2014

[FONT=inherit]
[ul]
[li]Home[FONT=inherit]/[/li][li]News/[/li][li]U.S.[/li][/ul]
[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][B]Pentagon weighs firing thousands under 2014 spending cuts[/B]

[FONT=inherit][TABLE=“width: 620”]

[/TABLE]

[FONT=luxi-sans-1]By Tony Capaccio
[TABLE=“width: 660”]

Bloomberg News

[ul]
[li][/li][/ul]

[/TABLE]
Published: August 23, 2013
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]The Defense Department may have to fire at least 6,272 civilian employees if automatic cuts known as sequestration slice $52 billion from its fiscal 2014 budget, according to a Pentagon planning document.
Additional budget analysis is “likely to produce further reductions” as the services focus on shrinking their contract labor forces, according to a Pentagon “execution plan” obtained by Bloomberg News. The job cuts, although less than 1 percent of the non-uniformed workforce, would mark an escalation from the unpaid leave mandated under sequestration in the current fiscal year.
The services should expect a $475 billion budget after sequestration cuts for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, almost 10 percent less than the pending $526.6 billion request, according to the document dated Aug. 1. Sequestration would result in 16 percent reductions in the Pentagon’s procurement and research spending and 12 percent cuts in operations, maintenance and military construction.
For the most part, major weapons programs aren’t being targeted for extensive reductions, according to the plan, which was a presentation by Pentagon budget and cost-assessment officials for generals and admirals who oversee force structure and resources for their respective services.
It offers more detail than previously disclosed about the potential impact of cuts on fiscal 2014 spending. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in a July 10 letter to Congress, gave a broad picture of “abrupt, deep” cuts to the military.
The planning document is stamped “Draft/Pre-Decisional” and said no final decisions have been made.
[FONT=inherit]‘Starting Immediately’[/FONT]
Jennifer Elzea, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon comptroller, said in an e-mailed statement that she “cannot provide comment on pre-decisional documents.”
To accommodate this year’s $37 billion in sequestration cuts, the Pentagon required 85 percent of its civilian workers to each take about six days of unpaid furloughs. “No service is planning fiscal 2014 furloughs,” the plan said. Instead, the department is preparing for dismissals, known euphemistically as “reductions in force,” or RIFs.
“Realistically, it is difficult to execute a RIF in fiscal 2014 without starting immediately,” with some of the necessary paperwork submitted no later than Sept. 15, it said.
The Army would lose more than 2,100 workers from a 263,900-person civilian workforce, and the Navy would cut as many as 2,672 of 214,000 people. Department-wide agencies would dismiss 1,500 people from a projected 137,000-person force, with most coming from the Defense Contract Management Agency.
[FONT=inherit]Falling Morale[/FONT]
The Air Force “will require targeted” reductions to its planned 185,400-person civilian workforce, though the number hasn’t yet been determined, according to the document. The Army would also release 1,000 contractors.
Firings, if they occur, will result in a “significant skill-set mismatch and degradation in morale,” it said.
If sequestration continues into fiscal 2015, according to the plan, the Pentagon would need congressional help to increase “enhanced selective early retirement” and improve voluntary retirement incentives and selective early departure dates.
For fiscal 2014, the Pentagon also may need to ask Congress for “a massive reprogramming, possibly moving tens of billions among accounts,” according to the planning document, which said it would be “very difficult to secure congressional approval.”
Readiness “would, at best, stay at degraded fiscal 2013 level and in many cases would continue to decline,” with half of the Air Force’s active-duty fighters and bombers declared not-combat-ready and two Navy air wings shut for six months, it said.
[FONT=inherit]Procurement Reductions[/FONT]
Cuts would “affect procurement and research/development most heavily, especially non-major procurement” such as accounts that bankroll Army vehicles and Air Force missile and ammunition accounts, it said.
The Army’s pending $16 billion procurement request would be cut to $12.6 billion with sequestration reductions; the Navy’s would drop to $37.9 billion from $44.1 billion and the Air Force’s would shrink to $15.5 billion from $18.8 billion.
The accounts with the largest percentage cuts under full sequestration are those that bankroll Army aircraft and a category for “other procurement” – such as vehicles, combat engineering, bridging, maintenance and material handling equipment, and Air Force ammunition and missiles, according to the document.
The Air Force’s “other procurement” request would be cut by 30 percent to $1.6 billion. That account pays for non-major programs such as mission planning systems, drug interdiction, combat training ranges, radios and satellite modifications.
[FONT=inherit]Major Programs[/FONT]
The Air Force would keep current funding for its version of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter, Boeing Co. (BA)’s KC-46 tanker and its long-range bomber program.
The Navy would be able to sign all contracts planned for 2014 for vessels funded under earlier appropriations. It would be forced to cut one of the four Littoral Combat Ships from its 2014 funding request.
Pentagon officials also estimated that the purchase of 25 Navy aircraft would probably be cut, including unspecified numbers of Boeing F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin F-35 jets, Textron Inc.-Boeing V-22 Ospreys and United Technologies Corp. (UTX) MH-60 helicopters.
A planned overhaul to the CVN-73 USS George Washington aircraft carrier would be delayed, the document said.
The Air Force would also have to delay additional purchases of two Advanced EHF and two Space-Based Infrared System-High satellites made by Lockheed Martin and reduce purchases of air-to-air and air-to-ground cruise missiles made by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Co. (RTN)
[FONT=inherit]Army Aircraft[/FONT]
The Army would be forced to stop or reduce production of the General Atomics Grey Eagle drone aircraft and cuts would delay development spending on the Ground Combat Vehicle.
The Army’s aircraft procurement account, which pays for Boeing and United Technologies helicopters, would drop to $3.8 billion from $5 billion as production would be “forced down to minimum rates” necessary to sustain production lines, it said.
The Army’s total research and development request would drop to $6.3 billion from $8 billion, it said.
The Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would cancel its F6 satellite demonstration program, it said.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

