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.

Bering Straight is better

 Scrabb wrote:
Sure, congress is the one responsible for the military budget, by and large.

In discussing problems with said budget plenty of the blame will go to the lawmakers.

It's still a problem with the military budget.


Also, another inefficiency is the increasing number of officers.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-wds-19980301.html


"This report shows that our military has almost twice as many officers per enlisted personnel than at the end of World War II. In short, officer inflation in the U.S. military has reached an all-time high. At a time when pay for enlisted personnel is so low that some are on food stamps, money is being squandered on an excessively large officer corps."

(said article is not far from 20 years old. I'm willing to bet the problem hasn't gone away yet)

The officer number has to do with Warrant Officers, and officer Pilots. The Army has grown increasingly reliant on helicopters, and as such they need larger numbers of warrant officers to fly them. It's why they have such a disparity in the number of "officers" to enlisted. The Army alone has a over 3,000 helicopters. Everyone of those has 2 bodies (minimum) per air frame. It's not like the Army is just trying to make a good ole boy system. Is there officer bloat? Possibly, but it's hardly as bad as the pure numbers make it out to be.

Why do you have to be an officer to fly a helicopter?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you have to be an officer to fly a helicopter?

I don't know why, honestly. They got rid of enlisted aviators just before WW2 if I recall correctly. The only air frame that an enlisted person can "fly" in the US Military is a drone. And I think only in the Army does that happen.

That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

Take that up with the folks who make that decision. I'm just explaining how current doctrine warrants the increased number of officers compared to 60-70 years ago.

Edit: To make a point. Most Army Warrant Officers were prior enlisted. And I know more then a few current pilots in todays AF who started out as enlisted as well. I will say though, as a man who has everday dealings with pilots, and have a pretty good view of what their job entails, it is definitely a job that warrants more then enlisted pay.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

Take that up with the folks who make that decision. I'm just explaining how current doctrine warrants the increased number of officers compared to 60-70 years ago.

Edit: To make a point. Most Army Warrant Officers were prior enlisted. And I know more then a few current pilots in todays AF who started out as enlisted as well. I will say though, as a man who has everday dealings with pilots, and have a pretty good view of what their job entails, it is definitely a job that warrants more then enlisted pay.

I don't doubt they deserve more pay. Does the army not have different payscales based on your job? Or is it everyone of same rank gets paid the same?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That seems like real bloat. Why do you have to be an officer to fly stuff when you could have enlisted men do it for much cheaper.

Seems like it would be more effective to have squadrons only have one officer instead of each bird being his own thing.

Take that up with the folks who make that decision. I'm just explaining how current doctrine warrants the increased number of officers compared to 60-70 years ago.

Edit: To make a point. Most Army Warrant Officers were prior enlisted. And I know more then a few current pilots in todays AF who started out as enlisted as well. I will say though, as a man who has everday dealings with pilots, and have a pretty good view of what their job entails, it is definitely a job that warrants more then enlisted pay.

I don't doubt they deserve more pay. Does the army not have different payscales based on your job? Or is it everyone of same rank gets paid the same?

I thought you were someone who had served before...

Nope. My grandpa served in WW2 and I have many friends who are/were in the military. Thats as close as it gets.

I did consider signing up for ROTC, but its a little late now that I'm less than a year from graduating.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nope. My grandpa served in WW2 and I have many friends who are/were in the military. Thats as close as it gets.

I did consider signing up for ROTC, but its a little late now that I'm less than a year from graduating.

Not sure why I thought that..

But no, to answer your question. Pay is standardized across all ranks, across all branches. An E-5 in the AF makes the same as an E-5 in the Army.

Hmm, interesting. Seems like something that could use a change.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Seems like something that could use a change.

I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.

Not for all jobs, but some jobs. You get paid according to the technical skill required for the job. Or if its particularly hazardous.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Seems like something that could use a change.

I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.

No, it would not be. The military works in large part because of its uniformity. Some jobs require more experience/better skilled/etc... folks to do it. That is why the job slot has to be filled by folks who are higher rank, and hence better paid. Officer pilots have to juggle the extreme job of being a pilot, while still being a leader. That is why they get better pay then Warrant Officers, who are just pilots, not leaders. Just as an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not for all jobs, but some jobs. You get paid according to the technical skill required for the job. Or if its particularly hazardous.

There are things that account for that. Hazardous duty pay. Special Duty Pay. Flight Pay. Sea Pay. All special allowances that are paid to folks who do "different" jobs. I currently get special duty pay because I'm an AF Weather Forecaster supporting the Army. Weather Forecasters supporting the AF don't get it, because the job that we get paid for is less "intensive" then my job. So I get the special incentive pay.

They may outnumber us, the our submarines are not powered by teams of rowers lead by a guy with a drum

Warrant Officers are specialized in their MOS's.
Warrant Officers (Pilots) are pro-rated in flight pay by the hours flown in the Air Frame.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They may outnumber us, the our submarines are not powered by teams of rowers lead by a guy with a drum

Nah they are powered by a team of isotopes lead by a guy with 3 eyes.

Uh, last time I looked in a history book, aren't Subs strategically useless outside of being spooky, and only real use in modern warfare is as mobile nuclear launch-pads? Otherwise the only thing you can use Submarines for is sinking enemy ships.... which missiles do far better job at, and are cheaper.

It's U-Boat Electric Boogaloo edition.

Subs carry missiles too. They're also stealthy. Good tools for inserting covert op teams.

Subs were hardly strategically useless in WW2, they sank a lot of supplies during the war. Even the threat of sinking your enemy's supplies is a good one.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Uh, last time I looked in a history book, aren't Subs strategically useless outside of being spooky

Fleets are strategically important, and any one ship outside of that sense can be called strategically useless. So it's a good thing no one really things of submarines in a vacuum but rather as an extension of a fleet's ability to operate.

and only real use in modern warfare is as mobile nuclear launch-pads?

No.

Otherwise the only thing you can use Submarines for is sinking enemy ships....

Even if that were true, how is that a bad thing? Most ships in a fleet serve (in varying degrees) 2 roles; the ability to protect the fleet from attack, and the ability to project firepower from the fleet onto a target. Submarines can fill both these roles in varying ways;

-Submarines can scout ahead of the fleet from a position of relative safety
-Submarines can attack an opposing force from a position of relative safety, and a position of strength as they can move more freely than surface ships
-Submarines can hunt and sink other Submarines which is both offensively and defensively significant
-Submarines can move independently of a fleet's main body and still support that fleet without becoming overly exposed

I'd expect subs to become even more significant as time goes on given advancements in drone technology (underwater drone carrier subs that can launch and retrieve drones without surfacing and control them from underwater for example).

which missiles do far better job at, and are cheaper.

Submarine's can launch missiles. And what is a torpedo, but an underwater missile?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Uh, last time I looked in a history book, aren't Subs strategically useless outside of being spooky

Fleets are strategically important, and any one ship outside of that sense can be called strategically useless. So it's a good thing no one really things of submarines in a vacuum but rather as an extension of a fleet's ability to operate.

and only real use in modern warfare is as mobile nuclear launch-pads?

No.

Otherwise the only thing you can use Submarines for is sinking enemy ships....

Even if that were true, how is that a bad thing? Most ships in a fleet serve (in varying degrees) 2 roles; the ability to protect the fleet from attack, and the ability to project firepower from the fleet onto a target. Submarines can fill both these roles in varying ways;

-Submarines can scout ahead of the fleet from a position of relative safety
-Submarines can attack an opposing force from a position of relative safety, and a position of strength as they can move more freely than surface ships
-Submarines can hunt and sink other Submarines which is both offensively and defensively significant
-Submarines can move independently of a fleet's main body and still support that fleet without becoming overly exposed

I'd expect subs to become even more significant as time goes on given advancements in drone technology (underwater drone carrier subs that can launch and retrieve drones without surfacing and control them from underwater for example).

which missiles do far better job at, and are cheaper.

Submarine's can launch missiles. And what is a torpedo, but an underwater missile?

Torpedoes aren't hypersonic missiles that completely bypass any defense and are almost physically impossible to defend against, plus Subs themselves can be targeted. Unless you're looking for a discrete place to store your nukes, you're better off with Super-Carriers. Everything you stated can already be done in a superior fashion by missiles, drones, piloted aircraft, and Destroyers. And drones especially are far easier to replace en masse compared to Subs- lose one and most or all of the crew is dead.

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

 Wyzilla wrote:
plus Subs themselves can be targeted.

Relevant how? What ship can't be targeted by something? Submarines are far less vulnerable to attack than surface ships. If you think torpedoes are useless, you should go back and check up some war games. Subs have bypassed fleets and sunk US carriers in mock games on several occasions. The most famous recent example being the Swedish Gotland class which 'sank' the Ronald Reagan in the middle of its own carrier group. And no one knew it was there until after it got back out. I.E. the sub sneaked its way pass the carrier group, touched the Reagan, and sneaked back out and no one knew it was there until after the game was over.

Unless you're looking for a discrete place to store your nukes, you're better off with Super-Carriers.

If this were a poorly balanced RTS, yeah, but it's not. For the cost of one GR class carrier we can buy 6 Virginia class subs, and I think it's pretty established the Virginia class is the F35 of the US Navy (horribly over costed). If we're talking non-Nuclear, which is most of China's subs, we're looking at even lower costs, and since China is more interested in controlling their local sphere than projection across the Pacific, this isn't a weakness for them like it is for the US. Carriers are only worth their cost if you need an airbase somewhere you don't have one. China as such, doesn't quite need them like America does. They don't have global power projection as a goal and their land bases meet their local needs.

The chinese did the same thing, 9 years ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/?page=all

 LordofHats wrote:

I'd expect subs to become even more significant as time goes on given advancements in drone technology (underwater drone carrier subs that can launch and retrieve drones without surfacing and control them from underwater for example).

Does the US really want to emulate the Union of Yuktobanian Republics?

 Wyzilla wrote:

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

Transports are easy, and I'm sure China has more than enough capable examples to do any of the invading it may have in mind.

As to carriers: they're working on that. When you start designing carrier aircraft, acquiring carrier hulls, and have officials say more are in the future its a fair bet there is serious interest in operating carriers.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

China probably has enough transports to get them across the straits to Taiwan and enough capacity to get to some of their neighbours. They really don't want to get across the pacific, They only need enough force to prevent US intervention and to give them and their local allies pause for thought.

They can also get resources by hoofing it to Siberia and westwards if they wanted the ball ache.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Plus what China really needs are carriers and transports. A large military doesn't do a whole lot if you can't actually get them overseas.

China probably has enough transports to get them across the straits to Taiwan and enough capacity to get to some of their neighbours. They really don't want to get across the pacific, They only need enough force to prevent US intervention and to give them and their local allies pause for thought.

They can also get resources by hoofing it to Siberia and westwards if they wanted the ball ache.

Yeah, transport isn't the issue. The real reason they could invade Taiwan and Japan is because their land based aircraft can still cover them.

I'm sure China could just seize all large cargo ships that are in their ports if they ever declare war and need transports.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Unless you want the military to start raising its own money to pay for itself*, then you have to accept that congressional allocation, or misallocation, is part and parcel of the process.

Or to think of it another way, in Eisenhower's last speech as president, where he mentions the 'military industrial complex'... the earlier draft mentioned 'military–industrial–congressional complex', but that was dropped to avoid pissing off congress. The whole scam is a three legged stool;

1) Generals call for more and more money to poured in to the bottomless pit of defense needs to counter whatever new fiction the enemy might one day acquire
2) Defence contractors spread out across absolutely every state, and even across every district, so everyone gets a piece of the action
3) Congress critters who worry only about 'delivering jobs' to their own districts, and not about keeping spending under control for the good of the nation.



*Have casual dress Fridays, maybe? Requires a dollar donation - so far we've raised $537 of the $1,200,000,000 needed!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Even if that were true, how is that a bad thing? Most ships in a fleet serve (in varying degrees) 2 roles; the ability to protect the fleet from attack, and the ability to project firepower from the fleet onto a target. Submarines can fill both these roles in varying ways;

-Submarines can scout ahead of the fleet from a position of relative safety
-Submarines can attack an opposing force from a position of relative safety, and a position of strength as they can move more freely than surface ships
-Submarines can hunt and sink other Submarines which is both offensively and defensively significant
-Submarines can move independently of a fleet's main body and still support that fleet without becoming overly exposed

Good answer.

In other news, I was expecting this thread to come up with the old 'subs are the only thing that matters and carriers are white elephants argument'. Seeing an argument that subs are outdated through me for a loop

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Unless you want the military to start raising its own money to pay for itself*, then you have to accept that congressional allocation, or misallocation, is part and parcel of the process.


*Have casual dress Fridays, maybe? Requires a dollar donation - so far we've raised $537 of the $1,200,000,000 needed!

Just go back to a loot and plunder model of warfare. When we go back into Iraq instead of throwing tons of money into "rebuilding" that the locals will just steal anyways, we take everything that isn't nailed down. The US Army becomes a for-profit venture.

 Bromsy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Unless you want the military to start raising its own money to pay for itself*, then you have to accept that congressional allocation, or misallocation, is part and parcel of the process.


*Have casual dress Fridays, maybe? Requires a dollar donation - so far we've raised $537 of the $1,200,000,000 needed!

Just go back to a loot and plunder model of warfare. When we go back into Iraq instead of throwing tons of money into "rebuilding" that the locals will just steal anyways, we take everything that isn't nailed down. The US Army becomes a for-profit venture.

There is something to be said for that.

 Bromsy wrote:
Just go back to a loot and plunder model of warfare. When we go back into Iraq instead of throwing tons of money into "rebuilding" that the locals will just steal anyways, we take everything that isn't nailed down. The US Army becomes a for-profit venture.

Bring in the old hunting rule that you are only allowed to kill it if you intend to eat it, and it sounds like a workable model for the new century.