Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that it would be cheaper to produce weapons in house, given the present cost inflation in the American defense industry. Really, I think the major hurdles would be the standard "big government" thing, and staffing.

That being said, alternative solutions like cutting the defense budget, restricting lobbyists, and taking steps to fight corruption in program oversight are also pretty difficult; with cutting the budget being the easiest.

AustonT wrote:I'm probably alone, in many ways I hope I am. But I think the military should take (back?) over the production of certain things. Ammunition for one Lake City could be staffed by soldiers. I think government owned arms manufacturing should return, maybe even again staffed by soldiers. If Springfield Armory (not the current company the place) built the M16/M4 we'd have a new battle rifle by now. Some things require the innovation and competition of private industry. Somehow I think the construction and design of destroyers, LHDs, and Carriers arent among them...you know those things the Navy spends a couple bucks on.

Why do you think that? The Army has a nice, very nice tradition, of crap last generation manufacturing for its military when left alone.

-Unrifled muskets instead of rifled muskets
-Civil War rifled muskets instead of breechloaders or repeaters
-Breechloaders instead of repeaters
-crappy bolt actions instead of the latest Mauser wannabe.
(always had decent artillery though)

Its not until right before and during WWI that the US really got into the game on the personal armaments front.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.

This is unintentionally hilarious.

You're essentially criticizing a person for using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response, while using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response. I assume you'll try to defend this on grounds of apparent accuracy, but the reality is that both the term you used, and the term used by Obama are accurate. This is not "doubletalk" (by which I suspect you mean doublespeak), unless you are also engaged in "doubletalk".

Leaner strongly indicates improved efficiency, that is the doubletalk. Cuts do not usually result in that. When cuts occur departments start to try and ringfence their budget, what actually ends up going is not what actually should go. Administrators normally stay but functionality is cut. Its easy to cut a budget than it is to re-manage it efficiently.
You should try to think rather than laugh you will find out that sweeping cuts almost always means starved, not fighting fit.

Take a look at this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[/url]

Functionality slashed, spending similar. Is that hilarious too?

I actually agree. They may be well intentioned, but the end result will probably be a reduction in capabilities.

Eh, that's not as true as you might think. Springfield was producing rifles as early as 1855, and the first large numbers of rifled former smooth bore musket occured in Springfield on the Model 1842 Musket. In fact te reason the Model 1855 rifle didn't enter service in the Civil War in as large of numbers as say the 1853 Enfield or 61 Springfield was because the Armory attempted to use a more modern priming system, the Maynard tape. The 55 Springfield was the standard issue of the (tiny) US Army at the outbreak of war and the 61 Springfield was simply the 55 minus the tape system nonsense.
Seeing that the American Civil War was the first conflict fought at large scale with rifled muskets, let alone breech loaders or repeaters I'm not sure why you think that the Army or Springfield was responsible for not adopting them but I'll bite in 1857 the Army purchased close to 1,000 Greene bolt action rifles, but ultimately decided they were too complicated and issued the 61 Springfield at large instead.The "crappy" Krag Jorgenson rifle that Springfield produced from 1892-1899 beat the Mauser the SMLE and 50 other rifles in open competition: twice.
Then when shown the error of their ways by Spanish Mausers improved and produced the Sprinfield 03 until the 50's. Which covers us from pre-Civil War to WWI. The Armory was always at the forefront of developing modern arms which for a second rate backwater like pre WWI America is fairly impressive.

Orlanth wrote:Leaner strongly indicates improved efficiency, that is the doubletalk.

How is that double talk?

If you're referring to cost efficiency, cuts definitely can result in this.

I think the realistic thing to hope for is an efficient reduction of capability, but still a reduction of capability.

Suppose you were able to cut 10% of the budget while only losing 5% of your capability. You have still technically weakened the military, but you have also increased efficiency. That's not automatically bad, if you make sure the 5% is either spread out or in an area we don't value as much anymore.

Now, if the cuts are in the wrong places, you can really screw things up, so tread carefully. But you know, government etc.

I wouldn't call late 19th century USA an engineering backwater.

Rented Tritium wrote:I think the realistic thing to hope for is an efficient reduction of capability, but still a reduction of capability.

Suppose you were able to cut 10% of the budget while only losing 5% of your capability. You have still technically weakened the military, but you have also increased efficiency. That's not automatically bad, if you make sure the 5% is either spread out or in an area we don't value as much anymore.

Now, if the cuts are in the wrong places, you can really screw things up, so tread carefully. But you know, government etc.

The point. You can slash by say up to 1% and cut junk, if you check the books carefully and end stuff that needs ending. You can also save money by recruiting freezes etc.
5% means the axe has to fall hard. Assuming that US military is not run by morons, each sub-department etc will be clutching hard at their cheques. The first thing that will be saves is the paycheques of administrators and senior personnel, then they mates, then come essential stuff and everything is assumed to be more essential than the other guys department. Civil servants the world over know how to play this game.

5% cuts will come out of functionality, and the savings will disappear quickly because the core costs like admin remain intact. Sure Obama might make a monetary saving to win some votes with a tax cut before the election, but its entirely for his benefit. Once the election is done (thanks suckers) the US military will be approx 5% less efficient and the budgewt will return as empty bureaucracy always refills itself as a defence mechanism.

Obama has no track record of handling bureaucratic costs, few leaders have, and this is way too sudden. If Obama was genuine about making the US military more efficient he should wait until a second term then take on the DoD forcing cuts at the top to accompany a 5% cut to guarantee the saving sticks. That would be a tough job best left as a legacy policy.
As it stands its an election gimic for which the US is expected to pay for long term, number of beneficiaries: one.

Kilkrazy wrote:I wouldn't call late 19th century USA an engineering backwater.

I meant the country itself. I don't think you could consider 19th C America a first rate power, which effects it's military spending. Contemporarily think Argentina maybe ( there's probably a better example I was thinking Italy but...it's in the Med and stuff) A possible threat to established world powers but too far away and too poor to make a difference.

Eh, that's not as true as you might think. Springfield was producing rifles as early as 1855, and the first large numbers of rifled former smooth bore musket occured in Springfield on the Model 1842 Musket.

***Yes but our dear revolutionary patriots were shooting redcoats with rifles nearly a century before.

In fact te reason the Model 1855 rifle didn't enter service in the Civil War in as large of numbers as say the 1853 Enfield or 61 Springfield was because the Armory attempted to use a more modern priming system, the Maynard tape.

***True dat. Of course, no one figured out the tape was crap????

Seeing that the American Civil War was the first conflict fought at large scale with rifled muskets, let alone breech loaders or repeaters I'm not sure why you think that the Army or Springfield was responsible for not adopting them but I'll bite in 1857 the Army purchased close to 1,000 Greene bolt action rifles, but ultimately decided they were too complicated and issued the 61 Springfield at large instead.

***The Henry and superior Spencers were about. Indeed certain cavalry units “self equipped” themselves with Henrys and Spencers carbines were issued to horse. Why not everyone? Indeed the War Department wouldn’t pursue Spencers until the developer managed to see Lincoln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_carbine

Need I not note the joy of Yankee troops vs. repeater armed local citizenry? Can you say Never bring Custer to an Indian fight?

The "crappy" Krag Jorgenson rifle that Springfield produced from 1892-1899 beat the Mauser the SMLE and 50 other rifles in open competition: twice.

***Meh. I’m familiar with government “open competitions.” The winner is defined by the test parameters. The Krag was a single loader and picked for that reason.

Then when shown the error of their ways by Spanish Mausers improved and produced the Sprinfield 03 until the 50's. Which covers us from pre-Civil War to WWI. The Armory was always at the forefront of developing modern arms which for a second rate backwater like pre WWI America is fairly impressive.

***We’ll just have to disagree. I’ll further note the BAR in WWI not being permitted tobe used because we didn’t want Germany to get a look at them, even though we were in a major war.

Now I will grant they liked artillery toys, particularly from the Civil War onwards.

We don't necessarily have to "disagree" I'm simply pointing out that the Army and Springfield did attempt to push arms development forward. Those arms were not necessarily used or the best, but you can't win them all. What I'm really driving at is that the production should be held in .gov hands. Not GOCO. At the very LEAST Lake City could be run by the Army and Marines.

Sadly for the USA you can never stamp a slogan on your artillery like this:

Ultimo ratio regum

Niether can the French anymore. We can use:
Sic Semper Tyrannis

The royal marines motto is Per mare, Per Terram.

Loosely translated it's - "Climb the highest mountain, swim the mightiest ocean, bludgeon the most annoying Iraqi"

My Latin is generously referred to as sub par... But that last bit seems absent.

The leadership of the Marines Corps have actually been pushing for a reduction in size. They have been used as a 2nd army for a long time now, and the leadership of the corps wants them to return to their roots rather than do the army's job.

That being said Obama isn't going to be axing military service members left and right. Recruiting will drop, and the military will do what they do best: Make do with what they have.

Total defense related spending (DoD budget+ counter terrorism+ pensions+ va benifits + interest from debt accrued from the Iraq war) for 2012 is going to be between $1.030–$1.415 trillion.

AustonT wrote:My Latin is generously referred to as sub par... But that last bit seems absent.

Apparently it's actually "By sea, By land" but mine was better.

Philistines!

Something for the UN and Nato allies to consider. The US Armed Forces have been supplying most of the troops for various actions/wars/defense. The USA has been providing most of the funding, and most of the equipment as well.

This has allowed most of the European countries to spend money they would have spent on military on other things.. like National Health Care plans, Trains, etc. Meanwhile recognizing they needed some military capacity, they just relied on the good ole USA.

Now it looks like that plan of the big bad best friend being about to help keep the bullies and wolves away will be a thing of the past.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the European countries to sort out that they need to move finances to military, and give private cotrol back to things like health care.

Germany is already making moves to take over Europe again, this time they are doing it with money, and pen and paper though, so not suprising not many have caught on.

Only a matter of time before the neighbors say "Hey Germany.. you have the finances, can you build an army to protect us all?" And then they have you.

Personally I think it will be a good thing for the world to get along a bit without us constantly helping out with military matters. Kind of sounds like Obama is moving further back to the centre in the direction and the nutty isolationist ideas of people like Ron Paul...

Hmmmm Politicking as usual.

Indeed, NATO couldn't have stopped the unholy terror that is Libya without US support. Thats almost sad.

And it took nine (?) months for the US supported by NATO to beat them.

What's going to happen to us all when the North Koreans get rolling?

I would hope that NATO AND the US take NKorea more seriously than Libya. Which as a civil war EVERYONE should have stayed out of. You know except Libyans.

nevermind

This is just my simple opinion, being in the Army right now myself...

The first things to be cut, will be retention benefits. Basically, sometime soon, I may be seeing a cut in the bonus I receive for staying on longer. After this will more than likely be the recruiting of new soldiers for certain MOSs. In "peace times" certain jobs see major decreases in numbers, some others see moderate to fairly large increases in numbers.

We'll probably see a drive to dump old and outdated equipment that is just rotting in various units around the world (which would be fantastic, because my shop is loaded with crap from the 60s and 70s that no one can fix or use any more)

After a drive to temper or reduce numbers, we'll see a drop in "available" ammunition and fuel for the fiscal year. For example, a Battalion has 500 soldiers, and currently gets allotted 1 million rounds of various type for training prior to heading into a warzone. Under these budget "cuts" this same battalion may only receive 750 thousand rounds of various types, or even half a million rounds available.. This means that units will need to become much more efficient in their qualifying and training with live rounds to meet army requirements (you'd be amazed the people who cannot shoot and qualify to save their lives without hundreds of rounds in a given range day).

Kilkrazy wrote:And it took nine (?) months for the US supported by NATO to beat them.

What's going to happen to us all when the North Koreans get rolling?

In totally unrelated news...

Step 1: cut military spending.
Step 2: raise civilian employee pay.

Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?

Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?

to an extent yes

biccat wrote:In totally unrelated news...

Step 1: cut military spending.
Step 2: raise civilian employee pay.

Classic guns versus butter. The thing is we're not living in 1980's anymore with a hostile USSR aiming 10,000 nuclear warheads at our cities. Now we're dealing with a bunch of Jihadies that feth goats and live in caves. They got lucky once on 9/11 when they were armed with nothing more than box cutters. The red menace is gone, so I would not expect the guns versus butter ratio to be the same as it was in the 80s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?

Yes it does. I went into the military in 1997 and got out in 06. Pay and benefits have done nothing but improve over the past 15 years, and nobody is even talking about reducing either. Cuts would be in expensive hardware like F22s and the over all size of the military (reduced recruiting)

Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anything it's a little higher
Base pay for an E-5 over 4 was 888 in 1984 in 2006 when inflation had roughly doubled the same place in the chart made 1935.