This is the stuff that dreams are made of if you throw in lopping off the heads of a few hundred brass hat admirals and generals!

Wait a minute! What’s that? This news just in…maybe my dreams will come true afterall?

[B]Army, Navy target top brass, headquarters spending in latest cuts[/B]
By Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes
Published: August 21, 2013

WASHINGTON — With a warning that [B]“the money is gone,”[/B] military leaders driven by falling defense spending are moving to cut top brass positions and slash headquarters spending.

The Navy announced late Tuesday that Navy Secretary Ray Mabus had approved a plan to “reduce, eliminate or consolidate a net of 35 Navy flag officer positions” at the one-, two- and three-star ranks. The Navy said it also plans to eliminate 6 more top officer positions in the 2015 budget.

And last week, a memo from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno and Army Secretary John McHugh declared that a plan to cut Army headquarters at the two-star level and above by 25 percent was priority No. 1 for headquarters staff.

The Navy said flag officer end strength is being reduced using a “phased approach” and will be complete by 2017, resulting in 151 Navy-specific billets and 61 flag officers to fill joint billets.

“We had to make tough choices but it was the right thing to do – the plan is in line with Congressional mandates, OSD guidance and our changing fiscal environment,” said Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mark E. Ferguson.

The announcements follow an order from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month to reduce spending on military headquarters by 20 percent over five years, with corresponding staff cuts. The Pentagon endured a $37 billion cut in its budget this year because of sequestration, and faces a $52 billion reduction next year if elected officials don’t find a way to stop the automatic budget cuts required by federal law. Hagel, however, said the headquarters cuts would proceed even if sequestration is avoided.

The Navy released a detailed list of positions to be reduced or eliminated, with most being reduced by one pay grade. For instance, the director of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon will be a captain in the future, rather than a one-star admiral.

Other positions will be merged, such as two jobs in the CNO’s office – director of the total force programming and manpower management division, and director of military personnel plans and policy division – that will now be done by one rear admiral. Likewise, the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, located in Washington, will be commanded by a single one-star.

A few positions will be eliminated, including commander of Submarine Group 2 in Groton, Conn.

The Army memo, dated Aug. 14 and first reported by Defense News, lacks the specificity on cuts that the Navy announcement has. But in terse language punctuated with bold-face type and sentences in all capital letters, it ordered commanders to present plans within two weeks for achieving the 25 percent reduction.

“Let there be no mistake, aggregate reductions WILL TAKE PLACE,” Odierno and McHugh wrote. “The money is gone; our mission now is to determine how best to allocate these cuts while maintaining readiness. We expect Army leaders, military and civilian, to seize this opportunity to re-shape our Army. This effort will take PRIORITY OVER ALL other Headquarters, Department of the Army activities.”

Officials from the Air Force and Marine Corps told Stars and Stripes that both services are taking steps to follow Hagel’s direction on 20 percent headquarters reductions, but have no current plans to release details on how the cuts would be achieved.

OK, it’ll be you’re turn next there prima dona Air Farce…BENT OVER! After that, Coast Guard, NOAA, USPHS and USMS (KP), drop trou NOW!

