And if the DOD budget does come under the knife, you know that the order is going to be exactly opposite: Personnel first, weapons systems (but not big ticket items), defense agencies, health care, and then contracts.

"Oh yes, honored veterans. We will take care of you."

Then this from one of Norton's spokesmen (same article):
"Cost-control will be an issue in everything we do,” from weapon programs to healthcare", the air chief said.

I think ProPublica's coverage of the VA's scam to refuse cognitive therapy to veterans is a better example than Michelle Bachmann's looney cost-cutting proposals, but they demonstrate the same thing-- people want to skip out and leave the people who did the fighting and the bleeding with the check.

And while Congress hasn't been as ostentatious as Bachmann, they're still dragging their feet:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/content/view/1191/

I think it's getting past the point where veterans' groups can sway the dialogue sufficiently. If the DoD is going to look at cost-cutting like any other employer, maybe the troops should unionize.

The services don't know what they need, they don't know what they want. They therefore ask for goldplated El Camino solutions that can't possibly do everything they write requirements for - then they are surprised they don't work. Witness the Osprey, or FCS, or whatever.

This proves that while military folks may think they know how to fight, they just don't know how to build fighting systems. The fact that PMs rotate - with their personal agenda - so frequently that there is no continuity means its a wonder anything ever gets built.

But it's always the evil contractors who are supposedly gumming up the works, LOL. MICC - Military Industrial Congressional (the oft forgotten letter here) Complex. All a part of the problem.

I think the Marine Corps is going to be missing the CH-46E "Phrog" when the V-22 is fully implemented because the V-22 is lacking some key features of the Phrog.
First, the V-22 generates a tremendous amount of rotor downwash. During Fleet Week 2010, a V-22 injured spectators and blew down trees at a Staten Island Park. If you google "v22 injures spectators staten island park" and click on video search you can see what I'm talking about. What you don't see in the shot is that the V22 is the wing aircraft. The lead aircraft was a CH-46E, it flew the same approach path, and landed without damaging anything with rotor downwash. Where am I going with this? The Marine Corps spends a lot of time delivering assistance and humanitarian relief to poor countries. What is going to happen when the V22 goes into third world countries where a landing zone (LZ) much like this will be surrounded my tin shacks ? It's just going to add to the destruction already caused by whatever disaster prompted the aid in the first place. The Marine Corps is going to find that the V22 is not going to be able to fit into the same LZs as the Phrog and their ability to deliver aid to many locations is going to be diminished. I think this shortfall will be picked up by the Navy H-60S platform embarked on amphibious shipping.
Second, the V22 is going to have a tough time flying in non-permissive environments. The V22 is too fast to be escorted by the traditional Phrog escorts, the UH-1 and AH-1. It's also too slow to be escorted by the F-18. All this development to develop an aircraft faster than the CH-46E and it's either going to have slow down and fly at speeds the Phrog flew at or F-18s are going to be burning circlesin the sky overhead to prevent from getting to far out in front. That's just the escort part of the equation. The V22 was dveloped without onboard defensive weapons and only in the last few years has the Marine Corps tried to fix this development problem with the addition of a "belly gun" and a ramp mounted tailgun. One belly-mounted machine gun manned by a crewmember with a video screen in the back is a far cry from two manned machine guns covering the port and starboard hemispheres of the aircraft. That one belly gun is going to be pulling double duty. I'm all about technology when it outperforms humans, but I'm not convinced this belly gun is better.
Third, survivability. The Phrog is a combat proven (Vietnam) aircraft which has been known to take hundreds of rounds and continue flying. The book "Bonnie Sue" by Marion F. Sturkey provides numerous accounts to support this and his accounts are taken from personal interviews and official unit histories on file with the Marine Corps. This survivability was hard earned, at the cost of the lives of many aircrew. This same process will be repeated with the V-22. It's unfortunate that we will have to go through this survivability process all over again. Also, any human with half a brain can figure out where to aim if you want to take down a V-22. Those big nacelles! With a Phrog, it's not that easy. A lot of people think the Phrog has an engine in the front to run the forward rotor.
Fourth, simplicity. The Marine Corps is an expeditionary force that frequently finds itself working in austere environments with little logistical support. The Phrog is a simple helicopter design (designed in the 1960s) with modest technological upgrades. Look at the V-22 readiness rates and you see a different story. An enormously complex aircraft that frequently develops maintenance issues and subsequently can't venture far from the main unit. During OIF 1 phrogs frequently were attached to ground units and stayed up front in the fight, with minimal need for maintenance support.
Sure the V22 can fly higher, faster, and supposedly self deploy. There's a lot of talk about over the horizon capability. Isn't half the battle of the MEU completed when it comes over horizon within sight of shore? That's called deterrence. Miscreants around the world know that when they wake up one day and see the Marine Expeditionary Unit shipping off the beach that the party is over and it's time to behave.
What were better options over the V-22? The V-22 won the procurement battle over the Boeing Model 360 which is sometimes known as the "Super Phrog." That's what it was, just an updated model, improving on an already proven design. Another interesting part of that story is that Boeing developed the prototype with no government funding support. They used their own cash! Imagine a company doing that today. Very rarely does a company develop such a big project without a guarantee of some money from Uncle Sam.
What does the phrog have that the Blackhawk doesn't? Namely, a ramp. It's a lot easier to load and unload pallets of food and water from a Phrog. You can drive a forklift right up to the back of the Phrog and load it. When you get to the destination, just slide it right out the back. It's just not that easy with a H-60. Also, the phrog doesn't have a tail rotor. I don't want to make this any longer than it already is, but I think a tail rotor is a frequent point of failure in many mishaps. That high frequency spinning destroys itself very quickly if it gets out of balance.

If you read this far, thanks for hanging on. I think I made some spelling/grammar errors, I have a 3 year old climbing on me while I type. Time to go make the kid a PB&J.

Got a little long winded! I apologize! There were supposed to be paragraphs in there. I'm a little new to posting on this site.

Where are the missing trillions? Where is the audit of the DOD? Talk of financial reform and budget cutting at the DOD is nothing but smoke.

"Twenty years ago, Congress passed a major law (the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990) that requires every federal agency to pass an audit each year. Almost all agencies have done so, many of them years ago. The big exception is the Department of Defense (DOD). In fact, DOD's books are so bad they are "unauditable" according to the non-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The Pentagon is the most corrupt institution in the history of the USA. The only profitable business left in the USA is war. There will be no cuts, but war, war, war, and more war. The war mongers rule America. They will murder and torture until there is nothing left to destroy.

I never read yours.

Follow the money.

But don't count on big defense to believe their own numbers, that the foundations and trends of the post-WW2 economy are unsustainable.

Ash Carter could address some basic questions:
- How does he intend to incorporate the quick response purchases into the normal review acquisition program without losing responsiveness and innovation?
- How will he make his contracting offices responsive to program deadlines and enforce accountability upon a SES that is not of mind to meet schedules?
- How are his cost assessment, verification and validation efforts working?
- How would he hold his Program Executives accountable for initial investment requests? Acquisition baselines?
- How would he create competent technology management among the service SES?
- Would FBI investigations be a better means of patronage elimination among homesteading civil service in his acquisition organizations at Forts and Bases than using the IG?

This might do for starters.

To his knowledge, what private equity investor, bond holder or major ownership holder, would keep in employment any senior executive who places blame for bad performance by his organization on his purchased suppliers?

Bonus question: would he place his personal wealth in care by such senior executives even if they wear a fancy gray or navy blue suite with Hollywood trim?

Can Mr. Carter tell us about the how his secret expenditure to the tune of 60 Billion dollars squares with the US Constitution. The Pentagon could not possibly be in compliance, since they have no idea where the peoples money is located. or where it was spent.

Article 1 Section 9 US Constitution

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The US Constitution was ratified in 1787. "All public Money" is as clear as clear gets. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Sec Def Robert Gates is under oath. Any fed government agency that does not provide a full accounting of all public money is in violation of the law.

doh!

...you can TRY to learn from this chart.

https://ilc.dau.mil/html/ILC_Main.htm

If you have a pan and zoom function on your chart, it's probably pretty good evidence that your process is broken. Abso-frickin-lutely nutty, like our Admiral.

(I have this chart posted by my desk as evidence of what not to do. It is very pretty though.)

I wonder what commenters here think of the possible need to reform the DOD personnel system at least for acquisition folks. It seems to me that you have program managers (anywhere from Captain to one-star General in Army ranks depending on the size of the program) being in charge for a couple of years, then moving on as they must under the personnel system. There can be no accountability therefore in terms of long-term success and failure. I think this plays a big part in why short term costs and benefits are always a priority over long-term issues like operating and support costs. But reforming the personnel system isn't even on the table - forget that you're talking about billions of taxpayer dollars whose caretakers are, essentially, dilettantes.

It is high time congress cut the huge DoD budget. We should be closing bases around the World and bring those service members home. It is high time we stop supporting the economy of other countries with our Military might and start spending some of that money here, say in debt reduction and innovation. Also it time for congress to stop the wasteful spending on things that the DoD doesn't even ask for. I can think of a project that was scaled back a couple of years ago, the laser plane. 10 years of spending ($1B) on this project and no real success, not to mention, what is the practical Military purpose of a 747 with a laser mounted in it. I did though; watch a video yesterday where these guys built a prototype of a glass highway that generates electricity. I would rather have $1 billion of my tax dollars spent on something like that; instead of some useless laser plane.

The fact that defense corporations are located in so many congressional districts, and that our campaign finance laws are so weak, means that there is no way there will ever be any change in this argument. One of the things that people (mostly republicans) have urged to put on the chopping block was foreign aid, including military aid. This is self-defeating though because all of the money our government (taxpayers) gives to these other countries comes directly back to the US to Lockeed or Boeing or Raytheon. Talk about a military industrial complex...it's socialism for the largest most powerful companies, our taxpayers directly supporting them over and over.

This needs to be fixed. I haven't the slightest clue how to go about doing it.