Military cuts..it begins

I'm sorry for the human suffering of anyone affected by economic problems ... but let's face it, the US military does very little to help progress in the countries in which it operates, or in America itself.

Iraq cost the US taxpayer about $3 Trillion in cash, not bankers' funny money. That's enough cash to fix all the roads, schools and hospitals in America. And what did it buy?

By all independent estimates it bought over a million dead Iraqis. So that's about $3 Million per dead Iraqi. It didn't help anyone in Iraq - it destroyed the country's infrastructure and left its society brutalised and in ruins.

A similar adventure in Afghanistan has likewise done nothing to help anyone ... but cost the American taxpayer another $1.5 Trillion.

But those wastes of money are in the past. The question you've got to answer is why shouldn't America cut its military spending now? What great military threat does America face in its future?

You might point at China, but the fact is the Chinese have no need to attack America when they already own America. And the Russians have no military interest in America any more. Are you expecting to be attacked by the North Koreans who starve every winter? Monsters from outer space? 15 Saudis armed with box cutters?

If its 15 box cutter Moslems, you probably don't need to spend another $3 Trillion to stop them. Reinforced cockpit doors would do that just fine. Monsters from outer space won't even return our calls, so they're unlikely to turn up real soon.

In other words the US military just seems to have no reason for existing any more. So how about you military folks stay home and rebuild your own country? By every indicator - lifespan, education levels, wealth polarisation, jail population - it's gone pear-shaped. Perhaps it is time you give peace a chance?

Rodney.... Unless you have spent time on a ship, been trained in and understand damage control, DC is one of those things that cannot be "Automated". I don't care if it is fire or flooding, or repair, you have to have bodies to keep your ship in the fight.

I can't speak to other branches, but considering even the most modern DC advances being installed today, the ships that men go to sea in will require plenty of hands, eyes, and problem solving ability to keep them afloat. And that is going to be the way it is, no matter what you read in Popular Science, or some DoD think tank report.

How about we cut the "God-awful" F-35 JSF? That multi-billion dollar piece of flying pork project has been so compromised to serve all the branches that it's performance is less than what it is to replace.

Aviation Weekly: "It can't climb, it can't turn, it can't run."

Who in their right mind thought that the Navy and Marines should implement a single engine aircraft, when they have for decades known and followed that multi-engine aircraft mean survivability for the aircraft and the crew.

Ugh....the JSF is a lovely case study in what can go wrong at the confluence of military acquisition and politically-based decision making.

Out of curiosity, would you have preferred the USN and USMC stick with the Super Hornet, or develop their own aircraft (rather than trying to fit the square peg of the JSF into the round hole of maritime ops)?

How about we cut some of the personnel overhead? The size of the military has shrunk to half it's size of 30 years ago. How many 4-star & 3 star flag officer positions have been eliminated?

The Super Bug is still a very capable aircraft and proven technology. What else is out there that a well trained aviator in that platform cannot outperform? If there is a weakness it would be in the area of Electronic Warfare and the F-18G Growler. The ECM/ESM performance of that platform is less than that of the much older EA-6b ICAP II they are replacing.

The F-18 is a solid dual engine design with proven track record that will get itself and it's crew home.

Maybe I'm too old-school, but I was always a big fan of the EF-111 and EA-6B. It's surprising how when we go to newer platforms in the ESM/EW realm how we seem to take steps backward for every step we take forward. The F-16CJ had some nice capabilities, but had shortfalls in areas that the older F-4G had covered nicely.

In reading the comments about the F-35 JSF, why are such projects allowed to not only be developed, but also allowed to be realized?!? If this F-35 JSF is poor in performance (and it sounds like it's a freakin' dangerous piece of machinery), then why is it being manufactured?!? Is it safe to assume that some for-profit company is manufacturing this thing in some politician's district??

I ask these questions to ask more general questions regarding the manufacturing of military equipment (big and small).

Please help me understand. . .

How has it come to pass that the manufacturing of military equipment (big and small) has grown so dependent on for-profit companies to make them? Why have we as a country even allowed for-profit companies to be involved, on any level, in the military service? If the goal of the military is to protect our country (that means that the goal of the military is to protect you and me from those who wish us harm) why the f**k is any entity that is based on and for profit entered into the picture?!?

Why can't all military equipment (big and small) be engineered and manufactured by well-educated, duty-focused people of the military who's only concern is to build effective (against the enemy) and safe (for those who operate them) machinery and weapons (both big and small)?!?!? Why NOT have such a system in place where no profit-motive exists as it exists for bottom-line driven for-profit companies??

In my mind, the drive to make money is fine for companies that make soap, cars, computers, television sets, clothes and toys. But the drive to make money that involves the "Flesh and Blood" and the duty to protect our country has NO f**king place in the military.

I ask all of these questions based on the principle that the protection of this country and all that is involved with it should be based on duty and not on profit-making. I find it disgusting that the goal to make profit (on any level) even enters into the picture when it comes to the military and protecting this country. I find it HUGELY disgusting and, quite frankly, very frightening that ill-performing projects like that "God -awful" F-35 JSF is allowed to take place when found to be potentially dangerous to the service men and women who serve this country.

Why not explore other ways in saving money when balancing budgets? Why not consider a huge change in how and by whom military equipment (both big and small) is manufactured? Of course these last two questions are based on principle for me and not necessarily based on finance. But maybe budgets can be reined in and better controlled when eliminating the profit-motive, and when military equipment is developed and manufactured solely by well-educated, duty-focused military personnel.

And yet. . . it seems that certain values dictate that the "Flesh and Blood" of the military be compromised. Not good.

The F-18 is a solid dual engine design with proven track record that will get itself and it's crew home.

I'm curious and you obviously know much more about this than I do. What's the cost comparison on the f-16, f-18, the stealth fighter, and the JSF? Is the F-16 still a viable platform?

The Viper is still a viable platform against older threats. In an Iranian or North Korea scenario, they're pretty survivable. But if you start throwing SA-20s/s-300 or even contemporary Flankers with active missiles into the mix (or some of the newer Chinese-made or Indian-made stuff), then things get quite lethal for the old F-15 and F-16s.

For irregular warfare, where we're mostly just doing close air support, and F-16 is fine (albeit with dangerously aging structure).

(albeit with dangerously aging structure).

What does that mean, exactly. Sorry for the ignorance.

Well, the AF has been on a combat footing for 21 years - since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Between Desert Storm, all of the No Fly Zone enforcement (Iraq and the Balkans), and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, we've flown our aircraft many more hours than originally projected. We are starting to have significant metal fatigue issues as we stress our airframes more than they were intended to handle.

Of course, had we been able to bring the F-22 online at a pace that bore vague resemblance to on time and on budget, we might have been able to mitigate some of these problems (or not - we have some F-22s now, but we don't deploy them)

Jack Tx...... It is a bit difficult to do some comparisons between aircraft. The F-18 has to land on a carrier, the F-16 is older, and a single engine design, but here are the numbers..."fly away" meaning without all the toys:

F-16 $19million

F/A-18 $55million

F-117 $111 million (stealth fighter has been retired)

F-22 $150 million

Randomreturn is correct. High performance aircraft undergo very high stress loads to their airframes during training, and combat. Since these frames are aluminum, as they are stressed, fatigue cracks can begin to weaken the airframe. Same is true for commercial aircraft and they are constantly inspected for fatigue. Tanks, aircraft, ships, wear out under use just like the people that operate them. The ready reserve for this country is almost non-existent.

The problem in killing military R&D programs is that military contractors have learned to have different components made in as many different states as possible. That way, every congressman will squeel like a stuck pig if anyone tries to kill the project.

Navy

Rodney.... Unless you have spent time on a ship, been trained in and understand damage control, DC is one of those things that cannot be "Automated". I don't care if it is fire or flooding, or repair, you have to have bodies to keep your ship in the fight.

I agree, it was my fire fighting training that I learned aboard ship that helped me save my home when a fire broke out last year.

But just look at every single new class of warship that's being built today, plus, look at all the X ships that are in development, from CVX to Sea Shadow. Every single one has reduced crew requirements.

Damage control hasn't changed, what's changed is automation. I don't know just how far you can automate DC but make no mistake, warships of the future will have much smaller crews than we've seen in the past.

If I can just add few comments about our fighter aircraft.

First, the 4th gen aircraft (F15,16,18) are not capable of penetrating integrated air defense systems (IADS) without a high projected attrition rate and large strike packages. The main requirement for 5th gen aircraft is stealth. While the aircraft are not cheap, stealth has proven that it can penetrate IADS with a very, very low attrition and a much smaller footprint.

I agree with FlyNavy that I don't like seeing a Navy pilot launching of the front end with only one engine.

The Marine Corps is in desperate need of a replacement for the AV8B II. It's a aged airframe (nearly 40 years) and its carbon fiber panels have a terrible history of not withstanding battle damage. Because of its VSTOL capability its range and payload has always been a shortcoming and its subsonic.

I think the USMC picked the wrong aircraft, I don't like the lift fan and I really don't like the rear nozzle and all the twists and turns it has to go through to VSTOL. But that train has left the station. The Corps will make the best of a bad situation.

If there is a version that could be dropped it would be the USAF's version. The F15 & F16 are still very capable and could augment the Raptors. Right now, this country has Air Superiority in all theaters of potential conflict and Air Dominance in nearly all theaters of potential conflict.

Russia and China are fielding 5th gen aircraft but they are still years behind us in capability but the day is coming when our 4th gen aircraft will be obsolete. What we do now will determine how well prepared we are when that day gets here. The F35 has shortcomings, but all our combat aircraft had shortcomings when they first hit the fleet.

Out of curiosity, would you have preferred the USN and USMC stick with the Super Hornet

The Lighting and the Hornet are different aircraft that operate under different tactical scenarios. War planning with the F35 allows operations to streamline the strike package. The problem with the Hornet is that it requires larger strike packages (meaning other supporting aircraft) to penetrate IADS, while a package of Lightnings are much more capable of doing it alone. It's really coming down to space on the carrier. If you have a stealthy aircraft that can fight in, strike and fight out it reduces the number of dissimilar aircraft in the CAG.

The Marine Corps' mission nearly requires a VSTOL aircraft. The Corps operates as part of the CAG but it also operates from smaller Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG) as well. An amphibious warship does not have catapults so the only fixed wing aircraft that can operate from its deck are VSTOL (AV8B & F35). Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) depend on Marine Air to provide Close Air support, much of that support is provided by fixed wing aircraft operating from Amphib Ready Groups. The Marine Corps has been augmenting CVBG CAGs for years now. Usually, there's at least one squadron of Marine F/A18s assigned to the CAG of most Battle Groups. But those squadrons primary responsibility is to the CVBG while Marine squadrons operating from the ARG primary responsibility is to support the MEU.

The problem in killing military R&D programs is that military contractors have learned to have different components made in as many different states as possible.

Since the Bush administration, the vast majority of military R&D is coming out of DARPA. Traditional weapons systems are a dying breed. The San Antonio class Amphibious warship, CVX, the Virginia Class SSN are systems that, if built, will be that last of the big stick style weapons systems. The 22nd century military will look nothing like what we have today. Our aircraft carriers will be nothing more than drone transports, our air wing will be combat drones and the grunt will be nearly extinct. The bottom line is drones and robots don't have a "next of kin" and they are much cheaper than a $1 billion dollar aircraft carrier that we can't send into the South China Sea for fear that $100,000 Chinese anti ship missile will sink it.

Next question, not aircraft related:

I read we 10 aircraft carriers currently active, with 3 more in production. Does each one of those have its own carrier group? In your opinion(s), do we need 10-13 carriers/groups? If so, why? If not, how many would defend us adequately?

Good question Jack

Does each one of those have its own carrier group?

