Following White House orders, Army cut supplemental request

[sabra]

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0206/022806cdam1.htm

Following White House orders, Army cut supplemental request


Army leaders sliced nearly $3 billion from their latest wartime supplemental spending request under last-minute orders from the White House, forgoing money needed to upgrade a hard-worn fleet of heavy tanks and armored vehicles, defense sources disclosed Monday.

The budget-cutting decision is expected to shut down production lines -- at least temporarily -- on the Abrams tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle, resulting in long modernization delays for the aging platforms and perhaps thousands of layoffs around the country.

The cut also reveals the Army, the biggest beneficiary of emergency supplemental appropriations, is not immune to the fiscal constraints squeezing other Pentagon agencies as it tries to balance the need to repair older equipment while paying for high-priced technological transformation programs. The Army made the cuts after OMB officials directed the Pentagon to trim its supplemental request, defense sources said.

"There are so many things to be upset about," said a Senate aide familiar with the Army story. "The only solution to any of this is to give the Army more money."

[napi21]

1. DOD wastes sooo much $$, there are thousands of things

they could cut, but THIS one seems to be the wrong one! Of course, why would I ever expect them to think logically?

[TomInTib]

2. Looks as if ground troops don't figure heavily in the Iran Plan...

The Penatagon realizes we cannot do it with minimum troop levels.

We are going to go nuclear on them.

[UpInArms]

5. Rumsfeld quote from December 2001

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence:
"What is victory? I say victory is persuading the American people and the
rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that will be over in a
month or a year or even 5 years. It is something we need to do so that we
can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who
are willing to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that. That would be a
victory in my opinion." Dec. 2001

[TomInTib]

8. That statement says so much.

So if you even fantasize about a potential enemy's potential weapons, you just hammer them with a much heavier bludgeon.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Against what new rivals does the Army "need" to upgrade its "aging" tanks?

Are the Chinese improving on the last of the Soviet main battle tank designs?
I hear about these new weapons systems proposals and I have to ask myself, "did I miss the announcement about the enemy coming out with a startling new design with greater competitiveness against our planes/ships/subs/tanks?"
Last I heard our planes swept the latest from the "other side" from the skies, our tanks killed their tanks twice over before even coming into range for theirs to shoot at and our submarine force was likewise unchallengable. Our military was advanced in every way other those of other countries; it's just everything else that we do as a nation that sucks their dust.

I guess they got to keep that gravytrain going somehow. Why don't they just wear out the tanks in our own deserts, if they have to create need for replacement/reordering, instead of destablizing the world with them?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Actually, there is...

The T-90.

[kenny blankenship]

7. Oh right--the Russians are ten feet tall

I forgot about that.

[davepc]

9. they're not 10 feet tall

but they still have a modern armament industry and produce equipment that is capable of defeating American systems. They also aren't shy about selling those weapons systems to people who can afford to buy them.

Once someone teaches the world to sing in perfect harmony then we wont need to worry about keeping our military modern and able to face and defeat threats from other nations or individuals. But in the mean time we need a maintain our force ability, and the Bush administration cutting off funding for our tanks and armoured personnel carriers is criminal.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. IMHO, China will be our major concern in about 5-10 years...

...after they finish modernizing their armed forces.

[mom cat]

15. That is why Bush is doing the nuke deal with India.

[davepc]

6. Man portable anti-tank weapons have caught up to the armour protection

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-14.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-15.htm

The Russians and a few others have developed anti-tank weapons that are more then a match for the M1A2 Abrams.

It's only a matter of time for the weapons technology to filter down to other nations, and once they acquire it en masse then our main battle tank will be obsolete and incapable of fulfilling its mission requirement.

[rodeodance]

11. i do not think big tanks fits in with Rummy' vision of his new military--

lean, clean, mobile, and mean--the ultimate human machine.

[Javaman]

12. Imagine if this bullshit happened during WWII?

In a weird twist of twilight zonian stupidity, moron* is suddenly prez during WWII. What we have is a secret transcript of a conversation between the two georges...george w. moron* and Gen. George M. Patton.

moron*: I'm sorry georgie...heh heh, you have the same name as me...

Patton: no, my name is Proud yours is shit. You may speak now.

moron*: err, okay, well, I ummm, have to errr, cut the funds for the upgrade and repair of your...tanks...

Patton: What??? Now you listen to me you AWOL pantie waste mother fucker, you take one thin dime away from my tanks and I will make sure it's known that you are a nazi sympathizer! Now approve that money and get those tanks on the transports, because, unlike anything else you have done in your worthless life, we actually have to win this war!

moron*: ooo ouch, about that those ports...

Patton: (sigh) you still speaking? What is it now?

moron*: you see, we kind of sold the rights to run them and provide the security to the Japanese...

Patton: Willy, get my revolver!!!

[davepc]

14. well, the Pershing should of been fielded in 1944, not mid 1945....

Some people say Patton himself was a factor in delaying the deployment of the tank, preferring the Sherman and the open turret tank destroyers in accordance to US Army doctrine (which he helped write).

the Tank Destroyer were woefully inadequate for their role, and the Sherman's were no match 1 on 1 to the German tanks.

lots of American tankers lost their lives because their tank was 2nd best on the battlefield.

[Karmakaze]

13. And there is the rub! This is a con!

"There are so many things to be upset about," said a Senate aide familiar with the Army story. "The only solution to any of this is to give the Army more money."

See? Very damn clever - cut the funding for the stuff EVERYONE agrees you need, then spread the spin that the only way to solve it is to give the Army MORE money. Not cut the funding to that complete waste of time and money "Star Wars", hell no! Give them MORE!

All that money for "high-priced technological transformation programs" is untouchable so the only choice is to give them more money. Talk about a con job.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. Those tanks are less than worthless in a guerrilla war.

Pictures of them in flames "parked" in the middle of some urban area are pathetic.