Obama, Now Biden, Guts the Military

[American Patriot]

Ummmm HELLO? YES WE DO!

Fucking moron.

[Backstop]

Yeah, this will gut the mil all right.

This guy's idiocy knows no bounds.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pent...5/09/id/358485


Newsmax
Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions


Sunday, May 9, 2010 11:27 PM


By: Newsmax Wires

President Barack Obama – who came to power with the help of government employee unions across the nation – and has lavished on them hundreds of billions in stimulus funds to keep them on federal, state and local payrolls with no strings attached – is moving to cut spending on salaries for military personnel.

This weekend the Washington Post headlined story, "Pentagon Asking Congress to Hold Back on Generous Increases in Troop Pay,”, disclosed that the Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than proposed by lawmakers.

The Pentagon is arguing Congress has been simply too generous with troops over the last decade.

In fact, lawmakers have lavished so much money on troops, according to the Post, that service members are now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

For example, the military brass claims that an average sergeant in the Army with four years of service and one dependent would receive $52,589 in annual compensation, according to the paper. This figure includes basic pay, housing and subsistence allowances, as well as tax benefits.

Meanwhile, a U.S. Postal letter carrier, with no supervisory or hazardous duty, makes approximately $80,000 a year when all benefits are factored in.

Critics of the Obama administration’s efforts to cut soldier’s pay say America’s security has been strengthened by higher pay rates, as qualified veterans are re-enlisting at record rates, reversing the problem the military witnessed just a few years ago.

"Any attempt to link rising military personnel costs with shrinking military readiness is total nonsense," said Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., who leads the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., the largest and oldest major combat veterans' organization.

"If the Defense Department needs a larger budget for personnel programs, then let the VFW carry that message to Congress. Just don't pin the budget blame on service members and military retirees."

Tradewell's ire was targeted this past week at Clifford L. Stanley, the DOD undersecretary of personnel and readiness, who in recent testimony before the personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "Rising personnel costs could dramatically affect the readiness of the department."

"What's hurtful," said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis., "is a continuing perception that DOD is more concerned about the budget than they are about recruiting and retaining a professional volunteer force that's been at war now for more than eight years."

According to Stanley, last year was the military's most successful recruiting year since the establishment of the all-volunteer force in 1973.

While advocates for military families argue that the decade-long spending spree reverses severe cuts that the military suffered in the 1990s, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other military brass fear that the spending will threaten security in the years to come. That will mean less money to buy weapons and maintain aging equipment.

On Saturday, Gates told reporters that massive deficits can impact how the president and policy makers confront emerging threats like Iran.

Lawmakers have consistently overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Congress has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring healthcare costs -- which Gates told reporters are "eating us alive" -- by raising co-pays or premiums.

The military admits the improving compensation for troops is helping retention.

For example, improvements in pay and benefits have made it more likely that sailors will stick around longer, Vice Adm. Mark E. Ferguson III, the chief of naval personnel told the Post.

A Navy survey last year found that about 60 percent of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, meaning a stint of at least 20 years. In 2005, only about 20 percent of spouses felt the same way.

"I think pay was previously a concern, but it's started to change," Ferguson said. Congress had been "extremely generous" but rising personnel costs were already influencing what the Navy spends to operate, maintain and modernize its fleet, he added.

The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases.

Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.

While that extra half of a percent doesn’t seem like much, one expert told the Post that it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade.

But Congressional supporters of the men and women in the Armed Services are questioning why they are being singled out for future pay cutbacks when other government agencies and unions are not.

The U.S. Post Office for example, is slated to give letter carriers an increase of 1.9% this coming year.

And postal employees are considered to be grossly overpaid compared to their private counterparts. A postal supervisor, for example, can make $70,000 or year or more, plus significant benefits.

Last year, Congress had to help fill a $3.8 billion deficit at the federally backed agency, but there has been no discussion of salary cuts for postal employees. Instead, postal officials have focused on reducing service, including Saturday delivery.

[American Patriot]

time to build up a Mercenary Force, huh?

Highest pay for best soldiers....

[vector7]

