WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein and other senior leaders testified before the House Armed Services Committee about readiness and the fiscal year 2017 Air Force budget request Feb. 12.
The panel, which also included Lt. Gen. John Raymond, the deputy chief of staff for operations, and Lt. Gen. John Cooper, the deputy chief of staff for logistics, engineering and force protection, testified that with today’s national security challenges, the world needs a strong American joint force. The joint force depends upon Air Force capabilities and requires airpower at the beginning, the middle and the end of every joint operation.
“Since our establishment in 1947, the Air Force remains the world’s first and most agile responder in times of crisis, contingency and conflict,” Goldfein said.
He added that the last 25 years of continuous combat operations and reductions in the total force, combined with budget instability and lower funding, have resulted in one of the smallest, oldest and least ready forces across the full spectrum of operations in Air Force history.
Goldfein also stated the Budget Control Act further degraded readiness while limiting recovery. While the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 provided some readiness recovery and modernization efforts, the Air Force needs permanent relief from BCA with consistent and flexible funding, more manpower and time to recover readiness.
For the past two years, instead of rebuilding readiness for future, high-end conflicts, Airmen have responded to events across the globe leading and in support of the joint force while remaining the world’s greatest Air Force. A return to sequestration would worsen the problem and delay the Air Force goal to return to full-spectrum readiness, Goldfein said
“We are too small and you have seen us trying to build back up capacity so we can do what our nation needs,” Goldfein said.
To improve mission quality, the vice chief of staff said the budget includes a modest upsizing of the total force to address a number of key areas, including critical career fields such as intelligence, cyber, maintenance, and battlefield Airmen. Aircraft maintenance career fields are approximately 4,000 maintainers short. The manpower requested will keep existing aircraft flying at home and abroad.
WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Military experts in Air Force long-range strike capabilities testified Sept. 29 before a House Armed Services subcommittee on the Air Force bomber force structure.
Gen. Robin Rand, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command; Lt. Gen. Arnie Bunch, the military deputy for the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition; and Randy Walden, the director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, all responded to questions from the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee on the Air Force’s efforts to award a long-range strike bomber.
“This is a case, sir, where we need to go slow to go fast,” Bunch told lawmakers. “We’ve got a fair, deliberate, disciplined and impartial process anytime we do a competition. And we’ve been transparent and working with industry to get this done and documented so we can make that decision. It’s coming soon.”
All three leaders agreed combat commanders and the nation need a new long-range strike bomber in the bomber fleet.
“A key to our success will be our ability to modernize, sustain and recapitalize our bomber forces,” said Rand, who’s responsible for all U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile and bomber forces. “However, modernization and sustainment can only take us so far, so we look forward. And with the LRS-B, that future looks promising. The LRS-B will extend American air dominance against next generation capabilities in an anti-access environment by its long-range, significant payload and survivability.”
When it comes to affordability of the new bomber, Bunch said they aren’t just focused on developing and procuring the LRS-B, but they are focused on the entire lifecycle cost of the platform.
“It is not enough to simply acquire them, we must also be able to afford to operate and sustain them,” Bunch said. “The steps we have taken to build in margin, and open systems up front, will allow us to address the evolving threat and embrace technological advancements. The long-range strike bomber is crucial to our ability to execute the national military strategy in the future and ensure national command authorities have viable military options in the face of a technologically advanced adversary.”
With less than 160 Air Force bombers, the newest of the three bombers is more than two decades old.
Half of all U.S. Marine Corps units at their home bases are below the levels of required readiness, according to the new commandant of the Marine Corps.
Speaking Saturday at a bipartisan national security conference at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Gen. Joseph Dunford said, "Fifty percent of our units that are at home station today, they are at a degraded state of readiness."
Dunford said that includes "equipment shortfalls, or personnel shortfalls, and the reason is because of the high operational tempo we have today."
The problem for the Marine Corps is that the units back home -- not already out on the front line -- are the most critical to have ready in a crisis, said the general, who took command last month.
"Units at home station are exactly the units that will respond to the unexpected. They will be the units to respond to a major contingency and those units are not at the level of readiness that we want them to be today."
Dunford said the major problem is the mandatory budget cuts as part of the so-called sequestration process.
The number of Marine Corps aircraft ready to fly on any given day has plummeted in the last seven years, leading to serious questions about the safety of the service's aircraft as leathernecks continue to wage war on terrorists and respond to crises around the world.
Mission-capable rates for all but one of the Marine Corps' 12 fixed-wing, rotary and tiltrotor airframes have fallen since the end of fiscal 2009, according to data obtained by Marine Corps Times via Freedom of Information Act request. While officials stress that the number of flyable aircraft fluctuates daily, the downward trends have alarmed Marine leaders and members of Congress.
Of the Marine Corps' 276 F/A-18 Hornets, only 87 are currently flyable, Marine Corps officials said on April 20. That is less than one-third of all the service's F/A-18A-D variants that can be used to strike the Islamic State group, provide close-air support or fly reconnaissance missions.
By comparison, 73 percent of F/A-18As were mission capable in fiscal 2009 along with 77 percent of the C-variant and 76 percent of F/A-18Ds.
The Army faces "increased risks" and readiness that has reached "historically low levels," senior Army leaders warned Wednesday as they took the fight against further budget cuts to Capitol Hill.
"We need predictability, not politics," Army Secretary John McHugh said to the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense. "As we face uncertainty around the world, we must have certainty here at home."
In the last three years, the Army has cut the active component by 80,000 soldiers, inactivated 13 brigade combat teams and is in the process of cutting three combat aviation brigades, said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, who testified alongside McHugh.
The Army also has cut 18,000 soldiers from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and it is reducing its total aviation force by 800 aircraft, with almost 700 of them coming from the active force, Odierno said.
"Today, only 33 percent of our brigades are ready, when our sustained readiness levels should be closer to 70 percent," he said. "We have fewer soldiers, the majority of whom are in units that are not ready, and they are manning aging equipment at a time when the demand for Army forces is much higher than anticipated."
WASHINGTON — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley sounded the alarm that the US Army is currently in a state of “high risk” when it comes to being ready enough to defend the nation and respond to a large conflict.
“On the 'high military risk,' to be clear, we have sufficient capacity and capability and readiness to fight counterinsurgency and counterterrorism,” Milley said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday. “My military risk refers specifically to what I see as emerging threats and potential for great power conflict and I am specifically talking about the time it takes to execute the task ... and the cost in terms of casualties.”
Milley added he submitted a personal, classified assessment to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the defense secretary characterizing the military’s risk as high.
SASC Chairman John McCain, of Arizona, said declaring the military to be at high risk “is a strong statement” that he believed was generated from “long and hard” thinking.
The Army’s budget has shrunk in almost every aspect in recent years and the service is having to reduce its size to a total Army of 980,000 soldiers, which include all three components. Yet with the emerging and current threats in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, Army leaders believe the force should be as big as 1.2 million soldiers to meet the Pentagon strategy and guidance.
McCain quoted from the Army Capabilities Integration Center director Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster’s testimony given earlier this week to paint a clear picture of what high risk to readiness looks like: “When we minimize our Army, we maximize the risk to our soldiers, the risk that in a crisis they will be forced to enter a fight too few in number and without the training and equipment they need to win.”
All of this is certainly troubling. From my personal view point, I've seen the 101st Airborne go from 4 BCT's and 2 CAB's, to 3 CBT's and 1 CAB, over the last several years, yet it's deployment taskings only seem to have increased. Deployment demands in my career field have only been on the rise as well, as my unit has been sustaining near 25% deployment rates for several years on end now, yet man power isn't changing for the better. Across the board, as these stories show, we're getting stretched incredibly thin, and it seems the answer from the top is to stretch us thinner. Some folks like Frazzled will say that the answer is to simply leave the world alone, but everyone grounded in reality knows that just isn't possible. We're to globally interconnected today to just cut ourselves off.
It would be nice to see other nations step up to shoulder the burden a bit more. For example, 23 of 28 NATO nations aren't meeting goals that they've agreed to in terms of defense spending.
Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?
First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
Oh wait... wrong thread!
I mean, give them what ever they want. I don't want to look weak on security!
Easy E wrote: First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?
If we don't sustain our military spending, how can we maintain our nearly unbroken record of not functionally winning a war since 1945?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?
If we don't sustain our military spending, how can we maintain our nearly unbroken record of not functionally winning a war since 1945?
Easy E wrote: First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?
^^^^ This is awesome and you beat me to it cause that was exactly what I was going to say
UK armed forces are also looking rather sketchy and it's similar causes, too much fighting in recent years coupled with budget cuts, reduced establishment, and often questionable procurement decisions.
Kilkrazy wrote: UK armed forces are also looking rather sketchy and it's similar causes, too much fighting in recent years coupled with budget cuts, reduced establishment, and often questionable procurement decisions.
UK was still one of the only handful meeting it's 2% GDP goal, even though their latest cuts dropped them right to 2%.
I was surprised to see France was below the mark. Given the issues they've been dealing with the last couple of years, plus their recent involvement in Mali, and Syria.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?
If we don't sustain our military spending, how can we maintain our nearly unbroken record of not functionally winning a war since 1945?
Anyway, the obvious answer is that the decision to not remove Saddam Hussein was a political one, not a military one. However, the military doesn't exist in a mythical vacuum, it's under the direction of civilian leadership and that's not going to change. It doesn't matter if the military is effective on paper but it can't translate that into victory because of whatever political reasons because the bottom line is still that despite many wars with many presidents from both political parties, it's still been at the end of the day an enormous drain on our resources for very, very dubious value that doesn't seem capable of executing it's core function in the real world.
