Big moves ahead, even if only half the target is met. Wonder how to interpret this in the broader context of Ukraine-Russia, China, renegotiating the eurozone defense and trade compacts and, again, China.

According to the Washington Post, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has signed a memo, ordering senior leaders at the Pentagon and across the U.S. Military to develop plans to cut roughly 40% of the defense budget by 2030, in increments of 8% per year for the next five… pic.twitter.com/DrRUEjHWxE

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 19, 2025

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/02/19/white-house-eyes-annual-8-cut-to-defense-budget-through-2030/

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered senior military officials to develop a five-year budget plan that would slash defense spending by 8% annually, a dramatic cut which could reshape military end-strength and readiness for decades.
In a memo first obtained by the Washington Post, Hegseth ordered the proposed cuts to be compiled by Feb. 24. Seventeen categories would be exempt from the budget reductions, including military operations at the southern U.S. border, nuclear weapons and missile defense programs, and acquisition of certain drones and munitions."

No idea, but some big programs will necessarily get significant cuts if this happens. Multi-year tranche buys are a 'thing' that protect some programs like the F-35, but other 'developmental' projects might get gutted. I have some favorites I hope survive such as the V280 (Blackhawk replacement) but some others that seem ripe for cancellation (Fremm frigate, hybrid-electric Abrams tank, NGAD).

Excellent. Can't wait to see the results.

Planning to cut does not equal actual cuts.

Somebody doesn't maths very well.

I guess that's what happens when you have never passed an audit.

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

They aren't going to cross an ocean and beat us in a war.we have nukes already.

BigOil said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

They aren't going to cross an ocean and beat us in a war.we have nukes already.

---

Talking more about us protecting the rest of the world, Asia and Taiwan in particular.

This is a signal, as much as it is practical. Essentially every economic policy plank and every international meeting is doing double duty in restructuring our national approach to foreign relations, trade, and defense

Needs to happen - - but this does start cutting deeper into the long-protected sectors for GOP representatives and will 100% affect jobs in red states. Will be interesting to see what unfolds.

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

It'll be negotiated with a rise in international spend. Get Europe to get 5%, India and Indo-pac to increase theirs is the strategy.

This is more of a play so we don't keep sending money and product over seas.

I think 40% is a reach and cutting to deep in said timeframe

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

This is true. But China has a considerable edge on us in manufacturing capacity when it comes to aircraft and ships. We can't do it alone and need our international allies to step up their game.

nortex97 said:

---

No idea, but some big programs will necessarily get significant cuts if this happens. Multi-year tranche buys are a 'thing' that protect some programs like the F-35, but other 'developmental' projects might get gutted. I have some favorites I hope survive such as the V280 (Blackhawk replacement) but some others that seem ripe for cancellation (Fremm frigate, hybrid-electric Abrams tank, NGAD).

---

That's fun to fly.

This better not be like that "Peace Dividend" bull**** we got after the USSR shut down in 1989.

It's kind of nuts that the last Reagan Defense budget and the first GWB defense budget were approximately the same dollar amount. That's not adjusted for inflation or in Real Dollars.

The military was gutted during that period.

The run up in defense spending in the wake of 9/11 was the wake up call that we'd cut WAY too deep.

NE PA Ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

The amount of waste in defense is astounding.

Simple anecdote:
Have a friend who works for a defense contractor won't say which one.
They got specs from the government to build a system that required a subsytem. So they spend about 6 months reviewing the requirements of the subsystem, sometimes 30 folks in a room at a time, all billable per hour to the government.
Execs visit DC multiple times. After 6 months they realized they had an option to build the sub-system, OR use the governments existing cloud infrastructure. Which is what they went with. So the company charged millions just to say, yes, we will use what you already have.

---

Exactly, surely this is the biggest part of the focus to cut the budget. We've been hearing about $500 and today probably $2000 hammers and wrenches for so long. Just like this reply said, the amount of waste is astounding. It's certainly gotten nothing but worse since I first heard about $500 hammers in the 70s.

---

A lot of that was due to the rules the DOD had in place.

You couldn't just go out and buy a hammer. You had to make one.

Amazingly, having to MAKE that hammer makes the hammer more expensive.

The DOD got better when they finally started allowing COTS materiel to be purchased.

riverrataggie said:

---

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

This is true. But China has a considerable edge on us in manufacturing capacity when it comes to aircraft and ships. We can't do it alone and need our international allies to step up their game.

---

Can't wait until America's like, "Come on everybody!" and everybody else is like, "Hey, remember that whole, 'America First' thing? Well, how about, 'After you?'"

Fixed price contacts...

Some of these cost+ 20 year boondoggles NEED to go bankrupt.

Maybe if we shrunk DoD missions to a core of combat readiness instead of colonial-style wars and civil development this would make sense. Cutting the cords with consultants and contractors should also help.

I think a lot of this is just cover to support extending tax cuts. Whether or not the cuts ever happen, who knows. Might as well have made it 70%

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

riverrataggie said:

---

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

This is true. But China has a considerable edge on us in manufacturing capacity when it comes to aircraft and ships. We can't do it alone and need our international allies to step up their game.

---

Can't wait until America's like, "Come on everybody!" and everybody else is like, "Hey, remember that whole, 'America First' thing? Well, how about, 'After you?'"

---

Does Europe not need the semiconductor elements as much as we do? How much is our planned defense of Taiwan for Europe's benefit rather than ours. That raises that question. Japan may choose to even if we don't. Its going to depend on how much time passes for them to build up again.

It has always seemed silly to me for an administration to issue orders for longer than their term.

The next administration, especially if they are the opposition party, will just change it.

Give orders to accomplish things during your term, period.

nortex97 said:

---

No idea, but some big programs will necessarily get significant cuts if this happens. Multi-year tranche buys are a 'thing' that protect some programs like the F-35, but other 'developmental' projects might get gutted. I have some favorites I hope survive such as the V280 (Blackhawk replacement) but some others that seem ripe for cancellation (Fremm frigate, hybrid-electric Abrams tank, NGAD).

---

I think the Navy either needs the Fremm Frigate, or some other frigate. The LCS ships were "supposed" to fill that role, but their vaporware capabilities never showed up. Frigate size / type ships can do many of the lesser important, but still important things that the Burke class DDG's are doing. This might help with the op tempo of the DDG's, allow more time for much needed maintenance, not wear them out as fast, and maybe some actual realistic training.
Also, Navy senior officers need to have their butts kicked, then fired. I see corruption, an acquisition system that is horrible even when compared to ALL of government, and just plain failure.

Also, the "Generals" have been put on notice that it is time for a few of them to "retire".