Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stunning Remarks by our Secretary of Defense. (Military Budget)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:01 PM
Original message
Stunning Remarks by our Secretary of Defense. (Military Budget)
Navy League Sea-Air-Space Exposition
Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Gaylord Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland, Monday, May 03, 2010
Link:
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1460

........
Second, in order to be successful, the sea services must have the right make-up and capabilities. Surveying our current force, it is useful to start with some perspective – especially since the Navy, of all the services, has been the most consistently concerned about its size as measured by the total number of ships in the fleet.

It is important to remember that, as much as the U.S. battle fleet has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, the rest of the world’s navies have shrunk even more. So, in relative terms, the U.S. Navy is as strong as it has ever been.

In assessing risks and requirements even in light of an expanding array of global missions and responsibilities – everything from shows of presence to humanitarian relief – some context is useful:

* The U.S. operates 11 large carriers, all nuclear powered. In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.
* The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck amphibious ships that can operate as sea bases for helicopters and vertical-takeoff jets. No other navy has more than three, and all of those navies belong to pur allies or friends. Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined.
* The U.S. has 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarines – again, more than the rest of the world combined.
* Seventy-nine Aegis-equipped combatants carry roughly 8,000 vertical-launch missile cells. In terms of total missile firepower, the U.S. arguably outmatches the next 20 largest navies.
* All told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet – a proxy for overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners.
* And, at 202,000 strong, the Marine Corps is the largest military force of its kind in the world and exceeds the size of most world armies.

Still, even as the United States stands unsurpassed on, above, and below the high seas, we have to prepare for the future. As in previous eras, new centers of power – with new wealth, military strength, and ambitions on the world stage – are altering the strategic landscape. If history shows anything, it is that we cannot predict or guarantee the course of a nation decades from now – the time it takes to develop and build the next generation of ships, a process that has been likened to building a medieval cathedral: brick by brick, window by window – over decades.


Our Navy has to be designed for new challenges, new technologies, and new missions – because another one of history’s hard lessons is that, when it comes to military capabilities, those who fail to adapt often fail to survive. In World War II, both the American and British navies were surprised by the speed with which naval airpower made battleships obsolete. Because of two decades of testing and operations, however, both were well prepared to shift to carrier operations. We have to consider whether a similar revolution at sea is underway today.

Potential adversaries are well-aware of our overwhelming conventional advantage – which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the us to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought race before World War I.

Instead, potential adversaries are investing in weapons designed to neutralize U.S. advantages – to deny our military freedom of action while potentially threatening America’s primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.

We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet. At the low end, Hezbollah, a non-state actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines, and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region.

At the higher end of the access-denial spectrum, the virtual monopoly the U.S. has enjoyed with precision guided weapons is eroding – especially with long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles that can potentially strike from over the horizon. This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15 to $20 billion set of hardware at risk. The U.S. will also face increasingly sophisticated underwater combat systems – including numbers of stealthy subs – all of which could end the operational sanctuary our Navy has enjoyed in the Western Pacific for the better part of six decades.

One part of the way ahead is through more innovative strategies and joint approaches. The agreement by the Navy and the Air Force to work together on an Air-Sea Battle concept is an encouraging development, which has the potential to do for America’s military deterrent power at the beginning of the 21st century what Air-Land Battle did near the end of the 20th.

But we must also rethink what and how we buy – to shift investments towards systems that provide the ability to see and strike deep along the full spectrum of conflict. This means, among other things:

* Extending the range at which U.S. naval forces can fight, refuel, and strike, with more resources devoted to long-range unmanned aircraft and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
* New sea-based missile defenses;
* A submarine force with expanded roles that is prepared to conduct more missions deep inside an enemy’s battle network. We will also have to increase submarine strike capability and look at smaller and unmanned underwater platforms.

These changes are occurring even as the Navy is called upon to do more missions that fall on the low end of the conflict spectrum – a requirement that will not go away, as the new naval operational concept reflects. Whether the mission is counterinsurgency, piracy, or security assistance, among others, new missions have required new ways of thinking about the portfolio of weapons we buy. In particular, the Navy will need numbers, speed, and the ability to operate in shallow water, especially as the nature of war in the 21st century pushes us toward smaller, more diffuse weapons and units that increasingly rely on a series of networks to wage war. As we learned last year, you don’t necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs.


...............

Second – aircraft carriers. Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040 and it's in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities.

And that bring me to the third and final issue: the budget. I have in the past warned about our nation’s tendency to disarm in the wake of major wars. That remains a concern. But, as has always been the case, defense budget expectations over time, not to mention any country’s strategic strength, are intrinsically linked to the overall financial and fiscal health of the nation.