I think we'd be better served by a military substantially smaller, one that would make needless foreign adventurism less workable. When your only tool is a hammer, a lot of your problems start to look like nails.
Ouze wrote: A small price to pay for peace in the region!
Anyway, the obvious answer is that the decision to not remove Saddam Hussein was a political one, not a military one. However, the military doesn't exist in a mythical vacuum, it's under the direction of civilian leadership and that's not going to change. It doesn't matter if the military is effective on paper but it can't translate that into victory because of whatever political reasons because the bottom line is still that despite many wars with many presidents from both political parties, it's still been at the end of the day an enormous drain on our resources for very, very dubious value that doesn't seem capable of executing it's core function in the real world.
I think we'd be better served by a military substantially smaller, one that would make needless foreign adventurism less workable. When your only tool is a hammer, a lot of your problems start to look like nails.
In other words, America needs to start engaging in realpolitik and see the world for what it is, not how America wants it to be...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: UK armed forces are also looking rather sketchy and it's similar causes, too much fighting in recent years coupled with budget cuts, reduced establishment, and often questionable procurement decisions.
You beat me to the punch. It's remarkable how similar these articles are compared to the stuff coming out of Britain.
But in the annals of military history, every general has never had what he wanted, has always been short on resources, and yet, militaries get by.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?
Would it help if the UK parliament stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?[/
This is not unique to the USA. Our politicians and defence contractors are just as bad as yours!
I get budget instability but I don't get pretending that going from the by-and-far the worlds largest military budget to by-and-far the worlds largest military budget with slightly less is the end our ability to defend ourselves.
Kilkrazy wrote:UK armed forces are also looking rather sketchy and it's similar causes, too much fighting in recent years coupled with budget cuts, reduced establishment, and often questionable procurement decisions.
You guys have managed to go a bit beyond "rather sketchy" territory. I'm seriously worried you're going to decide to take the crown from the Bundeswehr.
It would be nice to see other nations step up to shoulder the burden a bit more. For example, 23 of 28 NATO nations aren't meeting goals that they've agreed to in terms of defense spending.
Let's not forget that NATO has a wide variety of nations within the alliance. Luxembourg and Iceland, tiny countries, are not exactly going to set the world on fire if they hit or miss their 2% target, but I suppose every little helps.
IMO, the real problem is \Germany. They could and should do an awful lot more, but obviously, historical reasons makes this a hard sell to the German public.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I get budget instability but I don't get pretending that going from the by-and-far the worlds largest military budget to by-and-far the worlds largest military budget with slightly less is the end our ability to defend ourselves.
To a student of American history like myself, there's always budget problems in the US military. I've used this example before, but in 1905 or there about, the US military was struggling to get Congress to fund a US Army of 25,000 men!
Could you imagine that happening in this day and age?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's not forget that NATO has a wide variety of nations within the alliance.
And the vast majority do not meet their funding obligations. I'm not sure, "Well, they're doing it, too!" is really the kind of defense you want to be using.
IMO, the real problem is \Germany. They could and should do an awful lot more, but obviously, historical reasons makes this a hard sell to the German public.
The German military is worthless, sure. But they're not the real problem. The real problem is that most of NATO has decided that, if gak ever truly hits the fan, America's going to do all the military work anyway, so let's keep cutting defense spending and use those savings to buy votes in various forms! When your combined air forces can't even sustain a moderate bombing campaign against a third-world country with deliberately weak air defenses without our help, it starts to become relevant to ask what exactly you're doing for us, anyway. If the land we put our bases on is more functionally useful than your military, something's wrong.
NATO has more problems than % GDP towards defense for the member nations. What the % spent on is probably more important, and highlights one of the main issues in how the treaty is set up. NATO as an organization needs certain capabilities (or at least wants certain capabilities). But some of those are not 'sexy' so member nations are reluctant to purchase them. Other capabilities may make no sense for an individual member nation to invest into, though the Alliance as a whole needs them. Others make a lot of sense for individual nations to invest in, and as a result the Alliance as a whole has (too much) redundancy. Some are too expensive for smaller nations to invest in so there becomes an over reliance on a single member to invest in critical capabilities.
Capability portfolio management is not a NATO strong point...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's not forget that NATO has a wide variety of nations within the alliance.
And the vast majority do not meet their funding obligations. I'm not sure, "Well, they're doing it, too!" is really the kind of defense you want to be using.
IMO, the real problem is \Germany. They could and should do an awful lot more, but obviously, historical reasons makes this a hard sell to the German public.
The German military is worthless, sure. But they're not the real problem. The real problem is that most of NATO has decided that, if gak ever truly hits the fan, America's going to do all the military work anyway, so let's keep cutting defense spending and use those savings to buy votes in various forms! When your combined air forces can't even sustain a moderate bombing campaign against a third-world country with deliberately weak air defenses without our help, it starts to become relevant to ask what exactly you're doing for us, anyway. If the land we put our bases on is more functionally useful than your military, something's wrong.
Iceland, a country of 300,000 and Luxembourg, a nation of 500,000, are going to be more affected than the USA's 300 million people when it comes to defence spending!! You guys can afford to throw away a few billion here and there. Smaller nations can't.
NATO has more problems than % GDP towards defense for the member nations. What the % spent on is probably more important, and highlights one of the main issues in how the treaty is set up. NATO as an organization needs certain capabilities (or at least wants certain capabilities). But some of those are not 'sexy' so member nations are reluctant to purchase them. Other capabilities may make no sense for an individual member nation to invest into, though the Alliance as a whole needs them. Others make a lot of sense for individual nations to invest in, and as a result the Alliance as a whole has (too much) redundancy. Some are too expensive for smaller nations to invest in so there becomes an over reliance on a single member to invest in critical capabilities.
Capability portfolio management is not a NATO strong point...
Geopolitics is another failing of NATO. To this day, I still have no idea what the feth NATO is doing in Afghanistan!
Geopolitics is another failing of NATO. To this day, I still have no idea what the feth NATO is doing in Afghanistan!
A member nation was attacked. That was a no brainer. It allowed member nations to commit some troops as a show of solidarity. It also allowed some interoperability testing and some testing of C2 structures and mechanisms in a relatively low threat environment (compared to a war against the Rooskis).
Why did they remain so long is another question.... Some member nations saw it as a way to give certain types of forces combat experience and to increase interoperability.
Geopolitics is another failing of NATO. To this day, I still have no idea what the feth NATO is doing in Afghanistan!
A member nation was attacked. That was a no brainer. It allowed member nations to commit some troops as a show of solidarity. It also allowed some interoperability testing and some testing of C2 structures and mechanisms in a relatively low threat environment (compared to a war against the Rooskis).
Why did they remain so long is another question.... Some member nations saw it as a way to give certain types of forces combat experience and to increase interoperability.
IMO, a member nation suffered a terrible terrorist attack from a non-state actor operating from a broken state that never met the criteria of what a nation was, and that although the solidarity was to be welcomed, the response was not proportionate, or adequate, to the original incident, as terrible as it was.
In other words, America needs to start engaging in realpolitik and see the world for what it is, not how America wants it to be...
This may be one of the greatest statements about US foreign policy ever made on this board.
As to the OP, yeah. Congress tends to the screw the armed forces when it comes to budgetary requirements. Sure they'll shell out a couple million to buy you some C130s you neither asked for, nor need because those 500 jobs building the damn things are worth throwing money into the ocean, but have a real problem that needs money to fix it? Good luck with that. No one votes on the military being effective, and well run. They vote on the military having big tanks, cool jets, and a ridiculous number of aircraft carriers because rule of cool.
I don't think Congress puts much thought, or stock, into how it funds anything in the military which makes the massive amount we spend an even greater quagmire.
Sounds like we need to have less wars. I mean conservatives are always saying that when you're broke you need to spend less, right? "Live within your means" and all that.
Tighten that belt, spend less and spend more efficiently!
NATO has more problems than % GDP towards defense for the member nations. What the % spent on is probably more important, and highlights one of the main issues in how the treaty is set up. NATO as an organization needs certain capabilities (or at least wants certain capabilities). But some of those are not 'sexy' so member nations are reluctant to purchase them. Other capabilities may make no sense for an individual member nation to invest into, though the Alliance as a whole needs them. Others make a lot of sense for individual nations to invest in, and as a result the Alliance as a whole has (too much) redundancy. Some are too expensive for smaller nations to invest in so there becomes an over reliance on a single member to invest in critical capabilities.
Capability portfolio management is not a NATO strong point...
A better question is why is NATO in Romania. The best question is why does NATO exist at this point?
Geopolitics is another failing of NATO. To this day, I still have no idea what the feth NATO is doing in Afghanistan!
Geopolitics is another failing of NATO. To this day, I still have no idea what the feth NATO is doing in Afghanistan!
A member nation was attacked. That was a no brainer. It allowed member nations to commit some troops as a show of solidarity. It also allowed some interoperability testing and some testing of C2 structures and mechanisms in a relatively low threat environment (compared to a war against the Rooskis).
Why did they remain so long is another question.... Some member nations saw it as a way to give certain types of forces combat experience and to increase interoperability.
IMO, a member nation suffered a terrible terrorist attack from a non-state actor operating from a broken state that never met the criteria of what a nation was, and that although the solidarity was to be welcomed, the response was not proportionate, or adequate, to the original incident, as terrible as it was.
But I don't think we'll ever agree on that.
You are correct. A proportionate response would have been 2,700 MT in aggregate, of hydrogen bomb explosions ~10,000 feet above various points in Afghanistan.
There sure is a lot of FUD being spread in those reports all seemingly coming out around budget time. My short answer would be what weapons development and deployments do you want to cancel or suspend to allow you to address the backlog of repairs and training?
Of course we have known the repair bill was coming, yet as pointed out, the pace of deployments is increasing because of a shrinking force.
As one poster already mentioned the President, Congress, along with the military leadership need to develop a clear vision of what they want the military capable of doing and budget accordingly with the minimum requirement being provide for the common defense which I interpret to mean defense of US territory and the citizens therein.
So Dakka what deployments and weapons development do you cancel or suspend and what are the negatives (if any)? Some choices/ideas;
Cease combat operations vs ISIS
Cease material and logistical support for Iraq
Cease combat operations vs Taliban and recall all troops from Afghanistan
Material and logistical support for Afghanistan
Eliminate anti-pirate patrols in Gulf of Aden
Development/deployment of F-35
Development/deployment of new air refueling tankers
Development/deployment of new MBT
Development/deployment of new littoral combat ship, Zumwalt class destoryer, Truman class carrier
Development/deployment of UAVs and drones
Reduce patrols of South China Sea to zero
Reduce carrier group deployments to no more than 3 at one time (down from 5 to 6 currently)
Close US military installations in Germany
Close US military installations in S. Korea
Close US military installations in Japan
There are probably something other suggestions, but these are the ones I could think of and I think all carry some risk to the US and to our allies and interests.
Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.
3 carrier groups seems too few.
Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.
In other words, America needs to start engaging in realpolitik and see the world for what it is, not how America wants it to be...
This may be one of the greatest statements about US foreign policy ever made on this board.
As to the OP, yeah. Congress tends to the screw the armed forces when it comes to budgetary requirements. Sure they'll shell out a couple million to buy you some C130s you neither asked for, nor need because those 500 jobs building the damn things are worth throwing money into the ocean, but have a real problem that needs money to fix it? Good luck with that. No one votes on the military being effective, and well run. They vote on the military having big tanks, cool jets, and a ridiculous number of aircraft carriers because rule of cool.
I don't think Congress puts much thought, or stock, into how it funds anything in the military which makes the massive amount we spend an even greater quagmire.
Thanks for the kind words.
IMO the problem is not the US military, the problem is US politicians. Time and time again, the US military has risen to the occasion. Pre both world wars, the US military was in a bad state, but they got their act together and the rest is history. Even in Vietnam when they were operating with one hand tied behind their back, they still handle the situation fairly well.
I'm not worried about the US military, it's the politicians that concern me. The following criticisms are not unique to the USA, but the USA really needs its leaders to decide what its goals are. For whatever reason, be it the decline in political leadership in the west, the four year presidential cycle, or short term thinking, US politicans are not up to the task.
After reading Tom Ricks' book on the Iraq war fiasco, I was amazed at how shambolic the planning for the war was - and the politicians were to blame for this.
Sadly, I can only see this trend continuing when HRC becomes president, becuase you can bet your last dollar that her hawksih stance will see the US military dragged into another needless conflcit that doesn't really have any gain for America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.
3 carrier groups seems too few.
Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.
I disagree. In the 21 century, I think carriers will end up becoming floating bullseyes. Some of those anti-ship missles scare the hell out of me.
Ouze wrote: Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.
3 carrier groups seems too few.
Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.
Three carrier groups is far too few. That's one for the Pacific, one for the Atlantic, and one for carrier qual and training...and I guess we just don't have one of those three areas covered when one needs to go into the yard for a year or two.
Western allies who have one or two carriers can get away with it because A) we train all their carrier pilots and B) they never use them for anything, anyway.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I disagree. In the 21 century, I think carriers will end up becoming floating bullseyes. Some of those anti-ship missles scare the hell out of me.
Carriers have always been floating bullseyes. It's because they've been the most significant surface warfare target since World War II.
Fortunately, the Navy's not quite as dumb as the average civilian thinks, and hasn't been caught entirely by surprise by the fact that potential enemies have noted the need to neutralize carrier battle groups in the event of a full-scale conventional war.
You might almost go so far as to say the Navy's well aware of the anti-ship missile route some potential future competitors are attempting to go.
If you really wanted to get crazy, you could theorize that systems to neutralize such attacks have been theorized, planned, built, and tested.
Fortunately, the Navy's not quite as dumb as the average civilian thinks, and hasn't been caught entirely by surprise by the fact that potential enemies have noted the need to neutralize carrier battle groups in the event of a full-scale conventional war.
***Easy to say since we've not fought anyone with material anti-naval capability since Leyte Gulf. Howis the navy going to stop tungsten rods at mach 15 from low orbital vehicles or ballistic missiles armed with 500KT warheads, or just the 5,000 silkworm missiles pointed at the waters off Taiwan and Japan?
Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.
Ouze wrote: Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.
3 carrier groups seems too few.
Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.
Really, the US' greatest defense is that it's got a couple thousand miles of ocean on either side. When talking about our national security as it pertains to military force, the U.S. Navy is the most significant of all branches of the armed forces. Even in the harsh budgetary days of the Great Depression when the US army was literally running on fumes. we still maintained a strong navy because we had the sense to realize the difference between an armed force capable of defending the state and its interests, and an armed force capable of single handedly pummeling every other armed force into submission.
I agree a strong navy if helpful. That doesn't mean it has to be i the form of 1930s technology carriers. Time to start building the fleet of 2041, not 1941.
Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.
Also more production/repair/replacement jobs! Yay!
Really though, everybody just needs to calm down- Trump has got this. He will fix it by winning. There will be so much winning, we probably won't even need to fight anymore, because he will have gotten the best deals.
Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.
Also more production/repair/replacement jobs! Yay!
Really though, everybody just needs to calm down- Trump has got this. He will fix it by winning. There will be so much winning, we probably won't even need to fight anymore, because he will have gotten the best deals.
Trump's hair can be used as a nuclear umbrella. Viva Trump!
Frazzled wrote: Howis the navy going to stop tungsten rods at mach 15 from low orbital vehicles
Oh, are we not discussing threats that'll be relevant within the next fifty years?
or ballistic missiles armed with 500KT warheads, or just the 5,000 silkworm missiles pointed at the waters off Taiwan and Japan?
Well, Silkworms are actually pretty easy to shoot down (we've done it before), and they have a tendency not to hit what they're aimed at to begin with.
It's the newer stuff you want to watch out for, but even then, missile defense technology is something we've been working on since long before most of us were even born. We're actually pretty decent at it these days.
Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.
I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.
There's a reason most nations soil their britches when a carrier group shows up in their part of the world. It's because a carrier group is still the most effective way to project force in support of war.
A carrier group is designed to move force projection from point to point as war fighting needs change. They allow us to strike anywhere in the world with near impunity and conduct operations even if land bases are unavailable or if airspace fly-through permissions cannot be obtained by distant bases.
Back in 1986, both France and Spain denied permission for American aircraft to fly over their territory on their way to bomb Libya. Were a carrier group in the Mediterranean, it would have been a moot point.
As for the threat of anti-ship missiles, carrier groups are not more vulnerable than forts/stations on land. If an enemy can sink your carrier with minor risk/effort then you are not projecting force properly.
Now if you want to discuss size, that is a more reasonable argument to make. Do we need super-carriers or will smaller more agile vessels be a better way to go? That debate has been going on since at least the 80s.
I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.
They can loiter and bomb targets on demand. Thats what its about. For the price of a carrier group how many drones and antiship missiles can I get? How many missile frigates? How many LCS's?
EDIT: AM I saying I have all the answers? No of course not. But we are a declining empire. Time to accept that and go back to being a business empire with sufficient capacities to defend iteslf but not pick a fight with every other country on the planet.
Since WWII we no fight outside of Grenada has turned out well. They say insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over and over and expecting a different result.
I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.
They can loiter and bomb targets on demand. Thats what its about. For the price of a carrier group how many drones and antiship missiles can I get? How many missile frigates?
Frazz, I love you man, but your understanding of how this stuff works just isn't that good. We can't launch a drone in the US to deal with something in Africa. Even in Afghanistan, all of our drones are based in Afghanistan. They have a lot of "loiter" time, but their slow as can be. It would take greater then 6 hours to fly an MQ-1 from North Afghanistan to South Afghanistan. Fuel demands means it would only have 2-3 hours of dwell time at that point. So tell me how having something that takes 6 hours to travel several hundred miles to hang out there for a short period of time beats an entire airwing of aircraft who can cross that distance in 1/12th the time, still have the same loiter time, while carrying 3 times the munitions.
This doesn't even take into account weather considerations. Is more then 1/2 of the sky covered in clouds anywhere from 15,000 feet or lower, in any of the mission window? Yes, well scrub that drone mission. That little amount of weather shuts them down. Manned aircraft, much much more capable of dealing with bad weather conditions.
I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.
They can loiter and bomb targets on demand. Thats what its about. For the price of a carrier group how many drones and antiship missiles can I get? How many missile frigates?
Frazz, I love you man, but your understanding of how this stuff works just isn't that good. We can't launch a drone in the US to deal with something in Africa. Even in Afghanistan, all of our drones are based in Afghanistan. They have a lot of "loiter" time, but their slow as can be. It would take greater then 6 hours to fly an MQ-1 from North Afghanistan to South Afghanistan. Fuel demands means it would only have 2-3 hours of dwell time at that point. So tell me how having something that takes 6 hours to travel several hundred miles to hang out there for a short period of time beats an entire airwing of aircraft who can cross that distance in 1/12th the time, still have the same loiter time, while carrying 3 times the munitions.
