Print 36 comment(s) - last by marvdmartian.. on Apr 24 at 8:32 AM

Major budget cuts could have ramifications for all US military branches in the years to come.

Due to increased scrutiny and frustration, the U.S. federal government is shifting monetary budgets with procurement and research and development projects likely receiving a $66 billion cut if spending caps aren’t adjusted. 
The current five-year spending plan is more than $115 billion above mandated defense-spending caps, which could have major ramifications.  The budget cuts would hit everything from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II to the Airbus Light Utility Helicopter and Boeing KC-46 tanker.  In addition, the U.S. Army wouldn’t be able to acquire new Black Hawk helicopters and Stryker double-hull vehicles might also face cancellation.

Boeing KC46A Tanker [Image Source: Wikipedia]
Moving forward, the DoD will focus on research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), with an estimated $63 billion spent in 2014 alone.  One of the business sectors of the RDT&E program, the Future Years Defense Plan, will see its budget continually drop – from $20 billion in 2009 down to $10 billion by 2018.
“There’s a difference between spending money and spending money smartly,” said James Hasik, Atlantic Council senior fellow.  “There are folks out in the world who make the argument that you have to spread money around the world wildly, because money spent on research is just good because it just leads to development.  This is not a compelling argument because there are dead ends against which you can continue to apply money and not get very far.”
DoD officials want to make sure basic research funding and early-stage development both receive funding through the red tape, though this will force other future military technology research onto the shelf.  
Congress is evaluating another wave of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) papers in 2017, giving the DoD the ability to close bases on an individual basis.

Source: Defense News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: US was folowing the USSR
By michael67 on 4/22/2014 3:25:10 PM , Rating: 4
No the point is, is that 18% of the federal budget is spend on the militarily, opposed to a average of 2% by other country's.

Let me ask you, if i cut your income by 15%, will you run in to financial problems?

If you do a cost benefit analyze, did the $4 to 6,000,000,000,000.00 you spending on Iraq and Afghanistan deliver you any benefits?
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

www raq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b 82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

If the US had only spend half of that money smartly around the world being a sugar daddy, instead of being a bully, the US would have bin a lot saver.

Really the old saying that you make more friends with Honey then with vinegar is still true.

Many country's in Africa love the Chinese, hate the US and really dislike the EU country's.

Why, not because they are less corrupt then we are are, but they do a lot of symbol development work, like with helping building nice roads and so on.

RE: US was folowing the USSR
By boeush on 4/22/2014 10:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
But passing around sugar and honey is too sissy-like.

It doesn't allow a brave manly Texan to whip out his big fat ...brain... and smack the globe around with it ;-)

We, as a nation, can't allow ourselves to be pussified. We'd rather go for broke -- literally.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki