Democrats buying more weapons for a long war in Iraq.......

[Kirkhill]

Democrat controlled House Armed Services Committee is giving the US forces all they are asking for and then some:

Army - multi-year production of Chinook, upgraded Abrams and Bradleys as well as "thousands" of MRAPs and "generous" funding to Stryker.

Air Force - F-22 and F-35 to be fully funded, multi-year production of the C130J, 10 more C17s over and above the Air Force request (maybe more), permitting retirement of old air frames,  and funding for a Transformational Communications Satellite that had previously been cut.

Navy - All Marines All The Time
        - STOVL F-35 and V22 Osprey to be fully funded, an additional LPD-17 beyond the Navy's request, Marines to get 3700 of 7800 MRAPs on order and the order may double to 17,600 MRAPs

Backpedalled are Future Combat System and Ballistic Missile Defence
Cancelled but subject to recompete is the ARH-70 Recce Helicopter Programme.

I don't know what the Democrats' intention is relative to "Supplemental" funding for Iraq, but their long term equipment plans certainly seem to indicate that they expect to be in Iraq or places like it for a long time to come. 

All the fuss and furore is about funding emergency purchases of things like MRAPs between now and September.  On October 1 the new fiscal year kicks in and "Budgeted" funds will be available for the same kit that they are arguing about supplying the money for now.

A whole lot of Sturm and Drang for .....the masses? Or to pressure the Iraqis? Or both?

OP-Ed: Military Priorities: The New Majority Speaks
 
 
(Source: The Lexington Institute; issued May 10, 2007)
 
 
(© The Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

 
 
By Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. 


If you thought the Democratic Party was still mired in the anti-war, anti-military funk that followed America's defeat in Vietnam, then you haven't been paying attention to this week's mark-up of the fiscal 2008 defense budget by the House Armed Services Committee. 

The first Democratic majority to run the committee in 13 years is making it clear that chairman Ike Skelton isn't the only member on their side of the aisle willing to spend big on weapons and other discretionary defense outlays. That's a distinct difference from what the committee was doing the last time Democrats were in control, when both parties seemed to be competing to see how far down they could drive weapons outlays. 

Now, most of the funding pressure is on the upside, and Democrats seem more than happy to go along. 

Department of the Army. 

Democrats are supporting outlays for just about any weapon that can be tied to the war in Iraq, including backing multi-year production of the Chinook helicopter, the Abrams tank and the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. Those are all cold-war systems that have proven useful in places like Fallujah, so the committee is backing digital upgrades and other improvements that will keep them active in the force for decades to come. 

It is also giving generous funding to the newer, more agile Stryker armored vehicle that has been a big success in Iraq, and to the Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) program that will quickly equip the Army and other services with thousands of armored trucks designed to deflect the energy of roadside bombs. 

The only Army program likely to take a sizable hit when all the wrangling is over is the next-generation Future Combat System, but even that program will probably be funded at $3 billion in 2008 since it is the centerpiece of the service’s long-term modernization plan. 

Department of the Air Force. 

The committee appears to have gotten the message that much of what the Air Force does supports the ground forces, because there are few cuts to air power programs other than to claim unexpended funds resulting from delays. Both of the service's next-gen fighter programs (F-22 and F-35) look likely to stay on track, as will the two airlift planes currently in production. 

The committee wants to add money for ten more C-17 jet transports, and seems favorably inclined to supporting another multiyear production arrangement for the versatile C-130J turboprop. It is acceding to Air Force requests to remove barriers to the retirement of aging cargo planes, a sure sign that production lines for new cargo planes will keep humming into the future. The only airlifter the committee seems to have doubts about is the short-haul Joint Cargo Aircraft, which probably isn't needed. 

Funding for military space programs looks likely to be robust, including for the Transformational Communication Satellite -- a revolutionary system that Congress in previous years cut but which now could be fully funded. 

Department of the Navy. 

The Navy budget includes funding of the Marine Corps, which looks likely to get full support from the committee for its signature V-22 tilt-rotor and vertical ascent/descent version of the F-35 fighter. 

The Marines are also the lead service for the MRAP armored-truck program, which the committee looks inclined to give over $4 billion in 2008. Because that program responds directly to threats in Iraq, few members are likely to question it even though it has been put on a very fast track. The Marines will get 3,700 of the 7,800 vehicles in the current MRAP plan, but the program has been growing rapidly and could double again in size. The committee also wants to add an LPD-17 amphibious vessel to the Navy's shipbuilding request, which would be used mainly by the Marine Corps. 

The committee has not been quite so supportive of Bush Administration plans for missile defense, a longstanding bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans. But judging from action taken so far on most weapons programs, bi-partisan support for big military investments has returned to Capitol Hill. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

 

[CougarKing]

Interesting- this demonstrates one example of how being a Democrat/Liberal does not necessarily mean one is anti-military.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I think more than anything else it shows just how corrupt some of the previous committee members were throwing money at pet projects (most like their biggest contributors), at the cost of what's actually needed.

The ARH, LCS and FCS cost overruns stand out....(although cost+ contracts that governments seem willing to sign always baffle me).

The current procurement list appears on the surface to me much more practical, although I totally disagree with the effort by Democrats to defund the Czech and Polish ABM bases. 


Matthew. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Interesting- this demonstrates one example of how being a Democrat/Liberal does not necessarily mean one is anti-military.

I wont hold my breath. You also have to remember that defense projects equal jobs/money for the folks at home. The difference is what actually gets inacted. Congress has been playing to their left wing with the defense supplimental knowing full well it would never be approved by the President. At some point they will have to give the President something he can sign or risk the wrath of the voters who do not want to see the troops suffer. Paying for the war through supplimentals has been a bad idea from day one. Had they folded everything into the annual defense budget these games would have been alot harder for the dem's to play. I hope that in 08 the voters get smart and elect enough conservatives so that the House and Senate can be regained.

 

[a_majoor]

More "Gotcha" politics. They can oppose President Bush right now, but when these systems get on line (after the next presidential election) they can say "look, the Democrats bought all this cool stuff for the troops!"