This doesn't even take into account weather considerations. Is more then 1/2 of the sky covered in clouds anywhere from 15,000 feet or lower, in any of the mission window? Yes, well scrub that drone mission. That little amount of weather shuts them down. Manned aircraft, much much more capable of dealing with bad weather conditions.
And if you bring that carrier up against someone like the Chinese or the Soviets er Rooskies, thats thousands of dead men. Carriers were developed to fight naval battles. Against an existential threat they are targets of opportunity vs. other options.
Its likely that within the lifespan of in-development ships and aircraft that drones and automated munitions will match or exceed the capabilities of manned vehicles, at least on a cost basis, if they havent already, and I suspect the future will be built on carriers not of manned aircraft, but drones and missile boats.
That said, carrier battle groups havent engaged anything truly capable of engaging them back since, well, WW2 really. There was the Falklands war, but that ultimately was a limited conflict and did not involve the US. There's just no data really to go on.
Much like the questions around tanks, any situation likely to result in clashes with major naval assets against non trivial powers runs the risk of nuclear escalation to such a degree that nobody has been willing to aggressively use such assets.
Vaktathi wrote: Its likely that within the lifespan of in-development ships and aircraft that drones and automated munitions will match or exceed the capabilities of manned vehicles, at least on a cost basis, if they havent already, and I suspect the future will be built on carriers not of manned aircraft, but drones and missile boats.
Vaktathi wrote: Its likely that within the lifespan of in-development ships and aircraft that drones and automated munitions will match or exceed the capabilities of manned vehicles, at least on a cost basis, if they havent already, and I suspect the future will be built on carriers not of manned aircraft, but drones and missile boats.
Skynet is coming. We have learned nothing.
Stop teasing us. Its not going to happen.......unless we're in Matrix situation......
Frazzled wrote: And if you bring that carrier up against someone like the Chinese or the Soviets er Rooskies, thats thousands of dead men. Carriers were developed to fight naval battles. Against an existential threat they are targets of opportunity vs. other options.
Walk me through how you think that happens. Walk me through how they find it in the first place, then how they get through the FAD net if they're coming in through the air, or how they get past the ASW net if they're trying a submarine attack.
I'm trying to figure out why you think carriers are unprotected and vulnerable in wartime when the opposite is in fact the case.
Jihadin wrote: Over saturation of the carrier group defensive capabilities
I'm honestly not sure who could pull that off today. It'd have to be done exclusively by land-based missiles, since nobody else has the air or naval capacity to do it otherwise. And the thing everyone seems to forget is that, in the event of a shooting war with China, they're going to lose a lot of their ASM sites before a carrier group ever shows up. We have cruise missiles, too.
Indeed.
-They are not hard to locate.
-China crashes the software connecting US satellites, and well, everything else in the US.
-China launches 200 land based antiship missiles, followed by 10 squadrons of aircraft.
-China then launches 200 sea based cruise missiles, followed by 10 squadrons of aircraft.
-Within 24 hours China invades Vietnam, Taiwan. NK invades SK. China fires on any ship in the Sea of Japan.
-China declares these waters sovereign Chinese territory.
Frazzled wrote: And if you bring that carrier up against someone like the Chinese or the Soviets er Rooskies, thats thousands of dead men. Carriers were developed to fight naval battles. Against an existential threat they are targets of opportunity vs. other options.
Walk me through how you think that happens. Walk me through how they find it in the first place, then how they get through the FAD net if they're coming in through the air, or how they get past the ASW net if they're trying a submarine attack.
I'm trying to figure out why you think carriers are unprotected and vulnerable in wartime when the opposite is in fact the case.
If they're operating within several hundred miles of a coast, a battlegroup can be detected and targeted, and once thats done there's a number of options available which dont require submarines getting within a few thousand meters or aircraft flying through a fighter screen. Saturation fire by land based missile systems is a large threat (and easier to hide than a massive fleet), and a carrier battlegroup has always been a prime target for tactical nuclear munitions if felt necessary. This is also to say nothing of the potential for diesel attack subs that have proven capable of penetrating battlegroup defenses during exercises.
I posted on the Credible Defense reddit on my thoughts on the perceived vulnerability of Carrier Strike Groups:
I think people also forget some key facts like:
1.) How carrier battle groups represent probably the greatest concentration of AAW defences outside of Moscow, comprising a multi-layer defence of air defence fighters, AWACS able to detect and cue targets flying low, and finally the Aegis-equipped cruiser and destroyer escorts. Just because the means to sink a carrier exist, it doesn't mean that sinking one is as easy as one snapping his fingers. Even with the introduction of the Tu-22M and the AS-4 Kitchen, Soviet Naval Aviation wasn't terribly sanguine about their odds in attenuating the US naval threat; a given Backfire regimental raid against a carrier battle group was expected to have a 50% attrition rate, regardless of whether or not it succeeded in scoring any hits on the carrier.
2.) That in spite of the perceived vulnerability of carriers, absolutely nobody has put forward a viable alternative that provides the presence and force projection capabilities it carries, the ability to sustain it (a ship or sub can launch a whole lot of Tomahawks, but generally has to return to a home port to replenish; it's super dangerous to reload VLS cells at sea), and is any less vulnerable to boot.
3.) That a lot of scenarios of say, Russia, sinking a carrier had been contingent on catching a CSG by surprise in order to sink it. Sure they might have succeeded in wounding the US Navy, but they would then have to contend with the (currently) seven other operational carriers that would now be on alert and sailing for Kola, Kamchatka, Vladivostok, and Kaliningrad, to say nothing of the submarines and US Air Force they would be working in conjunction with. They got their black eye in, but it's the equivalent of giving a sucker punch to Holly Holm, who will murder you in the next heartbeat.
4.)That carriers represent only one component of a combined arms effort against adversaries. It isn't just the carrier and her air wing that's at play, it's also the SSNs and the SSGNs launching Tomahawks, the bombers launching stealthy cruise missiles flying 30 ft above the deck on targets 500nm away, and the strike fighters and multi-roles sustained by tankers to name a few.
Carriers have not been rendered obsolete by anti-ship missiles any more than tanks being rendered obsolete by anti-tank missiles in 1973 in the Sinai. Last time I checked, many of the newer ones are still rolling around with advanced composite armour and ERA, laser and plume warning sensors, multi-spectral smoke grenade launchers, electro-optical dazzlers, and advanced APS arrays. So too will the US Navy develop means to defend the carrier:
Vaktathi wrote: If they're operating within several hundred miles of a coast, a battlegroup can be detected and targeted, and once thats done there's a number of options available which dont require submarines getting within a few thousand meters or aircraft flying through a fighter screen.
Well, no. There's one. Long-range anti-ship missiles. That's pretty much it.
And we've got a lot of defenses against those.
Saturation fire by land based missile systems is a large threat (and easier to hide than a massive fleet), and a carrier battlegroup has always been a prime target for tactical nuclear munitions if felt necessary.
If nukes start flying, carrier strike groups become irrelevant, along with all other conventional forces. It's a nuke war at that point.
As far as saturation fire goes...you could probably blow your load and overwhelm the defenses of one in a complete Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack. Which is an accomplishment. But it's also why we have more than one. And then you're pretty screwed, 'cause the second we're aware we're at war, you're going to lose the bulk of your launch sites.
This is also to say nothing of the potential for diesel attack subs that have proven capable of penetrating battlegroup defenses during exercises.
GR4 Tornados were able to shoot down F-22s in exercises. Why "it happened in an exercise" is never a convincing argument is a topic for another time, but we're again back to getting lucky once with unconventional tactics and then having nothing to fall back on when that doesn't make the other three CSGs in the area disappear.
Look, it's possible to sink a modern American carrier, but it's nowhere near as easy as people seem to think. I'm starting to get a distinct WarIsBoring vibe from this thread, and there's a reason they're a blog and not policymakers or strategic planners - aside from the fact that none of them have relevant military or civilian-side DOD experience, that is.
I honestly can say I dont think I have ever read WarIsBoring.
I also am not saying that its a piece of cake to destroy a CBG, but they do have vulnerabilities in a conventional conflict that are much larger than anything the US has faced in 70 years Sure, some of them are 1 trick ponies, but not all, massed anti ship missile fire from land based batteries is a consistent and viable threat to any CBG near a coastline, particularly if intent on striking targets deep inland, and highly capable first rate anti aircraft defenses are likewise something the US hasnt had to deal with much in the last 70 years which may greatly diminish the value of carrier based aircraft. The destruction of a CBG would also be a major event, one that could easily shift the balance of power in a theatre of operations even if another could be brought in, to say nothing of the potential propaganda/home front impact.
The big problem (well, a good problem) is that none of this has been actively tested in battle with a first rate power, and all anyone has to go on is theory, exercises, and one sided curbstompings of trivial powers.
Meh. This all sounds like budget squabbling between the armed services in an era of decreasing need of many big ticket items. We don't NEED thousands of a new MBT, not by far. We don't need the ability to defeat every other nation's air force combined, twice over.
What is being spent on however, are still real needs. Like replacing the older CVNs, that's a real big deal: CVNs are still our universal source of power projection, able to supply an entire NATION'S worth of air power anywhere in the world, and being utterly invulnerable to all but a major power's attacks (of which it'd provide a solid challenge as well).
Of course military budget procurement is going to ask for as much as possible, and highlight how 'woeful' funding is. That's part of their job. But the counterbalance is restraint, as everything has a real cost.
This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...
Vaktathi wrote: If they're operating within several hundred miles of a coast, a battlegroup can be detected and targeted, and once thats done there's a number of options available which dont require submarines getting within a few thousand meters or aircraft flying through a fighter screen.
Well, no. There's one. Long-range anti-ship missiles. That's pretty much it.
And we've got a lot of defenses against those.
Saturation fire by land based missile systems is a large threat (and easier to hide than a massive fleet), and a carrier battlegroup has always been a prime target for tactical nuclear munitions if felt necessary.
If nukes start flying, carrier strike groups become irrelevant, along with all other conventional forces. It's a nuke war at that point.
As far as saturation fire goes...you could probably blow your load and overwhelm the defenses of one in a complete Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack. Which is an accomplishment. But it's also why we have more than one. And then you're pretty screwed, 'cause the second we're aware we're at war, you're going to lose the bulk of your launch sites.
This is also to say nothing of the potential for diesel attack subs that have proven capable of penetrating battlegroup defenses during exercises.
GR4 Tornados were able to shoot down F-22s in exercises. Why "it happened in an exercise" is never a convincing argument is a topic for another time, but we're again back to getting lucky once with unconventional tactics and then having nothing to fall back on when that doesn't make the other three CSGs in the area disappear.
Look, it's possible to sink a modern American carrier, but it's nowhere near as easy as people seem to think. I'm starting to get a distinct WarIsBoring vibe from this thread, and there's a reason they're a blog and not policymakers or strategic planners - aside from the fact that none of them have relevant military or civilian-side DOD experience, that is.
You've made some good, insightful points, and you're way more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I'd like to point out the following.
Having read numerous books on the disaster that was the Iraq war, I discovered that the DoD and hundreds of other planners and military experts had the best facilities that money could buy, some top experts, and people working on it 24/7...
and you know what, the Iraq war was was still a disaster for the USA, so the idea that military experts and strategic planners know best is well, you know...not 100%, war is hell, no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that...
That's not to say they don't know what they're doing, but they don't always get it right...
Vaktathi wrote: 99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.
This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...
I've got some personal familiarity with carrier aviation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You've made some good, insightful points, and you're way more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I'd like to point out the following.
Having read numerous books on the disaster that was the Iraq war, I discovered that the DoD and hundreds of other planners and military experts had the best facilities that money could buy, some top experts, and people working on it 24/7...
and you know what, the Iraq war was was still a disaster for the USA, so the idea that military experts and strategic planners know best is well, you know...not 100%, war is hell, no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that...
That's not to say they don't know what they're doing, but they don't always get it right...
Sure, the military can't account for political disasters like Iraq. It's beholden to political leadership; if the president calls a given play, they run it.
It's very difficult to craft a scenario in which a post-war insurgency somehow sinks a carrier strike group at sea? I dunno. I dunno what point you're making here. Specific to the issue of carriers, pointing out that our civilian leadership made horrific calls to disband the enemy army and flood the country with ready-made insurgents in Iraq is a bit of a confusing one.
Vaktathi wrote: 99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.
This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...
I've got some personal familiarity with carrier aviation.
Oh I got that, and I'm not trying to belittle that, I was primarily referring to the "armchair secdef" comment, and that none of us are likely to be in situations to craft strategic policy. Many of us have some experience with these things (I worked with projects like the UCAS drone and other things in a past life during a stint with a large defense contractor, others in this thread have various military and defense industry experience as well), but none of us are policy crafters or generals/admirals/senators/etc either, and this is just a friendly discussion on a hobby interest board, so we can be free to be as armchair as we wish
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.
For sure, Bush and his advisors gakked up big time on a lot of key decisions, but the US military top brass in Iraq made their fair share of blunders as well.
Vaktathi wrote: 99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.
This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...
I've got some personal familiarity with carrier aviation.
Oh I got that, and I'm not trying to belittle that, I was primarily referring to the "armchair secdef" comment, and that none of us are likely to be in situations to craft strategic policy. Many of us have some experience with these things (I worked with projects like the UCAS drone and other things in a past life during a stint with a large defense contractor, others in this thread have various military and defense industry experience as well), but none of us are policy crafters or generals/admirals/senators/etc either, and this is just a friendly discussion on a hobby interest board, so we can be free to be as armchair as we wish
Having read a fair bit of military history, I've long came to the conclusion that defence industry experts are not all their cracked up to be. And that's not me trolling.
North Vietnam's defence planning was 4 guys, a table, a map, and Ho Chi Minh sitting in the background reading quotes from Mao's red book!. and that turned out ok for North Vietnam!
During the American Civil War, the Army of the Potomac would plan their campaigns over a few bottles of Whisky, which probably explains a lot of the early defeats!
On a serious note, the point is this: some people are born leaders, born warriors, and they instinctively know what to do. Look at all the planning that the Army of the Potomac had, and compare that to the military intuition of Stonewall Jackson and his vicories over the Union in '62 and 63'
It's not a modern example, and it's slightly OT, but I've always felt that the US miltary's overeliance on too much planning can be a bad thing. Sometimes you need to think on your feet.
This thread reminds me of Eisenhower's now seemingly forgotten speech:
Ohh... small caveat, I just found the video, I do not agree with that user/channel's ideology
I think that, when I look at so many of these big ticket items, the F-35, the "let's replace the M-16/M-4 happy circle-jerk" project, these floating computers people are calling destroyers, etc.... How many of them are actually needed?
I too study history, and what we're seeing today boggles my mind. If you look at WW2, and how things went... we were able to design fighters and bombers almost from scratch, build, test and begin manufacture and fielding in around 6 months. Sure, the F4U Corsair had some redundancy with the the Wildcats and Hellcats, and even the Mustangs and other planes. And I get how redundancy is bad in a "cash strapped" force.
But the way I see it, we're creating our own cash strapping by forcing idiotic programs with ridiculous and possibly untenable requirements.
I get and understand why some want to be rid of the M-4 body, and want to replace the M9 (seriously... why the feth did we buy that hunk of gak?)
But with all these projects, all I'm really seeing is congressmen justifying stupidity for the sake of votes. They get a new contract just because and suddenly, that congressman who promised jobs has brought them. Or, in some cases, a congressman gets a project pushed through, and the contractor decides it doesn't want to leave his/her district afterall. It's ridiculous.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.
I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.
As do I.
I'll give him LTG Sanchez. He was in WAY over his head and could never admit it.
Point. You can't look at one guy though over an extensive conflict, and paint the entire thing because of him. Given the total lack of asymetric warfare training that we went in with, and how we acquitted ourselves in the end, I think speaks marvels at how boss we are.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.
I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.
As do I.
I'll give him LTG Sanchez. He was in WAY over his head and could never admit it.
Point. You can't look at one guy though over an extensive conflict, and paint the entire thing because of him. Given the total lack of asymetric warfare training that we went in with, and how we acquitted ourselves in the end, I think speaks marvels at how BOSS we are.
Fixed.
US military from the 90's till now is almost two different Animals
Ensis Ferrae wrote: This thread reminds me of Eisenhower's now seemingly forgotten speech:
Ohh... small caveat, I just found the video, I do not agree with that user/channel's ideology
I think that, when I look at so many of these big ticket items, the F-35, the "let's replace the M-16/M-4 happy circle-jerk" project, these floating computers people are calling destroyers, etc.... How many of them are actually needed?
I too study history, and what we're seeing today boggles my mind. If you look at WW2, and how things went... we were able to design fighters and bombers almost from scratch, build, test and begin manufacture and fielding in around 6 months. Sure, the F4U Corsair had some redundancy with the the Wildcats and Hellcats, and even the Mustangs and other planes. And I get how redundancy is bad in a "cash strapped" force.
But the way I see it, we're creating our own cash strapping by forcing idiotic programs with ridiculous and possibly untenable requirements.
I get and understand why some want to be rid of the M-4 body, and want to replace the M9 (seriously... why the feth did we buy that hunk of gak?)
But with all these projects, all I'm really seeing is congressmen justifying stupidity for the sake of votes. They get a new contract just because and suddenly, that congressman who promised jobs has brought them. Or, in some cases, a congressman gets a project pushed through, and the contractor decides it doesn't want to leave his/her district afterall. It's ridiculous.
I think it's also important to remember that it was Eisenhower that Massive Retaliation doctrine was formed, and that sorely needed investment into conventional forces to stop Soviet forces in the Fulda Gap and the North German Plain were instead put into nuclear arms which jumpstarted the strategic arms race in the first place. And as far as the military-industrial complex goes people underestimate how easy the west had it compared to the Warsaw Pact powers. In fact, the qualitative superiority the west generally had come precisely because of a strong civilian sector economy and that defence spending did not receive top budgetary priority. Readiness rates of NATO aircraft were far higher as a result of the need for engines that were more fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive, the fruits of a strong civil aviation industry for which their profitability was dependent on those factors. The US had a huge lead in solid-fuel rockets for ballistic and low-flying cruise missiles since polymer bonds for plastic toys were also very useful for holding rocket motors together. Then of course the most important development, computer technology (favourite Cold War arms development story: In the 70s, the KGB smuggled out Texas Instruments scientific calculators from the west so that they could be wired into anti-submarine sonobuoys and the RV buses of ICBMs to do guidance calculations).
In contrast look at where the Soviet "Metal Eaters Alliance" got them. The Strategic Rocket Troop wound up deploying as many as seven different types of land based ICBMs in a given period. The likes of Tupolev, Yakovlev, and Ilyushin couldn't survive the competitive heat of the civil aviation industry of the outside world and so Aeroflot cashed them in for Airbuses when the wall fell. Then of course there was the highly elaborate and hugely unnecessary illicit biological weapons program.
I'm thinking these days the US military-industrial complex could use a lot less money. Far too much is focused on what is going on abroad protecting economic interests while our infrastructure and economy goes to carp than I am comfortable with.
Cronie Congress people slaving out to defense contractors. Then military spends tons of money on inferior or overly expensive equipment for reasons only to pad corporate pockets.
I also find it entirely realistic for the US to pull out of a great deal of the world. Like the M.E., most of the blowback coming out of the region have to do with US military presence and intervention being a constant way of life there. Remove that and the region just might balance out with out us bombing the region. The only thing we want is oil from the region and no matter who is in charge they will more than likely still choose to sell to their biggest customer.
Unfortunately real life is oddly like the Game of Thrones lol.
BrotherGecko wrote: Cronie Congress people slaving out to defense contractors. Then military spends tons of money on inferior or overly expensive equipment for reasons only to pad corporate pockets.
That's how it seems to work, isn't it? And it's not just defense contracts - every Senator etc tries to get government money for his state no matter if the project is useful or not so he can point at how many jobs he secured when re-election day comes up. You pay sick premiums for buying domestic products protected by government restrictions, laws and trade protectionism. Take for example the new heavy icebreaker ship president Obama proposed you need before 2020. Domestic corporations are expected to get the order at a cost of up to a billion dollars. Funny enough companies in Europe, Russia or Asia could build one for a fifth or at most a fourth of the cost.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.
I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.
As do I.
Me too. The invasion went like a dream, the Iraqi armed forces were busted up in a couple of weeks, with low casualties on our side. It was the occupation afterwards that went wrong, and that was the fault of the politicians who didn't seem to have any plan for what to do after a successful invasion.
Ok, it's high time I backed up my earlier criticism of US military leadership during the Iraq war with some quotes and/or links:
Fiasco: The American Military adventure in Iraq by Thomas E Ricks.
Here's what Ricks had to say about the following military commanders:
On General Tommy Franks USMC:
"At the top of the chain of command for operations in Iraq, Franks seemed quickly to have detached from Iraq issues. some of those who worked with him found him remote and even out of touch in the weeks after the fall of Baghdad. Franks was getting ready to retire, while Abizaid was not yet confirmed by Congress to succeed him as the top US military commander for Iraq and the ME. A Pentagon official said that top officials got wind at one point that Franks planned to fly from the ME to Tampa, pick up his wife, and take a long weekend in the Bahamas...
Franks ultimately was ordered not to..."
Ricks is particularly scathing of Franks' leadership and tactics in Iraq, and the above is one of many examples in the book, but I think that example speaks volumes. Iraq is falling into ruin, and the Commander decides to take a holiday...
Ricks on General Ricardo Sanchez:
"Even so, the methodical Sanchez often appeared overwhelmed by the situation, with little grasp of the strategic problems he faced. The opinion of many of his peers was that he was a fine battalion commander, who should never have commanded a division, let alone a corps or a nationwide occupation mission. "He was in over his head," said Col. Holshek, who served in Iraq in 2003. " he was a fulfilment of the Peter Principle," which holds that people working in hierarchies such as the US military are promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. at which point they tend to fail spectacularly."
Ricks on General Raymond Odierno, Commander 4th Infantry Division:
"His 4th infantry division operating in the heart of the Sunni triangle, was criticised for its harsh tactics and detainee abuse..."
As always, the man or the woman at the top, sets the tone for everybody beneath them...
Ricks on Air Force General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:
""The chairman of the joint chiefs who always seemed to make his top priority staying in step with Rumsfeld, also insisted that the situation was better than it looked..."there's been a lot of work done," Myers said in June. "A lot of the country is relatively stable."
Over the next year, Myers would make similar comments, repeatedly insisting that the situation was better than it looked, even as Iraq descended into guerrilla war, and hundreds of American troops died..."
I could go on an on, and I could provide quotes from The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq by George Packer, which is another book I would recommend to people.
So, In returning to my earlier point, sure, there were some good commanders in Iraq, but there were a lot of bad ones as well. The civilian leadership deserves to be blamed, no question, but lets not let the US military off the hook.
Books are one thing. Being on the field is another.
I think our society is trying to cut too many costs nowadays. There are things that must NOT be cut, no matter what. Looking at the matter only from an economic point of view is the true mistake.
Sarouan wrote: Books are one thing. Being on the field is another.
I'm not sure what this even means. Do you think there are German WW2 vets who felt like they won because they were there, and this is a valid POV? That despite what the books say, we won the war in Vietnam?
Easy E wrote: First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?
I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.
Easy E wrote: First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?
I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is a test that everyone who wishes to join the military takes. It measures your aptitude in various skills, such as electronics, for example. Everyone who wishes to join has to meet a minimum score, and can only qualify for various jobs based on your scores. It's really a series of 10 tests, done at once. 4 of those tests are used to determine your AFQT, which is measured on a scale of 1-99 (I got a 96, toot toot). Minimum AFQT to join the service is in the low-mid 30's, based on the branch. The other scores are then used to help determine which jobs you can qualify for.
MEPS is the Military Entrance Processing Station. Anyone who joins the military will do so at a MEPS location. They run a battery of physical tests, background checks, etc, to further determine your eligibility. Very first thing we did was take the drug test. We continue to get random tests throughout are career. I've not kept specific count, but I'd wager it's averaged out to about once a year for me.
Sarouan wrote: Books are one thing. Being on the field is another.
I think our society is trying to cut too many costs nowadays. There are things that must NOT be cut, no matter what. Looking at the matter only from an economic point of view is the true mistake.
What? Looking at it from an economic point of view is a rational way of evaluating costs and benefits. Emotionally driven appeals cloaked in nationalism or knee jerk antiwar sentiments are probably some of the worst ways to evaluate military spending!
Of course there are things that should not be cut. And there are certainly things that do. The debate is over what those are- what is essential and what is wasteful/inefficient/etc. That is why analysis and debate over the role of the military, nature of threats, current capabilities is vital.
On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
Easy E wrote: First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?
I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is a test that everyone who wishes to join the military takes. It measures your aptitude in various skills, such as electronics, for example. Everyone who wishes to join has to meet a minimum score, and can only qualify for various jobs based on your scores. It's really a series of 10 tests, done at once. 4 of those tests are used to determine your AFQT, which is measured on a scale of 1-99 (I got a 96, toot toot). Minimum AFQT to join the service is in the low-mid 30's, based on the branch. The other scores are then used to help determine which jobs you can qualify for.
MEPS is the Military Entrance Processing Station. Anyone who joins the military will do so at a MEPS location. They run a battery of physical tests, background checks, etc, to further determine your eligibility. Very first thing we did was take the drug test. We continue to get random tests throughout are career. I've not kept specific count, but I'd wager it's averaged out to about once a year for me.
Thanks. So basically it is the tests you take to get a Military occupational Specialty?
Not the same as means testing as that is all financial, and I was referring more to the organization being means-tested.
However, I will gladly concede that you all take Drug-tests before getting any money!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
Or maybe a swing back to battleships. Fight railguns with railguns!
Easy E wrote: First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.
You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?
I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is a test that everyone who wishes to join the military takes. It measures your aptitude in various skills, such as electronics, for example. Everyone who wishes to join has to meet a minimum score, and can only qualify for various jobs based on your scores. It's really a series of 10 tests, done at once. 4 of those tests are used to determine your AFQT, which is measured on a scale of 1-99 (I got a 96, toot toot). Minimum AFQT to join the service is in the low-mid 30's, based on the branch. The other scores are then used to help determine which jobs you can qualify for.
MEPS is the Military Entrance Processing Station. Anyone who joins the military will do so at a MEPS location. They run a battery of physical tests, background checks, etc, to further determine your eligibility. Very first thing we did was take the drug test. We continue to get random tests throughout are career. I've not kept specific count, but I'd wager it's averaged out to about once a year for me.
Thanks. So basically it is the tests you take to get a Military occupational Specialty?
Not the same as means testing as that is all financial, and I was referring more to the organization being means-tested.
However, I will gladly concede that you all take Drug-tests before getting any money!
Well that really isn't true either, you can totally fail a drug test and collect a paycheck if you know how to play the game. I've seen a solider do it for several months. He would just AWOL between paychecks and take all the drugs possible. Because he wasn't physically present to sign paperwork to kick him out they couldn't kick him out so he still collected his automatic payments.
Then you can fail a drug test but if you are seeking help before you fail (or quickly enough after) you will still be collecting a paycheck. You might only be collecting one long enough to get booted out. If your a good "Joe" you might just get addiction help and stay in or you might get medically discharged. Then you could fail a drug test but be a high enough rank to have to retire and just collect retirement pay.
The military drug test is really just an inconvenience. If you test a 100% of a company only maybe 10% randomly selected will actually be test and the rest thrown out. Each drug test only tests certain drugs too so steroid abuse usually flys under the radar (when it isn't actively ecouraged by leadership). You can abuse any pain meds so long as you get a perscription for phantom injures too. Then there is deployments were people smoke all the hash they can get their hands on.
Military drug testing is a joke. Soldiers can skirt the line for months or even years without ever getting caught.
Every time the service branches have to go to Congress to get their budgets approved they paint the most negative picture possible in order to justify getting a bigger budget this year than last year. If things weren't bad and in need of fixing/overhauling then why would Congress give a budget increase? Nobody is going to testify before Congress that everything is going fine but they need X% increase in their annual budget just because it would be nice.
