What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
House Panel Trims $9 Billion From Obama
The committee strongly endorsed the new Army Ground Combat Vehicle and buying more Textron Inc (TXT).-Boeing Co. (BA) V-22 Osprey aircraft. Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat, said an Osprey was used to ferry the body of Osama bin Laden to a Navy ship after he was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan on May 2.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/22/pa...port-prospect/
PARIS — Foreign militaries are in preliminary talks with DoD and its contractors over the possibility of buying the V-22 Osprey, defense and industry officials here said Wednesday. Although it’s still so early in the discussions that neither the V-22’s program manager nor a top official with Boeing would go into much detail, their hints at new international customers could mean the American tilt-rotor may begin serving in ever larger numbers around the world.
For the U.S. military, that would be no wonder. Marine Col Greg Masiello, the V-22’s program manager, told reporters Wednesday that both the Corps and the Air Force love their versions of the V-22, which he said have redefined how troops can move and fight in the field. But not only that, Masiello made a case DoD probably hopes will appeal both to Washington and international audiences: The Osprey is a business success, as well as an operational one, and it not only deserves to be spared from the U.S. budgetary guillotine, foreign buyers might consider it even amidst austerity measures.
Masiello said the V-22 is the most cost-effective rotorcraft in DoD’s inventory when measured by cost per passenger, and also its safest. Buzz readers already know about the Osprey’s 100,000 flight hour milestone, but what Masiello said many people don’t know is that half of those hours have been flown just in the past two years. He showed a chart comparing the costs of moving a Marine infantry company with Ospreys as opposed to “utility helicopters” — he didn’t identify which:
The Marines need four Ospreys to move all the troops and their gear, as compared with 16 helos; that means a cost of $296 million for the V-22s as compared to $488 million for the helos; the Osprey crew costs are $5 million, compared to $21 million; the Osprey doesn’t need a forward refueling point or security, but the helos do, so the Marines factor a cost of $15 million; but the Ospreys’ operation and sustainment rate is “.23,” as compared to “.14.” Bottom line: According to Masiello’s chart, the Osprey costs $301.2 million, as compared to $524.1 million for the “utility helicopter.” The conclusion: “Utility helicopter alternative is 74 percent more costly than V-22.”
The chart did not give a time scale for those costs, but they’re presumably over a fiscal year.
Jeff Kohler, vice president of business development for Boeing Military Aircraft, said the Osprey had to prove itself before it attracted the attention of other militaries. “A lot of countries wanted to wait and see how it performed,” Kohler said, “It’s been performing brilliantly.”
Masiello said the most effective showcase for the Osprey has been in Afghanistan, where American allies have gotten a chance to see firsthand how the Marines and U.S. special operators have been using their aircraft. Although he did not say so, that suggests the interest in Ospreys is coming from NATO countries, possibly Great Britain, which has had a series of political dustups over British forces’ lack of helicopters.
Kohler did acknowledge that discussions over international V-22 sales have matured to the point that, if potential customers ask about custom modifications for their own versions of the aircraft, Boeing is discussing the possibilities.
PAS11: Is V-22 the next big U.S. export prospect?
DoDBuzz.com By Philip Ewing Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 10:32 am
Posted in AirDoDBuzz.com By Philip Ewing Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 10:32 am
PARIS — Foreign militaries are in preliminary talks with DoD and its contractors over the possibility of buying the V-22 Osprey, defense and industry officials here said Wednesday. Although it’s still so early in the discussions that neither the V-22’s program manager nor a top official with Boeing would go into much detail, their hints at new international customers could mean the American tilt-rotor may begin serving in ever larger numbers around the world.
For the U.S. military, that would be no wonder. Marine Col Greg Masiello, the V-22’s program manager, told reporters Wednesday that both the Corps and the Air Force love their versions of the V-22, which he said have redefined how troops can move and fight in the field. But not only that, Masiello made a case DoD probably hopes will appeal both to Washington and international audiences: The Osprey is a business success, as well as an operational one, and it not only deserves to be spared from the U.S. budgetary guillotine, foreign buyers might consider it even amidst austerity measures.
