Future MDA, NASA, and military job loss (Huntsville: layoffs, budget)

[macwell]

I agree with Tammie2 that it would be a really stupid way to replace contractors,but then we all have seen the gov. do really studpid things in the past and present. I am not sure what kind of process they would use for this change, has been done in the past? The speech today really lacked many details in these areas, next few months should hopefully reveal more details if signed off.


Just a few thoughts ....
1-Why would the gov. employee have to have the same level of experience? They could be in the same direct 'field', but the gov. could allow the person to do 'on the job training' by hiring someone younger, say out of college? I believe the subject for the need of more college workers in the gov. has been written up in the Hintsville Times over the past few months?

2-Why would the pay be the same for the gov. employee? From the area of contractors I am around, they did not take gov. jobs because they pay around 30% less then contractor jobs. That's why most people I know are contractors, for the money.

3-This would effect housing market in the area where contractors jobs are replaced. Especially if the gov. jobs do not pay as much as the contractors jobs. So, I would guess it would depend on the salary of the replacing gov. employee?

4-Not saying this would happen in Hsv, not sure how it would be effected. But Hsv has a high concentration of contractors, its just something to be aware of while making plans for the next 5 years. If the same administration, then maybe the next 8 years.

I am in the same wait and see mode myself....thx

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by mm42

It's $700M for THAAD and $200M for Aegis BMD (of which SM-3 is a component), so that's $900M on the plus side.

FY09 ABL budget was ~$400M and projected to be about the same in FY10.

FY09 MKV budget was ~$340M and projected FY10 budget was ~$440M.

So if they cut ABL down to $100M and MKV completely that will account for $750M or so.

Thanks. Don't know how much of the $400M ABL budget goes into the procurement of 2nd aircraft. Since we're continuing with the currrent testing with the 1st aircraft, this means possible some or no part of $400M was taken out of FY10 budget.

So this still means another $150M ~ $450M has to be taken out of other part of MDA to make the "overall cut" of $1.4B. That's a $1.55B ~ $1.85B cut. To me, that says anything other than maintaining the current Ft. Greely capability is at risk of being cut.

Gates also said they were not going to add any interceptors at Greely, so that's a big chunk, and it seems highly likely the European Component will get virtually nothing next year. Gates said he would "restructure the program to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat" - not sure what that means as that is exactly what Blocks 1-5 are about.

Yes, I'd say the EC is pretty much a DOA based on the funding cut and yesterday Obama's speech in Turkey.

If there's a bright spot, I'd say it's that KEI survived the cut. They want to enhance the boost phase capability to intercept. Also, looks like the BMC2 segment survived as well.

[Huntsville_secede]

I'd imagine most of the MDA cuts are going to be for the GMD component of MDA. I imagine it has more to do with production of interceptors and radar installation sites in Europe thats probably a lot of it. As far as the jobs for GMD most of those jobs are in Huntsville or Colorado Springs.

[Huntsville_secede]

Even the Bush administration was considering canceling the F-22 this article is from 2005. The issue is the F-22 is not necessary and too expensive to use against anyone except a superpower which doesn't exist right now besides us. They plan to increase the F-35 production since it is cheaper and it still will be far superior to any other aircraft that exists now or in development. There is a risk however with China's huge increases in military funding from year to year that we may get in a confrontation with them one day and they could develop an aircraft that could challenge the F-35 one day. And from what I understand there was never any concrete plans to extend the F-22 production beyond 2011, basically the current production plans just weren't extended beyond then. I'm sure as China emerges as more of a threat every year the F-22 production might be re-implemented. After all the plane has already been designed, it's not like production is as hard as the 10-20 year development program that it takes to develop an advanced weapon system. From what I understand the overall defense budget has increased slightly it just mostly seems that funding is being reallocated to different areas.

ACCORDING TO MEDIA reports, the Defense Department is considering canceling two supersonic jet fighters that are on the Pentagon's drawing board: the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
There is no doubt that even with the defense budget at historical highs, the Pentagon cannot afford the $1.5 trillion worth of weapons that the military services would like to purchase. However, although the Defense Department is correct in trying to slash the F/A-22, it is dead wrong in trying to save money by canceling the Joint Strike Fighter.
The F/A-22 Raptor is the most unnecessary weapon system being built by the Pentagon. In fact, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld tried to do away with it in the summer of 2002 but backed off when his Air Force secretary threatened to resign over the issue.
It was originally designed to achieve air superiority over Soviet fighter jets, which will never be built. In 1985, the Air Force claimed that it could build about 750 of these stealth fighters for $26 billion. Over the last 20 years, the cost of the total program has continued to grow even as the number of planes to be purchased has declined. Just a year ago, the Air Force said it could purchase 275 Raptors for $72 billion. Now, the Pentagon says it can buy 179 planes for about $64 billion, raising the price per plane by about $100 million — for an unnecessary aircraft.
The performance of the current generation of Air Force fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq makes it clear that the Air Force already has the capability to achieve air superiority against all enemies. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents do not have jet fighters for the Raptor to conquer.

[A&M Bulldawg]

Are these cuts due to the failing economy or were they already expected?

[friday13]

Originally Posted by A&M Bulldawg

Are these cuts due to the failing economy or were they already expected?

I think the failing economy (shortage of funds) rushed the administration to take actions that were intended for later, now. I mean, the defense reform (cuts) was long in the cards, historically, it goes along with the democratic doctrine. We heard about defense cuts long before Pres. was elected, and still ve went ahead and voted for him.

PS. just the other night I was wondering whether the US could ever have a party-affiliate president and rule the other way or at least away from his party's doctrine (when you hear democrat, you know defense cuts and tax raise are coming, and vice-versa with he republicans). Don't know if that's written in their party's "manual" but, this happened historically so the popular belief is this. And don't forget, they are only allowed 2 terms, and usually the new pres./administration tries to first overhaul the old when first in office. "out with the old/them/theirs, in with the new/us/ours".

[LivingInMadison]

Originally Posted by friday13

...I mean, the defense reform (cuts) was long in the cards, historically, it goes along with the democratic doctrine. We heard about defense cuts long before Pres. was elected, and still ve went ahead and voted for him.
...

Hmmm...from my understanding of US politics, in the historic sense, the democratic "doctrine" was about big government spending -up and including- the defense sector (or military-industrial complex, as baptized by Eisenhower).

[A&M Bulldawg]

Sorry, if I am late. Why are they cutting jobs?

[tammie2]

Originally Posted by macwell

I agree with Tammie2 that it would be a really stupid way to replace contractors,but then we all have seen the gov. do really studpid things in the past and present. I am not sure what kind of process they would use for this change, has been done in the past? The speech today really lacked many details in these areas, next few months should hopefully reveal more details if signed off.

I really think they do this on purpose. Can you imagine if they gave details before anything was finalized? It is borrowing trouble. Better to be as vague as possible and then when the final plan comes out they can state that we were given ample warning months prior. Notice that the typical language includes words that could be taken in so many different ways.

Originally Posted by macwell

Just a few thoughts ....
1-Why would the gov. employee have to have the same level of experience? They could be in the same direct 'field', but the gov. could allow the person to do 'on the job training' by hiring someone younger, say out of college? I believe the subject for the need of more college workers in the gov. has been written up in the Hintsville Times over the past few months?

They don't have to have experience. But imagine if all 13K didn't

Yes workforces need to be diversified in terms of age groups-there are many companies that are finding themselves in a situation where entire units are set to retire at the same time. This would create all sorts of fun. I can cite examples of companies that needed certain skill sets or certifications yesterday when Bob announced his retirement, but couldn't find it fast enough. By hiring younger workers(the target range seems to be 7-10 years right now) they can ensure that the employee will be around for as long as they need them.

Originally Posted by macwell

2-Why would the pay be the same for the gov. employee? From the area of contractors I am around, they did not take gov. jobs because they pay around 30% less then contractor jobs. That's why most people I know are contractors, for the money.

Very true. Yes, there could be paycuts involved....but think of it this way, not everyone would be willing to take a paycut and then you get back to number 1.

This also goes to so much more. There is much more to a salary package than just a paycheck. Sometimes contractors are much cheaper even if they are paid more.

Originally Posted by macwell

3-This would effect housing market in the area where contractors jobs are replaced. Especially if the gov. jobs do not pay as much as the contractors jobs. So, I would guess it would depend on the salary of the replacing gov. employee?

Again, yes and no. Think about it. There are 200K homes and 200K jobs(I am picking arbitrary numbers-no need to correct me or quote me later), 13K people are displaced and cannot find a position for the same salary in the area, now the only people available to purchase their homes are making 30% less and are only willing to pay 30% less than the asking price(again I know it isn't a 1-1 ration here, just an example), the people taking the loss are the people being displaced and in many circumstances they may have a relo pkg that will eat the loss for them.....so many situations and variables here, no two will be the same.

And technically yes, this would also effect the people that stay at their current salary level in the form of property value, however, it wouldn't effect them until they were ready to leave HSV or their home-and again only if they aren't offered a relo package.

Originally Posted by macwell

I am in the same wait and see mode myself....thx

For right now this is truly the best policy!!

[guxu]

I know several gov. employees living in Clifts Cove. They are not directors or managers, just plain engineers. From the houses they bought, I do not think they make that low.