Economic Impact of Defense Program Budget Decisions

[nerdgirl 0]

Do you think that the DoD should consider the economic impact of budgetary decisions in planning?

In this time of need for fiscal responsibility, should the DoD consider the potential economic impact of programs decisions (policy) that gets reflected in budgets?

I know what SecDef Gates said yesterday and I know how the requirements process is supposed to work … I’m curious what opinions outside the Beltway are?

Should jobs and economic recovery considerations drive, influence, or be no factor in defense programs and budget planning process?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

As a fodder for SC canons: the LA Times business section offered an incisively satirical take … one that’s almost walking the knife-edge with something Bonfire-esque on “Lockheed blows hot air under Raptor's wings: Ads for the F-22 military jet don’t show the plane but use jobs as a weapon”

“The F-22 Raptor is sex on carbon fiber wings. This is America's premier air superiority fighter, and it's a bad, bad monkey. At an F-22 demonstration at the Reno Air Show in September, I nearly passed out from testosterone poisoning. [Maybe it’s a gurl-thang, but I still like missiles more-nerdgirl ]

“The decision whether to end the program comes down in April. Ahead of the deadline, Lockheed Martin and its partners have been engaged in a carpet-bombing ad campaign in support of the F-22.

“The ordnance of choice? Jobs.


“Since January, the F-22's marketing blitz -- including full-page national newspaper ads and even billboards in the Washington Metro stations -- has reimagined the plane not as a vital war-fighting system but as a supersonic stimulus program.[Not quote sure how new or different such billboards are in Metro Stations – Pentagon and Crystal City have been prime contractor dominated for years-nerdgirl] Lockheed Martin claims 95,000 jobs are at stake in 44 states (figures that are at the very least debatable).

“‘The defense industry has always tried to avoid directly invoking jobs at stake in the past because they didn't want to be seen as welfare queens,’ says Ivan Eland, a defense analyst for the Independent Institute and a critic of the F-22 program. ‘They're scared the usual buttonholing of congressmen won't work,’ Eland says.

“Consider the nearly full-page ad in last week’s Washington Post. The plane is nowhere to be seen; instead, there's an image of a factory worker jabbing at a several-ton ingot of glowing steel. ‘Steel workers in Chicago,’ the copy reads. ‘95,000 jobs across America. All working to build the F-22 Raptor.’

“The photo was taken at A. Finkl & Sons Co., a supplier of forging and tooling die steels. Now, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd be surprised if much of the company's steel is on board the composite-bodied F-22. Perhaps some of Finkl's steel goes into a machine that makes a part for the F-22, but by that logic, Wrigley is a defense contractor because pilots chew gum.

“The ad featuring A. Finkl is a beautifully crafted, and crafty, bit of message shaping. Beyond the obvious take-away -- support the F-22 or pink-slip 95,000 workers -- the ad exploits the way Americans love to think of themselves: blue-collar, broad-shouldered hammer swingers. There is something so resolutely worthy about steel, whereas the virtues of carbon composites might be harder to leverage.”



“Come on. This is one of the most technologically advanced machines in the world. If there were any honesty to these ads, they would feature computer programmers pounding out several million lines of code, without which the F-22 is the world's most aerodynamic lawn ornament.”

Lockheed Martin is a for-profit company. Their interest is in maximizing their profits. As a DoD prime contractor, their performance is tied to successfully securing defense contracts.

Lockheed Martin also employs a lot of Americans, 135,000, and those prime contracts include subcontracts for mid- and small-sized companies that employ as many, if not more.

As satirical as the LA Times excerpted above is, there is also truth in it and in the LM message.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[quade 3]

Unfortunately, the military industrial complex is a HUGE employer so yes, some consideration has to be made. Nearly certain this is coordinated but not micro managed.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Do you think that the DoD should consider the economic impact of budgetary decisions in planning?

Obviously.

When you spend more on your military than the rest of the world combined and don't use it to build an empire, it's about something other than defense and offense.

That something is stimulating large American companies like Boeing who employ lots of people without those people showing up on the government payrolls and making it look like we're a socialist country.

With that in mind, economic impact should be the PRIMARY goal when it comes to DoD spending.

We could also trim our defense budget back to what's needed for a country of our size. Canada did fine with $18.2B while we spent $741B on the DoD plus 54B on Homeland Security.

Given the money which is up for grabs, better operation of America's #1 jobs program is the best we can hope for.

[Gawain 0]

On a macro level, yes, and I believe it has been that way for some time.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

First - I recall growing up in Los Angeles metro during the defense cutbacks. The defense industry - in my eyes - MADE Los Angeles what it is. Not Hollywood or tourism - defense.

There was some heavy impact when the cuts occurred. And amazingly people survived.

So yes. There is an impact with budgetary decisions. El Toro lost a Marine Air Station (and a rockin' airshow every year - seeing Art Scholl before he went in was something).

I think that economic impact should be considered. I also think that the feelings of a boyfriend or girlfriend should be considered as you dump them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

“The photo was taken at A. Finkl & Sons Co., a supplier of forging and tooling die steels. Now, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd be surprised if much of the company's steel is on board the composite-bodied F-22. Perhaps some of Finkl's steel goes into a machine that makes a part for the F-22, but by that logic, Wrigley is a defense contractor because pilots chew gum.

I happen to be very familiar with A. Finkl and Son (know the President, know the family, been in the plant, attended Chuck Finkl's funeral...). They make very large high quality steel and titanium forgings. I don't know their exact contribution to the F22 but the engine main shafts and disks would be quite likely, as would landing gear components.

Even composite aircraft need engines.

[TheAnvil 0]

I think DoD should program what it needs and OMB should correct for economic reasons prior to finalizing the PB. At the macroscopic level I'd hope this has been going on for some time.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[VectorBoy 0]

I remember my dad getting laid-off when the B-1 was cut in the seventies. We ended up with the B-1 later anyways. Its expensive but a good platform. Same could probably be said for the Raptor.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think DoD should program what it needs and OMB should correct for economic reasons prior to finalizing the PB.

Iirc, you are familar with DoD POM and 5000 Acquisition processes -- in all its splendor and glory , yes?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

“The photo was taken at A. Finkl & Sons Co., a supplier of forging and tooling die steels. Now, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd be surprised if much of the company's steel is on board the composite-bodied F-22. Perhaps some of Finkl's steel goes into a machine that makes a part for the F-22, but by that logic, Wrigley is a defense contractor because pilots chew gum.

I happen to be very familiar with A. Finkl and Son (know the President, know the family, been in the plant, attended Chuck Finkl's funeral...). They make very large high quality steel and titanium forgings. I don't know their exact contribution to the F22 but the engine main shafts and disks would be quite likely, as would landing gear components.

Even composite aircraft need engines.

Thanks for the additional information.
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhhrgh. I become more disillusioned with it every day.

Actually, I LIKE the regular acquisition processes far more than I like DoN internal processes - that should tell you something. SHIPMAIN is an abomination.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Actually, I LIKE the regular acquisition processes far more than I like DoN internal processes - that should tell you somethin.]

It does. I'll trust ya on the DoN-specific processes.

Heard RUMINT that capabilities-based requirements planning is being re-examined ... back to threat-based, which was verboten in J8 just a couple years ago.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Iceburner 0]

One thing i'd like to add is that last year the USN (i know this from talking to the Navy Captains i rode ship with) had a monthly average of 35 million to fix EVERY ship in the Navy. This year it's 4 million....as everyone knows a lot of the government shit is expensive, but do we really think that we can only spend 4 million a month to fix EVERY problem on EVERY navy ship??? Cutting the budget on military equipment IMHO is a bad idea. Especially when contries like china and NK are spending their money on not just fixing, but upgrading their equipment. Technology saves lives, broken technology....

[champu 1]

I certainly stand by Gates' position when it comes to making acquisitions based on economically pleasing everyone.

