Sequestration Impact on the Navy

[hscs]

Well if I had my way the cuts would all come from "social programs" and the like - the DoD's budget would be the last place on the list to look for cuts. Although I'm all for the Air Force having to close a golf course or two...

'Social programs' is a rather wide net - if we cut education funding then the future of our all volunteer service is in jeopardy. We account for 40% of the world's defense related spending - and if you count our close allies (NATO, Japan, Australia), that number goes up to 70%. Probably ok to trim a little fat from DOD (just look at any major HQ) - in my opinion.

National security is more than just equipment and service members - makes me wonder if Ross Perot had been elected in 1992, if we would be here.

 

[707guy]

'Social programs' is a rather wide net - if we cut education funding then the future of our all volunteer service is in jeopardy. We account for 40% of the world's defense related spending - and if you count our close allies (NATO, Japan, Australia), that number goes up to 70%. Probably ok to trim a little fat from DOD (just look at any major HQ) - in my opinion.

National security is more than just equipment and service members - makes me wonder if Ross Perot had been elected in 1992, if we would be here.

I was painting with a broad brush there - and you're right on both points. I'm sure the DoD's budget could be trimmed. I guess my point would be lets look at all the other departments before we hit up defense. I don't want to see money wasted anywhere and I don't want us to start cutting defense like the UK has done in the past few years.

 

[Gatordev]

I was painting with a broad brush there - and you're right on both points. I'm sure the DoD's budget could be trimmed. I guess my point would be lets look at all the other departments before we hit up defense. I don't want to see money wasted anywhere and I don't want us to start cutting defense like the UK has done in the past few years.

There's plenty within DoD that could be cut that would actually make us more effective. If not cut, at least streamlined. Just look at aquisition, specifically the T-6B, the MH-60R, the KC-x, EH-101, JSF...you get the idea.

 

[ltedge46]

I think a lot of people in D.C. just want to get it over with. The planning for the possible budget reductions has been ongoing and delaying the decision another 6 months or a year just causes more work. Right now I think we're planning 2 budgets, one under the continuing levels and another for when the hammer drops. The check will come due for budget cuts eventually, I don't think we can't sustain the funding and do our part to trim the deficit/debt. Might as well do it and hope that our leaders are relistic about what that will mean for readiness and worldwide commitments.

 

[phrogpilot73]

There's plenty within DoD that could be cut that would actually make us more effective. If not cut, at least streamlined.

You mean the 2 year old furniture I just saw leaving the building because end of FY money HAD to be spent, and new furntiture was being delivered?!?

 

[Gatordev]

You mean the 2 year old furniture I just saw leaving the building because end of FY money HAD to be spent, and new furntiture was being delivered?!?

Honestly, that doesn't really get me riled up. Especially when things actually got better in my last squadron when we would play that game. All the Department Heads got nice (read: usable) flat screen monitors. Personally, I thought that was worth the FY spend-ex. Especially now that I'm on a 15" CRT monitor at my current job. Maybe I'll fire up Doom to complete the 1990's computer experience.

All that said, I'll keep my monitor if it helps me get more ADT for my peeps.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Honestly, that doesn't really get me riled up. Especially when things actually got better in my last squadron when we would play that game. All the Department Heads got nice (read: usable) flat screen monitors. Personally, I thought that was worth the FY spend-ex. Especially now that I'm on a 15" CRT monitor at my current job. Maybe I'll fire up Doom to complete the 1990's computer experience.

All that said, I'll keep my monitor if it helps me get more ADT for my peeps.

I don't have a problem with it if there's justification, or it increases readiness. Last year at the end of FY spend-ex, the security manager cleaned out his office for his new furniture. I wanted to go to DRMO and claim his old furniture, and put it in my house. It was gorgeous, and in pristine condition. But hey, gotta spend.

This year's spend-ex has found the following on my desk: new Petzl headlamp, new SOG folding knife, new rite-in-the-rain notebook, new clipboard (the kind with storage underneath the clipboard), a new Night Vision Pen, and a new gucci headset for the MBITR.

Out of all that, the only thing I think is really justified (and really the only thing I wanted, but our department went overboard) is the headset - since about 30% of our handsets for the radios are shot, and all of the headsets we have are broken/held together with tape.

There is most DEFINITELY waste in the DoD, and it starts with the end of the FY dump-ex of cash...

 

[707guy]

There is most DEFINITELY waste in the DoD, and it starts with the end of the FY dump-ex of cash...

Agreed - I ended up with a bunch of stuff one year because we had excess cash in a flight gear account. It's too bad that the budget system doesn't work differently and the end of year money could be carried over so that it is spent on needed items and not just "spend it or lose it."

 

[IRfly]

I'm generally not a big Grover Norquist fan, but I can't disagree with this: "Conservatives need to remember that, just as spending money on something called education doesn't mean people are educated and spending money on welfare doesn't mean it adds to the general welfare calling something national defense doesn't mean it is. It may not be. It may undermine national defense if it's a waste of resources, if it's a misallocation of resources."

Link:

It's time for the black hole that is DoD spending to be exposed to the light of day. Another great story:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/air-force-lawmaker-at-odds-over-new-flightsuit-062411w/

 

[CommodoreMid]

It's something all the service chiefs are aware of and worry about. It's in our institutional DNA to say that we can get the job done, no matter what. That's a big hurdle to overcome, particularly when there is interservice competition for resources.

No one wants to be the one to say we can't accomplish the mission, show red in DRRS, not get the quals, etc. Until we get over the idea that we have to look perfect, even if we don't have the resources, it will only get worse.

 

[Brett327]

No one wants to be the one to say we can't accomplish the mission, show red in DRRS, not get the quals, etc. Until we get over the idea that we have to look perfect, even if we don't have the resources, it will only get worse.

To their credit, this year I have heard two service chiefs and one COCOM use the phrase "doing less with less" which is encouraging. They get it, but they don't always have the lattitude for much action with the policy makers. Their philosophy is to avoid the hollow force issues that we've seen with other periods of drawdown. As we've seen in the planned end strength reductions for the Army and Marines, they prefer a smaller, well trained & equipped force to a larger one who suffers from poor readiness.

This is the second (maybe third) "drawdown" of my career. It's never as bad as it seems at the outset.

 

[robav8r]

. . . . . they don't always have the lattitude for much action with the policy makers.

This is the second (maybe third) "drawdown" of my career. It's never as bad as it seems at the outset.

Brett - agree on your first comment. The pain threshold will have to increase substantially until we see significant policy action.

Second, maybe third drawdown? Good God man, how long have you been around

 

[Brett327]

Well, you can argue whether there was one big one or two smaller ones during the 90s.

 

[squorch2]

The waste in acquisition programs dwarfs any and all end of FY spendex. It's not even close.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The acquisition process is indeed a mess that causes a lot of wasted money. However, that's not something that sequestration will fix. More likely, it will cut funding to a lot of high-visibility programs, and cost a lot of contractors their jobs. It's hard to say where that will leave us in the test community, since we rely so heavily on contractors for day-to-day work.