Department of Defense 2010 Budget - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By MB.
#13588783
darpa.mil wrote:Page Cannot Be Found

We have recently redesigned our site and the page you have requested has moved.

Please click here to return to the homepage.


Is this the same document?
User avatar
By U184
#13588789
No. Not the same and I just went to the same link. ? :?:
I will fix it, one way or another ASAP.
Last edited by U184 on 30 Dec 2010 07:31, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13588791
Your URLs have an extra slash at the end that break the code apparently. What kind of browser are you using?
Last edited by MB. on 30 Dec 2010 07:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By U184
#13588796
FireFox

Those extra slashes should show up when I go to edit though right?
User avatar
By U184
#13588801
That is it. Not sure why it did not work for me. What did you do different?
Also what one do you like better the DARPA format or the one I have up now?
User avatar
By Typhoon
#13588871
Handy links, personally I dont mind either format.

I think 2012 will be an interesting budget, they are planning on a smaller budget so it will be interesting to see what gets through...looks at the F-35.

The Pentagon in February likely will send Congress a fiscal 2012 budget blueprint seeking about $15 billion less than the $678 billion sought for 2011 - and some Obama administration officials want even deeper cuts, defense and industry sources say.

Since lawmakers and administration officials earlier this year began mulling ways to right Washington's fiscal ship, it has become increasingly clear that the defense budget will shrink. Senate appropriators this year trimmed the administration's 2011 defense request by $8 billion, with their House counterparts proposing a $7.2 billion reduction. Several high-profile debt-reduction panels called for Pentagon cuts as large as $100 billion.

The White House has ruled out a $100 billion cut for the Pentagon in 2012, sources say. White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Pentagon officials late last week were using the defense topline figure for 2011 included in a now-dead Senate omnibus appropriations bill as a foundation for the 2012 mark.

That massive spending measure would have provided the Pentagon with $667.7 billion for 2011, including war funding - some $10 billion below the Pentagon's request.

The now-nixed omnibus bill's defense section called included $157.8 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving $509.9 billion for most other U.S. military expenditures, but excluding nuclear weapons and other military initiatives funded through other annual budget bills.

Some OMB officials want to cut the omnibus level by another $10 billion, which would mean a $658 billion 2012 Pentagon spending request, defense and industry sources said.

Senior Pentagon officials pushed back, and it now appears a net $12 billion to $15 billion reduction from the requested 2011 level is most likely, sources said.

"A cut of $12 [billion] or $13 billion would allow the secretary to go back and claim victory over those who wanted bigger cuts," said Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress, referring to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

While a final definitive topline figure remains unclear, sources indicated it could be about $663 billion.

The likely outcome of the Washington budget deliberations "just proves the happy days for the Department of Defense are over," said a former White House budget official. "And it's going to happen one year sooner than I expected."

"The senior military [officials] inside the building now know things are headed south," the former official said. "The externalities - things like deficit-reduction - are now driving this. ... The group that doesn't seem to get it just yet is the senior civilian leadership. They seem to think the House Republicans will step in and save their bacon with more money - but I just don't think they can count on that this time."

A Pentagon spokeswoman had not responded to an inquiry at the time of this posting.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=TOP
User avatar
By MB.
#13594330
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

WSJ wrote:Pentagon Faces $78 Billion in Cuts

WASHINGTON—Defense Secretary Robert Gates will cut $78 billion from the Pentagon budget in the next five years, money that will come from shrinking the military's ground force, increasing health-care premiums and other measures.

The plan, announced Thursday, identifies a separate $100 billion in savings found by the services, including the cancellation of a $14 billion amphibious Marine vehicle. However, the services will be allowed to reinvest that money in new weapons systems and programs that benefit troops.

The move is part of a broader effort to trim fat from the military's budget in light of the nation's ballooning deficit, but parts of the plan could run into opposition from Congress.
User avatar
By U184
#13594360
Lack as I am to say it, I would love to see major cuts. We could see a lot more money as well if we were to cut all projects that are significantly behind in progress, were to far off budget or whose projects are no longer needed. Currently the USA still pays for projects that are behind, or are out of date. we are not talking small change here but 100's of millions if not several billion dollars.
User avatar
By MB.
#13594366
This is a classic case of path-dependency. Projects that are not useful or are just ridiculous are funded for hundreds of millions of dollars because that is simply what has been done for fifty years. DOD spending is particularly sacrocent. The American military and American power are as sociologically significant as they are political and economically significant to the American culture.
User avatar
By Typhoon
#13595585
Some figures for the expected reduction in the F-3 program, I respect Gates for cutting into the poorly performing F-35B but I know that these choices are going to compound the F-35s death spiral.

DoD to dramatically cut F-35 purchases in 2012-2016

The Pentagon would buy nearly one-third fewer F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft between 2012 and 2016 under a five-year spending program outlined Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

F-35_May 11 two-plane test flight The plan would mean a dramatic slowdown in the anticipated pace of aircraft production by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors.

Total buys of all three variants would fall from 449 planes, as projected as recently as a year ago, to 325 planes over the five year period. The detailed plan document is attached below.

A total of 30 planes were recently ordered with dunding authorized in the fiscal 2010 defense budget. The 2011 budget called for 43 aircraft, but Congress has not appropriated funds and indications are that the number will be between 32 and 37.

For 2012 the production order would be cut from 45 planes to 32. Production of F-35B STOVL aircraft would be scaled back dramatically until that plane's technical problems can be fixed and tested.

An additional $4.6 billion would be added to the development and testing budget to complete testing by 2016.

As expected, Gates has given the Marine Corps and Lockheed Martin two additional years to solve technical and development problems with the F-35B, short-takeoff-vertical-landing version.

Gates said a Pentagon review shows the B-model has problems that "may lead to a redesign of the structure and the propulsion system," which it can ill afford.

"If we cannot fix this variant in this two year time frame ... then I believe it ought to be cancelled," Gates said in a Pentagon press briefing.

Details of Gates plan are still not available, but he said 2012 orders would be reduced from a planned 43 planes to 32 and overall spending on the program would be cut by $4 billion between 2012 and 2016.

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... ll-it.html

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

They're going to bring the debunked "Russiaga[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]