I will caveat that by noting that my head isn't on the proverbial chopping block. If I thought for one minute, however, that my well-being and the best interests of the country were in opposition I would not have any qualms with finding myself another job.

[nerdgirl 0]

SecDef Gates and Vice Chair JCS GEN James “Hoss” Cartwright, USMC, held a press conference today. Video from CSPAN. Prepared remarks.

Winners:
-- Increase in Army and Marine ground troops
-- Medical funding, including funding for treating Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) from IED
-- Spousal support, lodging, and education
-- Increased intelligence and reconnaissance support
-- UAVs (more Predator drones)
-- Training programs & other SOCOM and Special Forces directed programs
-- Littoral ships
-- 5th Gen tactical fighter – increase F-35 JSFs
-- More FA-18s
-- Missile Defense THAAD & more R&D at boost-phase intercept (GEN Cartwright acknowledged that the technology isn’t there)
-- More emphasis on cyber-security
-- Oversight & acquisition corps

Losers:
-- SAIC and Boeing through the Army’s Future Combat System (which is a specific program not a generalized category). One would have to be in serious denial to have NOT seen this coming regardless of change in administration. The program has been in Nunn-McCurdy Breach (i.e., so far over budget that it triggers Congressional involvement). Originally proposed to be total $92B program; it’s *already* over $200B (& not in procurement/delivery). FCS vehicles are the prime target. “I’m particularly troubled by the terms of the contract…” Yikes Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs, aka robots) part of FCS still moving forward.
-- C-17s (no additional )
-- Beltway bandits in general
-- VH-71 Presidential helicopter (but increasing training and support for additional helicopter crews in general not just Marine-1)
-- AF Search & rescue helicopter (single-service solution)
-- Transformationel Satellite Program (T-SAT)
-- No increase in ground-based interceptors at FT Greeley, AK
-- Airborne laser (he’s proposing slowing it; I think it should have been killed at least 5 years ago!) ABL got a “stay of execution”
-- $1.4B cut to >$10B MDA budget
-- Boeing proposal for split buy for replacement KC-135 “Stratotankers” refueling tankers.

Rough breakdown by back-of-the-envelope calculation: 10% of the budget is for irregular warfare, 40% dual-purpose (including COIN), and 50% is for conventional military operations.

A lot of the words SecDef Gates said sound like a shift back to (realistic) threat-based planning rather than the capabilities-based requirements process that has been dominant over the last decade+.

I’m concerned w/r/t short-term emphasis creeping into long-term S&T.

SecDef Gates recommended significant shift from contractors to actual federal personnel.

AP's Anne Gearan asks SecDef Gates is he feels like he’s “walking into a buzzsaw” w/r/t Congress’s likely response to cuts to programs that might go back to their consitutents. Gates very diplomatically responds that he hopes Congress will not be driven by “parochial interests.”

At 32min, the WSJ reporter asks the question at the start of this thread. Gates essentially says no. Can’t be “oblivious” to them but national defense priorities are trump any. (Which he’s said before and with more extended discussion of reasoning than at today’s press conference.)

HASC Chair Rep Ike Skelton (D-MO) has already responded with a short statement:

“Secretary Gates has set out major changes to the defense budget based on changed assumptions about the wars our military must be prepared to fight. This is a good faith effort, and I appreciate the hard work and thoughtful consideration Secretary Gates and his staff put into these proposals.

“However, the buck stops with Congress, which has the critical Constitutional responsibility to decide whether to support these proposals. In the weeks ahead, my colleagues and I will carefully consider these proposals and look forward to working with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen as we prepare the Fiscal Year 2010 defense authorization act.”

The Senators for Alabama are holding up the Senate conformation hearing (he’s already passed through SASC) of the President's nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, & Logistics (USD(AT&L)) over the tanker deal. They want it to go to Northrop Grumman/EADS team because under that proposal it would be assembled in Mobile, AL.

SecDef Gates let GEN Cartwright lead responses on most of missile defense specifics of problems and changes to missile defense R&D, acquisition, and procurement programs. “Hoss” understands strategy and understands technology

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying