So, you want to decom Tico's, eh?

As the budget shrinks - cuts will have to be made. The only way to make sure we get the best result is through vigorous debate - as our system is designed.

Checks and balances are messy and time consuming - but they are the best thing out there.

Along those lines, six Congressmen; Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA), Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), and Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) sent a letter to the CNO that starts thus;

We are writing to express our deep concern about ongoing USN consideration to deviate from the current ship modernization program of record by decommissioning up to nine CG-47 Aegis class ships. US security and prosperity requires a maritime strategy dependent on capable seapower projection. Therefore, We strongly oppose the premature decommissioning of any USN ships and especially those of the CG-47 Aegis class.

You can download the letter here.

Oh, and if you want to feel sad; click this.

313 was just last Friday - forget any other meaning ...

I stand by my position for the last 3 years or so, we are not going to get to 313 ships. The professional malpractice of this lost decade will guarantee it. This is not the fault of any politician of any Party - this is a failure of program management and capital planning by the Uniformed Leadership.

Perhaps it is my agricultural heritage - but the simple fact is that you have to make hay while the sun is shining. We had 8 years of Republican administration to come up with a sane, executable program and blew it. Full stop. While the sun was shining we played parlor games.

The word within the U.S. Department of Defense is that the White House wants to collect six to eight “scalps” — major program kills — in this year’s Quadrennial Defense Review…

(While) most of the military services are scrambling to protect programs, at least one is getting ready to offer up a signature weapons system. The U.S. Navy will propose removal of one aircraft carrier and air wing from its posture, dropping the number of carriers to the lowest number since 1942…

That step would cut the Navy’s projected shortfall in strike aircraft by half. So billions of dollars are saved by skipping the refueling, cutting the purchase of aircraft, and eliminating the need to sustain 6,000. personnel associated with ship operations and air-wing support.

Well, elections have consequences - suck it up. Lex outlines very well the next chapter of The Hollowing.

Put three ships on deployment, three returning from deployment, three preparing from deployment, two in post-deployment maintenance and one in a complex overhaul, and you get 12 ships. Go to 11 ships and you get seven t0 eight month deployments (and sailors start voting with their feet). Go to ten, and you can find yourself in a position where you take on considerable warfighting risk with exceptionally valuable assets.

Meanwhile, the mission set never changes.
...
Each ship of a class and its associated air wing also come with an aggregate life cycle support tail. When those aircraft and ships are eliminated, the support tail is commensurately reduced. Which means, in effect, that a few years hence we’ll have the same kinds of budget shortfalls Navy faces today, but with less combat capability. Which is how, back in the late 90s, we managed to “recapitalize” the surface fleet down from a Reagan era high of nearly 600 ships to a barely adequate 280 or so.

On target.

The Hollowing II: Electric Boogaloo

For a global power to have global offensive reach there are two things that are essential to give the commander flexibility, reach, and man-in-the-loop reliability. Without them, often the only option is to do nothing, and a global power becomes strictly a regional power with limited power projection capabilities. Two of the most critical tools in the global power toolbox are tankers and bombers.

Don't think that isn't known.

The White House budget office has asked the Pentagon to consider delaying the purchase of aerial refueling tankers by five years, a move that reflects the constraints of drawing up a budget in the midst of a recession, according to two sources familiar with the administration's discussions.
...
Delaying the purchase of the tankers, which would replace a fleet that dates to the Eisenhower administration, will draw fierce opposition from the defense industry and many members of Congress, whose districts have tens of thousands of jobs related to the program.
...
A tentative plan to build new long-range bombers also could be shelved.

A trial balloon ... that may be killed, but ...

OMB spokesman Ken Baer said his office has "not directed the Defense Department to either delay production of the new tanker or cancel the new bombers."

Billions for pork and to pay off political allies - but cuts for an actual Constitutional function.

In some ways though, DoD is its own worse enemy. It had a chance to at least get the tankers coming. The tanker deal was a clown show from day one - KC-767s should be running off the production lines now. The long-range bomber is still a young program, but is also needed and was - by looking evolutionary and manned - to be a smart program.

Don't get too flustered though - there is one program that Congress is sure to support.

# correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. "It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable...The speaker will want to know where the planes are..." wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker."
# During another email exchange DOD staff advised Kay King that one Pelosi military aircraft request could not be met because of "crew rest requirements" and offered to help secure commercial travel. Kay King responded: "We appreciate the efforts to help the codel [sic] fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that."

You really need to follow the link above and click the links at the bottom of that page for the email PDFs. Amazing attitude. Only in DC.

The hollowing begins ...

In the middle of a war. It has started.

The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.

Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.

Elections mean things.

We cannot leave troops in the field hang'n can we? Nope, therefore look for more than the fair share to come from the USN and non-AMC USAF.

$55 billion? What does the Navy throw on the alter? At the low end, I would think that we will have to eat at least 30% of that - let's call it $18.3 billion that needs to go as a baseline. Where do you start? Eat the sunk cost and kill DDG-1000 like they did the USS United States (CVA-58)? Cut SSN production in half? Kill LCS (not going to happen, sadly, because it is the "cheapest" way to get new CDR Command slots)? Kill the new CVN design, eating those sunk costs, and go back to Nimitz with a slide to the right? Cut personnel faster, going down to the 311-300,000 line? For the USMC - kill the EFV? Does that get us to $18.3 billion? I need a stable of staff weenies to run some numbers ... but that is what people are doing this weekend.

USAF, you're done with F-22. As for BMD - Sen. Levin ain't playing.

If you were wearing a uniform and hoped for change - you're going to get it good and hard. If that makes you mad, take a powder.

Hat tip MajHam.

---

Hmmmm, more nuance?

The Pentagon refused to comment publicly on why it would need the higher amount. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said the fiscal 2010 Defense budget must contend with the realities of the bad economy and stop the trend of steep increases in military budgets since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Gates also has said the department will deliver Congress a formal request for a second tranche of fiscal 2009 war funding “in the coming weeks.” He sent Congress an estimate for that tab of $69.7 billion.

“I believe that the FY 2010 budget must make hard choices,” Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 27.

Is someone in uniform playing games - or are requirements requirements?