Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11305 times:

Parallel to this thread, which discusses potential German defense cuts (and French),
Germany Reduces Number Of Aircraft (by columba Jul 7 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Aviation Week & Space Technology's Guy Norris, one of the best reporters in the trade, penned this article which appeared today on discussions concerning reductions to the U.S. Defense Budget.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20The%20Crosshairs&channel=defense

One of the salient points is contained in this quote:

Quote:
At the well-respected Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Senior Fellow Todd Harrison says that if officials really want to save money in defense, “stop doing things.”

Some may want to interpret this as a "duh" moment, but in reality this is the crux of the problem. Strategy drives costs. For example, we keep deploying carrier battle groups as though the cold war never ended. Ashton Carter, the Obama appointed Under Sec Def for Acquisition had a meeting a week ago and came up with this "brilliant" guidance:

Quote:
For instance, Ashton Carter, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, talked about paying for what goods and services “should cost.” But that is not a legal term and it cannot be found in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations. Carter acknowledges several more weeks of “conferring” with officials and industry executives before reporting out more information.

Those of us who served back in the '80s remember the reaction to the USD$600 hammer (or was it a toilet seat?) and all the "brilliant" (that word again) programs to determine what something "should cost". I was intimately involved in the business then and can't recollect where we had a whole lot of success. Good luck on this, Ashton.

Point of this being: what should go? Unless we continue to allow these lawyers who we elect to Congress to keep pretending that there's no financial trainwreck on the horizon, tough choices will be made. I believe that this upcoming election will turn on who will have the guts to "wield the axe".

To get these mental giants off to a good start, I propose the following:
-USN: say "sayonara" to 2 carriers w/air wings & escorts. Deploy carriers as necessary, not like clockwork. "Fleets in Being" are still a valid concept. Who knows, this might have a salutary effect when the nations that previously benefited from our presence realize they have to pick up some slack. Amphibious forces are still needed, but the same applies: mothball the older vessels and quit deploying for the sake of deploying. How many Marines in Iraq or Afghanistan got there by boat? This will allow a cut of USN personnel. (and note that personnel is the largest cost incurred by DOD and the one Congress simply lacks the guts to cut. In fact, they keep adding benefits almost yearly).
-Air Force. Rehab the KC-135Rs & cancel the tanker contract. Cut back a few tactical wings. Cease C-17 production. Cut back on F-35 buys. Cut personnel. Kill the C-27. No more F-16 or F-15 buys.
-Army. Armored forces & artillery. Mothball or transfer more to the reserves. Transfer the slots to special forces & infantry.
-USMC. You're good.

Of course, one can cherry pick these proposals apart, but remember they are just that, a strawman to be sliced and diced. No one can argue that things should remain the same.

Cuts are coming...DOD can't be immune when we ask for a reduction in other budget categories (especially medicare and social security).

Where would you cut?

What will happen to NATO? The Germans, French, and Brits have announced their intentions to scale back their armed forces. Do they expect us to continue as the bulwark of NATO's force structure in a crisis?

[Edited 2010-07-09 15:32:05]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 865 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11278 times:

Maybe everyone should cut back their forces until they have no force projection left. Then no one can get at anyone else and there will be peace in our time.  

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11245 times:

I have a novel idea.

ENLARGE THE MILITARY TO CUT COSTS.

How?

Well stop paying companies millions of dollars to commit crimes. Thats right $0 to PMC's from the US government. Also Massive cutbacks in the service side contracts where failures to provide services has been a major issue. Any that are left should have some actual oversight and be liable both in civil and criminal courts for thier actions. When this happens we can start using actual servicemen for these duties and enjoy a trifecta of improvement. More servicemen, better services, and cheaper costs. Failing the banning of the use of PMCs, heavy heavy regulation should hit them. No hiring former US military personel until 2 years after they recieve a honorable discarge. Full compiance with US laws regardless of location. Additional complaince with the UMCJ when operating in areas with US military control/oversight. Auditing to verify services rendered match services charged. If we can stop the bleeding of trained US personell to PMCs where they recieve huge pay jumps and minimal oversight, we can have a more effective military for the same cost.

I'd also support an overhaul of the benfits and pay for service men such that retention is improved by making some benifits not exist at low ranks (both enlisted and officer) which go up with both time and rank. One is no family benifits for the lowest few ranks and first 2 years. IE a band new lieutenant has no family benifits the same as a new private. Then as they aquire rank and time they start to recieve more benifits, and by say 4 years they will start into a higher pay than previously offered. Of course the new pay/benifit structure would only apply to new recruits to avoid hurting existing servicemen.


User currently offlinesantafejay From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11170 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 1):
Where would you cut?

Question really should be "where wouldn't you cut". The big problem is which politician has the courage to tell the American people we are going to have to make some sacrafices for awhile. We all know it's needed but it's also political suicide. I've heard people for years saying if we could just cut the waste from our programs we could probably keep them all. I doubt that that's true but waste and corruption isn't a bad place to start.


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11036 times:

I guess we're in for cuts, but we must make sure not to endanger our longer term prospects by abandoning prudence (or rather regaining it). If we cut too much in the wrong places, someone's going to try to take advantage of it.

Find out what methods encourage continuous improvement and competition. Top down command-economy thrashing is not one.

Set ourselves up so we have choices. Then choose. No useful feedback over too long a time... no program. It was fundamentally flawed to aim for one fighter aircraft, no matter how good it turns out to be. Who enabled that? Where are they now? Have they learned anything?

Wise and continuous pruning can improve our forces. It probably would have kept programs on a tighter leash.

Nimble, smaller vehicles in greater numbers are cheaper and less predictable.

Cut smartly and let services reinvest part of the savings in new programs (on a much larger scale than what is presently being attempted).

Invest in new kinds of offensive systems where it makes a difference (because the enemy will have to expend resources to adapt)... for instance, slowly alter the mix of our Pacific fleet to make it less vulnerable to cheap ballistic carrier-killers (that China can build by the thousands). In essence, find a new, smaller and more dangerous class of capital ship. Wild idea du jour: adapt EMALS (the new, versatile electric catapult) to a new class smaller, semi-submersible drone launching carriers.

Automate by ecouraging experimentation and rapid fielding of robotic weapons so as to create an accelerating and proliferating feedback loop involving all relevant players from field to lab to fab. This would also boost R&D and small companies. Is the present system open enough to encourage constant experimentation? Would a forward-deployed team of google programmers be able to deliver something useful in the space of six months? Try it.

Rapid innovation favors smaller, more efficient teams all round by keeping established, ossified structures at bay.

We have the smart people, and yes, the money. Stand back and let them deliver. Then go all bureaucratic.

The war going on is not only a drain, but also an opportunity paid for in blood.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10976 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 4):
I guess we're in for cuts, but we must make sure not to endanger our longer term prospects by abandoning prudence (or rather regaining it). If we cut too much in the wrong places, someone's going to try to take advantage of it.

Unfortunately, unless one sees the future with clarity like that Anglo-German octopus, there is going to be risk.  

Personnel costs are just about out of control; retirement and medical costs are a burden that will have to be carried for decades. As I noted earlier, Congress keeps piling on the benefits. Understandable given the times, but very short sighted. AFAIK, there's no recruitment or retention issues that warrant this continuous flow of incentives. Nonetheless, these are the last areas that will probably be addressed.

Unfortunately, near term cuts will fall on hardware. I am a huge fan of the C-17, but I've come around the the view that we have enough (coupled with the C-5 modernization). A few posters here have been vocal proponents of KC-135 rehab; like it or not (and I don't) we can rehab the R's to serve a decade or more. Of course, tac air will be reduced accordingly,at least two wings. Since DOD can not close a base due to BRAC restrictions, reduce the affected bases to caretaker status and let go the contractor and civil service work forces. (I'm not being insensitive to people losing their jobs, but these are not normal times and the economic doldrums will drag out for a few more years at least).

The bulk of the cuts will probably fall on the USN. Where's the threat that requires 11 carriers with air wings? Unless the Chinese decide that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a great idea that should be tried again (sans the Japanese), then its unlikely the USN (and allied navies) will face a "near peer" threat in the foreseeable future. Besides, I am of the mind that aircraft carriers are at the point where someone is going to finally figure out how to neutralize them--just like battleships in the late '30s, early '40s. Cut at least two battle groups, escorts, and personnel. Cease deploying the remainder of the CVBGs on a regular schedule.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10935 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
To get these mental giants off to a good start, I propose the following:
-USN: say "sayonara" to 2 carriers w/air wings & escorts. Deploy carriers as necessary, not like clockwork. "Fleets in Being" are still a valid concept. Who knows, this might have a salutary effect when the nations that previously benefited from our presence realize they have to pick up some slack. Amphibious forces are still needed, but the same applies: mothball the older vessels and quit deploying for the sake of deploying. How many Marines in Iraq or Afghanistan got there by boat? This will allow a cut of USN personnel. (and note that personnel is the largest cost incurred by DOD and the one Congress simply lacks the guts to cut. In fact, they keep adding benefits almost yearly).
-Air Force. Rehab the KC-135Rs & cancel the tanker contract. Cut back a few tactical wings. Cease C-17 production. Cut back on F-35 buys. Cut personnel. Kill the C-27. No more F-16 or F-15 buys.
-Army. Armored forces & artillery. Mothball or transfer more to the reserves. Transfer the slots to special forces & infantry.
-USMC. You're good.

Well, some of these ideas have more merit than others. Except for the USS Enterprise, all of the CVNs are 30 years old, or less. Enterprise is already scheduled for retirement in 2013. The others can rotate in and out of commision status much like USN BBs and other capital ships did back in the 1920s and 1930s.

I have always been a proponent of reengining the KC-135E and rehab the KC-135R/T instead of the KC-X.

But proposed cuts in the land forces and equipment in the middle of two wars makes no sense.

Why isn't there any proposed cuts in social and entitlement programs?

Quoting johns624 (Reply 1):
Maybe everyone should cut back their forces until they have no force projection left. Then no one can get at anyone else and there will be peace in our time.

Some countries like China, North Korea, and Iran would just love that. Then there is this little problem of terrorism, how would we deal with that?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
I'd also support an overhaul of the benfits and pay for service men such that retention is improved by making some benifits not exist at low ranks (both enlisted and officer) which go up with both time and rank. One is no family benifits for the lowest few ranks and first 2 years. IE a band new lieutenant has no family benifits the same as a new private. Then as they aquire rank and time they start to recieve more benifits, and by say 4 years they will start into a higher pay than previously offered. Of course the new pay/benifit structure would only apply to new recruits to avoid hurting existing servicemen.

Oh that will help recruitment, won't it?


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 865 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10928 times:

Quoting santafejay (Reply 3):
Quoting johns624 (Reply 1):
Where would you cut?

That's NOT my quote.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Quoting johns624 (Reply 1):
Maybe everyone should cut back their forces until they have no force projection left. Then no one can get at anyone else and there will be peace in our time.

Some countries like China, North Korea, and Iran would just love that. Then there is this little problem of terrorism, how would we deal with that?

A smilie face denotes sarcasm.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10904 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Oh that will help recruitment, won't it?

