relations (and Defense falls under this heading), and regulation of Interstate Commerce. The simple result of all the lard is the FedGov does a very poor job of what it is legally required to do because of all the unconstitutional idiocy it does do.
Skippy is in favor of all that unconstitutional nonsense, based on what he has posted here and on his own blog, but then complains because the FedGov doesn’t have the resources to do its real job. The cognitive dissonance is quite glaring to all but him, alas. That problem, however, is all too common, and may seal the fate of this country in the very near future. As Rumsfeld so inconveniently pointed out, you fight with the military you have, not the one you want. Clinton gave Bush a seriously damaged military at the end of a process begun by Bush I and Congress wanting its “peace dividend” so they could engage in more pork and social spending they had no legal authority for. Bush II made no effort to fix either the material damage of his predecessors, or the social damage done by Clinton.
QM,
You will forgive me if I do not share your interpretation of the Constitution. You are quite wrong on that. The government has a responsibility to provide for the common welfare of its citizenry-and there is plenty of argument that supports my line of thinking from many of the founding fathers. Whether Social Security and Medicare are the correct ways to do that are process questions-not constitutional ones. No American-except for the most naive ones, wants to go back to the days of William McKinley and the misery that was inflicted on a large portion of the population.
As for resources, the government has plenty-it fails to utilize them effectively. That’s what this discussion is about-the inability of Navy leadership to make the right decisions for the good of all its warfighters-not just the few preferred customers of Naval Aviation. In just about every case the service had the bucks to do something-it allowed itself to get sidetracked. The money is out there both within the defense budget and without. Its just not well acquired or used.
The country has plenty of resources too-and it fails to utilize them effectively as well. That’s essentially what the arguement has been over the last three Presidential elections.
Clinton may have given over a reduced size military, but Bush has probably done worse to damage and reduce the size of the military by committing it to an open ended and unnecessary conflict in Iraq-which has tied down the military of the United States and used up considerable resources that could have been used elsewhere for better benefit. The costs of the war have been great and they have been insidious-the supplemental bills never represent the true total cost of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
More specifically, the blame for the current state of Naval Aviation lies at the feet of only one villain-Navy leadership. Even with the changes that you decry politically-there was room to maneuver within the hallowed halls of the Pentagon and get things done for the fleet.
We are in agreement that Bush II did not make good on his promise to fix the armed forces, but ask yourself why he did that. If anything, minus 9-11 he was committed to even more larger reductions that Clinton, so as to minimize the deficit effects of his tax cuts. Had the original QDR of 2001 gone forward, it would have been a disaster for all the services-but the Navy in particular would have gotten really screwed. Even if Republicans win both houses of Congress next year, you are not going to see a massive infusion of cash into the defense budget. You’ll see defense spending stay at about the same GDP percentage it is now. Even if McCain had one the election last year-it would have stayed about the same percentage.