Time to cut some programs?

I’m always concerned when I find myself in agreement with Eric L. Palmer. The guy is such a curmudgeon. I know quite well what he dislikes, but I can’t for the life of me think of what he likes.

In any event, he’s calling on the next Congress to cut several programs from the defense budget.

What are the defense programs that should be killed right away?

Easy. No really; it is an easy decision when looking at the following failed programs.

Kill:

DDX
LCS
EFV
JSF

I think the only real quibble I have here is that I’d kill the F-35B, but leave the rest of the JSF program. It’s a terrible program, but it’s all we have. And I think the A and C models can be salvaged if we don’t waste time and money on the F-35B.

DDX is a boondoggle. An evolutionary design to follow on to the highly successful DDG-51 fleet makes sense.

LCS needs to die in a fire. Sadly, the Navy just doubled down on stupid. Instead of Little Crappy Ships, the Navy should build FFG-7 -The Next Generation. Replace the Mk13 launcher with a VLS with ESSM, and maybe swap out the SPS-49 with another radar.

Other than that, just get to building them quickly.

The Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is another “bridge too far” in terms of making a technological leap. Time to kill it.

As one of the commentors over at ELP suggests, it’s time for MV-22 to die as well. I’ve addressed that issue before.

What say you? What programs would you kill? Am I right, or am I wrong. Sound off.

6 thoughts on “Time to cut some programs?”

  1. What’s wrong with the EFV?

    If the Marines are to be our door-kickers, don’t they need a vehicle which allows them to make rapid, opposed landings on enemy-held beaches?

  2. Oh, and the Bradleys cost about $1.4 million off the production line. Current cost for the EFV?

    Over $22 million each. That’s half the cost of an MV-22!

    http://tinyurl.com/2b5qjsq

    I agree that they need to replace the AAV-7, but there’s no justification on earth for a $22m Armored Personnel Carrier.

  3. I can understand the desire to retain the UH/AH1 systems as they have a lot of common parts and make it easier to stock spare parts. I have to agree with you on the nature of the mods and ask why they retain the UH-1 airframe with such high cost. I agree it makes little sense. Particularly since the UH-60 has already been navalized and is in service. I’d like to see a navalized Apache as well, but, like the CH-47, its size might make that prohibitive. Since all I’ve ever seen are pics of the Apache, I’m no position to judge that.

    I’d kill the Osprey dead. That raises hackle on a retired Warrant Officer Pilot at my church that also worked at Bell on the Osprey project, but the thing is far too complex and hard to support in the field. A replacement for the CH-46 is needed, but the Osprey ain’t it.

Comments are closed.