Carrier and jets to go in Bush defence cutbacks

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Tommy, Dec 31, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Beginning to feel the pinch?

    Be nice if Crab Air had this many planes to cut back?!

    Carrier and jets to go in Bush defence cutbacks
    By Alec Russell in Washington
    (Filed: 31/12/2004)

    America will retire one of its aircraft carriers and scale back plans to build a new generation of fighter jets as part of its first cuts in military spending since the September 11 attacks, it was reported yesterday.

    The Pentagon budget has mushroomed in the past three years, increasing by more than a third to about $420 billion (£220 billion) this year. Much of the money is funding the deployment of 150,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, said to be costing America about $5 billion a month.

    [​IMG]
    Grounded: 100 F/A 22 Raptors are to be cut

    But President George W Bush is now under mounting pressure on Capitol Hill to rein in the budget deficit that surged in his first term, contributing to the dramatic decline of the dollar. Many Republicans believe he is abandoning the party's tradition of fiscal discipline.

    The White House is reported to have asked all branches of the federal government to prune spending requests for the 2006 fiscal year which will be presented to Congress early next year.

    According to the New York Times, the Pentagon has proposed a $60 billion cut in spending over the next six years.

    The most high-profile victim would be the navy, although Pentagon officials stressed that all the services would be affected.

    If Congress approves the economies, the aircraft carrier John F Kennedy would be taken out of service next year, the newspaper said. It is one of the oldest of the 12 carriers, first saw service in 1968 and recently completed a mission in the Gulf.

    Plans for a new destroyer may be delayed and there is also a proposal to reduce expenditure on a new amphibious landing ship for the marines. The navy had planned to buy five LPD-17 San Antonio-class vessels for more than $1 billion each.

    The air force's F/A22 Raptor fighter would begin to lose funding after 2008. This would mean 160 to 170 would be built, rather than the 277 the service had hoped for.

    The army will win in the spending review. While other services are being trimmed, the army is planning to increase its strength by up to about a dozen brigades over the next few years.

    "It doesn't matter if you can win a war 20 years from now if we lose the global war on terror next year," the Times quoted one US military official as saying.

    Eric Ruff, a Pentagon spokesman, refused to comment on specific cuts, adding that nothing was definite until the budget was submitted in February.

    But he fuelled speculation that some of the older high-technology weapons systems were under threat in the countdown to next year's four yearly defence review.

    The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has long regarded them as costly relics of the Cold War.

    Mr Ruff said all services were considering their priorities and how best to focus on agility, flexibility and speed. These were three of the watchwords of Mr Rumsfeld's desired "transformed" defence force.
     
  2. Wow. Had to happen though.

    Bush sort of reminds me of Homer Simpson in the episode were he became waste disposal chief of Springfield and went totally OTT on spending. Until the reality of it all came slamming home and he had bankrupted the city.

    It is of course the only comparison I have with GWB and Homer!

    Kin 'ell! Not even Dr Evil could sustain that!! How the feck can your average yank accept that sort drain? War against Terror and all that but thats just taking the urine. I suppose only when Joe American starts to pay serious levels of tax, high burger prices and a tank of gas that costs more than a small third world economy will he actually realise that some things aint worth it. Welcome to the real world, USA.
     
  3. After all we've for them I think they should give us the carrier they want rid of to save us some cash!
     
  4. Smacks of common sense FNUSNU. Can't have that!
     
  5. Send george a post card - ask him nicely?

    Rincewind
     
  6. I doubt the RN has enough sailors to staff a Nimitz class carrier [crew-3200/air group-2480]. But it would make more sense than to build the new carrier.

    Now, as to the so called cuts. One carrier is to be retired. At least one new class of carrier is in the works. If you notice any time "cuts" in out year's these are really not cuts at all. Defense spending is one way for Congress to bring home the bacon [jobs] for their constituents. The military aware of this fact insure that sub contractors come from as many congressional districts as possible. One year the USAF decided to buy F-15's and B-2's but didnt have enough money in the budget for C-17's so Congress allocated extra money for more C-17's. Some weapons programs may get cut entirely. The Army FCS program is supposed to provide wheeled armored vehicles that have the same protection as current Bradley's and Abram's all on a 20 ton chasis. Iraq has been a wake up call for DoD. Armor technology has yet to provide that type of armor capability. Frankly I dont think its possible. So the FCS program may see "cuts" with money shifted to upgrade programs for the Bradley and M1A2. I really think more money will be spent. Some people advocate a $500-600 billion defense budget to fully fund USN and USAF procurement and a 600,000 man Army.

    So don't shed any tears for DoD because it is truely an alice in wonderland world where budget cuts really arent cuts. If you see 100,000 troops phased out - now thats a cut. The USAF and USN are seeing very modest manpower cuts to pay for ships. The Navy is also reducing crews on its warships and have begun a test program where replacement crews are flown to say Oz to meet up with its ship. The outgoing crew gets on the plane for a return flight to the US. The ship can stay near its station without having to transit back to CONUS. Also the USN is working on surging forces rather than having half its carriers at sea. We saw that during the summer naval exercises in the Pacific where we surged 7 battle groups.
     
  7. It'd probably end up like that sub we sold to the Canadians. Get it half way across the pond and it'd start sinking :D
     
  8. Their army is gaining a dozen brigades? 8O
     
  9. Yes we are in the process of reorganizing the Army into 48 brigades from the present 36.
     
  10. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    48 leaner meaner brigades than 36 with so many chef's in the kitchen I hope!

    The reality of US war machine is that it can and will beat anyone, the navy is seriously over powered and the army could do with some of that money. Like wise the USMC should be rolled into the Army and not exists as a 4th service (and ultimately the Navy and USAF should become one as well, for the UK too but that's a seperate thread).

    Lastly, I loved the quote "what use is it if we lose the war on terrorism tomorrow" - like that's likely!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Which terrorist group is going to invade the US and make all it's citizens slaves or dead? I mean, can somebody even explain how the US could lose a war on terror?
     
  11. it can't but george like to tell the people that they could
     
  12. The JFK is not a Nimitz class carier, but the manning is still around the same. Having said that, it could give the RN a measure of prestige to once again have a REAL carrier - if you only had planes to put on it. Do you have any F-4's left, you could use some of them. :D We're retiring the F-14's soon, too. Maybe some of them would sweeten the deal.

    To take it a step further, it would be on par with the RN giving the Canadians four defunct diesel subs. A few years ago, the material readiness condition of the JFK was sufficient to take it out of service for six months to a year and have the captain relieved.

    Cutting the F-22 is just another nail in the coffin of that program. This system has been in the works for the better part of 10 years and still is not in active production much less in a operational squadron.
     
  13. The yanks gave us some ships a few years back, in return Churchill gave them a 99 year lease on UK bases.
     
  14. Maybe we should loan\lease some of theier stuff, it might work properly for a start.