And in that respect, we have to accept some hard realities. American taxpayers and the Congress are rightfully worried about the deficit. At the same time, the Department of Defense’s track record as a steward of taxpayer dollars leaves much to be desired.

Now, I know as well as anyone that part of the problem lies outside the Defense Department – and it's been this way for a long time. One of my favorite stories is about Henry Knox, the first secretary of war. He was charged with building the first American fleet. And, to get the necessary support from the Congress, Knox eventually ended up with six frigates being built in six different shipyards in six different states. Some things never change

In this year’s budget submission, the Department has asked to end funding for an extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter as well as to cease production of the C-17 cargo aircraft – two decisions supported by the services and by reams of analysis. As we speak, a fight is on to keep the Congress from putting the extra engine and more C-17s back into the budget – at an unnecessary potential cost to the taxpayers of billions of dollars over the next few years. The issues surrounding political will and the Defense budget are ones I will discuss in more detail at the Eisenhower Library this coming Saturday.

None of that, however, absolves the Pentagon and the services from responsibility with regard to procurement. These issues are especially acute when it comes to big-ticket items whose costs skyrocket far beyond initial estimates. Current submarines and amphibious ships are three times as expensive as their equivalents during the 1980s – and this in the context of an overall shipbuilding and conversion budget that is 20 percent less. Just a few years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected that meeting the Navy’s shipbuilding plan would cost more than $20 billion a year – double the shipbuilding budget of recent years, and a projection that was underfunded by some 30 percent. It is reasonable to wonder whether the nation is getting a commensurate increase in capabilities in exchange for these spiraling costs.

The Navy’s DDG-1000 is a case in point. By the time the Navy leadership curtailed the program, the price of each ship had more than doubled and the projected fleet had dwindled from 32 to seven. The programmed buy now is three.

Or consider plans for a new ballistic missile submarine, the SSBN(X). Right now, the Department proposes spending $6 billion in research and development over the next few years – for a projected buy of twelve subs at $7 billion apiece. Current requirements call for a submarine with the size and payload of a boomer – and the stealth of an attack sub. In a congressional hearing earlier this year, I pointed out that in the latter part of this decade the new ballistic missile submarine alone would begin to eat up the lion’s share of the Navy’s shipbuilding resources.

To be sure, the most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan is a step in the right direction. And Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead have worked hard to create reasonable budgets and reset the service “in stride” to reduce operational disruptions. At the same time, the Navy’s innovative energy security and independence initiative not only helps the environment, but will also save money in the long term.

Even so, it is important to remember that, as the wars recede, money will be required to reset the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the conflicts. And there will continue to be long-term – and inviolable – costs associated with taking care of our troops and their families. In other words, I do not foresee any significant increases in top-line of the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to 6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.

Though I have addressed a number of topics here today, I should add that I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But, mark my words, the Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats, and budget realities. We simply cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more and more expensive technologies onto fewer and fewer platforms – thereby risking a situation where some of our greatest capital expenditures go toward weapons and ships that could potentially become wasting assets.

A concluding thought. The number and kind of ships we have – and how we use them – will be ever changing, as they have for the last 200-plus years. What must be unchanging, what must be enduring, is the quality of the sailors and Marines onboard these ships and serving ashore. They must have moral as well as physical courage; they must have integrity; they must think creatively and boldly. They must have the vision and insight to see that the world and technology are constantly changing and that the Navy and Marine Corps must therefore change with the times – ever flexible and ever adaptable. They must be willing to speak hard truths, including to superiors – as did their legendary forebears.

Over the past three and a half years, in the fury of two wars, I have seen the future of the Navy and the Marine Corps onboard ships, on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, at Navy bases and Marine camps, and at the Academy. These young men and women fill me with confidence that the future of our sea services is incredibly bright and that our nation will be secure in their hands.

Thank you.


..................................

Now that was not expected!