Much of the issue currently is retaining people. If we reduce the number of people who do the bare minimum to get the heavy benifits, then we save alot of money. If we make the bare minimums to get the heavy benifits longer, those people will stay longer, saving lots of money. I fully support having the GI Bill, I'm just thinking that currently its counter productive in that people who join to pay for thier degree are going to bail on thier service as soon as they can. So by moving the benifit to require more years and higher rank, you are more likely to recruit less people, but people who will stay twice as long or more. If you have people stay twice as long, you have to recruit 1/2 as many people which lets you be more selective. Certainly weeding out the 2 year enlistments is vital given that much of that is taken up with training leaving little time for actual time to be of use to the military.


User currently offlinesantafejay From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10885 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
-Air Force. Rehab the KC-135Rs & cancel the tanker contract. Cut back a few tactical wings. Cease C-17 production. Cut back on F-35 buys. Cut personnel. Kill the C-27. No more F-16 or F-15 buys.

Sounds reasonable however I wouldn't completely kill the C-27, just buy what is absolutely needed.


User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 396 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10851 times:

The KC-X program appears to be headed to yet another dead end. If Boeing wins this round, EADS will protest, or vice-versa. The Pentagon would be better off rehabbing former airliners for the tanker role, but that doesn't create the Big Jobs Program that an all-new airframe program will yield.

No one mentioned our continuation of building Boomer subs and the Tridents that go into them. Why does the US need more of these?

In missile defense, THAAD and SM-3 perform similar missions. It would be cheaper to give the Army a ground launcher for SM-3, than to continue THAAD.

And it appears that the Pentagon will fund any UAV program, no matter what is does.

The F-35 program (the F-111 of our times) is a complete mess trying to make one-size-fits-all missions.

[Edited 2010-07-10 09:39:42]

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10652 times:

First, yes, cut out a few carrier battle groups. How long does it take to put force on target now from almost anywhere? Use them as needed, dont use them cause they exist.

There is the Airforce, Navy, and Army. Then there is the Marines, which has a Airforce, Navy, and Army. Sorry Marines, those jobs are already taken, your position has been deemed duplicate and needs to be cut. Seriously, why? All pride aside, the marines should be a division of the army. That will make alot of people mad... but come on.

The F-35 is somewhat of a white elephant (apparently everyone forgot about the F-22), but a common jet between the airforce and navy is a good thing (the marines dont need a airforce, so you dont need the F-35B).

Let NATO take a little more responsibility. The existing carrier battle groups should be comprised of a composite force. Throw in a Canadian destroyer, a British destroyer, a Dutch frigate... and next time, shake it up. Even a mixed aircraft wing on the CV would be good. Contributing countries would provide aircraft to a unit that would train like any other USN unit. 8 NATO members are buying F-35s... a little advanced planning could ensure all members could lend a hand by buying a mixed F-35 order. Most will buy F-35As, but they could get 1-2 squadrons of F-35Cs for carrier deployment.


Some creative shuffling could save money for all involved, and make a strong modern age force.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15483 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10623 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 10):
The F-35 program (the F-111 of our times) is a complete mess trying to make one-size-fits-all missions.

It seems that politicians have a short memory. And make no mistake, that is a plane that politics built, not engineers.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
(apparently everyone forgot about the F-22)

That's why the F-35 is a white elephant. Why are we building another plane that is almost as expensive as the F-22 but less capable? And the F-35 is not only less capable than the F-22, but seems to be barely capable of anything since it is so compromised into trying to be everything to everyone. Cut bait with that thing and go back to the drawing board.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10597 times:

I'm all for cut-backs in the federal spending, including the Defense budget. However, any reduction in defense spending MUST be accompanied by commensurate reduction in the military commitments, obligations via entreaties or what not. Politicians, especially US politicians love to cut the defense budget (J Carter, Bush Sr, Bill Clinton, etc), but they also LOVE to mandate MORE commitments, obligations, and missions to the military on top of existing commitments. Why? Because the US military is the ONLY Federal "agent" that approaches its job with any degree of competence. But it can only make do with less up to a point before becoming hallowed out. For instance, over the last 8 yrs, the politicians created 2 additional 4-star regional commands: the Northern Command and Africa Command. Each comes with a new set of mandates, commitments, missions, etc, and yet no corresponding increase in the budget.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5):
The bulk of the cuts will probably fall on the USN. Where's the threat that requires 11 carriers with air wings? Unless the Chinese decide that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a great idea that should be tried again (sans the Japanese), then its unlikely the USN (and allied navies) will face a "near peer" threat in the foreseeable future. Besides, I am of the mind that aircraft carriers are at the point where someone is going to finally figure out how to neutralize them--just like battleships in the late '30s, early '40s. Cut at least two battle groups, escorts, and personnel. Cease deploying the remainder of the CVBGs on a regular schedule.