Masiello said the V-22 is the most cost-effective rotorcraft in DoD’s inventory when measured by cost per passenger, and also its safest. Buzz readers already know about the Osprey’s 100,000 flight hour milestone, but what Masiello said many people don’t know is that half of those hours have been flown just in the past two years. He showed a chart comparing the costs of moving a Marine infantry company with Ospreys as opposed to “utility helicopters” — he didn’t identify which:
The Marines need four Ospreys to move all the troops and their gear, as compared with 16 helos; that means a cost of $296 million for the V-22s as compared to $488 million for the helos; the Osprey crew costs are $5 million, compared to $21 million; the Osprey doesn’t need a forward refueling point or security, but the helos do, so the Marines factor a cost of $15 million; but the Ospreys’ operation and sustainment rate is “.23,” as compared to “.14.” Bottom line: According to Masiello’s chart, the Osprey costs $301.2 million, as compared to $524.1 million for the “utility helicopter.” The conclusion: “Utility helicopter alternative is 74 percent more costly than V-22.”
The chart did not give a time scale for those costs, but they’re presumably over a fiscal year.
Jeff Kohler, vice president of business development for Boeing Military Aircraft, said the Osprey had to prove itself before it attracted the attention of other militaries. “A lot of countries wanted to wait and see how it performed,” Kohler said, “It’s been performing brilliantly.”
Masiello said the most effective showcase for the Osprey has been in Afghanistan, where American allies have gotten a chance to see firsthand how the Marines and U.S. special operators have been using their aircraft. Although he did not say so, that suggests the interest in Ospreys is coming from NATO countries, possibly Great Britain, which has had a series of political dustups over British forces’ lack of helicopters.
Kohler did acknowledge that discussions over international V-22 sales have matured to the point that, if potential customers ask about custom modifications for their own versions of the aircraft, Boeing is discussing the possibilities.
It just keeps on.....more spin!
OK...you just moved the Infantry Company....now how about the Artillery, LAV's, bulk supplies, POL supplies.....and please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does? Are they referring to "enroute security" then where does the LZ security come from?
Do a cost comparison using CH-53E's and K's.....for the total move....Infantry and the rest of the Kit...then come back to us will you?
How does a Huey Cobra keep up with the Osprey.... or get to this mystical LZ without a FARP somewhere in the area? Or....does this magical Osprey always go it completely alone...unafraid....and unarmed as you have to have a cargo hook to tote anything underslung and with the BAE belly blistestinger with associated XBox video control installed there is no cargo hook?
If a Marine Rifle Company consisting of a dozen riflemen and and about 162 Cameramen and assorted others....makes up the numbers of troops being moved....it would appear four CH-53's could do the job in one lift. Then be able to tote all the other kit needed including LAV's.....which the Osprey cannot do. Or....do Marine Rifle Company's always operate all by their lonesome?
Will some of you Osprey guys lay out all this for us nay sayers?
Any time you cook the books....one can make the Osprey shine....but let a real comparison using real world events and I fear it returns to being a Turd no matter how well someone tries to polish the thing.
OK...you just moved the Infantry Company....now how about the Artillery, LAV's, bulk supplies, POL supplies.....and please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does? Are they referring to "enroute security" then where does the LZ security come from?
Do a cost comparison using CH-53E's and K's.....for the total move....Infantry and the rest of the Kit...then come back to us will you?
How does a Huey Cobra keep up with the Osprey.... or get to this mystical LZ without a FARP somewhere in the area? Or....does this magical Osprey always go it completely alone...unafraid....and unarmed as you have to have a cargo hook to tote anything underslung and with the BAE belly blistestinger with associated XBox video control installed there is no cargo hook?
If a Marine Rifle Company consisting of a dozen riflemen and and about 162 Cameramen and assorted others....makes up the numbers of troops being moved....it would appear four CH-53's could do the job in one lift. Then be able to tote all the other kit needed including LAV's.....which the Osprey cannot do. Or....do Marine Rifle Company's always operate all by their lonesome?
Will some of you Osprey guys lay out all this for us nay sayers?
Any time you cook the books....one can make the Osprey shine....but let a real comparison using real world events and I fear it returns to being a Turd no matter how well someone tries to polish the thing.
Last edited by SASless; 23rd Jun 2011 at 02:16.
Who, besides the US DoD, can afford these aircraft? (And even that wallet gets bruised paying for them).
I'm guessing the prospective customers all speak Arabic.
I'm guessing the prospective customers all speak Arabic.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless,
The quote from the Marines was:
If one does not need to FARP then one does not need FARP security, true enough?
A true enough statement with one exception, it assumes that the USMC would fly the 53 with a full load of Marines in the back. This didn't use to be so for the simple reason that if you lost one 53 enroute due to combat or maintenance reasons, you would lose 25-30% of your combat force(assuming a Marine Co). Therefore they spread load the Marines over a larger number of aircraft, thus the use of platforms that carry a smaller number of Marines. As an example when we would swap out aircrews at a FOB we would spread load 30 to 40 Marines over two 53s, sometimes three. This may have changed now, I admit that I do not know the current utilization. Also keep in mind that the 53s primary mission is to haul trash, not Marines. With respect to the LAVs, during my time in Iraq as a Marine pilot not once did I see a 53 external anything other than boxes full of bottled water or MREs, not a single LAV or hummer. I'm not saying it didn't/doesn't happen but I think you over estimate the requirement to perform such task is todays environment.
please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does?
the Osprey doesn’t need a forward refueling point or security
If a Marine Rifle Company consisting of a dozen riflemen and and about 162 Cameramen and assorted others....makes up the numbers of troops being moved....it would appear four CH-53's could do the job in one lift. Then be able to tote all the other kit needed including LAV's.....which the Osprey cannot do. Or....do Marine Rifle Company's always operate all by their lonesome?
jeffg:
As I am sure you know, the external load requirement is a pretty old design spec for the 53 that won't go away any time soon.
That spec will stand regardless of what a particular operation demands of the 53 due to geographic and other factors in a given op.
Change your op to somewhere with more water, less land, fewer roads ... and you may see a whole lot more external loads. If I am the ground commander, I figure that if I can drive it there over land I will.
I doubt I'll go through the trouble of getting it helo lifted there (one does not simply snap one's fingers and get access to that 53) via external load unless the circumstances are novel.
My two cents.
Good point in the FARP.
That said, SASless has a point. Unless one arms the Osprey, how do you provide fire support, or suppressive fires, for the Osprey flight or section when it arrives at LZ "x" in "Injun Country?" Cobras can't quite keep up. I suppose you could launch the Cobras ahead of time ... but doesn't that possibly telegraph the op?
There's probabaly a work around.
I recall there being much grousing a few years back when EF-111 was retired to be replaced by EA-6B, and Air Force Strike packages no longer had fast electronic tools that could keep up. EF-18G Growler may slightly address that complaint, but what I think happened was that a work around was figured out.
As I am sure you know, the external load requirement is a pretty old design spec for the 53 that won't go away any time soon.
That spec will stand regardless of what a particular operation demands of the 53 due to geographic and other factors in a given op.
Change your op to somewhere with more water, less land, fewer roads ... and you may see a whole lot more external loads. If I am the ground commander, I figure that if I can drive it there over land I will.
I doubt I'll go through the trouble of getting it helo lifted there (one does not simply snap one's fingers and get access to that 53) via external load unless the circumstances are novel.
My two cents.
Good point in the FARP.
That said, SASless has a point. Unless one arms the Osprey, how do you provide fire support, or suppressive fires, for the Osprey flight or section when it arrives at LZ "x" in "Injun Country?" Cobras can't quite keep up. I suppose you could launch the Cobras ahead of time ... but doesn't that possibly telegraph the op?
There's probabaly a work around.
I recall there being much grousing a few years back when EF-111 was retired to be replaced by EA-6B, and Air Force Strike packages no longer had fast electronic tools that could keep up. EF-18G Growler may slightly address that complaint, but what I think happened was that a work around was figured out.
Do a cost comparison using CH-53E's and K's.....for the total move....Infantry and the rest of the Kit...then come back to us will you?
SEAPOWER Expo Online
Wasnt that around the same "holy cow"/"gheez-whiz"/"gold plated goose" price touted in the earlier pages of this thread for the Osprey?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does a Huey Cobra keep up with the Osprey.... or get to this mystical LZ without a FARP somewhere in the area? Or....does this magical Osprey always go it completely alone...unafraid....and unarmed
It appears that the tactical support a/c of choice for the Osprey is not the Cobra, it is the AV8B Harrier as was the case in the rescue of the downed F-15 pilots in Libya. Launched from the USS Kearsarge, the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit used the Harriers to provide air cover for the extraction. In fact the Harriers were there in advance of the extraction to clear potential threats using 500-pound laser-guided bombs and other armament to bear that Cobras are not capable of delivering. Of course the dream a/c of support for future operations is the F-35, but the fate of that program is yet to be determined.
Last edited by 21stCen; 23rd Jun 2011 at 19:36.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"HEY!, What happened to "Power By The Hour" ?
Osprey engines are logging less than 200 hours of wing time in Afghanistan !
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - 11:32 AM
And then they must be shipped home for overhaul, reports Bill Sweetman.
There is a good PhD dissertation to be written on the whole V-22 Osprey mess -- how many billions of dollars have been spent over the decades to produce a fast but very expensive long-range troop transport helicopter. One of the biggest untold stories in the military, I think, is the sorry state of Marine aviation -- ancient CH-53 helos, hangar queen V-22s, and multi-role expensive fighter jets -- when what the Corps should be flying is Black Hawks and A-10s, or even long-legged prop-driven aircraft.
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - 11:32 AM And then they must be shipped home for overhaul, reports Bill Sweetman.
There is a good PhD dissertation to be written on the whole V-22 Osprey mess -- how many billions of dollars have been spent over the decades to produce a fast but very expensive long-range troop transport helicopter. One of the biggest untold stories in the military, I think, is the sorry state of Marine aviation -- ancient CH-53 helos, hangar queen V-22s, and multi-role expensive fighter jets -- when what the Corps should be flying is Black Hawks and A-10s, or even long-legged prop-driven aircraft.
The point of my post minus the camouflage was to suggest figures lie and liars figure when it comes to Statistics. One presents the data one desires to prove one's point of view. That being said....when we use such an example as was used....the moving of one Infantry Company of Marines....a "passenger with baggage" evolution....then of course the Osprey shines. If we pick another sort of evolution....such as a "passenger flight with excess baggage, camping gear, fuel supplies, rations, water, fuel, entertainment center (comms with generators), and First Aid kits)...the Osprey begins to show its shortcomings.
In otherwords....we have to use a Universal View as the Osprey is being billed as being the replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot....and that is where I find my opposition to all of these glowing reports.
The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.
As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft....and the use of a "FARP as conventionally known" greatly extends the ability to extend time on station, speedy return to the area of operation, both of which are very important in combat situations.
As Army and Marine units are operating in the same evironments in Iraq and Afghanistan....how do we arrive at such a different view of operational need in the way of aircraft? The Marines are devoted to Over The Horizion amphiibous assault because the Navy does not want to expose their ships to hostile attack and that alone is the driving force for the Marine's need for the Osprey. At what cost do we insist on having OTH capability as compared to a conventional amphibious assault capability? When was the last real Amphibious Assault? We used the "threat" of an assault during Gulf War I as a feint.
In otherwords....we have to use a Universal View as the Osprey is being billed as being the replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot....and that is where I find my opposition to all of these glowing reports.
The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.
As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft....and the use of a "FARP as conventionally known" greatly extends the ability to extend time on station, speedy return to the area of operation, both of which are very important in combat situations.
As Army and Marine units are operating in the same evironments in Iraq and Afghanistan....how do we arrive at such a different view of operational need in the way of aircraft? The Marines are devoted to Over The Horizion amphiibous assault because the Navy does not want to expose their ships to hostile attack and that alone is the driving force for the Marine's need for the Osprey. At what cost do we insist on having OTH capability as compared to a conventional amphibious assault capability? When was the last real Amphibious Assault? We used the "threat" of an assault during Gulf War I as a feint.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sas,
Who is billing the V-22 as a “replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot..”? It was meant to replace the CH-46 and CH-53D and does so. It was never meant to replace the 53E and no one is saying it can. What “machine” is it being billed to replace that it cannot?
“The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer.”
-Cannot the same be said of every aircraft that exist? Many of us ‘Osprey guys’ have said as much which is why we support a mix of aircraft. In fact it’s many of the ‘nay sayers’ who have advocated that the Marines essentially get rid of their medium lift assets and go to an all 53 force. Are there not missions a V-22 can do that a 53 can’t?
‘The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.’
-In other words V-22 supporters are cherry picking the mission profiles they use to support the aircraft, isn’t that exactly what you did in your example? Do you have any doubt that 53K supporters will do any different to support their product?
“As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft”
-A FARP by definition is temporary in nature and located in the main battle area. Therefore Carriers and friendly air fields are not FARPs, their logistics and security requirements are very different from those of a FARP.
Who is billing the V-22 as a “replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot..”? It was meant to replace the CH-46 and CH-53D and does so. It was never meant to replace the 53E and no one is saying it can. What “machine” is it being billed to replace that it cannot?
“The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer.”
-Cannot the same be said of every aircraft that exist? Many of us ‘Osprey guys’ have said as much which is why we support a mix of aircraft. In fact it’s many of the ‘nay sayers’ who have advocated that the Marines essentially get rid of their medium lift assets and go to an all 53 force. Are there not missions a V-22 can do that a 53 can’t?
‘The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.’
-In other words V-22 supporters are cherry picking the mission profiles they use to support the aircraft, isn’t that exactly what you did in your example? Do you have any doubt that 53K supporters will do any different to support their product?
“As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft”
-A FARP by definition is temporary in nature and located in the main battle area. Therefore Carriers and friendly air fields are not FARPs, their logistics and security requirements are very different from those of a FARP.
Last edited by jeffg; 24th Jun 2011 at 20:13.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: stateside
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the people on this thread crack me up, after years of V22 operations in war zones they cant accept that the military, (the operators after all), consider the aircraft to be a success.
No one cares what anonymous people on a website forum think of the V-22.
The V22 is here to stay and shrill internet postings by aviation fan boys is not going to change that, no ones listening, get over yourself.
No one cares what anonymous people on a website forum think of the V-22.
The V22 is here to stay and shrill internet postings by aviation fan boys is not going to change that, no ones listening, get over yourself.
As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft....and the use of a "FARP as conventionally known" greatly extends the ability to extend time on station, speedy return to the area of operation, both of which are very important in combat situations.
Load a Harrier up with things that go bang....thus limiting the amount of fuel it can carry.....put the 22 out at its max range....both operating from a Gator Navy Carrier....and how does that play? Does the Harrier follow the 22 home or stay to provide cover for the recently landed Infantry? How many Harriers can you flow into the area around the LZ while cycling 22's?
I know what it like waiting for the Cavalry to arrive while the Indians were on t he war path......it gets very lonely sometimes when you are in a bad neighborhood and the locals are showing you the door. Calling up the Arty folks and hearing that Rounds were out was mighty comforting.
Or.....do the Marines operate outside their Arty Fans on a routine basis?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless nice conversation about FARPs and all but I would refer you back to your original question in post 1113.
The Col was referring to a FARP "as conventionally known" sense. He was not referring to OTH, using an LPD as a lillypad or landing at the last available friendly airfield. Therefore no FARP equals no security.
.and please do explain why the Osprey requires no "Security" at the LZ and the Utility helicopter does?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sensible Defense Cuts
How to Save $400 Billion Through 2015
SOURCE: AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari An aerial view of the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) aircraft carrier in Norfolk, Virginia. The United States currently fields 11 aircraft carriers, while no other country has even one of comparable size and power. The Pentagon could cancel procurement of the CVN-80 aircraft carrier and retire two existing carrier battle groups and associated air wings, saving $7.74 billion.
By Lawrence J. Korb, Laura Conley, Alex Rothman | July 6, 2011
Defense spending skyrocketed 70 percent under the Bush administration, and President Barack Obama inherited a defense budget at highs not seen since the end of World War II. There is much room for savings with military spending far out of step with the threats facing our country.
As the Obama administration and Congress try to agree on a deal to raise the debt limit, they should keep in mind that they can cut $150 billion in defense spending annually and still keep our military budget at the Reagan administration’s peak Cold War levels. Bringing the defense budget down to the levels instated by Presidents Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton would require reductions of $250 billion to $300 billion annually.
Here are our recommendations on how to save $400 billion through 2015 without harming U.S. national security:
Cancel the V-22 Osprey program ($9.15 billion through 2015)
The V-22 Osprey helicopter has been long hampered by cost overruns and technical problems. A May 2009 Government Accountability Office report found that “in Iraq, the V-22’s mission capability (MC) and full mission capability (FMC) rates fell significantly below … rates achieved by legacy helicopters.” There is no reason for DOD to continue sinking money into this program given the V-22’s high price tag—it costs five times as much as other models—and lackluster performance.
Lawrence J. Korb is a Senior Fellow, Laura Conley is a Research Associate, and Alex Rothman is a Special Assistant at American Progress.
V-22 Report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09482.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: Sensible Defense Cuts: How to Save $400 Billion Through 2015
How to Save $400 Billion Through 2015
SOURCE: AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari An aerial view of the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) aircraft carrier in Norfolk, Virginia. The United States currently fields 11 aircraft carriers, while no other country has even one of comparable size and power. The Pentagon could cancel procurement of the CVN-80 aircraft carrier and retire two existing carrier battle groups and associated air wings, saving $7.74 billion.By Lawrence J. Korb, Laura Conley, Alex Rothman | July 6, 2011
Defense spending skyrocketed 70 percent under the Bush administration, and President Barack Obama inherited a defense budget at highs not seen since the end of World War II. There is much room for savings with military spending far out of step with the threats facing our country.
As the Obama administration and Congress try to agree on a deal to raise the debt limit, they should keep in mind that they can cut $150 billion in defense spending annually and still keep our military budget at the Reagan administration’s peak Cold War levels. Bringing the defense budget down to the levels instated by Presidents Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton would require reductions of $250 billion to $300 billion annually.
Here are our recommendations on how to save $400 billion through 2015 without harming U.S. national security:
Cancel the V-22 Osprey program ($9.15 billion through 2015)
The V-22 Osprey helicopter has been long hampered by cost overruns and technical problems. A May 2009 Government Accountability Office report found that “in Iraq, the V-22’s mission capability (MC) and full mission capability (FMC) rates fell significantly below … rates achieved by legacy helicopters.” There is no reason for DOD to continue sinking money into this program given the V-22’s high price tag—it costs five times as much as other models—and lackluster performance.
Lawrence J. Korb is a Senior Fellow, Laura Conley is a Research Associate, and Alex Rothman is a Special Assistant at American Progress.
V-22 Report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09482.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: Sensible Defense Cuts: How to Save $400 Billion Through 2015
How about that. A left wing special interest group advocating canceling a customer-loved defense program to save a platry sum compared to where real money can be had by cutting entitlements.
And did we not notice this was basically a republishing of the exact same "suggestions" from April?
Defensible Budget Cuts
and early February?
Defense Cuts Are Mandatory
and mid February?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...fense_cuts.pdf
I suppose at this rate we can watch the same article grasping at mainstream media regurgitation once again in September.
File this one away under "Gee, there's a shocker". Getting military budget advice from the Center for American Progress is tantamount to asking the Tea Party for their take on welfare reform. Or maybe asking Bob Cox to write an objective column on the V22 in the Star Telegram.
And did we not notice this was basically a republishing of the exact same "suggestions" from April?
Defensible Budget Cuts
and early February?
Defense Cuts Are Mandatory
and mid February?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...fense_cuts.pdf
I suppose at this rate we can watch the same article grasping at mainstream media regurgitation once again in September.
File this one away under "Gee, there's a shocker". Getting military budget advice from the Center for American Progress is tantamount to asking the Tea Party for their take on welfare reform. Or maybe asking Bob Cox to write an objective column on the V22 in the Star Telegram.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or like asking the Green party their opinion on SSBNs.
You know what the knee-jerk, pre-programmed auto-response is going to be, no matter the actual situation in play.
You know what the knee-jerk, pre-programmed auto-response is going to be, no matter the actual situation in play.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defense Budget Increase Sailing Through House
July 6, 2011
The following appeared July 5th in The Fiscal Times:
The White House and Republican leaders may be locked in a bruising battle over how to slash the long-term deficit, but defense cuts seem to be off the table. This week, House lawmakers are moving rapidly toward approving a $649 billion defense appropriation bill that would boost baseline Pentagon spending by 3.4 percent in 2012...
The procurement portion of the bill includes:
July 6, 2011
The following appeared July 5th in The Fiscal Times:
The White House and Republican leaders may be locked in a bruising battle over how to slash the long-term deficit, but defense cuts seem to be off the table. This week, House lawmakers are moving rapidly toward approving a $649 billion defense appropriation bill that would boost baseline Pentagon spending by 3.4 percent in 2012...
The procurement portion of the bill includes:
- $15.1 billion for the Navy’s ship-building program, which is enough to launch ten new ships next year from shipyards in Portsmouth, Va., Kittery, Maine, Brementon, Wash., and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The overall budget will support a 288-ship Navy, an increase of four ships over 2011.
- $5.9 billion to build 32 F-35 jets and $2.7 billion for continued development of the advanced fighter, which is slated to replace the military’s entire jet fleet over the next several decades at a cost approaching $400 billion. Some analysts say the program could be scaled back by slowing purchases and substituting updated versions of older, cheaper planes.
- $2.5 billion for 35 new Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, that can take off and land like helicopters. Local legislators from just outside Philadelphia, where it is built have beaten back repeated efforts to curtail a program that was bedeviled by technical problems in its early days. The Osprey’s use in rescuing a downed pilot in Libya “has laid to rest all doubts about its operational effectiveness,” the report that accompanied the appropriations bill asserted. The report also called for “a new multiyear procurement contract for fiscal year 2013 and beyond.”