You're watching...
Institute for the Study of War Senior Naval Analyst Chris Harmer on how to make more effective defense cuts than the potential across the board budget...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Those -- cuts for a moment here and how to fix them President Obama was in Virginia today.
Warning of the dire consequences of defense cuts and what'll happen -- military and our economy you've heard about all this.
In 2012 of course we spent 645.
Billion dollars on the military today.
We are helping to solve that problem here on Monday -- we just complain we fix things we're gonna rein in the spending without fixing -- without affecting US security.
Chris harboring senior naval analysts -- the institute for the study of war.
Chris I'm very excited that you're here to solve this problem because everybody's out there either trying to scare people or trying to do nothing.
I wanna fix it -- -- giving a first step where do you see places that we can cut.
Well listen there's a couple of easy fixes -- -- the first is if we -- me if I had unilateral control over the budget I could fix this problem immediately unfortunately.
Congress is set up the budget in a very complex manner in order to benefit itself.
Most of the problems we have in terms of the Pentagon budget are not a problem is management at the Pentagon.
Or at the Department of Defense it's a problem of the miss allocation -- -- from the front end we give you one example that the Soviets back during the Cold War had a saying.
Better is the enemy of good enough and so they would look at their military equipment and -- what they had was good enough to do the job.
They would not overpay for something better here in the states we have a serious problem with over paying for equipment.
It is more than adequate for the job that's required a perfect example -- that is the F 35 now I am a retired naval aviator.
Spent twenty years five the United States these 3500 flight hours.
If the -- -- capable or allowed to run its own purchasing program the -- -- -- got nuclear near the F 35.
Because it costs about two and a half times as much is an -- team for only a marginal increase in capability.
So even -- let me let me stop you there is that I mean come on favour of -- I guess is that's what I'm getting their things in the world -- retirement I can't act so pathetic side.
If you don't do incremental improvements in this type of technology don't you've already -- -- you say that this one's only a little bit better but three little bit -- in your -- lot better.
-- to -- of the difference is revolutionary approach -- in technology revolutionary advances in technology -- see tremendous amount of of money.
Incremental advances do not cost much at all.
Example of this and F eighteen hornet which is the navy's strike fighter first got its initial operating capability about thirty years ago 1982.
The FB teens that are being built today don't even there there's no comparison between them what we built thirty years ago.
Because we invested over thirty years incremental and see for approaches to technology advancement.
The F 35 was -- revolutionary.
Advance in technology.
Had not saying it's not a complain it is a good point -- is far more plane -- we need you wouldn't buy a Rolls Royce.
To go grocery shopping unless you had an -- obscene amount of money and that's what it.
So I have been doing Moneyline we'll -- it all together with this because we got to get some pretty big numbers here what would say.
OK well so it's there's there's two different ways to look at it there's the fly away cost which is the cost of buying an aircraft to date and F 352.
Days.
Will cost about a 105 million dollars as he fly away cost okay an F eighteen today will cost about 46 to 48 million.
In the flyweight cusp of that hides the true cost.
The program costs which counts in Oregon State undercount.
I don't literary along -- their -- let that the 400 billion so that's it that's it that's a great savings there yes.
Rate that's the total -- sensing that and of since 2000 once about Charlie -- saving there.
Yeah you talk about cutting -- the redundancy in the Joint Chiefs of Staff I love that idea but how much money without possibly -- What -- -- it would save tens of billions of dollars not per year I would guess it would save.
About two to four billion dollars a year for the foreseeable future because we've got is a secretary defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Have steps that are seven to do exactly the same thing you've got competing staffs working on the exact same projects in the Pentagon it's a complete waste demand.
Yeah I know that sounds about right and then finally talk about cutting down and overseas military bases.
-- countries -- rare really shouldering all the financial burden.
You we spent a lot on Japan and South Korea and you think maybe we don't need that.
Well it's not so much that we don't need an overseas military presence as we need to be rational and our approach to asking our allies to pay their fair share.
It would cost to South Koreans far -- to replicate our military presence that would cost them to simply subsidize our militant military presence there.
At a greater scale we need our allies to carry more the -- because we're we're spending our money defending their freedoms.
OK Chris thank you I like that I like to have solutions on the show we're not just complaining -- here without ideas thanks for coming on.
Thank you so much have a good evening okay let's.