I'm not in the military, but am a student of history. Contemporary history has shown that a powerful navy is an absolute indispensable tool in bringing and maintaining economic prosperity to a nation, and thus insure security. The indisputably powerful Royal Navy in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries ensured the expansion of the British Empire not only in territory, but more importantly economy. And the industrial revolution would not have been a spectacular success, had it not been for the Royal Navy. Today, as China is gaining strength economically, guess which service is getting the money and attention of the PLA and China ruling political class? Yes, it's the PLA Navy that is getting the biggest slice of money pie. What are they doing? They are building a more powerful blue water Navy, including aircraft carriers. Why? Because China understands its economic interests demand the presence of a powerful Navy. The same can be said of India, another rising economic power, flush with cash. The Indian can't get their hands on an carrier fast enough. Global commercial trading today is still done mostly via ships, and the world is still roughly 2/3 water. Warships by its nature are inherently capital intensive, i.e. very expensive, but they do provide a worthy bang for the buck both economic and security.
Instead of setting an arbitrary #s of super carriers the US Navy should maintain, one should ask which regions of the world must the US maintain a continuous presence, and which regions are luxury. The answer to that will give how many carriers we need. I'd argue the Western Pacific and Med are absolute MUST in this century.
I'd advocate a reduction in mini-carriers and amphib battle groups. We don't need several Marine battlegroups (MEUs) floating aimlessly for months on end for just in case scenarios protected by half a dozen ships at any 1 time. And when was the last time the Marines conducted a hostile amphib invasion, and likely will in near future? Sure, maintaining a small amphib capability is fine, but we don't need as much as we have or plan to have for a few Marines Divisions. That's a luxury, not an absolute necessity. In fact I'd like to see the USMC reorganize along the line of the Royal Marines Commando, albeit supersize to a 1 reinforced Div. size plus supports, but not as large as it is now that it becomes an Army within an Army with all the wasteful duplications.
Finally the SSBN is a national strategic assets that MUST be kept. In a world where nuclear weapons are increasingly proliferated and are in the hands of the like of NKorea, Iran, and who knows else, and given that much of the US land-based options are mapped out by likely enemies, the firepower carried by the SSBN and its unknown whereabout are the only truly effective deterrent. And yes most of the responsible nuclear powers are either building, keeping, or updating their SSBN fleets with no plan to scrap it in any time soon; even Russia is waking up to this fact, and is building nuclear missile subs like mad.
That's my 2 cents for now.


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10577 times:

Interesting commentaries. I've been shooting from the hip and flinging some things about that might not belong here or be a top priority when it comes to identifying short term cuts.

Ad fontes... I'd recommend looking at the Overview - FY2011 Defense Budget as a primer. It's worth it, I think. http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

And to gain some prespective, an excerpt:


Our capacity for transforming effort into useful output has not kept pace at all, meaning, if we don't become more efficient, more money is simply going to make the job *harder*. That's why wisely premeditated budget cuts can have a salutary effect.

Just one more personal opinion - the Marines add a very unique way of thinking about, preparing for, and doing war. It may not always be the best, but we can benefit from a successful and separate culture with established institutions. Uniformity only makes our adversaries' job very much easier.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 10543 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
Let NATO take a little more responsibility. The existing carrier battle groups should be comprised of a composite force. Throw in a Canadian destroyer, a British destroyer, a Dutch frigate... a

Been done before on an ad hoc basis, but to plan for this on anything resembling a change to the way NATO does operations would require years of debate and endless argument over who would bear the costs. The NATO governments involved (and remember how often governments change) would (rightly) question why they are involved, who's going to pay, etc., etc., etc.

Politically, its not sustainable IMO.

NATO had its genesis back in the days of the Soviet Union; now they are more or less an alliance of convenience, sustained by a kind of inerta. When the members fail to see the threat or the reason goes away (USSR) then the voters in the member countries begin to question why they are spending huge sums of money to sustain this alliance, especially when there's no more USSR and the Chinese are peace loving and friendly. All democracies tend to fight the fires closest to home and right now these are economic. History's lessons become very inconvenient.

Cuts are coming to the U.S. defense establishment. Best to make them wisely now while there's time. I think the Obama administration already has a good idea of where they want to go on this, but with the mid-terms coming up and its looking like the democratic party is going to be on the wrong end of a blood bath, they are keeping their cards very close to their chest.

WRT the F-35, it is just too expensive. I know someone on the program and even that individual is getting concerned over the massive cost increases. The program won't die; there's no alternative on the books, but I suspect they'll slow it down considerably.

We simply have to stop deploying ARGs and CVBGs just for the sake of deploying them!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10499 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 14):
Just one more personal opinion - the Marines add a very unique way of thinking about, preparing for, and doing war. It may not always be the best, but we can benefit from a successful and separate culture with established institutions. Uniformity only makes our adversaries' job very much easier.

Integrate the Marines into the army as a separate division. Keep the Marines, let them do Marine things the Marine way, but they dont need to have a airforce and navy, let the actual airforce and navy provide the support the Marines need. Familiarity is just a failure in tactics and training.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10483 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
Keep the Marines, let them do Marine things the Marine way, but they dont need to have a airforce and navy,

I think that's reasonable given the times. The Marines will give lots of reasons why they need "organic" air capability in the form of high performance aircraft. Personally, I think it goes back to Guadalcanal when the USN pulled its last carrier and left the Marines to fend for themselves.

However, if any cuts are made in a vacuum, with out a corresponding adjustment in overall strategy, they'll be picked to death. Its the strategy that's got to change. NATO and all mutual defense treaties must be re-examined in this light.

Things can't continue the way they are. . . .



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10473 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
Let NATO take a little more responsibility. The existing carrier battle groups should be comprised of a composite force. Throw in a Canadian destroyer, a British destroyer, a Dutch frigate...

I don't know about specific CVBG escorts, but this happens all the time, in exercises (recently HMS Ark Royal's Atlantic deployment included French and US escorts as well as RN ones, the same happened last year on a worldwide RN Amphibious force deployment), more operationally, NATO vessels have been working with the USN in the Gulf for more than 20 years, then there is the anti pirate deployments.

I know there are some in the US who want out of NATO, this view - not surprisingly - does not take into account that such a move would close not only only airbases, staging posts, military hospitals in Europe, it would also end US access to important assets such as signals listening posts in the UK (and UK assets in Cyprus and the Indian Ocean - rather well placed for current trouble spots), as well as others.
The NSA would be half blind and hard of hearing.
Sadly, much of the discourse on this subject seems to be all about 'why is the US still protecting Europe?'

If you want a US fighter program past 2020 - the F-35 is the only game in town.
And don't underestimate the anger other partners in the program would feel, no good saying on one hand 'others should do more' then if F-35 was axed that would be the end of the RN carriers - just when they were set to get a whole new and greatly expanded capability.
The sense of bad faith would likely also be seen in much less contribution by F-35 partner nations in the current conflicts, (even allowing for the suspicion that the US news media treats them like Hollywood does with war movies).

However, aside from VSTOL aircraft and helicopters, what is the justification for USMC fast jets that completely duplicates USN F-18's on carrier decks?

US defence spending from 2001-2008 went up by some 63%
With no serious military competitor.
That sounds like an 'entitlement program' to me, to the ones who really get the welfare in the US - corporate America.
With - already - US technical superiority over Russia (not an enemy) and China (not likely to be an enemy for economic reasons), so far ahead as to make comparisons meaningless.

How about accepting that the US requires some 'core capabilities' then size then rationally.
The CVBG example has been cited - to retain carrier building production best done by retiring vessels up for a major re-fit.
The USAF has a core advanced fighter capability in the F-22, quite honestly how many are enough? Given that there is no realistic competiotor around - the new Russian one, if it is all it's cracked up to be - is years from operational service and given how modernisation of the Russian AF has happened in recent times, not likely to be around in numbers when it does arrive.

If you are that concerned about China, well maybe they are already in your country, by proxy.
Not some silly Red Dawn film but via Walmart!


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10458 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
US defence spending from 2001-2008 went up by some 63%
With no serious military competitor.
That sounds like an 'entitlement program' to me, to the ones who really get the welfare in the US - corporate America.
With - already - US technical superiority over Russia (not an enemy) and China (not likely to be an enemy for economic reasons), so far ahead as to make comparisons meaningless.

Between WWI and WWII, the US thought the UK could become an adversary in a future war, mostly on the Naval side, later that was shifted to Japan (who also was an allie during WWI). The US had fought two wars with Britian already (US Revolutionary War and War of 1812).

The US is not alone in thinking who they may need to fight in 10, 20, or more years. It is the nature of the world we live in. China is clearly a country to watch for the US, as is a future Russia. Iran and North Korea are also future problems, that could draw the US into a direct war with China and/or Russia. In Europe, they have their own problems with possible future conflicts among themselves.

In the years leading up to WWII, neither Britian nor the US began preparing early enough, and it costs them in warships and men. The RAF was within about two weeks of being defeated in the BoB, and the RN suffered losses in the Battle of the Atlantic to German U-Boats and BBs. Germany was close to starving Great Britian. The US was hanging by its fingernails after the IJN attack on Pearl Harbour.

History should not be repeated here again, which is what we are about to do. SAC proved the best defense and avoidance of major wars was a very strong offense.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10433 times:

I do see your point KC-135, in history.
However, history also shows that nations economically intertwined tend not to go to war with each other, China and the US are such nations and this is ever increasing.
(That's before we get into the debt they hold).

Whatever we think of the Chinese leadership, they are very cautious.
And their system is set up so only very cautious people get to the top.
The chaos of the Cultural Revolution and other excesses of Mao has not been forgotten, he may be a party icon, but make no mistake they are not about to replicate him.
(There is a statue of British revolutionary leader Oliver Cromwell in Westminster but he is seen now as a murderous religious extremist even by 17th Century standards).

Russia is also much more integrated with the world, that was the danger of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was almost a parallel universe bumping up against the rest.
Prior to WW1 and WW2 there were power-blocs/empires bumping up against each other too, again the intertwined economic/social world of today was unimaginable then.
And we are on a site that celebrates one important aspect of this, mass air travel.

Not to say there will not be disputes with Russia and China, but war?
(Consider too - if you want to have more effective leverage against the really worrisome states, like Iran, North Korea, you need the help of Russia for the former and China for the latter).


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10374 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
I do see your point KC-135, in history.
However, history also shows that nations economically intertwined tend not to go to war with each other, China and the US are such nations and this is ever increasing.

The western economies were very integrated before WWI, and the exact same thought was voiced back then.


User currently offlineHercPPMX From United States of America, joined May 2008, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10371 times:

"The Marine Corps pulls down about 6 percent of the department’s budget,” Conway said. “For that 6 percent, you get about 15, 16 percent of the maneuver battalions; you get 15 percent of the attack aircraft [and] you get 19 percent of the attack helicopters. The average Marine costs the country about $20,000 less than the next closest service man in other services.”

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54372

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
There is the Airforce, Navy, and Army. Then there is the Marines, which has a Airforce, Navy, and Army. Sorry Marines, those jobs are already taken, your position has been deemed duplicate and needs to be cut. Seriously, why? All pride aside, the marines should be a division of the army. That will make alot of people mad... but come on.

The Marines have and will be based around the MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) which includes an aviation combat element, a ground combat element, a Marine Logistics group (formally FSSG), and a command element. everything in the Marine Corps is based around that concept.

The Marines don't have an army, they have and infantry, They don't have big boats, they get rides from the navy, but being a department of the navy, that makes sense. I would also disagree that they have an Airforce, the entire fleet of aircraft types are there first and fore most to support the people on the ground, aka infantry.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
The F-35 is somewhat of a white elephant (apparently everyone forgot about the F-22), but a common jet between the airforce and navy is a good thing (the marines dont need a airforce, so you dont need the F-35B).

The F-35B is needed, the STOVL capability is of great use. To have a aircraft that can land at a fob or next to a convoy and refuel and re-arm, take off and continue CAS without having to fly to the rear saves time, and is much more effective that a conventional aircraft that tanks it's way to the target, drops ordinance, and tanks its way home.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
Integrate the Marines into the army as a separate division. Keep the Marines, let them do Marine things the Marine way, but they dont need to have a airforce and navy

First off the Marines are already a department of the navy, they won't be part of the army, ever. Second the Marines don't have a navy, They ride on navy boats, this dates back to the origin of the Marines protecting navy ships.

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
However, aside from VSTOL aircraft and helicopters, what is the justification for USMC fast jets that completely duplicates USN F-18's on carrier decks?

The F/A-18's are used for close air support and the E/A-6B's are used for the same, The Marines like to be completely self sustained. But as of right now the plain is to replace the A/V-8B's, the F/A-18's and the E/A-6B's with the F-35B. So eliminating 3 types in favor of 1.



C-130; it's a love-hate relationship
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10358 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 21):
The western economies were very integrated before WWI, and the exact same thought was voiced back then.

Were they?
Empires like the British and French had their own trading blocs - not to appear ungrateful but one of the conditions of US aid prior to their own entry into WW2 was the breaking down of the British Imperial trading bloc, in other words making it far more accessible to the US.
This continued after WW2 as the UK was of course bankrupt and worn out by 6 years of running a total war economy.

The same happened with the other European powers.

Prior to WW1 it was even more pronounced, a major issue in British politics in the first decade of the 20th Century was the question of whether a move to a more open free trade - as was emerging slowly - or to a 'Fortress Empire' bloc.
It was a major issue in that it felled governments, made some political careers, ended others.

Now we are technology driven too.
Mass instant communication, mass air travel, far more multicultural societies.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10263 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
but they dont need to have a airforce and navy, let the actual airforce and navy provide the support the Marines need. Familiarity is just a failure in tactics and training.

Since WWII incidents of "friendly fire" by Marine CAS units are what compared to the Air Force, Navy and Army? If it is just a failure of tactics and training after all these years I say the rest should give up. When the Air Force wanted to improve their CAS they turned to technology, I don't recall any of the other services turning to the Marines for help improving their CAS abilities, whatever the Marines are doing is working, the rest are a work in progress. My radical idea is to transfer all the CAS capabilities of the Air Froce and Navy and put them under Marine Command rather than the other way around.

Unfortunately for the Marine Corp, due to their retention rates and continued meeting of their recruitment numbers, they are the end all to all other forces having problems.
The Navy issue with retaining their pilots was partially solved by transferring more Marine squadrons to the boats, the Army's issue was partially solved by deploying Marines as if they were regular army, now we get the talk of the Marines not needing their own air.

To me it is short sighted thinking and not looking long term, folks who join the Marines join the Marines, if they are "transferred" to the Navy, Army and Air Force they will follow the rest of the folks who leave as soon as their term is up and you are back to square one minus one, as the Marine recruitment will also suffer when it becomes apparent that the Marines are being used as a stop gap for the other services.

My cost saving ideas:
1. Fire the current US OEM's who produce military equipment, they are too expensive, take too long to deliver and are way over priced. Allow other US companies into the mix, put some bids out and tell Northrop, Boeing, Lockheed etc. that they cannot bid, see what happens, innovation is not dead in the US, its just being stifiled

2. Close down the European "vacation" sites, there are numerous bases in western Europe which are not needed, why are infantry brigades still permanently based, training area's are getting smaller and smaller and costs are rising, cheaper to bring those soldiers and equipment back to the US mainland. Unlike others' I'm not suggesting they leave NATO, but the number of troops and equipment being maintained in Europe is out of whack with the political situation.
No need to pre-position equipment, cheaper to build the fleet of vessels and pre-postion those versus paying for basing, security, housing for soldiers and their families, yes that does cost more funds to be spent in the "US" versus elswhere.

3. Improve the numbers in the short term, the idea that technology makes things cheaper only seems to work in the civilian sector, cue the F-22, so expensive you cannot afford it. In the short term, buy new F-15's, F-16's and F-18's, allow other US companies a chance to design and build new a/c over the current powerhouses whose market cap and financial book-keeping is more important than the actual product. Same applies to the Navy, imagine how the Perry class were built then cue the LCS and see how things differ, millions of dollars on a boat that technically cannot even defend itself, one of its missions is to go close to shore and rather than have CWIS and guns for shore bombardment they have a non-existent cancelled missile system.

This is a debate so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.  


25 par13del : I forgot one, there is no need to increase the size of the Corp, leave it where it is, if the Army or Navy need more they can simply increase their fo
26 HercPPMX : Over the last few years the Marines have gone from 184,000 to a high of around 205,000. There is currently an effort being made to reduce that number
27 SeJoWa : My salient point being that people were voicing the exact same thoughts about a link between more integrated economies and flourishing peace back the
28 dragon6172 : That is the whole point... instead of making three calls you can make just one. Already a department in the Navy, why move? Are SEALs, Delta Force, e
29 Post contains images Lumberton : AFAIK NATO membership is not "on the table" for discussion, but cuts to force structure are. As for assets such as listening posts, if it ever came t
30 LMP737 : This is your idea on how to cut defense costs? Quite frankly it makes no sense. Do you have any numbers to support on how much money this will save?
31 GDB : Understood, the JCS would never wear it for a start. Though the voices to extract the US from NATO are mostly still fringe, hopefully it will stay th
32 LMP737 : That had more to do with the Navy retiring the A-6 Intruder and not having something to take it's place on the flight deck. I don't know about the F-
33 BMI727 : That's their fault for cancelling the A-12. I have little sympathy for the Navy there.
34 ThePointblank : A-12 was canned by the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney due to costs that were about to run out of control. The aircraft threatened to consume up to
35 BMI727 : Isn't the A-12 case still in court? Either way, the Navy lost their chance at a quality attack aircraft and I don't see how their failure to get one
36 Post contains links and images Lumberton : Lockheed-Martin, take note. I usually don't agree with the editorial slant of this french publication, but this time they nailed it on their comments
37 Post contains links dk1967 : Report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force's recommendations: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf
38 UH60FtRucker : I would completely disagree. The armored forces were the spearhead of the invasion of Iraq, and often went places and did things (thunder run, anyone
39 Lumberton : That's how it starts...low cost for low intensity. What we end up with is the Littoral Combat Ship...$400million per unit and rising. Still undergunn
40 Shmertspionem : You are joking aren't you? if you meant to be sarcastic i sure cant see it. And that too could be a disaster.... if the strategy goes wrong ....then
41 par13del : They did start retiring Tico's early, and based on the billion dollar cost of the Burkes and the program already running I guess they naturally went
42 lumberton : Yes. Some things are patently obvious, or so I thought. Without a crystal ball, how does one predict the efficacy of the effects? Do you mean somethi
43 ThePointblank : Nope, it was resolved in the Court of Appeals last year. Boeing/GD owns the US government US$1.35 billion, plus interest charges of US$1.45 billion.
44 Post contains links lumberton : Just read this on AW&ST. Very germane to the topic. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ants%20And%20Needs&channel=defense Strategy, strat
45 Flighty : The Pentagon's #1 military weakness is cost control. Largely, this is because Congress builds in unreasonable costs. For example, you can get $2700 /
46 AirRyan : First thing the Navy needs to do is get the Marine Corps vicarious spending under control: V-22's, F-35B's, and even the LHA-6 with no well deck - wha
47 UH60FtRucker : Well I think there is a big difference with trying to design a ship for a mission that was never really clearly defined, and designing a ship for a m
48 Post contains images SeJoWa : That's precisely why I dislike these buzzwords - it always seems to me a reductio ad absurdum. I think the idea of having a very flexible, highly aut
49 Post contains links lumberton : Well, its starting. Northrop Grumman is closing Avondale in 2013 and looking at divesting its ship building business. As I said, its going to be pain
50 dragon6172 : Considerable compared to other nations I suppose... but just counting Abrams tanks the Marines have about 400 while the Army has close to 5500 with a
51 par13del : The issue which the services have been trying to hide all these years, how to maintain proper manpower levels, technology is not the answer to everyt
52 Post contains images Shmertspionem : I too dislike buzzwords - and effects based is not a buzzword - it basically means what does it take to achieve results no matter what comes in your
53 Post contains images par13del : Step 1. China does require a Blue Water Navy, unfortunately, the anti-sub capabilities of the US Navy took a huge hit when they neglected the S3-Vikin
54 UH60FtRucker : I honestly just do not know. I look around at all the requirements that are placed on us, and it's really tough to say, "we can't afford to let X and
55 ZANL188 : The Army has a long range & over water CSAR capability? When did that happen? I must have missed it....
56 dragon6172 : This idea seems logical to me. I would say retirement at service years of 20, 25, 30, and 35 should be possible. Retire at 20 years for 50% of pay, b
57 FLALEFTY : There are a lot of good posts here and many insightful ideas on how to tame our defense budget. But it all comes down to this: How much longer are we
58 Beta : I agree about the diminishing importance of the Atlantic. But saying "good bye to Yokosuka" while stressing the vitally important Pacific region is a
59 UH60FtRucker : When and where did I say that? Show me. I believe I said that the Army can do it better. I didn't say they are doing better, I said they can do it. B
60 Lumberton : Last I heard, there is a plan to move many of the Marines on Okinawa to Guam. I know there are also plans to improve the facilities at Apra to accomod
61 Beta : I understand any time there is foreign troops occupy a piece of land, there bounds to be tension with the native local population. It's a natural act
62 johns624 : Beta, if Japan is getting bullied by the PLAN, maybe they should do something about it. Japan is not some underpopulated third world nation. They shou
63 Post contains images Beta : I'm not knowledgeable enough, nor have I access to classified information to intelligently discuss the sort of strategic security question you posed.
64 johns624 : We don't have to "let" Japan rearm. They can change their constitution whenever they want to or feel threatened. Why are you so concerned with Japan r
65 ThePointblank : The Japanese domestically are very sensitive regarding the pacifist clause, and many nations in the region, including South Korea, China, and Taiwan
66 johns624 : I know all that, but one of these days they'll have to wake up and realize that they have a new adversary. China is no direct opponent of ours. They
67 par13del : Did they suffer more than Europeans and the rest of the world at the hands of Germany and Italy, such thinking exist but I sense a doule standard. Ch
68 ThePointblank : If you read into what the Japanese did during their occupation of Asia, it very easily exceeds what the Germans did in World War II. The Japanese use
69 Post contains links UH60FtRucker : Well... that was certainly the plan. The US was going to remove the vast majority of military forces on Okinawa to Guam, and the remaining forces out
70 Post contains links SeJoWa : I must take issue with your assertion because I think our global military posture, including a tangible presence, is a vital ingredient of our global
71 Post contains images SeJoWa : Why not say "destroy X" when "destroy X" will do. (Maybe because leaving out X is so convenient?) The next thing you know, effects get enumerated, ca
72 Lumberton : Which is why the strategic underpinnings that drive those commitments are being re-examined. Gates already delivered a foretaste when he announced th
73 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : Right simple example the F-35 is a strategy based solution - the strategy is electronic superiority. Tell me what becomes of the f-35 when its electr
74 johns624 : You're missing the point. As long as the US is right there in full strength, Japan and Korea will never build up. It's sort of like your kid brothers
75 Post contains images par13del : The offset would be the gas chambers and other methods used against 6million Jews, Poles etc., I don't think we disagree on the basic point, probably
76 UH60FtRucker : Well first, I think you misunderstand my position. As I have stated in this thread, I believe the Pacific and Indian theaters are where the future is
77 HercPPMX : Maybe for some ranks. I would venture to assume that your well above the majority of personnel. Last year all pays included I cleared 30K.
78 Ken777 : For the Navy I believe we need to pass on the "Wossie Class" DDGs that can't get near the battle. I did a WestPac deployment in 69 on a DDG and it was
79 SeJoWa : Thanks for all the replies. I've made it clear that I'm very leery of altering our strategic posture in Asia precisely when the global focus is shifti
80 SeJoWa : Don't you think it's an untoward simplification to assume a naked (how and when?) F-22 is still capable of penetrating high level, networked and stag
81 Shmertspionem : Ja sorry - my fault - what I meant was that when stealth and jamming goes out of the window - the f-35 will not have the kinematic performance, or mu
82 UH60FtRucker : I was enlisted for about 4.5 years. E2-E5. Now I'm a CW3 with 10.5yrs. Add in my BAH, my flight pay, my MTP bonus, I do very well. But I am under no
83 Post contains links Shmertspionem : well here's a very interesting (but long) read about China's (and Iran's) A2/AD capabilities - specifically their growing focus on taking out bases a
84 UH60FtRucker : Yeah, I understand... but then how is that threat not as relevant to bases in Japan and ROK? Like I said: Guam is no more threatened than ANY US base
85 Shmertspionem : Its very relevant - I posted that link in semi-support of what ure saying - but within a 1500-3000km radius of china's coastline for now On the US ma
86 par13del : Does it make a difference whether the air burst of a nuclear weapon is within 50 to 1000 feet of its intended target? I always thought such "facts" i
87 maxter : I was sure our learned friend made no mention of a nuclear strike... Perhaps I was mistaken.
88 Shmertspionem : the tactical trident is being envisaged as a conventional weapon - a sort of TACTOM substitute that can be launched at anywhere in the world and reac
89 par13del : I know it created a lot of fuss in the international community when the US proposed deploying conventional warheads on missiles which will have balli
90 Post contains links SeJoWa : Just a quick hop into the thread to serve up a pointer concerning the Chinese DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile. Excellent links at the end of the ar
91 Shmertspionem : You dont - but then nobody knew what kinda warhead the scud that hit TelAviv and Riyadh carried till they actually hit. I suppose you just wait and f
92 Post contains links and images SeJoWa : I beginning to wonder if a Super F-22 shouldn't be investigated, using currently available technologies towards sensible improvements in the airframe
93 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : Is this some subliminal message about ABM? S-300 Grumble ? Not happening.... the problem is like the the invention of the tank in WW1 where it was in
94 Post contains links Lumberton : The games afoot--if anyone doubted. Here's a "startling" recommendation from Gates' panel. More to follow very shortly. DoD Advisory Panel: Close Join
95 SeJoWa : There you go cherry picking my posts to create a Triple Resonance of Undeniably Bothersome Lobal Effluvia. The War Department (pardon me) is big enou
96 Post contains links and images SeJoWa : What a gem: JCSE provides communications during humanitarian assistance mission U.S. Joint Forces Command's Joint Enabling Capabilities Command's Joi
97 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's an update to the Defense News article I cited earlier. Contractors-contractors-contractors.... Its still low hanging fruit. http://www.defensen
98 Shmertspionem : why? better to use mules and donkeys - require very little training - they're local - and you only need to feed them - no fuel - no maintenance - no
99 UH60FtRucker : Cut, cut, cut!!! I hope they slash deep and hard into the contractors and DoD civiians! ...I guess you didn't hear that over a year ago, the Pentagon
100 Shmertspionem : You mean curtailed the programme - not cancelled. the 3 paid for ships - require more development funds - lets hope this will not turn into a another
101 SeJoWa : Nothing against mules and donkeys, but we're not going to be mass producing them anytime soon and evolving their software continuously. Er, right? I'
102 Post contains links Lumberton : http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4721215&c=AME&s=TOP [Edited 2010-07-23 11:37:27 by lumberton]
103 Ken777 : While I can see a lot of countries wanting "military power" there are limitations in the modern day on the use of such power. China can have all the
104 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : That assumes a country has enlightened leadership - but take Iran for example which is controlled by a mad mullahcracy - and based around a martyr cu
105 SeJoWa : I like that rat. I picked that idea on purpose, and you're helping me illustrate why. The potential is enormous and is in civilian use right now. My o
106 Post contains links Lumberton : The local pols are already howling in fury: Gates proposes JFCOM go bye bye. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ary-command-norfolk-officials-say/
107 LMP737 : It kind of reminds me of a shell game. The military personel will be moved to other commands and the civilian personel given positions someplace else
108 Post contains links Lumberton : USAF overseas bases are being scrutinized. There is no requirement for Congressional approval to close these. Panel Looks at Closing U.S. Air Force Ov
109 par13del : However not all personnel have to be housed on base, if 1,000 are returned to the US 1,000 billets do not have to be constructed. Additionally, where
110 Post contains links Lumberton : Well worth a read and very germane to our discussion here. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20And%20A%20Gamble&channel=defense While I have
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Could The US Navy Pass On The Natf posted Sat Mar 11 2006 01:45:16 by 747400sp
US Marines Were Out To Get & Kill The F22 Raptor posted Tue Jan 3 2006 22:28:24 by Keesje
Craf Flights Clear Customs On Return To US Or No? posted Mon May 12 2003 22:00:33 by USAFHummer
Any Updates On The A400M posted Tue Jun 1 2010 19:30:37 by GRIVely
India To Spend $736m On 12 AW-101's.... posted Tue Mar 16 2010 11:39:21 by AirRyan
Fire On The Space Shuttle? posted Sun Feb 21 2010 19:25:21 by liedetectors
Constellation Program On The Chopping Block? posted Wed Jan 27 2010 23:57:35 by SEAchaz
Good Book(s) On The XB-70 Valkyrie? posted Wed Dec 30 2009 06:53:56 by SNATH
The PW F135, The Only Engine On The JSF? posted Wed Sep 30 2009 00:04:38 by 747classic
Why No Slats On The F15? posted Sun Sep 20 2009 00:57:17 by Max Q

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format