Dienhart: Secretary Gates, we need the Marines!	2010-05-17
By George Dienhart
There has been relatively little said about what should be a major story. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates challenged the Marine Corps to "define its future role." According to Navy Times, SecretaryGates said he is "unsure just where American Marines would be asked to storm a beach in the future- especially as potential foes continue fielding more and more advanced weapons, like large stocks of missiles." Gates then questioned the purchase of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The EFV is the platform that will carry Marines into battle. It is one of the vehicles that transport Marines from ship to the shore. The Marines are an expeditionary force. The EFV is not the only way that they can deploy to the battlefield. They can be flown in to the battlefield. They can walk into the battlefield. They can ride into the battlefield. Then there's that amphibious thing. Seems most of the United States major enemies actually do not border the United States. They also share one other aspect. They have a shoreline. You, know, where the Marines could conceivably land. Amphibious landings are more than seaborne invasions. The Marines operate the MV-22 Osprey. This allows the Marines to fly into the Forward Edge of the Battle Area at over 275 miles per hour. No other military force has this capability. This means the Marines can deploy from naval vessels at astounding speeds. This is an element of maneuver warfare. Maneuver Warfare is also a specialty of the Marines. Marine Corps combat operations involve out maneuvering the enemy. This may involve amphibious operations, as well as flying in. The simple fact is that the Marines can do this better and faster than anyone else. Excellence in maneuver warfare saves lives. Quickly deploying where the action is breaks the enemies' spirit, and allows American forces to receive support almost immediately. This ability wins wars. During the Desert Shield phase of The Persian Gulf War, I was deployed as part of HMLA- 269. We deployed days after Saddam's tanks rolled into Kuwait. A couple months later, I was diagnosed with appendicitis. I was sent to a large naval field hospital for surgery. While I was there, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf visited. I was heavily sedated when he walked through my ward. My unit's Sergeant Major and Executive Officer had come out to visit me the same day; I think that they wanted to meet the now-legendary general. Both were present when the general came to visit the patients in my ward. As Gen. Schwarzkopf strode up to my bed he was full of confidence and exuded a sense of control over all he surveyed. This was his theater of operation and though the hospital was operated by the Navy, there was no doubt that it was his hospital. He came forward and asked me in a friendly voice, "What's a Marine doing in a bed that could be filled by one of my soldiers?" Being heavily sedated, I answered quite honestly. I pointed to a copy of Time magazine that was on my bedside table. The cover story that week had mentioned that nearly the whole Marine Corps had deployed to Iraq before the Army was even getting started. I answered the General "What soldiers?" My Executive Officer's face completely drained of color. I think he may have literally gone into shock. My Sergeant Major stifled a laugh. Gen. Schwarzkopf turned red. Really red. Then he laughed. Even Gen. Schwarzkopf knew that the Marines had already outperformed his beloved Army. That, or he knew it was bad publicity to strangle a heavily sedated Marine. I'm not real sure... Either way, he knew what to do with the Marines during the battle. He deployed us in the desert where we were part of the most successful military operation in history. He also deployed us off the shores of Iraq. This forced Saddam to divert front line troops to protect against an amphibious landing that never happened. Even the Marines that did not fight had a major impact on how that war was fought. No other military in the world could have caused that diversion in manpower. This faux amphibious invasion saved lives. Our troops faced fewer front line troops. The United States has a bad history of planning for the last war. Secretary Gates is making that mistake again. He questions whether or not the United States will perform future amphibious landings based on the current combat operations in landlocked Afghanistan. He is not looking to the future. Future combat operations could conceivably involve expeditions to North Korea, Taiwan, Iran or Somalia. All of these nations have shorelines, and all are far away from American forces. These contingencies are why we have a Marine Corps. Somalia and North Korea are infrastructure poor nations. North Korea has a massive air defense network. These two things are major military obstacles. There is nowhere for the Air Force to fly in to and deliver the Army's soldiers. In the case of North Korea, the air defense network would add an additional layer of difficulty. These difficulties would call for an amphibious landing. Conversely, we could hope that South Korea isn't obliterated in the first hours of a war. In the case of the other nations I mentioned, we are at the mercy of their neighbors. They may allow American forces to deploy from their shores, or they may not. Our security will depend on the good will of others. That is an untenable situation for the world's lone superpower. We need our Marines, and I hope Secretary Gates can bring himself to that realization.

[American Patriot]

We need SPACE MARINES! HUAAAAAH!

[Ryan Ruck]

Raytheon Lays Off 225 Employees In Tucson

4/20/2010

Raytheon Missile Systems, Southern Arizona's largest employer, laid off about 225 salaried workers Monday, its first mass layoff since 2002.

The Tucson-based company, the world's largest missile maker, has added hundreds of workers in the past few years, but it saw three major programs canceled recently due to defense budget cuts. However, Raytheon said the layoffs were part of a larger, periodic realignment of resources.

"To better align our work force to meet current and future business requirements, and achieve the right mix of talent to remain competitive in the marketplace, Raytheon Missile Systems is reducing staffing levels," Raytheon spokesman John Patterson said in an e-mail statement.

The employees will be offered severance benefits and outplacement help, he said. Raytheon would not discuss the job descriptions of the laid-off workers or the specific departments affected.

About half of the company's local workers are salaried engineers, with annual pay of up to about $80,000, Patterson said.

The layoffs represent about 1.9 percent of Raytheon's full-time payroll. The company reported 12,140 full-time-employee equivalents at the end of 2009, according to the Star 200 survey of the region's major employers.

Cuts in the nation's missile-defense budget claimed Raytheon's Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, a non-explosive warhead used in ground-based missile interceptors, and the Multiple Kill Vehicle, an effort to develop multiple warheads for missile interceptors.

Raytheon's Mid-Range Munition program, an effort to develop a precision-guided projectile for tanks, was dropped, along with other projects under the Army's canceled Future Combat Systems program.

But the company's Standard Missile-3 could gain from a move to build more smaller, sea- and land-based interceptors.

Patterson acknowledged the program losses but said the company was able to move employees directly affected by those cuts to other product lines. "The company is executing well on existing programs and is well-positioned to capture new business," he said.

The last time Raytheon had large layoffs was in 2002, when the company terminated about 400 engineers. At that time, Raytheon officials said the layoffs were prompted mainly by cuts to three Pentagon programs.

University of Arizona economist Marshall Vest said that while any layoffs are disturbing, Raytheon is one of the few major local employers that have added significant numbers of workers in the past year.

The locally based business unit of Waltham, Mass.-based Raytheon Co. added 600 jobs last year and has added 2,000 since 2003, according to the Star 200.

"There are a handful of (local) firms that employ people with those types of high-tech skills," said Vest, director of the UA's Economic and Business Research Center.

Southern Arizona's other major defense industry employers, including General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Scientific Applications International Corp., are based in Sierra Vista. General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman trimmed payrolls last year - though many Northrop workers went to a spinoff company - while Scientific Applications reported a small increase.

Displaced Raytheon engineers may find opportunities in the Phoenix area, home to major defense operations of Boeing Co., General Dynamics C4 Systems, Alliant Techsystems and Orbital Sciences.

The number of jobs Raytheon shed Monday is not likely to seriously damage the local economy, but such high-paying jobs do support others in the community, Vest said.

"It's the effect of those people spending their salaries in the local economy," he said.

An account executive of Aerotek, a local employment agency specializing in technical and professional jobs, said the displaced workers who want to stay in the area may find some opportunities in the aerospace industry.

"Here recently, things have started to pick up," Aerotek's Robert Ridling said. "I think Raytheon skills are transferable to a lot of places in the aerospace sector."

[Ryan Ruck]

Corps Works To Lengthen Lives Of Old CH-53s

May 18, 2010

Marine officials are working overtime to keep the Corps’ aging CH-53s flying until the next-generation heavy-lift helicopter comes online in 2018, three years later than expected.

Navy Capt. Rick Muldoon, program manager for all CH-53s, said his team is on track to conduct the CH-53K’s critical design review this summer. That will be the last major step before the new aircraft is approved for production. Officials hope to have the first new bird conducting flight tests in 2013.

In the meantime, the Corps will ask even more of its CH-53Ds and Es. Even after 30-plus years in service, the 10 Deltas now in Afghanistan fly a combined average of 485 hours each month, while the 16 Echoes fly a combined monthly average of 610 hours, said Marine spokesman Capt. Craig Thomas.

“I think we’re going to be fine,” Muldoon said, but it would be “foolhardy not to be concerned about an aging aircraft. We have to be diligent. ... If we don’t do anything, we could be in trouble in the next five years or less.”

An eye on the oldies

A diagnostic system on board the older aircraft helps Marine officials track the birds’ reliability. Typically, mechanical failure doesn’t happen overnight, Muldoon said. Officials hope the data collected from the diagnostics will help them predict when failure is most likely to occur.

Additionally, officials have determined that if they replace the bulkhead in the tail of the CH-53Es before they reach 6,190 flight hours, they can keep them flying to 10,000 hours.

Engineers also have discovered that extra maintenance on the Delta models can extend the aircraft’s lifespan to 12,500 hours, so long as the work is completed before the bird hits 10,000 hours, Muldoon said.

The new Kilo model has been identified by Marine officials as crucial to the service’s role as an amphibious force.

The Corps, weighed down by heavier gear developed over a decade spent fighting two land wars, needs a helicopter capable of hauling up to 27,000 pounds, nearly three times what the CH-53E can carry.

[Ryan Ruck]

Fort Knox Divested Of Wealth Of Tanks

Gold stays, tank school departs

May 27, 2010

Fort Knox has long been known for its heavy metals - gold bricks and armored tanks.

But the tank's 70-year connection to the Army post in the hills of central Kentucky ended Thursday as the Armor Center, the training school for generations of tank soldiers, began its move to Fort Benning in Georgia.

"It's a bittersweet day," said retired Lt. Col. Richard Ardisson, a former tank commander who attended the transfer-of-command ceremony. "You always hate to see change, especially change that's as symbolic as this is for old tankers and cavalrymen."

The ceremony symbolized the shift of authority over Fort Knox from the Armor Center to Accessions Command, making the base the Army's home for recruiting, training and human resources. The changes are part of a military reorganization announced by the Pentagon five years ago.

More than 180 M1 tanks and about 1,000 other vehicles will depart Fort Knox over the next 1 1/2 years.

The tank's history at Fort Knox stretches back to the eve of the country's entry into World War II, when military leaders noted the successes of German tank divisions that conquered France in 1940.

"The high-profile, high-visibility use of German armored formations in the destruction of France [sent] a shock wave through the U.S. Army," said Robert S. Cameron, historian of the Army's Armor Branch.

Mr. Cameron said that at the time, Knox already had become the Army's home for mechanized cavalry.

The post's vast acreage, varied landscapes and its road and rail access made it a perfect spot for tank training and firing, Mr. Cameron said.

Tank training will merge with Fort Benning's infantry school to create what the military calls the Maneuver Center of Excellence.

Under the Army reorganization announced in 2005, the Human Resources Command and the 3,400 members of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division were moved to Fort Knox.

The Army will begin taking tanks, Humvees, Bradleys and other vehicles out of Fort Knox once facilities and infrastructure changes are finished at Fort Benning, said Michael Gillette, who is coordinating the Armor Center's move.

Some of the post's armor legacy will stay behind, namely a collection dedicated to Gen. George S. Patton at Fort Knox's Patton Museum. Several tanks and other armored vehicles used as monuments around the post also will stay.

The gold vault, which has about 4,600 tons of gold bullion, also will remain.

[Ryan Ruck]

Secretary Gates to Slash Pentagon Budget in Search of $10 Billion in Savings

May 08, 2010

Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual savings needed to prevent an erosion of U.S. combat power.

He took aim what he called a bloated bureaucracy, wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and outlined an ambitious plan for reform that's almost certain to stir opposition in the corridors of Congress and Pentagon.

"The Defense Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed and operated -- indeed, every aspect of how it does business," he said in a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in the former command in chief's home town. Gates was the keynote speaker at a ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of Nazi Germany's surrender in World War II.

The library was a fitting setting for Gates to caution against unrestrained military spending. In his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office in January 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned of the "grave implications" of having built during that war an enormous military establishment and a huge arms industry that could wield undue influence in American society.

"Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state -- militarily strong but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent," Gates said. He recalled Eisenhower's impatience with a mindset within the military that often sought to add new weaponry without regard for cost or efficiency -- "pile program on program," as he once put it.

Gates said he had recently come to the conclusion about the urgent need for big cuts in light of the recession and the likelihood that Congress no longer will give the Pentagon the sizable budget increases it has enjoyed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time," he said.

In earlier remarks to reporters, Gates said it was clear that defense budgets will be tight "for as far into the future as anyone can see."

The current defense budget, not counting the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is $535 billion; the administration is asking for $549 billion for 2011.

Gates used tough talk to stress that he will personally oversee the effort to reshape the Pentagon bureaucracy, and that he won't be denied.

"We're not going to just roll over to preserve programs that we think we don't need -- regardless of where the pressure is coming from," he told reporters Friday.

Pressed to say whether he would remain as defense secretary next year to wage the budget battle with Congress, he replied, "We'll get this done." Gates has told Obama he will remain at the Pentagon through 2010, but his future beyond that is unclear.

Gates said it highly unlikely that the Pentagon will get Congress to approve budgets in the coming years that grow enough to sustain the current size of the military. That's why he is looking for roughly $10 billion in savings from trimming the bureaucracy and applying that money to sustaining the combat force and investing in its modernization. He said the savings must be repeated in additional years.

"Simply taking a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do," he said. "These savings must stem from root-and-branch changes that can be sustained and added to over time."

Gates noted that for the past two years he has focused his budget cuts on major weapons programs that he believed were unnecessary or unaffordable. He managed to get Congress to agree last year, for example, to stop production of the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter earlier than previously planned, and he halted an Army ground combat vehicle project that had been a top Army priority.

"More is needed -- much more," he said.

That means cutting what he called "overhead" -- the bureaucratic machinery that he said chews up about 40 percent of the Pentagon's budget.

In this category he included the hierarchy of flag officers -- the generals and admirals who run the military services.

To illustrate his point that there are too many of these top officers, Gates said that while the overall troop strength of the Army was sliced by nearly 40 percent during the 1990s, the reduction in generals and admirals across the military was about half that. He suggested that this was a top-heavy structure that is making it harder to get proper resources to the war fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan -- or for any other unit -- has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated and eventually dealt with," he said.

It is widely known, but also widely accepted, in the military that the bureaucracy is bloated.

Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen, the commanding general of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., said Friday that it is obvious there are going to be more intense pressure to save money and that the bureaucracy is going to be a prime target.

"There's tons of bureaucracy," Caslen said in an interview with reporters traveling with Gates, who visited Leavenworth Friday.

In his Abilene speech, Gates also took on the Pentagon's approach to setting what it calls "requirements," or the numbers, types and capabilities of weapons it says it needs to accomplish its mission. He suggested that the military has overstated its requirements in a post-Cold War world.

"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he asked.

[Ryan Ruck]

Gates To Navy: Anchors Away

05/07/2010

Our defense secretary proposes doing what no other foreign adversary has done: sink the U.S. Navy. We don't need those billion-dollar destroyers, he says. Meanwhile, the Chinese navy rushes to fill the vacuum.

Once Britannia ruled the waves, later to be replaced by America and its Navy. From the Battle of Midway to President Reagan's 600-ship fleet that helped win the Cold War, naval supremacy has been critical to the protection and survival of our nation.

Which is why we find the recent remarks of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Navy League at the Sea-Air-Space expo so disturbing. He seems to think naval supremacy is a luxury we can't afford and that, like every other aspect of our military, an already shrunken U.S. Navy needs to downsize.

"As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)," Gates quipped.

We are not laughing.

Pubescent pirates aren't the only threat we face. Last month, a Chinese naval task force from the East Sea Fleet — including the imposing Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers, frigates and submarines — passed through the Miyako Strait near Okinawa, a move that sent shock waves through Japan.

The exercise took place just days after warships from the North Sea Fleet returned from what China's army-navy called "confrontation exercises" in the South China Sea.

"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked. The answer is yes. Our national interests are global, in every ocean. Some will be in port, and others will be meeting commitments from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait.

It's well to consider the "new challenges," as Gates put it, in the form of anti-ship missiles in the hands of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah or the threat posed by Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speed boats near the Strait of Hormuz. But new challenges don't make the old ones go away. We must be prepared to meet them all.

"At the end of the day, we have to ask whether this nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers," Gates said.

The question is whether we can afford not to. Defense, unlike health care, is a constitutional imperative.

[Ryan Ruck]

Lockheed Lays Off 126 In Moorestown

Apr. 21, 2010

Lockheed Martin Corp. laid off 126 people, including 73 unionized engineers, from its Moorestown facility on Tuesday.

The engineers, part of the Association of Scientists and Professional Engineering Personnel union, had been employed in Lockheed's MS2 unit. The unit, Mission Systems and Sensors, has been impacted by cuts in government spending, said Lockheed spokesman Bruce Yost.

In January, he said, the unit announced cuts of 1,200. Since then, 500 took a voluntary layoff program similar to early retirement; 200 more left through attrition, and about 500 were laid off at the unit's various locations, including the 126 at Moorestown, Yost said.

Lockheed has almost 11,000 employees in the Philadelphia region; about 4,500 are in Moorestown.

Lockheed Martin Lays Off 37 In Middle River: Defense Contractor Consolidated Two Divisions Into One

21 Apr 2010

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday that it is laying off 37 employees at its Middle River site, part of nationwide cuts in its mission systems and sensors division.

The company notified 472 U.S. employees Tuesday their jobs are being cut.

Most affected employees will stay on for two weeks before leaving with severance packages, the company said. The Middle River site, which specializes in a missile launch system used on Navy ships, will employ 531 people after the cuts.

Lockheed Martin said in January that it would need to eliminate 1,200 jobs after combining two units to make the missions systems and sensors arm. The layoff number was reduced in part because 490 employees left voluntarily with buyout packages and others switched jobs, a spokeswoman said.

Lockheed Martin is one of Baltimore County's largest private employers, according to the Baltimore County Department of Economic Development.

"You never want to lose jobs, particularly in a recession, but Lockheed Martin has a significant presence in the county," said David S. Iannucci, the county's economic development director. "I have every reason to believe that the different functions there still will have great growth opportunities."

[Ryan Ruck]

AM General Lays Off Workers

May 12, 2010

AM General began laying off more than 50 employees Sunday at its Mishawaka plants.

Company spokeswoman Celeste Ross confirmed the layoff Tuesday.

It is believed the company laid off well over 50 workers and salaried employees. The number laid off is believed to be less than 100.

“What we are doing now is adjusting our workforce to meet our customers’ needs,” Ross said. “That decrease in volume translates to a decrease in workforce.”

In December and January, the company laid off about 250 workers. The layoffs this week are in addition to those numbers, Ross said.

The company no longer builds the Hummer, which had been offered for sale by General Motors.

It now appears no company will buy it after Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Corp.’s effort fell through earlier this year. GM already has begun the wind-down process for the brand.

The company did get a bit of good news Wednesday, though it was expected.

AM General was awarded a $54.3 million contract to add 500 Humvees to an existing contract.

The estimated completion date is Dec. 31 of this year. It is part of an original order calling for 2,620 Humvees to be built through the first quarter of 2011.

The company also is expected to begin building a handicapped-accessible cab in the adjacent Hummer H2 plant later this year for the Vehicle Production Group.

UAW Local No. 5 did not return a call from the Tribune seeking comment.

[Ryan Ruck]

US Cannot Afford Another Afghanistan Or Iraq, Warns Defence Secretary

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, has said military spending must be cut by up to $15 billion a year and that the US cannot afford to enter into another Afghanistan or Iraq.

May 9, 2010

Mr Gates said that America would be forced to take tight budgets into consideration before launching any military action against Iran.

His plans would see cuts in spending on its bureaucracy and on equipment designed for a repeat of the Second World War rather than the smaller wars of the 21st century.

However, he said he would protect the military's ability to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said that defence spending had doubled since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that the severe recession guaranteed that "the gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time".

In a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library to mark the 65th anniversary of the German surrender, he said: "I do think that as we look to the future, particularly for the next couple of years or so while we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the Congress and the president would look long and hard at another military operation that would cost us $100 billion a year.

"If there's a realy threat out there, the president and Congress will spend whatever it takes to protect the nation. But in situations where there are real choices, I think this would be a factor."

"The Defence Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed and operated - indeed, every aspect of how it does business."

The challenges facing the Pentagon in some ways mirror those confronting Britain as it seeks to adequately fund the military in a recession.

According to Mr Gates and many of his colleagues, the US military has more fat to cut, particularly from its officialdom and top brass. US defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product in recent years has been about 4.5 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent in Britain.

He said that the Pentagon had habitually overstated what warships, aircraft and vehicles it needed in the post-Cold War world.

"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he asked.

While the US Navy had shrunk since the end of the Cold War, its battle fleet was still larger than the next 13 navies combined. At $535 billion, excluding $136 billion spent on the two wars, US military spending in 2010 was more than the rest of the world's combined.

Mr Gates, promising to see his changes through, said slicing two or three per cent off the budget would guarantee the ability to modernize the Pentagon's fighting forces.

His for "root-and-branch" changes and his questioning of whether the current number of headquarters, flag-officers and commands were necessary could trigger a struggle with groups in the Pentagon that have major clout in Congress.

Congressman with districts where production jobs may be lost have already objected to his existing plans for cuts and are likely to continue battling further demands for belt-tightening.

Jacques Gansler, who served as the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer from 1997 until 2001, said he would struggle to convince those members would he said would say: "'We all want to make savings but not in my district".'

Mr Gates has already managed to persuade Congress to stop production of the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter at 187 aircraft, and is embroiled in a struggle to drop the production of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets.

He has eased out the Navy's DDG-1000 stealth destroyer, ending the programme with its third ship, and instead restarted the older but still quite capable DDG-51.

In his speech the defence secretary took aim at the multiple layers of approval required for service requests.

"Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan - or for any other unit - has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated, and eventually dealt with," he said.

He continued: "Two decades after the end of the Cold War led to steep cuts in US forces in Europe, our military still has more than 40 generals, admirals, or civilian equivalents based on the continent. Yet we scold our allies over the bloat in Nato headquarters."

So much for President Reagan's military policy of "win on 2 fronts, hold on a 3rd".

[vector7]

Animal fat, algae, vegetable oil could fuel US aircraft as Pentagon slashes budget

• From: NewsCore
• July 16, 2010 4:20AM

US President Barack Obama unveils the Navy's Green Hornet, a fighter jet that runs on a mix of biofuel, earlier this year / File Source: AP

• US airforce told to cut back costs
• Mustard oil fuel gets thumbs up
• Meat grease, algae also options

THE US military is preparing to find alternative ways of powering its aircraft after being ordered to cut $20 billion in fuel costs.

Algae, vegetable oil and animal fat are being considered by the armed services for use in aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles as part of the Pentagon’s biggest-ever energy-saving campaign.

The Air Force, the largest fuel-guzzling organisation on the planet, is the first target.

As well as transporting troops and cargo around the world, an average fighter aircraft mission uses 11,000 to 19,000 litres of fuel.

The US Navy plans to have every aircraft and all escort ships powered by a 50-50 mix of standard jet fuel and biofuel by 2016.

The carriers are nuclear-powered “so that’s already alternative”, said Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, the head of the Navy’s Task Force Energy.

He said pilots who recently flew an F/A18 Green Hornet powered with half the fuel tank containing a mustard-extract oil could not tell any difference.

He planned to use the equivalent of eight million barrels of biofuel by 2020.

A C17 transport aircraft is due to attempt flying on tallow (animal fat) on August 26.

Jeff Braun, the director of the US Air Force alternative fuels certification office, said, “What’s left over from the meat process is what we call yellow grease, and you extract the oil from it.”

Algae is another alternative oil source with potential.

“The beauty with algae is that you can grow it anywhere and to grow it needs to absorb carbon dioxide, so it’s not only a very effective fuel, in theory it’s also a carbon sink. That’s a pretty good deal,” said Alan Shaffer, the Pentagon’s principal deputy director of defense research and engineering.

[vector7]

F-35 Fighter Engines, C-17 transport flying on Tallow (ANIMAL FAT)
Obama is Stripping National Defense

By Alan Caruba Wednesday, July 21, 2010



There is no single duty that a President has as Commander-in-Chief that is more important than ensuring the nation’s engines of defense remain at a level that will deter and defend against any attack upon America or its allies.

How is that going under the Obama Administration?

As this is being written, the U.S. Air Force and Navy are seeking alternative ways of powering their aircraft after having been ordered to cut fuel costs by $20 billion.

The Obama solution includes an August test flight of the C-17 transport aircraft attempt to fly missions on tallow, which is a nice way of describing animal fat.

The push for biofuels notwithstanding, the notion approaches absurdity considering the fact that, beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, there are millions of untapped barrels of oil to power military aircraft.

The absurdity is compounded by the White House attempt to shut down deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico which has been struck down by the courts not once, but twice.

My interest in the status of our air defense was piqued while watching a recent C-SPAN broadcast of some Senate committee discussing funding of the C-17. I paid scant attention until one senator said, “We don’t have the money.” Suffice to say, that caught my attention.

Of course we have the money! There are billions unspent in the failed “stimulus” act and millions more wasted weekly across the spectrum of a government that funds all manner of idiotic “research” programs of dubious value. Some $20 million was just spent on signs touting construction projects funded by the stimulus bill.

As Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, recently noted, “Barack Obama came to office promising to ‘fundamentally transform’ America.” Gaffney and others are increasingly concerned that Obama is “changing the United States from ‘the world’s sole superpower’ to a nation that may require the permission, or at least the help, of others to project power and defend its interests around the globe.”

Nothing invites mischief and outright attack more than weakness.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.” The latter is a good description these days of Iran.

“The backbone of America’s power-projection capability is its ability to get to a fight ‘the firstest with the mostest,’” wrote Gaffney. Something tells me that doing it with aircraft fueled by slaughterhouse renderings is a very bad idea.

No less important is the future of our fighter jet fleet. It is the subject of a huge congressional debate concerning the next generation of fighters, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). More specifically, the debate involves the engine to power it. But the rub doesn’t involve which engine to use; the argument is whether the F-35 engine should be sole-sourced to a single manufacturer or whether production should be shared by two manufacturers.

One engine is the F135, made by Pratt & Whitney. As with any technological advance, Pratt & Whitney encountered various problems in the development process because the F-35 is designed for use by three different service branches, each with different missions and engine requirements.

More to the point, these services comprise the overwhelming majority of our national jet fighter capability so many in Congress are advocating the production of a second engine. That would be the F136, produced jointly by General Electric and Rolls Royce.

The issue centers on fleet reliability and comes down to an easy and obvious question: Is it prudent for 80-90% of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp’s fighter jet fleet to be dependent on a single engine from a sole-source provider? The answer is no.

If mechanical flaws or difficulties occur, or if that sole-source provider suffers an industrial accident, a labor dispute or terrorist attack, the entire fighter fleet could be grounded.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) laid it out in starker terms, noting, “Because the JSF is expected to be the primary fighter aircraft in the U.S. inventory, and Pratt & Whitney will also be the sole-source provider of F119 engines for the F-22A aircraft, DOD is faced with the potential scenario where almost the entire fleet could be dependent on similar engine cores, produced by the same contractor in a sole-source environment.”

Despite the strategic risks noted by the GAO, the GE/Rolls Royce engine has been batted about in Congress like a ping pong ball. As Defense Industry Daily noted some years ago, “The Pentagon attempted to remove Fiscal Year 2007 funding from the F-35 Lightning II’s second engine option, the GE/Rolls Royce F136.” But eliminating that funding wasn’t so neat and tidy, and the newspaper further reported, “Many in the U.S. Congress, meanwhile, were openly skeptical of handing Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine the keys to the entire F-35 fleet.”

F136 funding was re-inserted and development continued on schedule until the FY 2008 budget came around and the Pentagon again tried to remove funding. Congress disagreed and, supported by the GAO’s estimate of $20 billion of tax savings over the life of the program with both the F135 and the F136 engines, again reinstated funding.

Production on the F-35 is increasing but testing is not expected to be complete before 2014 and the engine issue remains unresolved. The Obama Administration now considers avoiding the risk of a systemic sole-source engine failure as a luxury and seems willing to back up that position.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has reportedly urged President Obama to veto the 2011 defense authorization bill if the final version includes any money for the GE/Rolls Royce engine.

I cite this to alert you to the irrationality that is driving decisions affecting our most vital national defense capabilities. When a Secretary of Defense proposes a veto of an entire defense authorization over an additional engine for the next generation of fighter jets we’re witnessing something that’s not just absurd; it’s reckless.

The notion that we can’t afford a second F-35 engine is not true. What we cannot afford is to permit our jet fighter fleet and our air transport fleet be put at an indefensible risk when the fate of the nation rests upon both.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

[vector7]

Pentagon to shut military command and cut jobs


U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates addresses a news conference at the end of a two-day NATO defence ministers meeting at the alliance headquarters in Brussels June 11, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Thierry Roge

By Phil Stewart
WASHINGTON | Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:50am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon, trying to free up cash in the face of a yawning U.S. deficit, unveiled a series of cost-cutting measures on Wednesday that will shed thousands of jobs and shut down an entire military command.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he hoped the shakeup would show Congress that the Pentagon would spend tax dollars wisely during tough economic times and address long-standing concerns about wasteful expenditure.

But Gates warned in some of his strongest language yet against any future effort to actually cut overall defense spending, which is still growing, but at a much slower rate than it did in the years after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"My greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the nation's deficit problems," Gates said.

"As I look around the world and see a more unstable world, more failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in their militaries ... I think that would be disastrous."

The U.S. budget gap hit a record $1.41 trillion in fiscal 2009 and is poised to grow wider this year, unnerving many Americans grappling with unemployment at a lofty 9.5 percent.

But many of the proposed cuts are also almost certain to upset members of Congress, who face the potential loss of jobs in their home districts in an election year.

Beyond U.S. fiscal constraints, Pentagon officials are also mindful that their budget will come under increased scrutiny as the United States winds down the war in Iraq. President Barack Obama has announced plans to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan starting in July 2011, conditions permitting.

Gates said it was important not to repeat past mistakes where economic troubles or "the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense."

"If you were to graph the defense budget going back the last 40 or 50 years, it would look like the EKG of a fibrillating heart," he said.

"What we need is modest, sustainable growth over a prolonged period of time that allows us to make sensible investment decisions."

CONTRACTORS FIRED, BASES MAY CLOSE

Pentagon officials declined to say how much the measures would save exactly but described them as part of a previously announced effort to free up more than $100 billion to sustain U.S. forces and upgrade its arsenal over the next five years.

The cost-cutting initiatives include scaling back the number of generals across the U.S. military and slashing funds for defense department contractors by 10 percent each year for the next three years -- a potentially massive reduction involving thousands of people.

Obama, in a statement, praised the announcement as part of Gates' efforts to "reform the way the Pentagon does business."

"The funds saved will help us sustain the current force structure and make needed investments in modernization in a fiscally responsible way," Obama said.

Gates also asked the armed forces to identify U.S. military bases for closure and said he was shutting down the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), which has 2,800 U.S. military and civilian staff and about 3,000 contractors.

Four-star General Ray Odierno, who is now overseeing the drawdown in Iraq, was slated to assume the helm of JFCOM after he leaves Baghdad in September.

"I told Ray that his assignment at JFCOM is essentially the same as his assignment in Iraq, and that is working himself out of a job," Gates joked.

Senator Jim Webb, one of Obama's Democrats and a prominent member of the Senate's armed services committee, was critical of the effort to close down JFCOM, which is based in his home state of Virginia.

"It goes without saying that we should achieve efficiency in our nation's defense budget," Webb said.

"However doing so at the expense of the command that is leading the charge for the future of our military doctrine and training would be a step backward and could be harmful to the capabilities of the finest military in the world."

[vector7]

Virginia Lawmakers Blast Gates Plan to Cut Major Military Command

Published August 10, 2010
| FoxNews.com

• Comments (1343)

AP/Reuters

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in announcing Pentagon budget cuts and the closing of a major military command in Norfolk, Va., was hit by criticism from several Virginia lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Warner, left inset, and Sen. Jim Webb, right inset.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday announced a plan to shed a major military command in Virginia as part of his effort to strip billions from the Pentagon budget, drawing heated objections from state lawmakers who call the center essential.

Gates, in a lengthy press conference Monday afternoon, outlined his plan to eliminate Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., and seek deep cuts elsewhere in the budget. He acknowledged the economic impact the closure could have for thousands of workers in the Norfolk region, but stood by his decision as a critical step in bringing defense spending under control.

"I am determined to change the way this department has done business for a long time," Gates said.

Gates estimated that the Virginia command accounts for 2,800 military and civilian positions, as well as 3,000 contractors, at an annual cost of at least $240 million. Though some employees could be reassigned elsewhere, Gates said a "substantial number" of full-time workers would have to find other positions or leave the Defense Department.

Virginia lawmakers slammed the decision, condemning the move with a steady stream of written statements while assembling for a press conference Monday afternoon in Norfolk. Aside from concerns over jobs, they argued that the command could actually help the Pentagon save money.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates takes part in the National Geospatial-Inteligence Agency's change of director ceremony Aug. 9 at the agency in Springfield, Va. (AP Photo)

"I can see no rational basis for dismantling JFCOM since its sole mission is to look for efficiencies and greater cost-savings by forcing more cooperation among sometimes competing military services," Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said in a written statement. "In the business world, you sometimes have to spend money in order to save money."

He vowed to work with the congressional delegation to retain as many jobs connected to the command as possible. Norfolk is one of 10 major U.S. military commands.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., also called the move a "step backward" and one that could hurt military capability. "I will carefully examine the justifications for this decision as well as its implications for the greater Norfolk community," he said.

Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va., pledged to do the same, ripping the announcement as "short-sighted and without merit."

"I appreciate the department's attempt to rein in spending, but I have yet to see any substantive analysis to support the assertion that closing JFCOM will yield large savings," he said.

Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim agreed with Warner that the command could save money. He told FoxNews.com that the station is "valuable" and the congressional delegation has the "leverage" to negotiate with the Pentagon.

"I think we want to resist this," Fraim said. He said the simulations and other exercises conducted at Joint Forces Command are critical and must be performed somewhere.

The mayor said the other installations that have made Norfolk a national military hub will stay regardless of the Joint Forces Command decision.

Gates on Monday also detailed other efforts to reduce waste and duplication, including a plan to cut the Pentagon's use of outside contractors by 10 percent next year and rein in the growth of senior leadership positions. Gates called for a freeze on the number of employees working for his office, defense agencies and combatant commands for the next three years and a cut of at least 50 general and flag officer positions and 150 senior civilian executive positions over the next two years.

Gates declined to say how much money would be saved by shutting down the command, which holds more than a million square feet of real estate in Suffolk and Norfolk. Some savings will be offset by the cost of shifting some jobs and roles elsewhere, he said.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released a statement saying Gates' proposals "appear to efficiently find savings" in the Pentagon budget. He said he would hold a hearing when Congress returns from its August recess.

The Virginia-based command trains troops from different services to fight together. Joint Forces Command was the largest single cut announced Monday.

Six Virginia lawmakers issued a written statement opposing the cut last month after a board of advisers first proposed the idea. The lawmakers, including Webb and Warner, called the proposal "illogical" and potentially "harmful" to military capability.

The Pentagon has already announced a target of cutting $100 billion over five years. And earlier this year Gates ordered a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual savings needed to prevent an erosion of U.S. combat power.

Gates took aim at what he called wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and noted that "overhead" costs chew up as much as 40 percent of the Pentagon's budget.

Big cuts are essential considering the recession and the likelihood that Congress no longer will give the Pentagon the sizable budget increases it has enjoyed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Gates and other defense leaders have said.

The current defense budget, not counting the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is $535 billion; the administration is asking for $549 billion for 2011.

Most full combatant commands correspond to regions of the world, such as Pacific Command, but others are organized around a concept or mission rather than geography.

JFCOM lists its mission as training troops from all services to work together for specific missions. It tries to make sure equipment used by different services works together, and looks for gaps in capabilities within military services that could be filled by a specially trained joint force.

The command is headed by a four-star military officer, the highest grade currently in use. Marine Gen. James Mattis was its commander until named last month to replace Army Gen. David Petraeus as head of U.S. Central Command. His replacement will be Gen. Ray Odierno, now the war commander in Iraq. Odierno's job will be to eliminate his own office, officials said.

The plan Gates outlined is similar to one suggested last month by the Defense Business Board, a panel of company executives who advise the Pentagon. The board said Gates should cut the number of civilian employees by at least 15 percent. The panel also identified Joint Forces Command as contributing to much of the contractor bloat because it had more contractors than government employees on its payroll.

[Ryan Ruck]

Damn, you beat me to posting this... See, I wanted to post it something like this.

Pentagon to shut military command and cut jobs


U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates addresses a news conference at the end of a two-day NATO defence ministers meeting at the alliance headquarters in Brussels June 11, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Thierry Roge

...

[vector7]

Obama re-directs Navy to buy Russian Choppers



United Technologies Corp.’s Sikorsky unit, the maker of Black Hawk helicopters, protested the U.S. Navy’s plans to buy 21 Russian-made Mi17 choppers, saying U.S. manufacturers weren’t allowed to compete for the contract.

Sikorsky wants the Navy to suspend its request for bids and issue a new one that includes U.S. companies, according to a protest filed with the U.S. Government Accountability Office yesterday. Russian state-owned Kazan Helicopters JSC is the sole maker of the Mi17.

The existing bid request “precludes all consideration of offers to supply U.S. manufactured helicopters, irrespective of their technical or life-cycle cost advantages over Russian aircraft,” according to the protest filed by law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on Sikorsky’s behalf.

The U.S. military is adding about $159 billion more for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the fiscal 2011 budget, which begins Oct. 1. The Pentagon’s goals in Afghanistan include bolstering the army and police, and improving the equipment those forces are using.

In its protest, Sikorsky said the request ignores “persistent difficulties” that various U.S. agencies have encountered when attempting to purchase Mi17 helicopters as well as Sikorsky’s sale of what it called comparable helicopters for use in Afghanistan.

Sikorsky believes its S-61 helicopters would cost less than the Mi17 over the life of the aircraft, said Paul Jackson, a company spokesman.

United Technologies is based in Hartford, Connecticut. Rob Koon, a spokesman for the Naval Air Systems command, wouldn’t immediately comment.

To contact the reporters on this story: Rachel Layne in Bostont , rlayne@bloomberg.net; Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net

[Ryan Ruck]

Communities Sadly Say Goodbye To Armories

June 10, 2010

New Castle, Ind., Mayor Jim Small was stunned by the announcement in May that the Indiana National Guard would close its armory in his town of about 18,000 after having a presence there since 1938.

“They’ve gone to war from there, and they’ve been here when the community needed help,” he said. “It’s sad. We’re a very patriotic community, and this hurts.”

The closing of the small, aging facility and many like it across the USA is the result of shifting demographics, tight state budgets and changes in the way America’s citizen soldiers are being trained and deployed, National Guard public affairs officer Sgt. Katherine Perez said.

More than 100 armories nationwide have closed or been targeted for closing in the past five years — many in smaller communities — and more are closing this year, USA Today research found. Some are being replaced by larger joint Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Air National Guard Readiness Centers.

In Indiana, two additional armories — in Delphi and Tell City — will close by year’s end. Maj. Gen. R. Martin Umbarger, adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard, said the state unit is building two Readiness Centers in the Indianapolis area.

Among other state plans:

- In Kansas, 18 of 56 armories will close this year. A Readiness Center is planned for Wichita in 2011.

- Oklahoma has closed 40 since 2006 and plans to close at least 10 more over the next two years. It has seven Readiness Centers under construction.

- Oregon plans to shut down two by the end of 2011 and is building one Readiness Center.

- Louisiana is closing four and building two Readiness Centers.

- New York has closed or announced plans to close 11. It has built one Readiness Center, has a second under construction and is looking for a site for a third.

“As great as those armories have been and as hard as it is to leave those communities, it just doesn’t make sense to keep them open,” said Sgt. Leslie Newport, spokesman for the Indiana National Guard. “Its more than cost-cutting. We are doing a layer of teaching that is above what we have had.”

The closings come as the Army and Air National Guard combined report membership is up — from 459,000 in 2000 to 470,000 in 2009.

Some armories close because of a lack of state and federal funds for maintenance and utilities, Perez said. Others have closed as a result of changing population trends where, she said, “towns no longer support units.”

Still others have closed as part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure program, which funded construction of some of the joint Readiness Centers, said Hallet Brazelton Jr., deputy in the National Guard Bureau’s Installation Division.

Readiness Centers, like the armories, are managed within each state. The states make decisions about construction and location, Brazelton said. The number of Readiness Centers varies as new facilities are constructed and old ones are disposed of, Brazelton said. Over the past 10 years, he said, the total number has stayed close to 3,000.

That doesn’t ease the sting for Small, or for Barb Bartell, finance officer for the town of Lemmon, S.D., a ranching community of about 1,400 where the armory closed last year.

Bartell said the loss of the armory is another hit to a town dealing with tough economic times. She said it’s not only the impact on the town’s psyche that is troublesome.

“The Guard members that live around here now have to drive almost 200 miles for training,” she said. “And as far as getting help from the Guard, which used to be right out the back door, now they’re a long way away.”

Not all states are closing armories. The Nevada National Guard has no plans to close armories and is in a growth mode, said spokesman Sgt. 1st Class Erick Studenicka. California National Guard spokesman Sgt. Jon Guibord said no closures have been considered.

Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, adjutant general of the Kansas National Guard, said the closing of 18 armories in the state this year came after an extensive review. “We would much prefer building armories to closing them, but it’s a sign of the times,” Bunting explained. “These were hard decisions.”