Yes and no. Each carrier will be assigned to a Fleet (5th, 6th, 7th, etc). Within each Fleet is a group of ships that are used to build a Task Force/Battle Group centered around a carrier(s). DoD will not build a new carrier and then build all new ships to form a new Battle Group but there are additional ships being built (DDG, CG, SSN) that will, undoubtedly, end up in the same Battle Group with the new carriers.

In your opinion(s), do we need 10-13 carriers/groups?

It's kinda hard for me to answer this question because I have served in a ARG attached to the 6th Fleet. I've seen the tremendous firepower of a CVBG/ARG, it's the most powerful military unit on earth so I'm biased.

But I would say yes, 13 is a good number even though a CVBG is tremendously expensive to operate. The CVBG/ARG gives the President options that he wouldn't have otherwise. Two CVBGs and their embarked air wings becomes the 3rd or 4th largest air force on planet and can move approx. 600nm a day and cover nearly every inch of the planet, that is a powerful option to have as a President. Add to that 2000 Marines and our gear and there are not too many scenarios that a CVBG/ARG can't handle.

From a cost standpoint, I would reduce our commitment to Europe and maintain or increase the Navy/Marine Corps capabilities. The problem in doing this is that it would spark another round of interservice rivalry. The Army doesn't want to see cuts at their expense but something has to give because this country can not continue to spend $600-$700 billion dollars a year on defense.

The tip of the spear is the Navy/Marine Corps team not the Army. But the Army has a powerful lobby in congress so it remains to be seen how the budgetary cuts will play out. It's possible the Navy could lose and see a reduction in seapower over the next 10 years, that would be a mistake in my opinion, but I'm a Marine so I have to admit I'm biased.

Thanks. Great information.

You're welcome...

You're safe smitty,

They will start with new recruits and re-enlistees. I doubt that this would affect senior SNCOs and officers.

They are about to destroy the all volunteer structure though. The NCO is the backbone of our current force structure. This will cause reenlistment rates to plummet.

People will join now for the training in high tech fields and then move onto the civilian sector. This will severely weaken the leadership at the NCO and SNCO level. We will return to something like we saw during Vietnam. A force structure of young inexperience leaders and a high turnover rate.

I'm an old timer (USMC), but I still care deeply about our service members serving today and the force as a whole. This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen.

Good luck, I hope you make the cutoff if this should happen.

I doubt even re-enlistees would be affected unless they had a break in service.

Thanks Rodney...Leadership has already started circulating emails to quell some of the fears. The fact that this was even brought to the table to should upset most.

You're welcome

...and thanks for serving, I appreciate your commitment to this nation and to our troops. We need men and women who are committed to serving.

I know it's easy to feel that Americans have forgotten about you guys, but many of us haven't.

Just know that we support you and appreciate the sacrifices you folks are making. Your generation has been asked to sacrifice far more than any generation in modern history.

We are proud of you guys and, I for one, will always be in your corner.

Semper Fidelis

Its like a poster said above...why stay when you can just get your education and training and leave. We put up with a lot of crap...but we know there is no sweeter deal than retirement at 20 years of service. You take that away...and you almost have nothing to keep people coming back for the abuse.

I came in, or went in rather, just after high-3 was implemented. I know when I hit my 10-yr mark, which seems to be the going pivot point, I knew I was heading for retirment as Uncle Sam darned well OWED me that retirement check for putting up with things for even 10 years. :) Been retired for nearly 3 years now (1 November) and I like that deposit each month.

If the plan currently in the idea stage actually is implemented, that 10-yr point is going to go away. After all, 4 years of service, a full 36 months of GI Bill and a portion of some retirement? Why stay? Granted, it is a guranteed paycheck until you get out, which is nice in an economy like today but in a positive economy..nope, don't see people staying in.

I work in a military office but no word has come down yet about potential cuts. Going on the winds of what congress is grumbling about, however, I am going to predict another reduction in force just like during former Pres Clinton's time.

Problem was, when 9-11 hit, we didn't have the full military we needed and recruiting efforts went crazy. A RIF may be doable this time but it has to be done very carefully so we don't face another "caught with pants down" problem like after 9-11.

We lost six out of 20 billets in my office