(note to mods: This is a public press release)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Provocative, and more...
Most important statement not that our Navy is bigger than the next 12 combined (11 of which are allies), but "... there will continue to be long-term – and inviolable – costs associated with taking care of our troops and their families. "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. what do they mean by "taking care of"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Long-term health care n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Military madness is killing my country... War War War War War"
~ Graham Nash
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. God I wish the people we put in power would grow up.
Of course that would require the people putting them in power to grow up so I am not hopeful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. We can cut our forces by 70% and still have enough to do what we feel we need to do -
if we stop getting into foolish and pointless wars for the sake of politics. I am glad Gates had the guts to say this and I hope he is making some plans right now to act accordingly on cutting this ridiculous expenditure.
Rec.
mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Over kill
Ike said it years ago beware of the M.I.C..All those guns and no butter.All those guns and very few schools.All those guns and no health care.All those guns and gangsters on wall street stealing us blind.All those guns and all that poverty.All those guns and the rich are getting richer.All those guns and all that pollution.All those guns and the high infant mortality.All those guns and all the fear in our country.In order to solve some of our pressing problems,why don't we get rid of some guns and live and let live PEACE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Obama and Gates have already gone up against the MIC and gotten a couple wins nobody thought
Edited on Wed May-05-10 05:26 PM by Pirate Smile
they would actually get. It is truly hard because it is essentially seen as a jobs program in almost every district, in every state in the country.


Obama, Gates win on F-22 fighter jet vote
By Roxana Tiron - 07/21/09 08:45 AM ET

The Senate on Tuesday gave President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates a victory in the bitter fight over Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jets.
The Senate voted 58-40 to strike $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense authorization bill that would have funded seven more F-22s than what the Obama administration wanted. The administration wants to cap the F-22 fleet at 187 planes.

-snip-
Shortly after the vote, both Levin and McCain underscored the importance of the Senate giving Obama and Gates a victory on striking the F-22 funds.
The Senate made a “significant decision” on Tuesday after “a very tough battle,” Levin said. “The president needed to win this vote,” not only because he was personally opposed to more F-22s, but also in terms of his overall reform agenda, Levin added.

The fight to stop the production of the F-22 had become intensely personal for both Obama and Gates. Obama personally vowed to veto any defense bill that contained additional funds for the F-22.
Gates in recent days hit back at Congress for not supporting his plan to rein in the costs at the Pentagon — with the F-22 being one of the symbols of Gates’s plan to overhaul the agency’s weapons-buying practices.

Gates and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made personal calls to lawmakers in recent days to sway them to support the administration’s position.

Minutes after the Senate vote, the Pentagon issued a statement praising it.


http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/51153-obama-gates-win-on-f-22-fighter-jet-vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hmmmm.
The first 10 of the carriers cost around $4.5 billion sans people and airth one (G.H.W. Bush) cost us $6.8 billion dollars (lotsa overtime) so poppy could christen it before he moves on to another plane of existence.

The 10 large-deck amphibious ships costs us $1.8 billion each.

Those 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarines cost us around $2.8 billion each plus missiles and torpedoes.

The DDG-1001 cost us $5.3 billion delivered and DDG-1002 cost us $5.6 billion delivered. I have no clue why we would buy another one. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. If McDonald's could get all of us
to do a reserve duty stint in the Pentagon, they could charge $500 for a Big Mac and we'd be happy to pay it. With somebody elses money of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sigh...I just want to declare ourselves neutral, like Switzerland, and turn
all that military spending into wind turbines, solar electric and water heating, battery technology, smart grid, homelessness, jobs, poverty, healthcare... So much better could be done with that money. And we as a nation are going to have to face up to the fact that one day, perhaps sooner than you think, we're going to have to power down. In the meantime, we're going to have to covert to a less energy-intesive infrastructure and lifestyle. But, alas, it probably will never be - even though this is our country and you'd think in a democracy (which is what we claim to spread) of, by, and for the People, we could make this stuff happen and have whatever we want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
9. We spend TWICE what we spent on "defense" since 1998!
adjusted for inflation

TWICE11!!1 FOR WHAT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. To..uh... keep wuppin' them Soviets?
Edited on Wed May-05-10 06:10 PM by underpants
No idea

The military has to change-quick and light. Rumsfeld tried to usher that in but of course he did it in an unplanned assholish way. The defense industry (that is the PC phrase for it now) is used to making batteships and such, they CAN make four wheeled vehicles but it is really hard to justify paying the required amount per unit to equal what they get now. Plus, as a Special Forces relative of mine told me, as soon as they hit ground they get a Toyota pickup because of reliability, availability of parts, and easy maintenaince....so then there is that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. Here's a hard truth, Mr. Gates
We can't afford you. That means the military can either voluntarily cut its expenses by submitting smaller budgets, or a bunch of people whom you and your pals will characterize as "uninformed, small-minded pencil pushers" will start making those choices for you.

What's it going to be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. You didn't read what he was saying

"Even so, it is important to remember that, as the wars recede, money will be required to reset the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the conflicts. And there will continue to be long-term – and inviolable – costs associated with taking care of our troops and their families. In other words, I do not foresee any significant increases in top-line of the shipbuilding budget beyond current assumptions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to 6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC