Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
dragon6172
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:50 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 47):
You say the Marines are fine... but they still maintain a considerable artillery/armor force...

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 another 3000 or so in mothball. The Army has whole divisions based on armor, while the Marines use them in a support role.

Personally I do not have a problem with the size of the armored force of the Army and Marines, but I suppose this is his reasoning for suggesting a reduction.
Phrogs Phorever
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:17 pm

Quoting lumberton (Reply 49):
Large numbers of cheap ships don't solve the #1 cost issue: manpower. Despite the Navy's "smart ship" program (which involves cutting the crew size to a very risky minimum), life at sea is labor intensive and you simply need people to do certain things, like fight the ship and do proper damage control.

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 everything, especially in this day and age where technology is getting more and more expensive without ultimately making things cheaper.
It is truly glossed over, but what exactly makes a Burke Class Destroyer cost a billion dollars, do we have to increase the "capabilities" and "ranks" of the crew to match the cost of the ship? I know the ratings are the same, but how do you get on sailor to "step up" from a Perry Class to a Burke without it being a promotion? Farming out "non-military" jobs to private contractors was supposed to save money under the mantra that private companies can do the jobs cheaper and more efficiently, we know that works in the free market, does it also work in a captive military market where the employer will pay whatever is charged?
The number of private contractor employee's on military bases have risen, are they a security risk, do they attempt to make their products "idiot proof" so that lesser educated / trained personnel can operate them, is that in their best interest? Do the services now have to drain the private sector of trained / educated talent to run their machinery, in which case it becomes a loosing proposition as regardless of how much you pay, the core military functions of being under someones command, training and basing are always there with no counterpart in the civilian market?

Northrup has been putting it out for a couple years that it wants to get out of the ship building business because it was not as profitable as they would like, another case of the financial wonder kids looking for ways to make more money out-side their core business. If they built so much and have such a large number of ship building programs under their belt, why were they not successful, unfortunately, this will not be looked at to see how it has affected the current Navy situation, certainely some in Congress have for years pushed for additional shipyards / companies to be engaged versus the consolidation that took place, seems now that they are being proven correct.

Navy shipbuilding is in shambles, their carrier fleet is also in chaos, they are attempting to find creative ways to maintain the force level using the refuelling schedules which are hard and fast approaching, delays in those are very expensive, but they appear cheaper if it allows the force levels that congress mandates, the contractors involved, simply take the funds to the bank laughing.

Smaller lighter is where the Navy needs to be, funds saved from cutting expensive programs could be diverted to manpower, the one thing the Navy has going for it is that the sea is open and available, land bases in foreign countries eat up much more of the US economic strength when they are already in a deficit position, not a good strategy to follow.
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:20 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 48):
That's precisely why I dislike these buzzwords - it always seems to me a reductio ad absurdum.

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 way.Basically how to do a job in the most effective and economical way possible.

Quoting lumberton (Reply 42):
How?

I did a whole thesis based on this but i'll give you a simple ship example here


Right people - lets try this as an experiment - this is what i think are core effects to be achieved
pls feel free to add after hearing your additions we'll proceed to step 2

STEP 1

Current US req

a) Against china - Significant air defence against sea skimmers (ESSM - SM-6)
Significant AD against future ballistic AS missile (SM-3)
Since china is a missile sponge ability to hit say cumulatively 10,000 targets with cruise missiles?
Anti sub defence
anti ship missiles - just in case

all this is best done from a blue water navy

b) against Iran - High speed against super-cavitating torpedoes
AD against sea skimmers
since the Persian gulf is no more than 60 meters at its deepest MINES are a HUGE problem
close in defence against high speed suicide boats
need to provide fire support to ground troops - preferably just over the visible horizon - say 18kms

c) against Somali pirates - jihad nexus (if such emerges)
need to provide fire support to ground troops - preferably just over the visible horizon - say 18kms
rudimentary amphibious (at least shallow water cap to unload a few EFV's to take out pirate HQ)
ability to launch RHIB et al for larger area policing



feel free to add categories or sub categories
then we proceed to step 2




Quoting Flighty (Reply 45):
Largely, this is because Congress builds

Yes this has been a worrying trend for along time. The constitution made the legislature supreme because it thought executive power in one man's hand was too dangerous. Problem is congress is running amok and seriously disrupting the separation of powers.

We cant solve this militarily though - unless you want a coup  
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:14 pm

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-Viking platform and allowed it to die, only true capabiltiy now is the attack sub which deploys with the fleet and I believe it is only one, hopefully, no one will attempt to use multiple subs against one fleet target, the short range helo's will not be of much help attempting to get the targets before they launch.
If you have to fire missiles at China they would have to be nuclear in which case the discussion is moot, if a Korean conflict, they could be usefull even if they hit support bases across the border.

Persion Gulf requires air supremacy which the Blue Water Navy has issues with since the main stay of the fleet are the Hornets, gone are the days of A6-Intruders and S3-Vikings carrying air to ship missiles to aid in the cause. Placing a CBG in the gulf in a conflict with Iran would use up too much of the ships resources in defense, but since the main combat a/c has short range they may not have much choice. Air supremacy would have to be established, then mine sweeping helo's would have to clear routes, then ships can follow, based on these limitations, this would have to be a long conflict from the Navy's standpoint. They could always run a super tanker in front of the warships, do they still have mine sweepers or is that another casualty of political capability?

Somali pirates need a couple Perry's with 5" guns and other heavy machine guns, flinging multi-thousand dollar missiles at wooden boats with engines is uneconomical, that's if the missile radar will lock on.

Interesting topic, will have to think or re-think this after lunch. 
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:03 pm

Quoting lumberton (Reply 49):
So where would you make the...and cuts there will be?

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 Y go, but we can afford to let Z go."

I guess it all comes back to your original post: we need to scale back our global commitments. But then again, who the hell is gonna fill the void? Europe can't be counted on. That leaves regional powers filling the gap: India, China, Iran, Australia, Brazil. Two of those are not the people you want filling your void.

As for land forces... it seems reckless to do away with your armor. Hell, it's the safest thing driving around. Even the MRAPs are not as safe as a M1. And artillery is still vital. You say we ought to do away with them, but you don't offer how we will augment the force. Do you really expect a Stryker to spear head an invasion???

I guess my answer is this:

Army:

-The Army has finally completed it's growth to 548,000 RA soldiers, 350,000 NG soldiers, and 205,000 Reserve. Keep the 10 active divisions and RA strength. Cut guard forces to roughly 150,000 and reserve forces to 50,000.

-Open up Yakima WA, Fort Drum NY and expand JRTC LA for national training centers. It's hugely expensive to move entire brigades across the country to JRTC/NTC. Open up closer training centers that offer the same training, but are much closer and cheaper to deploy too.

-Rebalance the force to more NCOs (cheaper), less officers (more expensive). The ratio of Generals to soldiers has exploded. There are way too many officers, getting paid good money, to do the jobs a sergeant is perfectly capable of doing.

-Shrink the ADA branch.

-Stop paying contractors to conduct base beautification. When I was an E2, I cut the grass. 40 years ago, the soldiers took care of the base. It needs to happen again.

Marines:

-Make up your mind. Either you're an amphibious assault force, or you're a deep land attack force. You can't be both. Once you make up your mind: fit your equipment needs to your mission. Does your new EFV really need to be IED proof? If you're taking beaches, no. If you're invading over 350miles, and conducting long-term stability ops, yes.

-Ditch the V-22 , AH-1Y, UH-1Z. There is a good argument why the Air Force and Navy need different aircraft. But there is NO good argument why all the branches cannot operate a single core group of helicopters. 1 heavy lift, 1 medium utility, 1 attack: all the same.

Air Force:

-Shrink Space Command. 25,000 airmen, really??? Come'on. Farm that shit out to private companies.

-Cut back the purchase of the F-35 by half. Augment with cheaper new upgrades of the F-15 and F-16. Use the F-22 and F-35 to kick down the door, and then send in the cheaper bomb trucks to mop up.

-Give up CSAR. I know it's wildly unpopular, but the Army can do it better. Sorry.

-Reallign bases. Too many airbases, too few aircraft, too much money.

Navy:

-Ditch the LCS.

-Europe wants to be a bigger player in the world? Fine, here is a gift: the Atlantic Ocean. We do not need 5 aircraft carriers in Norfolk. The Pacific and Indian Oceans are where it's at. Say good bye to Yokosuka. Focus resources, ports, etc in the Pacific.

DoD Overall:

-No more major bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe. I've worked with the ROK soldiers/marines. They're top notch. They can take care of themselves, and we can support when needed. Europe doesn't like us, doesn't want us. A few airbases are fine, but no more ground pounders. And Japan doesn't want us either. Same as in Europe: airbases, nothing more. All marines in Okinawa go to Guam.

-There are 600,000 DoD civilians. That's freakin' absurd. Over half make more than 60K a year. Good bye 50% of you. The other 50% of you, prepare for strict annual performance reviews. You want your cushy job? Fucking earn it.

-Reallign to more Joint Bases. It saves massive amounts of money, and allows the branches to pool their resources.

-Restructure the Pentagon. Far too many chiefs.

-Up the retirement age. We're living longer, and we're more healthy and capable when we retire, than say compared to 50yrs ago. Retirement at 25years should be the next logical increase. Also, if you want to use VA benefits after retirement, you should pay a small percentage in your paycheck, just like Social Security.


...I'm sure I could come up with a bunch more, but I gotta go fly.

[Edited 2010-07-14 15:05:58]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3784
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:06 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 54):
-Give up CSAR. I know it's wildly unpopular, but the Army can do it better. Sorry.

The Army has a long range & over water CSAR capability? When did that happen? I must have missed it....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
dragon6172
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:35 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 54):
Up the retirement age. We're living longer, and we're more healthy and capable when we retire, than say compared to 50yrs ago. Retirement at 25years should be the next logical increase.

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, but do not collect until federal retirement age. For service of 25, 30, and 35 would be 50, 60, and 75 percent of pay with payments starting right away.
Phrogs Phorever
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:37 pm

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 going to continue to fight the Cold War?

I thought we won?
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:25 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 54):
Fine, here is a gift: the Atlantic Ocean. We do not need 5 aircraft carriers in Norfolk. The Pacific and Indian Oceans are where it's at. Say good bye to Yokosuka. Focus resources, ports, etc in the Pacific.

I agree about the diminishing importance of the Atlantic. But saying "good bye to Yokosuka" while stressing the vitally important Pacific region is a puzzling contradiction. If the Pacific is that important and it is, then the US has got to or MUST hold onto Japan. Japan is like a giant, unsinkable base to the US Navy with 1st world facilities to accommodate the US Pacific fleet. It is a stone throw away from China and Russian Far East. In other words it's right in the middle of the happening. On top of that the Japanese govt. actually pays generously part of the bill for the US being there (thanks to Pres. Clinton shrewd negotiation). Forward-deployed a carrier battle group in Japan is probably the single smartest decision the US Navy has made in a long time. The Rock Guam is too small, while Hawaii is too far away from the action.

And yes, the US should completely let go of S. Korea. She can hold her own both economically and militarily. Time to let her sink or swim on her own. We can offer diplomatic, political support and importantly extend the nuclear umbrella protection, but no reason to station tens of thousands of troops there any longer. Same applies to Western Europe. Together both would potentially save tens of billion of $ USD annually.

[Edited 2010-07-14 21:42:00]
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:43 pm

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 55):
The Army has a long range & over water CSAR capability? When did that happen? I must have missed it....

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. Big difference.

And look, that entire post was just my opinion on where cuts/cost savings could be made. I think the Army could take the mission and do it more efficiently. But if you really want to challenge it, it's probably best for a new thread entirely.

Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 56):
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, but do not collect until federal retirement age. For service of 25, 30, and 35 would be 50, 60, and 75 percent of pay with payments starting right away.

Exactly. There ought to be a move to start pushing the retirement requirements further out. A few decades ago, 20yrs of military service practically broke your body. But the military has spent a lot of money and energy investing in technology that reduces the "wear and tear" on the human body. People are getting out in better shape, and so we have the ability to squeeze a few more years out of them.

...But if we did this, it would have to be coupled with a slow down in the promotion rate. No sense in having a ton of high ranking people sitting at those ranks for 5+ years.

...And come to think of it... here's another cost saving measure: get rid of Sergeant Majors in the Army. I swear to god, I have never seen a bigger group of worthless individuals. I'm not saying they're all bad, but a lot are. What is the first job bullet of a Sergeant Major? Advise the commander on enlisted issues. I promise you, go up to any SGM/CSM and ask them to give you two soldiers in A-Co that are having financial issues, two soldiers in E-Co who are having marital issues, and the best junior NCO in C-Co. He/she will likely be unable. Why? Because they sit in the BN/BDE headquarters, behind a desk, with their lips permanently affixed to the rear-end of the commander.

Another rank a lot like that - CW5. Both ranks are nothing more than political seats, designed to give the person a cushy ride out the door for their remaining two years of service. They spend their entire lives working, sweating, bleeding to get to that rank of great power... and what do they do with it? Do they make changes? Do they look out for their corps? No. They look out for themselves, and fuck all their buddies. Pieces of shit, through and through.

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 57):
But it all comes down to this: How much longer are we going to continue to fight the Cold War?

I thought we won?

What do you foresee our future conflicts to be? And what equipment do you think we need to fight it, and what equipment can go?

Quoting Beta (Reply 58):
I agree about the diminishing importance of the Atlantic. But saying "good bye to Yokosuka" while stressing the vitally important Pacific region is a puzzling contradiction.

I understand the importance... but Japan doesn't want us. Just like Korea doesn't really want us, Europe doesn't really want us, the Middle East doesn't really want us. We spend so much time and effort trying to develop strong community ties with the regions around the bases... but all it takes is one soldier/marine/airmen/sailor to get stupid, and it's all flushed down the drain.

Guam is definitely small, but it might be the best we've got. Maybe we ought to start looking at developing some of our other territorial islands. I don't know. But I do know that these people do not want us there, and it causes a lot of headaches forcing our presence there.

[Edited 2010-07-15 16:27:48]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:04 pm

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 accomodate a CVBG.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 59):
We spend so much time and effort trying to develop strong community ties with the regions around the bases... but all it takes is one soldier/marine/airmen/sailor to get stupid, and it's all flushed down the drain.

I agree the time has come to move our forces out of these foreign locales and back to U.S. soil. The "tripwire" concept only guarantees casualties that we wouldn't otherwise take. Move the CVBG and ARG groups from Japan to the U.S. As for Europe, we can maintain a staff presence in Brussels and some exchange programs, but we need to move the bulk of forces back to U.S. bases. They are no longer needed in Europe.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:05 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 59):
but Japan doesn't want us. Just like Korea doesn't really want us, Europe doesn't really want us, the Middle East doesn't really want us.

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 action and reaction. However, I suspect in many of these cases this voice belongs to a strong, vocal minority. The silent majority may not like the US being there, but they understand and really want the US being there. In fact the Japanese govt. is willing to pay handsomely the direct and indirect cost of US troops stationed there (I remember reading a report in the Economist that Pres. Clinton got them to pay ~ 40-50% of the cost). Last I checked, there were democratic elections in Japan. In other words they may pubically say 1 thing, but when it's time to put money where their mouths are, they choose differently. Same thing in Korea. When Rumsfeld ordered a combat brigade withdrawn, sent to Iraq, never to return to S.K., and moving US military installations well south of Seoul, the S.Korean went into panic mode, seeking assurance and clarification of US commitment. And the S.K. president was popularly and democratically elected. No?
In any event, sometimes decisions with national strategic interests, both security and economic, cannot be made on the basis of popularity contest polls. An illustrating example is the Subic Bay Naval base in Phillipines. In a fit of national fervor the Phillipino govt decided to kick the US out of Subic and Clark? How does that work out for them? They lost a steady stream of income, being bullied and bossed around by the PLAN, and now are crawling back, begging the US to come back to no avail.

However, since this interesting discussion is in the context of defense saving, reduction. Let's do a mental exercise. Suppose the US pull back all the forces out of Japan, S.K. How much does it cost to send a carrier battle group from San Diego to say, Sea of Japan, or South China Sea, either for routine patrol or crisis event? Compare that to the cost of sending the same group from Yokosuka. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd reckon a saving of tens of million USD in fuel cost, time saving, crews freshness, etc. Furthermore, which would be cheaper? Basing the same carrier in San Diego, where US taxpayers would bear 100% of the cost, or in Yokosuka, where Japanese taxpayers chip in substantially with the bill?

I do not have a problem with a pull out of S.K. and a reduction in presence in Japan, but a complete pull out in both is just not cost-effective in $ sense, and may end up costing a lot more both in money and national interests in my opinion. China is the US natural competitor (competitor, NOT enemy) in this century and possibly beyond. And Japan and Australia are the absolute lynch pin for the US to lean on to compete more effectively. This is an advantage that should not be forfeited because of vocal minor opposition groups.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 60):
the time has come to move our forces out of these foreign locales and back to U.S. soil. The "tripwire" concept only guarantees casualties that we wouldn't otherwise take. Move the CVBG and ARG groups from Japan to the U.S.

I respectfully disagree with this kind of isolationist streak in the name of cost saving. I think the idea of indiscriminate retreat may be short-sighted and ultimately costs more. As I mentioned above, it definitely costs more $ to send a CVBG or ARG from San Diego to Western Pacific, as opposed to sending from Japan. As the PLAN is gaining strength, and growing more assertive (hello USNS Impeccable incident, remember?) in the vital region of Pacific Rim, now is not the time for the US 7th Fleet to retreat and cede the open seas. The areas in the S. China Sea and northern Sea of Japan are a few of areas of great natural resources, i.e. oil and natural gas, that have not been fully explored and tapped into. If the US were to pull back completely, and let the PLAN to bully and boss around those nations in to cower, when the time comes for exploring and drilling, whose company do you think would be the preferred bidder? Which would get assigned to the fields with the most reserves and easier to tap, and which would get scraps? A US company or state-owned Chinese? There are evidences that the PLAN has already bullied a few western oil companies into closing shops off shores in the Gulf of Tonkin. When it comes to trading and trade agreements, who would get favourable terms? US or China, if the US were to retreat from the regions? Yes. It costs alot for us to play, but ultimately the benefits outweigh the cost. Mind you, China itself is embarking on the strategy of overseas military installations in Myanmar, SriLanka, Pakistan, etc. Same with Inda. Why do you think that is? They just want to blow money for no apparent reasons?? While they are doing that, you want the US to completely pull back indiscriminately everywhere? Just because western Europe is ripe for a hand-over, does not mean it should be applied indiscriminately every where else.

btw this has been an interesting, thought-provoking discussion for me.
 
johns624
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:36 pm

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 shouldn't need our help.
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:26 pm

Quoting johns624 (Reply 62):
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 shouldn't need our help.


I'm not knowledgeable enough, nor have I access to classified information to intelligently discuss the sort of strategic security question you posed. In the context of defense cut back discussion I merely argue that a complete pull back or retreat will ultimately cost more $.
The case is not that Japan NEEDS our help. We made them need us through the constitution imposed after the WWII victory. Obviously they have the dough and (unlike China) the technology know-how to build up their military right now. But the constitution severely restricts them militarily and obligates our coming to their defense. If we want to rid ourselves of this burden or obligation, then we must let them re-arm and re-militarize. Suffice to say everybody in the region fears China, but a re-militarized Japan is an absolute "NIGHTMARE" to everybody (maybe Pearl Harbor was too long ago to be remembered?). No one doubts that Japan WILL re-militarize in response to China if the US lets them.
Think about it this way: right now in the Pacific there is this one BIG, mean dog, the US 7th fleet, who is head and shoulder above everyone else that it keeps all the other poodles more or less in line. Now replace that with a smaller, less mean, or no replacement at all, and let 2 other alpha males grow big and mean so that now you have approximately 2 or 3 similarly-sized alpha male dogs in the "yard." What do you think that would do to the "peace", i.e. trading, shipping lines, etc? Can we say "disturbing of the peace?"
There are instances we, as a nation, needs to shell out the dough, in order to rake in the dough. Arguably this may be one of those cases. I understand one could make a reasonable case of complete pull out. No right or wrong, here. It's just a discussion.
Btw, talking about someone needing our help a lot for their defense, Canada probably tops the list Lol, and yet they contribute not a single cent to US DoD budget Big grin Talk about freeloading! Big grin Maybe it's time for Canada to contribute , I don't know 20-25% of US defense budget ? Just a thought! LoL

[Edited 2010-07-17 14:33:58]

[Edited 2010-07-17 14:41:27]

[Edited 2010-07-17 14:44:44]

[Edited 2010-07-17 14:55:09]
 
johns624
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:59 pm

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 rearming when Germany did it years ago? China is rearming whether our fleet is around or not. It would be kind of refreshing to have another country (Japan) take the lead in regional policing. I get tired of all these other countries saying "we don't need the same advanced planes (ships, tanks, etc) as the US because we don't have the same commitments as them". Well, maybe they should start. Any country that talks about their military being geared towards "peacekeeping" is fooling themselves. All that means is that they are letting their military degrade through lack of spending and are trying to justify it. Real militaries don't do "peacekeeping", they do "peacemaking"!
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:03 pm

Quoting johns624 (Reply 64):
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 rearming when Germany did it years ago?

The Japanese domestically are very sensitive regarding the pacifist clause, and many nations in the region, including South Korea, China, and Taiwan are extremely sensitive to any perceived Japanese militarization after what they suffered at the hands of the Japanese.
 
johns624
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:10 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 65):
The Japanese domestically are very sensitive regarding the pacifist clause, and many nations in the region, including South Korea, China, and Taiwan are extremely sensitive to any perceived Japanese militarization after what they suffered at the hands of the Japanese.

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 don't (currently) have the force projection. So our forces over there are just protecting the countries that you mentioned. If they don't take the threat as seriously as we seem to, maybe it really isn't there.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:24 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 65):
and many nations in the region, including South Korea, China, and Taiwan are extremely sensitive to any perceived Japanese militarization after what they suffered at the hands of the Japanese.

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. China today is not the China of decades ago that the Japanese steam rolled but could not occupy fully simple because China is so large and Japan in terms of population so small, that has not changed.
Japan building up its military will be decades behind China even Korea, technology is not the cure all that it is made out to be. After decades of "Pacifism" where are these gung ho recruits coming from to make the Japanese military a threat to the region in the next decade or so, maybe in another generation.

Quoting Beta (Reply 61):
How much does it cost to send a carrier battle group from San Diego to say, Sea of Japan, or South China Sea, either for routine patrol or crisis event? Compare that to the cost of sending the same group from Yokosuka. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd reckon a saving of tens of million USD in fuel cost, time saving, crews freshness, etc. Furthermore, which would be cheaper? Basing the same carrier in San Diego, where US taxpayers would bear 100% of the cost, or in Yokosuka, where Japanese taxpayers chip in substantially with the bill?

^
The money you loose on fuel you make up on all the ancillary income that Americans would earn from all the soldiers, sailors, air men and marines that would now be stationed in the US needeing all the other services which the US tax payors still pay for but the Japanese and other foreign communities benefit.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:39 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
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. China today is not the China of decades ago that the Japanese steam rolled but could not occupy fully simple because China is so large and Japan in terms of population so small, that has not changed.

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 used poison gas on civilians, systematically raped and tortured civilians, and tried to wipe out entire cultures. The legacy of Japanese rule of most of Asia is still felt today, and the many nations in Asia still feel the after effects of what happened during the war.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:32 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 60):
Last I heard, there is a plan to move many of the Marines on Okinawa to Guam.

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 of the densely populated cities to a lesser populated area of the island... however all of that is currently on hold. The last election Yukio Hatoyama ran on the promise to remove US forces from the island. His election literally overturned the rule of the LDP (political party), which had ruled continuously for 53 years! It was a historic election.

But, the US resisted the Japanese, and recently won major concessions from the Japanese government. When this news broke, it was so damaging that it was the nail in the coffin of their new Prime Minister, and he resigned... 8 months into his term.

Currently, the planned move is on ice.

Quoting Beta (Reply 61):
However, I suspect in many of these cases this voice belongs to a strong, vocal minority. The silent majority may not like the US being there, but they understand and really want the US being there.

I'm sorry but what you "suspect" is not sufficient evidence to prove your point. Especially considering that there is a ton of factual data that proves you wrong.

I don't understand how you can say that only a vocal minority oppose the US presence, whereas (now-ex)Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama campaigned on a promise to remove US forces from Okinawa. When he broke that promise (see above ^^), he was forced to resign from office!!!

please see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...un/02/japan-prime-minister-resigns

Additionally, you say only a vocal minority want the US forces gone, but facts prove you wrong. A 2007 Okinawa Times poll showed 85% of those polled wanted US forces gone/reduced. Only 11% wanted the status quo! ELEVEN percent!!!

Quoting Beta (Reply 61):
In fact the Japanese govt. is willing to pay handsomely the direct and indirect cost of US troops stationed there

Yeah, it's known as the "Sympathy Budget". But you're wrong in one respect, it's not a result of Bill Clinton, it's much older. The deal really traces back to the 1960 SOFA. We have SOFAs with almost all the countries we have bases in, but the Japan-US SOFA is probably the best out of all of them, in terms for the US.

It's a pretty sweet deal for the US, but it's becoming less and less popular. The last time it was renewed, it barely passed, and actually expired before it was eventually voted on.

Quoting Beta (Reply 61):
However, since this interesting discussion is in the context of defense saving, reduction. Let's do a mental exercise.

The cost of moving the ships (don't forget that we're not just talking about a single carrier, it includes the support ships that sail with it), is not the expensive part. The real money is in personnel.

Just like the saying: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. It's a lot like that when it comes to budgets. The real cost savings are personnel costs. The housing, the barracks, MWR facilities, maintenance/support, motor pools, etc. The US military also pays for the logistical movement of all troops - and their immediate families - to and from their overseas posting.

The money spent to sail from Guam or Pearl Harbor, to the eastern Asian shores, pales in the money saved in consolidating to preexisting US bases.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 64):
It would be kind of refreshing to have another country (Japan) take the lead in regional policing.

Exactly.

The entire point of this thread is to discuss how we can save money. Well one thing everyone seems to agree on - with our current commitments it is difficult to make any significant cuts. So the only way to make any substantial cuts, is to scale back our commitments.

Our allies need to step up and take a greater share. They're not going to do it by us asking, there needs to be an impetus.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:27 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 69):

The entire point of this thread is to discuss how we can save money. Well one thing everyone seems to agree on - with our current commitments it is difficult to make any significant cuts. So the only way to make any substantial cuts, is to scale back our commitments.

Our allies need to step up and take a greater share. They're not going to do it by us asking, there needs to be an impetus.

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 political reach, which defense spending should enhance, not diminish. Because the void will be filled. Key allies are just that, and of course the burden of greater responsibility is laid upon the greater power. Meaning we have less leeway to behave erratically (and should not be perceived as doing so).

As to polls, they can be made to say many things, and people are - get this - inconsistent. They'll say one thing, want another, and do something else entirely to boot. The difficult and laborious work is to further our security relationship with Japan (and, again, be seen doing so, which is vital and has knock on effects) and not be sidetracked by inevitable setbacks.

So, should our allies take upon themselves a greater share of the burden? Sure. Always welcome. (How about selling them some F-22's). But the current global system will crumble in no time at all if we fail to apply ourselves visibly, forcefully, and deliberately. So what we we need in Asia is a stronger Japan, and a stronger South Korea, not less American power.

Your point about logistics is well taken. I think the cost of health care alone has risen from under $20B to $50B in the last ten years?

Here's another quote from:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbu...1_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

FY2011 Request Page 16
547'400 Army (includes 22'000 temporary wartime allowance)
324'300 Navy
202'100 Marine Corps
332'200 Air Force

DoD is increasing its acquisition workforce by 20'000 (which may turn out to be a good idea depending on execution).

Is it OK to fund a 1.4% pay rise for DoD civilians in the current economy? To how many of the over 700'000 civilians does it apply and what are the costs?
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/index.html
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personne...IAN/fy2010/march2010/march2010.pdf

[Edited 2010-07-18 02:29:39]
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:53 am

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 52):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 48):
That's precisely why I dislike these buzzwords - it always seems to me a reductio ad absurdum.

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 way.Basically how to do a job in the most effective and economical way possible.

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, categorized, conscripted, sliced and diced and recombined in a generic red sauce, and people have turned communication into esoterics.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 52):

Quoting lumberton (Reply 42):
How?

I did a whole thesis based on this but i'll give you a simple ship example here


Right people - lets try this as an experiment - this is what i think are core effects to be achieved
pls feel free to add after hearing your additions we'll proceed to step 2

STEP 1

Current US req

a) Against china - Significant air defence against sea skimmers (ESSM - SM-6)
Significant AD against future ballistic AS missile (SM-3)
Since china is a missile sponge ability to hit say cumulatively 10,000 targets with cruise missiles?
Anti sub defence
anti ship missiles - just in case

all this is best done from a blue water navy

b) against Iran - High speed against super-cavitating torpedoes
AD against sea skimmers
since the Persian gulf is no more than 60 meters at its deepest MINES are a HUGE problem
close in defence against high speed suicide boats
need to provide fire support to ground troops - preferably just over the visible horizon - say 18kms

c) against Somali pirates - jihad nexus (if such emerges)
need to provide fire support to ground troops - preferably just over the visible horizon - say 18kms
rudimentary amphibious (at least shallow water cap to unload a few EFV's to take out pirate HQ)
ability to launch RHIB et al for larger area policing



feel free to add categories or sub categories
then we proceed to step 2


Great. I like the thinking behind China furnishing 10'000 targets. That's the salient point.

Another one is that the makeup of our carrier systems should not stay in limbo but at least partially adapt to the task and threat.

Little stealthy arsenal ships supplied by dispersed factories navigating west in a continuous stream sounds good to me. Oh, that was the next step already?  
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:09 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 69):
The entire point of this thread is to discuss how we can save money. Well one thing everyone seems to agree on - with our current commitments it is difficult to make any significant cuts. So the only way to make any substantial cuts, is to scale back our commitments.

Which is why the strategic underpinnings that drive those commitments are being re-examined. Gates already delivered a foretaste when he announced that we will do more in conjunction with the allies.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:25 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 71):
Why not say "destroy X" when "destroy X" will do

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 electronic superiority is compromised? it therefore cant destroy X

the F-22 is an effects based product - When stealth and electronics go out of the window it can simply fight its way out - therefore come what may IT CAN DESTROY X

The Mk41 VLS is also an effects based product - the desired effect is to be able to hit anything anywhere anytime and if necessary to protect the ship against anything and the Mk41 will do that with the simple addition of the harpoon (it current cant fire that I think) and CIWS as well if you modify the RAM into a VLS quadpack (or with the rams diameter and ninepak)

The problem is when you tie a procurement to strategy - what happens when the strategy fails?

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 71):
Great. I like the thinking behind China furnishing 10'000 targets.

that's a conservative estimate ..... in reality it will be lot more.... which is why a 14,000 ton monster with a mere 80 launch tubes with a per unit cost of 3 billion can only be the product of a highly defective strategic mind. What if they send 82 C-802 armed JF-17s after it? Even if all 82 of those planes are shot down the Chinese only lose 1.6 billion dollars.... but if they succeed they knock out a 3 billion dollar ship and the surveillance capabilities that all the surrounding smaller ships are dependant on.

what's needed is a fleet of 300 odd ships - cheap - with a solid MF radar - easily dispersible - with 32 VLS each - capable of blue and brown water ops - scalable up or down electronically. Small enough to disperse, and yet linked up enough to come together and form a formidable single fighting unit


a bit like the army goal of superflexible organisations where a division can divide down and fight as a regiment battalion or platoon and join up and fight as a division when required.

The Austal LCS is a great platform that naval planners have thoroughly abused given that the trimaran design can carry almost 70% of its bodyweight. In Australia we're planning a replacement for the armidale and MCMVs and some other ships with just one class the MRV86 .... weighing in at 600 tonnes and an ability to carry on 400 more tonnes.

Basically it does MCMV, amphibious, anti sub, patrol, hydrography, anti immigration, fisheries protection, And if you added innovative products like the Thales IMAST radar system and a peripheral derivative of the Mk41 it can do just about anything save carrying a 127mm gun.

Its too small to be effectively targetted, too mobile to be chased by a supersonic asm, or jihad RHIBs, well equipped enough to be a nightmare and cheap enough to afford in large numbers.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/integratedmast/?pid=1568
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gknBa5ahsPE

And why this need to stick to the SPY-3 ... ESSM combo? why a dumb missile that needs the radar to guide it every step of the way instead of an autonomous missile like an AMRAAM VLS?

and then there's this stupid DBR .......... dual band my blooming left foot - its just two different radars - one S band one X band. Why not go in for solutions like the Israeli MF-STAR that transmits at two extremes of the S band (One pulse closer to L band frequencies for volume search and one pulse closer to X band frequencies for resolution) and weighs a full 180 tonnes less and looks out to 400+ kms ?.


I think the problem with the USN is summed up by that idiot mast on the LPD-17 the so called ADVANCED mast - its about as advanced as a trabant. All it is - is masking legacy equipment underneath a smooth sheathing. Whereas the IMAST actually uses the design of a mast to integrate everything from communications, navigation, IFF, Optical and radar detection - including dual band support i.e volume and resolution - into a smaller and infinitely more capable mast.

notice any similarities in the pics below?
http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/Lpd-17mast.jpg
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
johns624
Posts: 2701
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:01 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 70):
So what we we need in Asia is a stronger Japan, and a stronger South Korea, not less American power.

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. When you're 15 and they are 8 and 10, they run to you when bullies pick on them and that's fine. Now you're in your twenties and they are older teenagers and almost as big as yourself. If they don't learn to carry their own weight now, they never will. Of course, you'll still stand behind them in case someone else jumps into the fight. We're not going to abandon Japan and Korea, just let them grow into their bodies...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:54 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
The Japanese used poison gas on civilians, systematically raped and tortured civilians, and tried to wipe out entire cultures.

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 just the extent of the effects of past actions on their neighbours. I have no issue with disagreements, I joined to discuss and learn, so no worries on that score  
Quoting johns624 (Reply 74):
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.

Point is well taken however I caution when looking at the strategy involved, Gates could think the same way and decide that if the US Navy had less carriers the politicians on the Hill would be forced to scale back commitments, the only down side would be that if the US actually needed the missing ships / resouces for their own self interest they would be in the same boat as those countires who lost their protection, would affect your negotiation strength no?

I agree that the US should withdraw, unfortunately, for years the US has been pushing all its allies to increase their commitments to their own defense and so far it has been mostly "lip service", rather than increase they have been using their industries to produce more products for the US who are buying, go figure. One can only preach for so long, the time is rapidly drawing where the US has to go it alone and reduce its commitments without any agreed local offset, they havd had enough time.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 69):
The cost of moving the ships (don't forget that we're not just talking about a single carrier, it includes the support ships that sail with it), is not the expensive part. The real money is in personnel.

Just like the saying: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. It's a lot like that when it comes to budgets. The real cost savings are personnel costs. The housing, the barracks, MWR facilities, maintenance/support, motor pools, etc. The US military also pays for the logistical movement of all troops - and their immediate families - to and from their overseas posting.

The money spent to sail from Guam or Pearl Harbor, to the eastern Asian shores, pales in the money saved in consolidating to preexisting US bases.

Aanother reason Japan subsidizes US forces is because a large portion of those funds are pumped right back into the local economy, not all US personnel live on base, a lot of their income is spent in the local economy, so to a large degree, the spending by the governemt is an economic stimulus for the local economy, on an industrial project - 787 etc. - it is called and industrial offset.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:39 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 70):
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 political reach, which defense spending should enhance, not diminish.

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. And like I said, we should focus the majority of our efforts in these regions.

...But in regards to Japan and ROK, I showed where we could make some significant cost savings. We can still meet our commitments, but in a much cheaper way: realign US forces to Guam, Pearl, west coast USA.

We simply do not get our bang-for-our-buck, by stationing us in these countries. Ever been to ROK? The protests are STILL ongoing from the '02 incident with the two school girls. Countless hours and dollars are spent trying to forge better community relations with the locals, and it is often ruined by one or two individuals.

So my position is simple:

-Between Japan and ROK, we have ~70,000 US service members. We ought to dramatically reduce that number. The USArmy has recently approved to make the once 1 yr tour in Korea, a 3 year tour, with families now welcomed to join. Our footprint is literally about to explode. That's unnecessary.

-We have 5 airbases in Japan, 2 in Korea. Almost exactly the same as during the Cold War. 2 per country is sufficient.

- Reduce the number of ships permanently home ported in Japan. And do not station a US aircraft carrier in Japan (especially a nuclear powered one! Talk about asking for more grief and problems from the locals!)

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 70):
As to polls, they can be made to say many things, and people are - get this - inconsistent.

I don't agree, not on this, at least. As someone who has been there on the pointy tip of the spear - or talk to anyone who has - they don't want us there. There are just too many news stories, to much factual data that shows their opposition to a continued US presence.

And quite honestly - when you say, "Well they may say they don't want us there, but we know that deep down they really do want us" is the type of arrogance that causes so many of them to want us gone! It's presumptuous for you to think you know what is best for them, and dismiss their opinions. It's a big part of the problem.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 70):
Is it OK to fund a 1.4% pay rise for DoD civilians in the current economy? To how many of the over 700'000 civilians does it apply and what are the costs?

Pay raises are such a sensitive issue, these days. Last year we got something like a 3.4%, and this year the administration proposed a 1.4%. Their rationale was that military pay had finally reached parity with civilian counterparts. Congress, however, is pushing for a 1.9% increase.

Personally, I don't get upset over the lower pay raises. I think I make great money. Our pay is public knowledge, but what a lot of people do not take into consideration is all the special/additional pay: BAH, BAS, flight pay, sea pay, combat pay, etc etc etc. Hell, last year after it was all said and done, I cleared over 100K. So limiting the annual pay raises isn't such a bad thing.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
hercppmx
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:25 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:22 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 76):
Their rationale was that military pay had finally reached parity with civilian counterparts.

Maybe for some ranks.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 76):
Hell, last year after it was all said and done, I cleared over 100K. So limiting the annual pay raises isn't such a bad thing.

I would venture to assume that your well above the majority of personnel. Last year all pays included I cleared 30K.
C-130; it's a love-hate relationship
 
Ken777
Posts: 10046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:58 am

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 a warship. DIdn't need to be coddled.

And warships need to be replaced on an ongoing basis. I don't care if you're talking about a DD or a Carrier. We should be replacing ships on an annual basis.

We also need to have continual training. For the Navy that means training for a deployment and then the deployment itself, relieving ships so they can head home for recovery, family time, major maintenance and more training before the next deployment.

That's simply how the Navy has to work. Putting ships in mothballs until they are urgently needed doesn't hack it.

And I doubt if the other branches are that much different. Training on a continual basis. Rotation of personnel and equipment, and more training.

And that all costs money.

Want to find places to cut costs? Start with Haliburton type contracts. The military should never need to contract out cooks and laundry tasks. Or "Security"! You recruit young men and women for those positions, give them shorter enlistments and provide the GI Bill. Now Cheney's shares might fall a bit, but it's insane to pay for core military support services - especially when you're overpaying and getting overcharged to boot.

We also need to look at the flow of acquisitions. Do we really need new tankers for the USAF? More than we will need new fighters, bombers. drones, etc? Can we get by with a re-engine and overhaul program for the KC-135 - keeping those planes going until (1) the 787/350 are well established and (2) we can afford more capital investments.
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:47 am

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 shifting. What deeply concerns me is that any change there should be strategy driven, and well thought out.

Cut unsinkable airfields in Japan? Only if we arrive at a better overall posture.
Cut a carrier when they're ever harder to defend? No! Cut two, and invest not only in the Navy's ABM capability, but in a new class of drone launchers and arsenal ships. (Not meant as a mantra, just to propel thought.)

We need the initiative back, and that is not really a question of money (there's enough, actually), but of decisions taken with forethought.

South Korea is quite strong already. The North will collapse (but in a bloody mess) if war breaks out. Just a thought, China would be able to provide untold billions of aid to both Koreas after the event, and already is Korea's biggest trading partner. I wonder when that will dawn on Beijing and take precedence over considerations of refugee flows from the north.

We're contributing in a very significant way to Japan's missile defense. That's way up there in importance, and the real world necessity of our ties has been shown by the Japanese prime minister's resignation.

With China in the neigborhood, we are the only potentially useful backstop.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 76):
As I have stated in this thread, I believe the Pacific and Indian theaters are where the future is. And like I said, we should focus the majority of our efforts in these regions.

...But in regards to Japan and ROK, I showed where we could make some significant cost savings. We can still meet our commitments, but in a much cheaper way: realign US forces to Guam, Pearl, west coast USA

Thank you for all the facts I'm not at all conversant with. But one thing I've wondered since a while, is Guam defensible? We would basically be abandoning excellent positions and plain asking for it by concentrating there, I think.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 76):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 70):
As to polls, they can be made to say many things, and people are - get this - inconsistent.

I don't agree, not on this, at least. As someone who has been there on the pointy tip of the spear - or talk to anyone who has - they don't want us there. There are just too many news stories, to much factual data that shows their opposition to a continued US presence.

And quite honestly - when you say, "Well they may say they don't want us there, but we know that deep down they really do want us" is the type of arrogance that causes so many of them to want us gone! It's presumptuous for you to think you know what is best for them, and dismiss their opinions. It's a big part of the problem.

I remember listening by radio to farewell ceremonies in Germany that were quite heartwarming. But your point coming from personal experience is taken. However, I rather meant that immediate neighbors may not want us around, but at least the majority and government realise that they'd rather accomodate us than be imposed upon by foreigners not of their choosing.

If we continue to be a reliable and trustworthy partner, that is.
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:59 am

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 73):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 71):
Why not say "destroy X" when "destroy X" will do

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 electronic superiority is compromised? it therefore cant destroy X

the F-22 is an effects based product - When stealth and electronics go out of the window it can simply fight its way out - therefore come what may IT CAN DESTROY X

The Mk41 VLS is also an effects based product - the desired effect is to be able to hit anything anywhere anytime and if necessary to protect the ship against anything and the Mk41 will do that with the simple addition of the harpoon (it current cant fire that I think) and CIWS as well if you modify the RAM into a VLS quadpack (or with the rams diameter and ninepak)

The problem is when you tie a procurement to strategy - what happens when the strategy fails?

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 staggered defenses? Likewise, the F-35 is not a dog, actually. It's just that one program has been allowed and even compelled to suck the air out of the entire remaining fighter industry while being tasked with every mission under the sun like replacing everything from F-22s to Harriers to A-10s (please!! An excellent observation platform and loitering arsenal of dread that's built like a flying tank with extraordinary redundancies, while common safety hardware is being taken out of the F-35).

It's just not enough to substitute a construct (that will immediately take you hostage - quod erat demonstrandum) for careful, open-ended evaluation about the effectiveness of what actually are not that many different matchups of carriers and weapon systems. In my humble opinion.

Apologies if I just don't get it, bit I'd rather delve right into the nuts and bolts without baggage. That's why the 10'000+ Chinese targets appeal to me. And of course, target acquisition and observation will become paramount... one stealthy, loitering UAV armed with smart submunitions could more efficiently destroy a squadron of air superiority fighters on the tarmac than anything else.
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:10 am

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 80):
Don't you think it's an untoward simplification to assume a naked (how and when?) F-22 is still capable

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 multiple redundancies to finish the job. Whereas the F-22 will.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 80):
penetrating high level, networked and staggered defenses?

with a lack of stealth any fighter will find that a very very hard proposition..... but given its high altitude and kinematics and manoeuvrability - The f-22 will be the only plane that can be expected to have a reasonable chance at finishing the job.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 80):
compelled to suck the air out of the entire remaining fighter industry while being tasked with every mission under the sun like replacing everything

xactly my point - its the jack of all trades and the master of none. all the opposing force needs to do to defeat it is to change the strategic assumption on which it was based. For example its stealth only in the X band. So equipping your fighters with L band LERX radars, and using ground radars (which operate in L and S) to cue other planes in - will pretty much knock the wind out of it.

But with the F-22 - L S and X will all be equally ineffective so the opposing forces will need a paradigm shift to counter it.
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:11 pm

Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 77):
I would venture to assume that your well above the majority of personnel. Last year all pays included I cleared 30K.

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 illusion that everyone has it as good as me, nor am I under the illusion that I'm at the top of the food chain - hardly.

But I'm sorry, I don't agree that we are "under paid". We have it good. Take your average 22yr old E3 - he's making making about $22000 a year, before taxes. But he's also given free room and board, medical/dental (without a copay) and a clothing allowance. And when you compare him against his average civilian peer - he's doing well.

Hell, the unemployment rate of 16-24 year olds - excluding those in the military - is roughly 54%, a rate not seen since pre-WWII! Those that do have jobs, rarely have full health benefits provided, and pay rent out of their basic pay.

A decade ago, military service members were underpaid. Not any longer.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 79):
But one thing I've wondered since a while, is Guam defensible? We would basically be abandoning excellent positions and plain asking for it by concentrating there, I think.

How is Guam any less defensible, than say Camp Casey?

Camp Casey is a few miles south of the DMZ - well within range of over 10,000 - that's right ten thousand - nK artillery tubes. It's also home to the 2ID's armor, infantry and artillery brigades. Camp Red Cloud is a few miles south of Casey, and is home for the HQ for 2ID.

Guam's biggest threat is from ballistic missiles, but so is every other western Pacific base. You don't think they're vulnerable to an invasion, do you? (lol and yes, we've all read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor and it's highly unlikely.)
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:36 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 82):
How is Guam any less defensible, than say Camp Casey?

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 and carrier groups.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati...e/R.20100219.Why_AirSea_Battle.pdf
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:41 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 83):

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.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:21 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 84):
but then how is that threat not as relevant to bases in Japan and ROK?

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

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 84):
Guam is no more threatened than ANY US base.

On the US mainland as well? A Chinese tactical trident equivalent would need and enormous amount of terminal precision - (say a 50 meter CEP) to make a conventional strike successful against the US mainland. They'll get there eventually I suppose.
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:08 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 85):
A Chinese tactical trident equivalent would need and enormous amount of terminal precision - (say a 50 meter CEP) to make a conventional strike successful against the US mainland

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" in relation to nuclear weapons was a PR tool more than anything else, but facts and figures are facts and figures, someone has to keep and compile them so..........
 
maxter
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 2:23 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:20 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 86):
Does it make a difference whether the air burst of a nuclear weapon is within 50 to 1000 feet of its intended targetso..........

I was sure our learned friend made no mention of a nuclear strike... Perhaps I was mistaken.
maxter
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:33 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 86):
Does it make a difference whether the air burst of a nuclear weapon is within 50 to 1000 feet of its intended target?

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 reach its target in 10 minutes or so. right now i've seen the usage confused

one reference is to a Conventional ICBM (which is what i meant)

the other is to the Ohio SSGN conversion - (bit dumb if u ask me cuz that should be tac-ohio not tac trident given that it wont carry the trident)


basically the Chinese are developing ballistic anti ship missiles to take out carrier fleets from a few thousand kms away.

Quoting par13del (Reply 86):
the air burst of a nuclear weapon is within 50 to 1000 feet of its intended target

No not PR - the altitude - kilo/mega tonnage is very important to ensure the most effective spread of the blast and shock waves and later the radioactivity
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:32 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 88):
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 reach its target in 10 minutes or so. right now i've seen the usage confused

I know it created a lot of fuss in the international community when the US proposed deploying conventional warheads on missiles which will have ballistic trajectories, have they proceeded with those plans? The main argument against still stands, how does a nuclear armed opponent know that the launch is conventional versus nuclear, topic for another thread.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 88):
basically the Chinese are developing ballistic anti ship missiles to take out carrier fleets from a few thousand kms away

I saw an article on Defense Tech, cannot remember if they were proposing conventional versus nuclear warheads. I naturally assumed that like the Russian subs of the cold war era, these missiles would be nuclear armed.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 85):
A Chinese tactical trident equivalent would need and enormous amount of terminal precision - (say a 50 meter CEP) to make a conventional strike successful against the US mainland.

If a conventional warhead, it would alse need a much more powerful launch vehicle as a bigger re-entry vehicle would be required, there would have to be some sort of guidance and dectection package to ensure that it could locate its target which will have moved since launch. At high re-entry speeds the damage from energy alone may be sufficient, as you state, accuracy then would be the key.
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:22 pm

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 article.

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2010/0...-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm/

“[Individually], the technical abilities are not unprecedented, but it’s a revolutionary combination of capabilities,” said Paul Giarra, a former Navy commander and Defense Department senior Japan country director who now works as a strategic consultant.

Source: http://www.stripes.com/news/new-chin...licate-relations-with-u-s-1.111552
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:25 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 89):
The main argument against still stands, how does a nuclear armed opponent know that the launch is conventional versus nuclear, topic for another thread.

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 find out. Point is at re-entry speed of Mach 17 or more the missile will take between 50 seconds to 1.1 minutes between detection and hit...... so you wont have time to analyse.

Quoting par13del (Reply 89):
cannot remember if they were proposing conventional versus nuclear warheads

Ive only read conventional..... nuke warhead IMo is not feasable -- these weapons aim to take out carriers and bases on day one - even before these have time to deploy/get their act together. If you use nukes you lose the ability to calibrate escalation and it descends into MAD almost immediately.

Quoting par13del (Reply 89):
there would have to be some sort of guidance and detection package to ensure that it could locate its target which will have moved since launch.

that's the real tough part

1) ive seen TV footage (cant find it on utube) of the TOPOL-M's manoeuvrable re-entry vehicle which basically jerks around violently in no predictable way - but still hits the ground within 200m of its target. basically this is done to throw off ABM trajectory calculations - this is super advanced tech and we haven't seen proof that china has this - yet. However the Iskander M and Indian Prithvi also use this tech - but within 300-600kms. The greater the distance the more challenging the accuracy becomes - especially with an epileptic re-entry vehicle.

2) Terminal guidance for high re-entry speeds is virtually impossible...since during re-entry a ball of super heated plasma forms around it making both communication with and radar detection of the RV next to impossible.

3) That said the SM-3's ability to intercept almost in space (before the RV begins dancing) and the reported range (1000-3000km) whose terminal velocity (Mach 10) come within the range of the SM-3's intercept limit means

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 90):
Excellent links at the end of the article.

xcellent articles too - thnks.
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:07 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 81):

But with the F-22 - L S and X will all be equally ineffective so the opposing forces will need a paradigm shift to counter it.

I beginning to wonder if a Super F-22 shouldn't be investigated, using currently available technologies towards sensible improvements in the airframe and manufacturability based upon operational feedback, keeping the "smarts" identical so as to facilitate later upgrades of the entire fleet.

Boeing has been showing a slide at Farnbro   that demonstrates their interest in F-22 upgrades.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 82):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 79):
But one thing I've wondered since a while, is Guam defensible? We would basically be abandoning excellent positions and plain asking for it by concentrating there, I think.

How is Guam any less defensible, than say Camp Casey?

Camp Casey is a few miles south of the DMZ - well within range of over 10,000 - that's right ten thousand - nK artillery tubes. It's also home to the 2ID's armor, infantry and artillery brigades. Camp Red Cloud is a few miles south of Casey, and is home for the HQ for 2ID.

Guam's biggest threat is from ballistic missiles, but so is every other western Pacific base. You don't think they're vulnerable to an invasion, do you? (lol and yes, we've all read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor and it's highly unlikely.)

This could be a fascinating discussion I'll force myself to veer away from because I'd first have to suck up a lot of data, and really shouldn't be so cavalier with my time. Grumble.

But I take it you're not opposed in principle to the utility of bases on the Korean mainland?


I do have more relevant news from on high pertaining to the thread. More of Mars and his henchdemigods' wisdom:

Restoring Affordability
Waste, Unneeded Programs Hinder Modernization
By ASHTON CARTER
Published: 19 July 2010

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4716195

...$100 Billion Goal

The department has set a goal of finding more than $100 billion in efficiency savings depart-mentwide over the next five fiscal years, starting in FY '12, and redeploying these dollars to fund our war-fighting capability.
...
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:09 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 92):
Guam's biggest threat is from ballistic missiles
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 92):
This could be a fascinating discussion
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 92):
Grumble.

Is this some subliminal message about ABM? S-300 Grumble ?  
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 92):
The department has set a goal of finding more than $100 billion

Not happening.... the problem is like the the invention of the tank in WW1 where it was initially misused as a tool to support trench warfare - till much later the value of a tank as potent fighter and dynamic changer in its own right was realised.

Most of the problems are happening because of the application of revolutionary technologies to geriatric ideas by ossified minds.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 92):
if a Super F-22

no need for super - just a F-22b - incorporating f-35 advances

1) Maintenance simplification - by using the fibre mat coating - instead of the internal screwing, hydraulic locks, adhesives etc

2) Systems migration - EOTS, DASS, and maybe the EW and Data integration

3) Since miniaturisation has come a long way since its design was frozen - new comps and databus which theoretically should allow for bigger bays to carry big Jdams and Jsows.


take a look at this image here - its almost as pockmarked as the T-50 - but fibre mat covers it up for cheap and stelths it - so you can use normal construction - screws and all - but still get a stealth finish.

http://www.murdoconline.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/f35c_fuselage.jpg
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:52 pm

The games afoot--if anyone doubted. Here's a "startling" recommendation from Gates' panel. More to follow very shortly.

DoD Advisory Panel: Close Joint Forces Command To Free Funds

Quote:
An influential Pentagon advisory board is proposing the elimination of contractor-heavy U.S. Joint Forces Command, a move that would save billions of dollars.
Quote:
The Defense Business Board task force also is recommending Gates initiate a hiring freeze in OSD, all Joint Staff directorates and all combatant commands.

This is still "low hanging fruit" as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
The recommendations are part of a set of preliminary recommendations the board unanimously approved July 22. Gates asked the board to propose ways the department can slash $101 billion over five years from overhead and unneeded costs. Gates wants to transfer those savings to hardware programs he feels are needed to combat future threats.

Editor's Note: Check back this afternoon for more on the board's preliminary findings and recommendations.

Can't wait!
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:20 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 93):
Is this some subliminal message about ABM? S-300 Grumble ?

There you go cherry picking my posts to create a Triple Resonance of Undeniably Bothersome Lobal Effluvia.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 93):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 92):
The department has set a goal of finding more than $100 billion

Not happening.... the problem is like the the invention of the tank in WW1 where it was initially misused as a tool to support trench warfare - till much later the value of a tank as potent fighter and dynamic changer in its own right was realised.

Most of the problems are happening because of the application of revolutionary technologies to geriatric ideas by ossified minds.


The War Department (pardon me) is big enough to move at many different speeds concurrently, including backwards.

I'll keep it brief and pick three practical advances I'd like to see as a result of all the realigning, terminating, competing, and rewarding that hopefully will result in less institutionalized loopieness and better institutionalized feedback loops.

In three years latest:
Thousands (yep) of Boston Dynamics BigDogs infesting Afghanistan. (Behold, the US Doggery is coming! Motto: cave canem.)

In five years latest:
A [email protected] like project to stich together and analyze feeds from hundreds of Gorgon Stare equipped UAVs. Actually, this should happen right now.

In ten years:
A gay pride parade in Saudi Arabia? Erm, make that a thousand unmanned submarines of various sizes. (Of course, once that threshold is reached, it's a constant seesaw between adding the next hundred and upgrading the oldest hundred.)
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:42 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 94):
The games afoot--if anyone doubted. Here's a "startling" recommendation from Gates' panel. More to follow very shortly.

DoD Advisory Panel: Close Joint Forces Command To Free Funds

What a gem:

JCSE provides communications during humanitarian assistance mission
U.S. Joint Forces Command's Joint Enabling Capabilities Command's Joint Communications Support Element has sent eight of its communications experts to U.S. Southern Command's Continuing Promise 2010.

Courtesy http://www.jfcom.mil/         
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:37 pm

Here's an update to the Defense News article I cited earlier. Contractors-contractors-contractors....
Its still low hanging fruit.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4719189&c=AME&s=TOP
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:13 am

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 95):
Boston Dynamics BigDogs infesting Afghanistan

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 transport costs - and when you're finished - "gift" em to locals. This is like NASA spending millions to develop a space pen - while the Russians bought pencils.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 95):
Actually, this should happen right now.

Actually this is already happening - Last year i think they introduced a common control console for all UAV's. Raytheon, Thales, Alenia and Elta all have the cross referencing - single brain software - problem is the computer algorithms have to be added - as a new threat is detected - takes time.

Only difference is i'd like to see a movement to blimps. 1 big high-alt blimp costs 5000 to keep up for 3 days, a predator 5000 per hour and global hawk 25,000 per hour.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 95):
a thousand unmanned submarines

technologically possible in 3 years?

The main budget parasites will be the F-35, LCS, DDX,
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way?

Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:30 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 97):
Contractors-contractors-contractors....

Cut, cut, cut!!! I hope they slash deep and hard into the contractors and DoD civiians!

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 98):
DDX

...I guess you didn't hear that over a year ago, the Pentagon canceled the program???

The three ships that had already been paid for, will go forward, but the program is dead after that. As for the LCS program... the DoD is spending almost 2x on the V-22. Certainly that PoS can be trashed.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos