{"id":110504,"date":"2017-12-02T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T11:01:26","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T11:01:26","slug":"the-procurement-holiday-begins-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/the-procurement-holiday-begins-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Procurement Holiday Begins"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>From this blog, <a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2008\/11\/another-procurement-holiday.html\">almost four months ago<\/a>&#8230;<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8220;..there&#8217;s  another element of the Clinton legacy (and the 1990s) that often goes  ignored. We refer to the so-called &#8220;procurement holiday&#8221; that gripped  the Pentagon during that decade. Critical decisions on major weapons  programs were postponed or shelved, forcing the Pentagon to extend the  service lives of existing systems. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">Investor&#8217;s  Business Daily aptly described the problem&#8211;and its consequences&#8211;in an  editorial published earlier this year: In the first six years of the  Clinton administration, Bush 41&#8217;s budget projections for weapons  procurement were slashed by $160 billion. For fiscal 2000, the  Congressional Budget Office said $90 billion a year was needed to hold  procurement steady. The Clinton procurement budget was a mere $55  billion. During the Reagan buildup (fiscal 1981-87), we spent an average  of $131 billion on procurement. <\/span><\/p>\n<p>And the effects of Mr. Clinton&#8217;s procurement holiday are still being felt today, almost a decade after he left office.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8220;The  U.S. Air Force has been engaged in continuous combat for the last 17  years with fewer airplanes today than in 1990 \u2014 only increasing their  age more quickly. Moreover, current Air Force plans call for retiring  two F-15s for every new F-22 brought into service.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>But if Barack Obama has his way, the USAF&#8211;and the other services&#8211;will never catch up. The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.boston.com\/news\/nation\/washington\/articles\/2009\/03\/17\/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons\/\"><em>Boston Globe<\/em> <\/a>reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will unveil a plan later this month to cut billions from new weapons systems.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">Two  defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates  will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this  month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force&#8217;s F-22  fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the officials said.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">More  cuts are planned for later this year after a review that could lead to  reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the  officials said. <\/span><\/p>\n<p>The <em>Globe<\/em> depicts Gates as the  chief architect of the plan, noting his well-publicized observation that  the U.S. &#8220;cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through  higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything,&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>To  be sure, Mr. Gates (like any SecDef) wants to put his stamp on the  Pentagon. And he&#8217;s not the first defense chief to oppose weapons systems  that are grossly over-budget and behind schedule.<\/p>\n<p>But the  secretary isn&#8217;t the only engineer driving this train. Like his  predecessors, Dr. Gates has to live within the overall parameters  established by the commander-in-chief, his budget team and Congressional  leaders. However, the impact of those influences is conspicuously  absent from the <em>Globe<\/em> article.<\/p>\n<p>As we observed last year,  members of the Obama Administration and key Democrats on the Hill made  it very clear&#8211;there would be cuts in defense spending. In fact, the  Congressional Budget Office offered something of a blueprint in January,  issuing a key study that suggested an &#8220;alternative&#8221; defense plan, <a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2009\/01\/early-showdown.html\">with massive cuts in weapons programs<\/a>. Among its recommendations:<br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8212; Reducing the number of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10.<br \/>&#8212; Cancelling the Army Future Combat System (FCS) program in favor of upgrades to existing tanks and armored vehicles.<br \/>&#8212;  Eliminating the Air Force&#8217;s next-generation tanker (KC-X) and spending  part of that money on modifying 50-year-old KC-135s and KC-10s that date  from the 1980s.<br \/>&#8212; Limiting Marine Corps purchases of JSF to the number needed to replace the AV-8B Harrier<br \/>&#8212; Cutting the Air Force JSF buy in half.<br \/>&#8212; Delay acquisition of the Navy&#8217;s next-generation cruiser (CG-X) for a decade. <\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><\/span><br \/>In  case you&#8217;re wondering, the CBO study also calls for a halt to F-22  production. In other words, it&#8217;s hard to tell where Mr. Gates&#8217; proposal  begins and the budget office plan ends. Never mind that the CBO is  suggesting a risky, even dangerous procurement strategy&#8211;putting off key  weapons purchases for years or decades&#8211;despite the dangers of a  multi-polar world. Of course, it helps that the former CBO director is  now running the Office of Management and Budget, giving him tremendous  clout in military spending matters.<\/p>\n<p>We should also note that  military leaders almost universally oppose these recommendations. So, in  eliminating programs like the F-22, Mr. Gates is bucking the advice of  his own generals and admirals. But the SecDef didn&#8217;t reach the rarefied  air of the E-ring by ignoring the prevailing political winds.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s  hard to swim against a tsunami, and Bob Gates clearly knows how to  follow the current.  That&#8217;s why Globe article strikes us as little more  than Pentagon spin, trying to put the best face on a bad situation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>From this blog, almost four months ago&#8230; &#8220;..there&#8217;s another element of the Clinton legacy (and the 1990s) that often goes ignored. We refer to the so-called &#8220;procurement holiday&#8221; that gripped the Pentagon during that decade. Critical decisions on major weapons programs were postponed or shelved, forcing the Pentagon to extend the service lives of existing [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110504"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}