And yet we continue to send $$$$$BILLIONS$$$$$$ overseas to countries that (to put it mildly) Hate us.

We need to just stop giving anything to anyone and take care of what needs to be done here at home!

[QUOTE=Tugs;118428]And yet we continue to send $$$$$BILLIONS$$$$$$ overseas to countries that (to put it mildly) Hate us.

We need to just stop giving anything to anyone and take care of what needs to be done here at home![/QUOTE]

Sounds good but the real world does not work like that. It’s called buying influence. National alliances are not a function of preferred tourist destinations.

Easier (and cheaper) to maintain good relationships than it is to start new ones.

[QUOTE=Jetryder223;118452]Sounds good but the real world does not work like that. It’s called buying influence. National alliances are not a function of preferred tourist destinations.

Easier (and cheaper) to maintain good relationships than it is to start new ones.[/QUOTE]

Ah FUCK! Most foreign military aid is nothing but US defense contractor welfare. The recipient nations all need to spend the money they get from the USA for American made weaponry! Wait till the day that US made missiles are used against US forces in Pakistan! It is going to happen if it already hasn’t! How we give that nation one GODDAMNED dollar is beyond me?

Wait till the day that US made missiles are used against US forces in Pakistan! It is going to happen if it already hasn’t! How we give that nation one GODDAMNED dollar is beyond me?
We are not buying influence with anyone these days. No one likes us and certainly doesn’t respect us. They take our “aid” to stuff the pockets of corrupt government officials and laugh behind our backs. US military aid aimed at our forces is not beneath them. I think we are nearing a eternal war in the Middle East. Time to sit this one out.

Politics!

Reminds me of the scam when I worked for MTL and we brought U.S Public law 480 grain cargo purchased at high prices from U.S. farmers by screwed taxpayers to Bangladesh and Pakistan on high pay unionized U.S. merchant ships (again increasing the cost to the U.S. taxpayer)… Dumped the cargo ashore to feed the warlords and their armies under the guise of helping the poor… All done to buy influence … Maybe a U.N. vote… Maybe permission to use airspace…

I made great coin on that scam.

^^^^^

I’ve done a few PL-480 runs myself. Not once did I get a thank you from anyone from that country. Most gave me the impression they were doing us a favor by taking it. Very quick on fining us for anything they could find wrong. Good paying jobs but don’t let anyone kid you that your helping poor starving countries. All politics.

As if I wasn’t jaded enough at times… Thanks for reminding me how they would screw with us over stuff like waiting for the berths or working more shifts until our Supercargo would appear with the magic briefcase full of cash to expedite things… :slight_smile:

We’re already bent over, britches to ankles here in the land of the blue meatball. The FSVs are eating us out of house and home. They might as well be gas turbine, the fuel they eat.

[QUOTE=catherder;118519]We’re already bent over, britches to ankles here in the land of the blue meatball. The FSVs are eating us out of house and home. They might as well be gas turbine, the fuel they eat.[/QUOTE]

True story.

Plans for #s 6 and 7 are already in place. Welcome to NOAA.

[QUOTE=Bloodyshitcakes;118521]True story.

Plans for #s 6 and 7 are already in place. Welcome to NOAA.[/QUOTE]

NOTHING BUT A FUCKING WELFARE PROGRAM FOR HALTER and MARINETTE MARINE!

Everyone knew they weren’t going to be worth a SHIT as fisheries vessels. Could have built a fleet of proven but improved MILLER FREEMAN class but NOOOO! We have to build the world’s most sooper, ooper, dooper silent fisheries ships with acoustic fish counting! A FUCKING STOOPID IDEA!

[QUOTE=c.captain;118523]NOTHING BUT A FUCKING WELFARE PROGRAM FOR HALTER and MARINETTE MARINE!

Everyone knew they weren’t going to be worth a SHIT as fisheries vessels. Could have built a fleet of proven but improved MILLER FREEMAN class but NOOOO! We have to build the world’s most sooper, ooper, dooper silent fisheries ships with acoustic fish counting! A FUCKING STOOPID IDEA![/QUOTE]

A lot of the FSV design was based on the demands of the scientist. Each group has there own requirements and since more than one group use the ship it has turned into a real cluster fudge. Very little of the operators input was ever taken into consideration. Things have been done and re-done to make then at least usable for trawling. I agree completely with your MILLER FREEMAN comment. That was one seaworthy vessel!

Don’t ya love how they haul ass from one trap soak or CTD drop to another?? Yeah baby…all four Cats screaming and redlining the exhaust temps! Cuz they can, effin blueberries.