At the same time Congress is notorious for interfering with military procurement and budgets. Which bases are kept open, what equipment the military buys and in what amount all have much more to do with keeping people in congressional districts employed and businesses in congressional districts making money than with what the service branches actually need to mission capable and ready. We need civilian oversight of the military but the politicizing of military spending is always going to create waste and abuse in the budgets.
One guy in our unit was having drugs mailed to him while we were in Japan. Then he was selling it to the locals. I don't know how he accomplished it as I didn't care to ask. Point is they caught him and he was still walking free and getting paid.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every time the service branches have to go to Congress to get their budgets approved they paint the most negative picture possible in order to justify getting a bigger budget this year than last year. If things weren't bad and in need of fixing/overhauling then why would Congress give a budget increase? Nobody is going to testify before Congress that everything is going fine but they need X% increase in their annual budget just because it would be nice.
There's also the old story of how the Marine Corps made the mistake one year of saying that things weren't that bad or in need of fixing... They were basically asking for a hold in their budgetary funding, instead they got a significant cut which hurt them for probably well over 20 years.
Now, I think most branches, while no one serving was alive at that time, or if they were, were barely toddlers, have still "remembered" that lesson.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every time the service branches have to go to Congress to get their budgets approved they paint the most negative picture possible in order to justify getting a bigger budget this year than last year. If things weren't bad and in need of fixing/overhauling then why would Congress give a budget increase? Nobody is going to testify before Congress that everything is going fine but they need X% increase in their annual budget just because it would be nice.
There's also the old story of how the Marine Corps made the mistake one year of saying that things weren't that bad or in need of fixing... They were basically asking for a hold in their budgetary funding, instead they got a significant cut which hurt them for probably well over 20 years.
Now, I think most branches, while no one serving was alive at that time, or if they were, were barely toddlers, have still "remembered" that lesson.
Eh... when you budget, you always ask for more. That way, if the bean-counters says, no that's too much, here's your budget. You hope that the new figures lands to your approximate needs.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?
I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?
I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?
The countermeasures for a railgun slug are likely to center around spoofing sensors/fire control and other ISR assets so that the slug is never fired or at least never fired at the correct target.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?
I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?
We might not be able to, but the guys who developed the science to build these things probably can. And honestly, ship to ship naval engagements right now, probably happen from hundreds of miles away, given missile technology.
Well, it's just conjecture really. I don't think there has been a legitimate surface naval engagement in 50ish years. Odds of one ever occurring again are very slim, as long as we maintain our current level of naval dominance.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?
I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?
We might not be able to, but the guys who developed the science to build these things probably can. And honestly, ship to ship naval engagements right now, probably happen from hundreds of miles away, given missile technology.
I think we'll see railguns in a missile defense system before we see them in an antiship system. We've already progressed from 16 inch guns to ASMs and if you had railguns or lasers and a computer targetting system you'd be able to destroy anything that got detected coming over the horizon. If you neutralize ASMs you've effectively neutralized the offensive capability of surface vessels. Besides if we develop the kind of numerical and technological superiority with railgun equipped ships that we already enjoy with our carriers it's a moot point anyway. We're already essentially only competing against ourselves.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?
I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?
The countermeasures for a railgun slug are likely to center around spoofing sensors/fire control and other ISR assets so that the slug is never fired or at least never fired at the correct target.
I imagine something like a Traveller Sandcaster that puts a cloud of ablative material in the path of the projectile causing it to disintegrate into a puff of shards and vapour.
But as you say, a good countermeasure would be to bomb the launch site before any missiles can be got away.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?
I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.
While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?
I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?
You could always fall back on a Jeune Ecole style countermeasure for local dominance, or shift to a completely submersible fleet. Submarine carriers and cruisers were workable concepts (and indeed, built) seventy years ago, I daresay we could build vastly improved ones now. No matter how fast your railgun slug is going, it's not much use once it hits a few hundred feet of water.
Teddy Roosevelt once wisely stated "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Sage philosophy for addressing national security. Our "big stick" is bigger than that of the next 8 or so countries combined, but the problem is that it seems to me that we've forgotten, or just chosen to disregard, the "walk softly" part. Effective diplomacy and not just a wing of F-35's will ensure our national security.
As previous posters noted, Ike was right with his warning on the MI complex. If anybody should know better than him, I'd like to hear it.
The US Military could be significantly better run by simply eliminating the Zero up budget. This budget is a broken tool that we have been forced to use for generations. "Spend X or else you wont get X next year for your budget" Instead it should be something along the lines of "Spend whatever you need out of X and whatever you don't spend return to the US Government at the end of the FISCAL year."
Another way to save money is to do away with a number of government contracts. Spending 25k on a laptop is well....stupid. Not to mention you have to order all gear and items from a specific shop which over prices those items significantly.
Then with all those savings you could repair and replace every piece of broken gear in the US arsenal.
Finally the bottom line is that we need to cease involving ourselves in the worlds problems. I understand that force needs to be used in certain situations, but we are NOT the world's police. The only time force should be used over seas is for US interests not because the world thinks bad people are doing bad things. That is what the UN is supposed to be about, not the US.
Jihadin wrote: So are we going back to be able to sustain a two front war or a one front war. We already know the military was caught a bit short on a two theaters.
That's the big question isn't it?
In a nuke age, maybe the military needs to be reorg so that we can do ONE front war + multiple low level skirmish. If so... what does that look like?
Jihadin wrote: So are we going back to be able to sustain a two front war or a one front war. We already know the military was caught a bit short on a two theaters.
That's the big question isn't it?
In a nuke age, maybe the military needs to be reorg so that we can do ONE front war + multiple low level skirmish. If so... what does that look like?
I don't know, maybe "one front" is a massive self-defense force, while sustaining, or expanding on SOF for the "multiple low level skirmish" forces? That may work for an organization like the army, but how would that alter what the Marine Corps looks like? Would it significantly alter the Navy? What about the AF?
Jihadin wrote: So are we going back to be able to sustain a two front war or a one front war. We already know the military was caught a bit short on a two theaters.
Fighting a war is easy. America has more combat aircraft, missiles, logistics capability than any conceivable combination of enemies combined. Iraq was steamrolled in weeks, twice for example. For every difficulty presented by possibly disruptive technology, every other major power has the same or worse time of it than the US.
The issue is well beyond the 'war' aspect, to the 'what is our goal'. Iraq was done without any sort of goal, an exit strategy that'd leave American interests safer, not produce a new commitment and new craphole that needed effective occupation.
Basically... are you throwing money to make us safer against enemies that we already have huge overkill against, or are you down to toss money into the pot when the real issue is that COIN is a hell of a lot different than a war?
Well, it's just conjecture really. I don't think there has been a legitimate surface naval engagement in 50ish years. Odds of one ever occurring again are very slim, as long as we maintain our current level of naval dominance.
I guess railguns will be used as an deterrent and for inland bombardment.
IMHO it is not the budget that is the problem but the management of funds and the accountability of firms with government contracts, how much is the F35 now over budget?
CptJake wrote: NATO has more problems than % GDP towards defense for the member nations. What the % spent on is probably more important, and highlights one of the main issues in how the treaty is set up. NATO as an organization needs certain capabilities (or at least wants certain capabilities). But some of those are not 'sexy' so member nations are reluctant to purchase them. Other capabilities may make no sense for an individual member nation to invest into, though the Alliance as a whole needs them. Others make a lot of sense for individual nations to invest in, and as a result the Alliance as a whole has (too much) redundancy. Some are too expensive for smaller nations to invest in so there becomes an over reliance on a single member to invest in critical capabilities.
Capability portfolio management is not a NATO strong point...
Yep, all of this. It's why the 2% target is a crappy target, and when it is coupled with capability requirements the whole thing ends up as nonsense.
As an example, a few years ago Australia committed to defence spending of 2% of GDP. That lasted a bit over two years before we realised how stupid the idea was in and of itself. Over those two years spending was growing massively, but our actual capabilities changed not one bit. Obviously you can't expect to develop units capable of operating overseas overnight, but the money was pouring in and there wasn't even a projection of increased capability being forecast. The money just went to improved housing, remuneration, and a massive increase in back office staff. Nicer accomodation is good and all, but when people say defence spending is a priority I don't think they mean refurbished dorms.
So government quickly modified the commitment - 2% was still the target, but would only be given when defence could make a decent argument for a necessary new capability - if they saw we need to buy new planes off the US or replace our subs then the money is there.
NATO needs something similar. It needs to not just set a 2% target, but actually flesh out what capabilities each member nation needs to deliver to NATO. Aircraft capable of this level of activity for this length of time. The ability to deliver and support this many divisions this far from home, etc... 2% will be part of that, but it won't be the only measure of delivery.
Honestly, railguns are so far out from being developed and deployed for any kind of long range combat that it makes speculation about possible defenses difficult. By the time they have been developed to the point where they could be used against a carrier, early detection, conventional armour, or even laser technology may all have advanced to the point of being an adequate defense. Not to mention that this far into the future drones may have made a carrier redundant. (I know we established that drones cannot fulfill the role of a carrier now, but we are talking decades into the future here.)
Another way to save money is to do away with a number of government contracts. Spending 25k on a laptop is well....stupid. Not to mention you have to order all gear and items from a specific shop which over prices those items significantly.
You don't know much about DoD contracting. No laptop is costing the DoD 25k, though there may be some software packages that do. And in no way is any service forced to buy gear from a specific shop which over prices, in fact single source bids are very much discouraged and you need very tight explanations as to why you are trying to let a single source contract and that generally comes down to a service contract (which is also discouraged) when the single source is the only one capable of providing the contracted service. If you have a contracting office/officer allowing 'all gear and items' to come form a single shop that is not the cheapest/best value, you have a contracting officer looking at jail time.
jmurph wrote: Why would we want a submersible fleet when we could make everything fly instead? Hello helicarriers! Even better, robot helicarriers.
As a defeat mechanism for railguns, that idea is a poor one.
Last time I checked, that's what the supermutants are for. They go in and blow up enemy superweapons and maybe learn something about themselves and what it means to be "human". Duh.
Another way to save money is to do away with a number of government contracts. Spending 25k on a laptop is well....stupid. Not to mention you have to order all gear and items from a specific shop which over prices those items significantly.
You don't know much about DoD contracting. No laptop is costing the DoD 25k, though there may be some software packages that do. And in no way is any service forced to buy gear from a specific shop which over prices, in fact single source bids are very much discouraged and you need very tight explanations as to why you are trying to let a single source contract and that generally comes down to a service contract (which is also discouraged) when the single source is the only one capable of providing the contracted service. If you have a contracting office/officer allowing 'all gear and items' to come form a single shop that is not the cheapest/best value, you have a contracting officer looking at jail time.
Agreed, it's not so much the cost per unit, but the number of units. The problem is when the company providing those laptops has their congressman make the military buy 2-3 times more than the military needed. Needless spending is the problem.
Another way to save money is to do away with a number of government contracts. Spending 25k on a laptop is well....stupid. Not to mention you have to order all gear and items from a specific shop which over prices those items significantly.
You don't know much about DoD contracting. No laptop is costing the DoD 25k, though there may be some software packages that do. And in no way is any service forced to buy gear from a specific shop which over prices, in fact single source bids are very much discouraged and you need very tight explanations as to why you are trying to let a single source contract and that generally comes down to a service contract (which is also discouraged) when the single source is the only one capable of providing the contracted service. If you have a contracting office/officer allowing 'all gear and items' to come form a single shop that is not the cheapest/best value, you have a contracting officer looking at jail time.
Agreed, it's not so much the cost per unit, but the number of units. The problem is when the company providing those laptops has their congressman make the military buy 2-3 times more than the military needed. Needless spending is the problem.
Laptops are a very poor example of this because of the way they are purchased. The issue you describe tends to be related to major end items like aircraft,not things like laptops which tend to be handled by units/installations and follow different rules.
The whole 'needless spending' thing becomes even more murky depending on who decides it is needless. For example, the Air Force would rather not be spending money on the A-10 at this point yet the congress critters are forcing them to do so. Many of the guys on the ground in theater don't consider the money spent on their favorite CAS platform as wasteful.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One area where we do have 'mandated waste' is when we are required to purchase from local vendors, even when they are not the cheapest/best value, and often 'local' is interestingly defined. But in both Iraq and Afghanistan we seemed to believe the waste was acceptable in order to 'jump start' local economies. Of course the issues of malign vendors and 'contracting with the enemy' coupled with status quo corruption on the ground tends to negate any advantage you thought you were getting.
Yeah, Afghanistan is like that in a lot of ways to. There are a lot of not unfounded concerns that we are directly feeding money to the terrorists with our purchasing practices...
djones520 wrote: Yeah, Afghanistan is like that in a lot of ways to. There are a lot of not unfounded concerns that we are directly feeding money to the terrorists with our purchasing practices...
My wife's big War College paper was about malign vendors and contracting with the enemy in Afghanistan. She is now the ECC-A. Her Contracting Support Brigade took over the mission a couple of months ago.
So, I'm not speaking from complete ignorance when I talk about DoD contracting. Between the wife and myself we've been involved with it pretty extensively for quite a bit...
Army Adds 84mm Recoil-less Rifle to Platoon Arsenal
U.S. Army infantry platoons will soon have the 84mm Carl Gustaf recoil-less rifle, a devastating anti-armor system, as a permanently assigned weapon.
Service officials completed a so-called conditional materiel release authorization late last year, making the M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System an organic weapon system within each infantry platoon, IHS Jane’s 360 recently reported. The service is also working on an effort to achieve Full Material Release of the M3 later this year.
Army light infantry units began using the M3 in Afghanistan in 2011, but only when commanders submitted operational needs statements for the weapon
Army Adds 84mm Recoil-less Rifle to Platoon Arsenal
U.S. Army infantry platoons will soon have the 84mm Carl Gustaf recoil-less rifle, a devastating anti-armor system, as a permanently assigned weapon.
Service officials completed a so-called conditional materiel release authorization late last year, making the M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System an organic weapon system within each infantry platoon, IHS Jane’s 360 recently reported. The service is also working on an effort to achieve Full Material Release of the M3 later this year.
Army light infantry units began using the M3 in Afghanistan in 2011, but only when commanders submitted operational needs statements for the weapon
Another way to save money is to do away with a number of government contracts. Spending 25k on a laptop is well....stupid. Not to mention you have to order all gear and items from a specific shop which over prices those items significantly.
You don't know much about DoD contracting. No laptop is costing the DoD 25k, though there may be some software packages that do. And in no way is any service forced to buy gear from a specific shop which over prices, in fact single source bids are very much discouraged and you need very tight explanations as to why you are trying to let a single source contract and that generally comes down to a service contract (which is also discouraged) when the single source is the only one capable of providing the contracted service. If you have a contracting office/officer allowing 'all gear and items' to come form a single shop that is not the cheapest/best value, you have a contracting officer looking at jail time.
100% right on single source - On the research side of things, if a government group wants to buy a specific product from a specific manufacturer, they have to demonstrate that they cannot get such capabilities literally anywhere else, otherwise the acquisition has to be competed. It's easier said than done, and there's a ton of oversight.
Jake knows more about this than I do, but working with government and seeing how things work gives me a bit of insight. My main problem with budget is the state that funding has to be dedicated to certain uses - x dollars have to be spent for purpose x. On the research side of things, this results in government service labs trying to figure out how to spend a surplus of cash on x widgets when they don't have enough to spend on y widgets. The dollars are allocated in a hierarchy that is far too 'command push' and not nearly enough 'recon pull' by the people who are actually doing the work.
Carl Gustav 84mm was widely used by UK forces in the 1980s. In the Falklands War it was used to attack an Argentinian ship and also against emplacements.
It's unpopular with troops due to the heavy weight and awkwardness of carrying it, and the blast, but they like the effects of a hit.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?
If we don't sustain our military spending, how can we maintain our nearly unbroken record of not functionally winning a war since 1945?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You kicked the crap out of Grenada!
Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Little killing spree in Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
1st Gulf War
....
..
wait..we talking Conscription military to the volunteer force today?
Jihadin wrote: Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Little killing spree in Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
1st Gulf War
....
..
wait..we talking Conscription military to the volunteer force today?
Jihadin wrote: Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Little killing spree in Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
1st Gulf War
....
..
wait..we talking Conscription military to the volunteer force today?
What is this list?
The list of countries that that US has kicked the crap out of since 1945.
because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.
I'm not sure what the suits could have done to count as a win in that instance, or the military really. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were getting their ass handed to them by our guys but that never really mattered much. I'm not sure there was honestly a military victory to be had. What I mean is that it is far more complicated then just blaming politicians, though they deserve their fair share for it to be sure.
because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.
Who was it that said essentially that "the belief that Vietnam was a military victory is the greatest lie the US Armed Forces have told themselves?." I can't find the quote anymore.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.
If we measured military victory by kill counts then Germany beat Russia in WWII... given the Soviet flag that flew on the Reichstag that's probably not the best method.
So instead we probably have to look at military success as being able to achieve whatever aims were set for the military. In Vietnam, like many conflicts, the military goals were to end the will or ability of the North Vietnamese to continue fighting, and prepare the South to be able to fight for itself. The military was given more than a decade to achieve this, and never got it done.
Now, it is fair to point out it was near impossible to defeat the North's will and ability to fight as long as the North was willing to accept crazy casualty figures, and the US military was not able to cross the border and capture population and industrial areas in the North. And it's fair to point out that probably no-one could have got the South in to a proper fighting army, because their government was so gakky.
But it still remains as it is. The US military was given goals, and it failed to meet them.
If those are the assumed goals of Vietnam. I've seen expressed the notion of the US having merely lost the battle but won the war so to speak.
The purpose of the US intervention in Vietnam was to ensure it wasn't "communist" and thus open to trade with the core or more specifically with Japan as it needed Vietnam's market at the time. Now we have the TTP and the return to arms sales with the Vietnamese despite the results of the war. The US has essentially achieved its objectives even if it took far more time then expected.
It was never going to defeat the North Vietnamese because it was too busy bombing the South Vietnamese and Cambodians into submission. Yet after all that happened they have returned to the fold....well Vietnam has....
More bombs than WWII. They won but we kicked the crap out of NV.
Actual "I surrender" or "Forced them back":
Korean War Grenada Somalia I (with the US marines) Iraq I-Iraq leaves Kuwait (or more properly anyone near Kuwait is not alive after three days) Kosova: Serbia cries uncle Iraq II-Hussein plays hide in a hole. Baathist regime toppled. Libya-Can we do an email recall on that one? Austin- Texas successfully builds the Marble Falls-Leander-Round Rock Great Shield Wall, to hold back the California zombie breakout in Austin. "Cedar Park, keeping Texas safe from the Bay Area since 1995"
because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.
