Judgment day

Judgment day

The military services’ nightmares came true Thursday when Secretary Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey unveiled the long-dreaded end strength and program cuts they plan to include in this year’s budget submission to Congress.

The Army’s end strength would be reduced to 490,000; the Marine Corps’ would be reduced to 182,000. The Navy will lose seven cruisers and delay several other major ship programs; the Air Force will lose six fighter squadrons, leaving it with 54, and “divest” many cargo aircraft: 27 C-5As, 65 C-130s and all of its C-27s.

Defense officials also announced they’ll slow procurement of the F-35 Lightning II and the Ground Combat Vehicle; “curtail” the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System; and “significantly reduce” the Joint Air-Ground Munition. The budget eliminates the Global Hawk Block 30, the Defense Weather Satellite System and the Army and Marines’ planned fleetwide upgrades to their fleet of Humvees.


Panetta, Dempsey and DoD’s supporting documents tried to emphasize the places where the budget will preserve or protect existing weapons or capabilities – such as the Navy’s 11 carriers and 10 air wings – or invest in new ones, such as cyber-warfare. Two of the Air Force’s top priorities – its new bomber and tanker – also are safe for now.

The U.S. nuclear triad, which comprises Navy ballistic submarines, Air Force bombers and land-based missiles, also survived in this year’s budget submission, though defense officials hinted it could shrink or change down the road.

Overall, however, the story is about cancellations and delays. It wasn’t immediately clear what DoD’s delays to F-35 will do to the already nebulous projections about when it will be fielded, but they could push the jets’ initial operational capability into the 2020s or beyond.

DoD’s budget documents also said that the Army’s end strength reductions would reflect eight brigade combat teams, “however, the future organizing construct of the Army is under review.” So stand by to stand by.

Other details were spelled out: The Navy will delay its Ohio-replacement ballistic missile sub by two years. It will delay one amphibious assault ship by a year – possibly the as-yet unnamed LHA 7; push one Virginia-class submarine outside the future years defense plan; cut two littoral combat ships from the plan; cut eight Joint High Speed Vessels from the plan; and retire two amphibious transports and push their replacements outside the plan.

The Army will pursue the “regional alignment” you’ve read about here, connecting brigade combat teams with each combatant commander, “establishing language and cultural expertise to better shape the security environment.” The Marines, as they come away from the war in Afghanistan, will “return to an afloat posture, with the capability to rapidly respond to crises as they emerge,” DoD’s documents said.

The Pentagon’s budget “preview” is the Beltway equivalent of one of those “airpower demonstrations” that troops call down over Afghanistan – a loud, low-speed pass designed to terrify Congress. The message: If lawmakers don’t like dealing with the sacrifices required by $487 billion in reduced budget growth over the next 10 years, they’ll hate dealing with an additional $500 billion, which would be automatically “sequestered” in 2013 unless Congress can prevent it.

Before it gets there, however, Congress first must absorb the submission it has in hand, which will make for no shortage of grandstanding and histrionics in the coming weeks. And Congress retains the ultimate authority here, so programs the Pentagon’s proposal would delay or eliminate could end up surviving. This is just the first plunge on the roller coaster.

Join the Conversation

Panetta just said they are green lighting the modified VA class for strike.

This isn’t over this is a outline the February official release will have all the programs released. Hope GCV and ICC will be cancelled. I hope the USAF will not go over board and cut vital squadrons.

Honestly, this sucks, but they should actually look at consolidating the Air Force into the Army again as the Army Air Corps. It would save literally BILLIONS of dollars just in recruiting, training, figure head command positions, uniforms, liasion positions, basing, down to stationary on desks and paperwork. If they kept a National Guard guy on the joint cheis, he could represent both Army and Air guard components while the Active Duty Army General could represent the active/reserve components. AFSOC could integrate into ARSOC with their aviation assets and the PJs and CCs could attach permanently to the 75th and SF like they do all the time over seas. You could also put a PJ flight medic on every SOAR chopper for missions like they do on “Non special operations” flights in A-stan. Reducing AF bases would cause more savings. Nothing against the Air Force at all. Grand fathers were in AAC and AF and both agree nothing was wrong with the AAC. AAC did good in WW1 and 2 where we fought equally capable bad guys. Seperate MP’s, Mechanics, Special ops doesnt make sense.

Ya know they haven’t passed a plain ol regular budget on time for years. They couldn’t agree on sequestration. I think you’d see your idea is pretty much DOA.

The best descript is “it is not the End of the World” but another steep of decline for the USA. The Navy lose 7 of his powerfulness Ships, the Air force lose another six fighter squadrons also a really bad decision why the Chinese rises also the number of there fighter and come closer and closer to the US Level and to slow the F35 is also bad but not the End why the program still intact.

Hear a short classification of the decisions.

Very bad decision:
1. The killing of 7 of their Cruiser
2. The killing of six fighter squadrons
3. The slowing of the F35 program
4. The continuing of the idiotic and extremely expensive LCS Program

Bad decision:

1. The deeper reducing of the Army to 490,000 Men and the USMC to 182,000 Men.
2. The continuing of the DDG51 Program in favor of the more capable and also cheaper DDG1000.
3. And also the cut of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System how was good to face exactly the huge Number of Chinese Cruise Missiles (China has far more long range Cruise Missiles them Rockets).

Good decision:

1.The big reduction of the Air Transport Fleet of the USAF is a good way to save money.
2.The termination of the Global Hawk is also a good decision why this Program was never able to replace the venerable U2 and cost per RQ4 (abaut200 million) even more them a F22. Yes so much for the assertion that drones are cheap.^^
3. The cancelation of the planned fleet wide upgrades for the fleet of Humvees, this Vehicles must be replaced they are a product and design of 1980.

But the surprising of the cuts are the completely end of the entire Global Hawk Block30, surprising why this is a clear contradiction to the omnipresent call for more Drones. Drones are not the solution for all problems and they are totally overhyped and significantly more costly and also weaker those manned system and the decision to kill the Global Hawk Block30 is the admission for

“The big reduction of the Air Transport Fleet of the USAF is a good way to save money.” I’m not so sure the Army or the Marines would agree. Hopefully the Army can pick up the C-27s (and the forward resupply mission).

They should have included killing the LCS as well. Also what’s going to replace the cruisers after we retire the Tico’s. If were gona retire and replace the Tico’s with Burke flight III, isn’t it now a good time to see if Taiwan Navy wants some of the Ticos in their fleet. I would bet the Taiwan navy would pay for 4 used Ticos for their fleet. As for the C-27, I think the Air force should have killed it and go with the C-130 fleet.

The Virginia submarine program and F-35 should be accelerated, serious discussion on a new surface combatant to replace the DDG51 should begin.

The rest of the cuts are doable, but unlovely. I would think twice about base closures, the real estate is too hard to get back.

Hmmm, how can they kill both C27 and C130? Especially since the C-5’s and Sherpa’s are so old they have grey whiskers… The C27 is alot cheaper to buy, maintain and repair than C130 — not to mention a virtually problem free aircraft which can land on short runways that few othercargo craft would even attemtpo to land/take-off from.

Kill the F-35. Most problematic, expensive and functionall anemic program in the AF. Seriously, Kill the F-35 and balance the entire defense budget with one program cut.

FWIW, none of this is final. It’s a budget submission, not what is actually going to happen. Congress is going to have it’s say in this as well and it’ll change. To what, I can’t say-but I doubt this will be the finalized shape of things.

I don’t know what the big picture looks like, but from this Army officer’s perspective, it felt like the C-5s were always broken and there were never enough C-17s to do everything being asked of them. We’ve contracted some of our aerial resupply in Afghanistan. Why would we get rid of C-130s?

I thought it was hilarious reading the news articles out there about this. One of them quotes Sen. Cornryn and Sen. McCain blaming Panetta for shrinking the military and putting us in danger. Um, guys, it was Congress that couldn’t get its act together on the budget and forced these cuts on the DoD. Panetta and Dempsey didn’t wake up this morning and decide to slash and burn their own house.

Also-the Army is already shrinking itself by restricting reenlistment options, especially for junior enlisted, and dropping enlistment quotas. It used to be you could reenlist up to two to three years before your ETS date; now it’s only a year. I’m fairly certain they don’t mean cutting 70,000 soldiers in a single year, mostly because the Army just does not move that fast. They’ll start recruiting more slowly to the point where new reenlistments either match or are slightly below people leaving, and that’s where the cuts will mostly come from, along with the new 15-year retirement option (LOTS of people around who could take this.)

I agree with you on the Virginia class acceleration, but they were right to slow down the F-35 buy and try to iron out the kinks. DDG-51 replacement is probably going to be the Zumwalt class destroyer. With base closures can’t we just close the base but keep the real estate? I mean just shut down the utilities, and access. Just have an empty base that we still own and can reuse if the need arise.

Horrible suggestion. Makes about as much sense as merging the Army and USMC. On paper you could make that look like saving billions too. You haven’t thought about the downsides

The US Air Transport Fleet is in compare with the Fighter and Bomber Fleet large and modern and can afford a reduction. The War in Afghanistan will came to an end and the Iraq war is already over and as consequence the demand for Air transportation will decrease. The cut Equipment is always bad but in compare with the reduction of the Fighter Fleet and the Navy acceptable. In a War against Red China, Nord Korea or also against Iran you will primarily Bomber, Fighter, large surface Combatants, Submarines and a strong Air and Missiles Defense a larger Air Transport Fleet in such a situation is nice to have but not decisive.

A large Air Transport Fleet is critical in COIN Operation far off the traditional supply roads, it is necessary for a War in Afghanistan and very important for a War in Iraq but it is unimportant them you face a peer enemy like China in battle in the Yellow is or in the Taiwan Street.

My opinion about the Obama strategy generally.

The conclusion and the focus of the Obama strategy are not wrong but the problem is what this strategy are not really followed and serve at first as pretext to justify big cuts how weak also the ability to fight exactly the Wars what the Obama Strategy ask to fight for.

For example to cut 7 Cruiser with high Air Defense and Missile defense and also the ability to combat surface combatants is idiotic why exactly this ships are necessary to win a fight against the Chinese Navy. To cut the Fighter Fleet is also stupid why you will need also fighter to secure the Air Superiority against the Chinese Air Force how has already more them 600 modern Fighter and also over 1000 of older models. And these are just examples for contradiction bet them the Strategy and what the DOD and Obama rally do. What the USA need is not just a strategy it needs also to fallow this strategy.

And I see also a new big risk for the US-Military why it looks like what a new mania/obsession has created the Unmanned Aircraft/Drones. It is like the FCS in the late nineties as all was blinded from the net centric warfare doctrine and the C&C (videogame) like conception of war. The consequence was a complete disaster nearly 16 Years lost an outdated and old ground fleet and thousands of dead’s and also billion of waste money. And now the Us Military looks like to gone too far with their expectations on unamend systems and “Cyper War” both are easy to counter and gives the enemy the possibility for cheap asymmetric reposes. For example a carrier based UCAV like the X47C is nice to have and also the ability to control 80 UCAVs simultaneously bot them the enemy can kill or simple jam your small fleet of communication satellites you lose the War before he has started and Red China can both (kilt your satellites and jam them) and the Iran and also Nord Korea at least jam them .So I fear what the unmanned obsession can mean a disaster like Pearl Harbor them the US Military not distribute is abilities on a large spectrum of manned and unmanned Systems.

They are only eliminating the older C-130’s, not the entire fleet.

But you are repeating the mistakes of the past… i.e. after Vietnam we got rid of our COIN-warfare centered air assets and we are doing the same thing again, inevitably we will get involved in another COIN type conflict and will require SOME air assets to support it… the idea that you are going save the type of money you need to fix and preserve troubled programs like the F-35 is ludicrous…

The USAF is like a guy who owns a Ferrari, a Porsche and a big huge house who is about to be foreclosed on, instead of selling at least ONE sports car… he cuts off his cable TV and thinks that is going to fix everything…

–The 7 cruisers, 6 couldn’t conduct the ABM mission and the one that could was needing costly hull work.

–The six fighter squadrons were spoken of as ‘niche;, not quite sure what to think there but I assume limited utility.

–Slowing the F35 program when we just discovered the C model can’t land on a carrier with its current ail hook makes nothing but sense. Saves the $ of having to re-engineer a bunch of broken LRIP aircraft.

–I’m no LCS fan but thats got to do with none of the modules working yet. Kind of like the F35, I think they should slow those down until the modules work. With working modules the LCS isn’t going to cost anymore than a similar sized and specced new build frigate would.

–The Army and USMC reductions aren’t coming from Pacific force numbers so we can probably live with it fine.

–The destroyer question will probably unfold over the next couple years. There’s no telling if the Zumwalt’s would be cheaper since they weren’t meant for ABM, and to those that say it’s just a programming issue, that’s the biggest cash cow and time sink in the F35 program right now, it aint cheap.

–Only the block 30 Global Hawks were cancelled and it wasn’t a problem with the drone platform or concept, it was that the imaging system wasn’t meeting specs and it cost too much. We are still goign to procure 3 versions of the drone. Drone’s aren’t over hyped, they actually have transformed the way we do things and the constant drum beat of requests by combatant commanders in theater supports that. A maritime BAM version will be invaluable in the Gulf and south China sea.

I’ve concerns about the Zumwalt’s seaworthiness with a tumblehome design. And since it’s original mission was near-land fire support, I question its ability to wear air defense shoes.

I’ll grant you though the all electric ship is a must for the future reqs.

As to slowing the F-35 down, that will only make the jet more expensive in the long run. You could laser peen the structural parts bracing the landing gears and be done with it at this point.

The C-5 can lift up to 3 Patton or Abrams tanks the C-17 can that’s why there will be some C-5Ms in service mostly old A models will be retired.

What are they going to do to the Air National Guard units that are slated to get the C-27. Are they still slated to get the C-27 or are they going to switch them to another Aircraft?.

Too many downsides to list here

A bunch of the C-130s are too old, so retiring them is a small loss

I agree but do you know how many USAF Cols would have to start acting like real leaders? Not sure that is politically acceptable. We would have to stop all Joint Exercises and planning.…what would the world come to.

The defense cuts are coming, so where is the key. The Obama deficit spending during the height of the housing bubble burst is now coming home to roost. He should have let all those corporations with their
over-levereged hedge bets go under. He saved Chrysler and GM to help the UAW, but the taxpayers shouldn’t have been placed as the main share holders! Seems to me that soverign default is the long range goal of this administration.

Tell the tea party to allow tax increases and sequestration will not occur. Tell your congressman that the defense budget needs to be increased, not decreased with all the threats we are facing .
We need new military, presidential and congressional leadership.
Freedom is never free. Time to pay up.

Dont worry, Im sure that some really good and believeable campaign models could be updated to prove the point and those same models would of course totally discount any of the concerns about the downsides.… . .. Unless of course the customer was paying to provide the other answer.… .. :-)

ERrrrr.… it MIGHT not be bad for the senior offiicers and “managers”, in all of the other services to also suck up a big dose of fortitude and assume leadership instead of just advocacy roles. They dont ALWAYS have to agree on the solutions, but the problem should always be the defense of the country not the advancement of their careers or the “supremacy” of their particular branch.

Oh let me take a swing at this one…. on a caffiene bing right now! LOL!

“Why would we get rid of C-130s?”

1. They have propellers!
2. They fly into bad places!
3. They are butt-ugly!
4. Its much harder to transition from flying C-130s to flying 777’s for United!

LOL!

Military transports, including the C-5s, C-17s AND C-130s do have very important roles, at least some of which can not be “contracted out” since the contractor fleets just dont have the capability. Examples, Air drop and paratroopers, big oversized/overweight equipment, and flying into areas where there is a significant chance of being shot at (not that a few CRAF birds didnt go into some pretty tight places at times!)!

For basic peace time “trash hauling” and transporting troops into a theater from CONUS, why does it have to be a military style transport? (And Im asking from the point of view that a 8 hr flight is much more comfortable on a charter than in a troop seat on a C-130!)

Looks like the the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve airlift wings will take a big hit. Probably a good thing that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is represented on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Cut spending in other areas and we’ll have enough to keep our military spending; stealing more money from the taxpayers isn’t the best idea on the table.….

There are few acquisition decisions stupider than trying to accelerate a technically immature program.

Put it this way: nobody in the Pentagon is slowing down the F-35. The F-35 is slowing itself down. What looks like a stretch from the outside is really just the program finally admitting how slowly they are making progress.

It’s like a big chess board to many of the DOD types, especially the ones who have never been in the service, never in the fight and never worn the mud, the cold, the heat, the thirst and the hunger of the field. Let them eat cake, but for God’s sake, give the folks doing the fighting the gear and the manpower to get the job done.

Agree!

Lets see, sequestration kicks in end of this calendar year. We don’t even have a 2012 budget. It’s an election year. Raise taxes before the end of the year with no budget in place during Presidential election season. Sure, good luck with that.

Merging the AF and the Army would be extremely problematic today.

Big news! Program Manager for the LCS program is fired!
http://​www​.defensenews​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​1​2​0​1​2​7​/​D​E​FRE…

Doesn’t say why though, whether program related or what, maybe not, says inappropriate behavior, that’s pretty open ended.

You must thank the house TEA PARTY for these cuts. They demanded these cuts before they would increase the debt limit in july 2022.

that is july 2011

Maybe they should cut some of their C-12, C-20, C-21, C-32, C-40, VC-25 aircraft. Why do the politicians in and out of uniform need King Airs , Learjets, Gulfstreams, Boeing 737, 747, and 757s to move around for anyway. Didn’t the car execs get railed over their vip aircraft. Through a vip capsile in the back of a C-130 or C-17 and let them have that!

Exactly. What does more good, C-21 Learjets like the Connecticut ANG is currently operating, or those C-27Js that they were supposed to get?

If you let all of the bush tax cuts expire which is scheduled to happen anyway it woyd generate 2.8 trillion over 10 years which allow us to avoid sequestration and eliminate the cuts presently planned. However if we want to continue to accelerate our military decline keep pushing for new taxes ever. You will get what you don’t pay for where even the venezuelan air force will have better fighter jets than us.

If you think that taking that much money out of circulation in the economy at large would result in sustained economic growth to support present revenue collections. I think that’s overly rosy on your part since the Euro is on the verge of collapse it is highly likely there will at least be a moderate downturn in economic output this year at least. The Fed just stated they have no intentions of raising interest rates through 2014 which is only more indication of weakness. So your assumption that it would generate the $ you state is likely to be far less.

Your also being hyper ridiculous with the comment about Venezuela, they are so in debt buying the little military hardware they have they’re screwed, it isn’t like they have the capacity to sustain that or provide the logistics necessary.

Plus spending all the $ you project to avoid sequestration doesn’t get to the heart of the budgetary problems since growth in spending is out of control. If costs aren’t brought under control the debt will continue to climb and thereby the interest payment on it, eating more budget every year. If we get into the situation where we are downgraded to the credit level some European nations are then there won’t be enough money to sustain anything.

The 7 killed Cruisers are with exception of the carriers the most capable Surface Combatant of the USA and they are killed now without replace and so the US-Navy will lose a lot of firepower and there most capable Defender of their Carriers.

Hear a close look on the armament of a Ticonderoga Cruiser.

122 × Mix of RIM-66M-5 Standard SM-2MR Block IIIB, RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV, RIM-161 SM-3, RIM-162A ESSM, RIM-174A Standard ERAM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, or RUM-139A VL-ASROC
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon missiles
2 × Mk 45 Mod 2 5 in / 54 cal lightweight gun
2 × 25 mm Mk 38 gun
2–4 × .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun
2 × Phalanx CIWS Block 1B
2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes for lightweight torpedoes

With other Words to lose 7 of them (one was also ABM capable) is a hard hit and make the Navy weaker and less capable to defend their carrier against Chinese Air, Cruise Missiles and Submarine Attacks. The DOD killing High Ends ships like the Ticos but saves in the same time absolutely incapable low end ships like the LCS it is simple idiotic.

No, the Tea Party demanded cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements. The Democrats would only accept those cuts if Defense spending was added in an equal amount.

And do what with the aging fighter fleet? The aircraft service life has already been extended a few times, old combat jets makes life a lot tougher on the maintenance.

I still don’t see why they don’t cut back on our use of PMCs, raise the enlistment age from 17 to 21, and suspend the ranks and positions of persons of interest in cases that pend investigations leading to court martials.

Lesson here: Military politics suck.

I think that the C5M can lift up to 265,000 pounds,absolute max, with most cites saying it is more like 200,000 pounds for most missions, but the M1-A1 weighs around 130,000 pounds. I don’t think any C5 is ever going to carry 2 M1-A1’s at the same time, let alone 3.
The C17 carries about 170,000 pounds max.
http://​www​.airforce​-technology​.com/​p​r​o​j​e​c​t​s​/​c5/

the 2.8 trillion dollars regarding revenue from letting all the Bush tax cuts lapse is from the CBO. In terms of balanced budget, look at Germany which has shown that raising revenue and cutting spending simultaneously work.
Also, once Venezuela gets SU-35s however discounted they will be, they will be better what we have short of the F-22 which just went out of production. The F-35 will never come. Re sequestration, the reality is that the dems will not allow cuts in entitlement spendings unless we raise taxes. If the GOP does not allow tax increases, sequestration will occur and you can then kiss the US military goodbye and you should thank the GOP for it.

The estimates by the CBo were wrong too. The new numbers for growth last year are out and they missed the mark by .4%, when compared to what they forecast it is a 12.5% shortfall in growth which is almost $200 billion last year alone. If the trend continues that $2.8 trillion disappears quickly over 10 years. I’d also point out using a bunch of laggards like the Germans for comparison is a poor one since they only spend about 1.3% of the their GDP on defense. If we did the same you and I wouldn’t even be having this conversation. It’s easy to make your economy grow when you enjoy the benefits of a first world economy and let others carry your weight militarily.

The one that was ABM capable was broken and needed very expensive hull repairs. A broken ship does nothing for you.

In a shooting war US carriers regardless wouldn’t be anywhere near the ranges of Chinese cruise missile and air attacks, all of that would be reduced by TLAMs and JASSMs long before the carriers moved into their ranges.

We learned this past year we aren’t going to have any trouble tracking Chinese subs as they are far noisier than we estimated.

No one ever said in this process there aren’t risks involved, the problem is the US is out of options financially and has to reduce spending, defense included. While some cruisers are being retired, overall the USN got a lot of pluses. I agree the LCS leaves much to be desired, however, there is no real option besides them that saves any money. There might be hull specific options that perform individual missions better, but it would take a great deal of time to make that happen. Coupled with inevitable contract cancellation fees on the LCS there would be more money lost, money then not available to purchase hulls complicating the issue further. So in the end we would spend much more $ to have far fewer hulls which also brings risks of its own.

From the little information available, although not a USN system, the B3 is apparently going to have a maritime element to it. I’ve read there was at least talk of arming the maritime Global Hawks. This conceptual Boeing air breathing missile for LCS may hold promise for giving teeth to the LCS. The NLOS system aside defense development has generally been pretty successful in regards to munitions.

Developing the VA class SSGN variant would mean more VA class boats and that certainly complicates life for the Chinese a great deal.

Keeping fingers crossed the X47 program seems to be plugging along successfully and it is pretty hard to understate how much of a wrench that throws into Chinese anti access efforts.

I hardly think this is as much of a doomsday scenario as you seem to.

To repair the Cruiser has cost possible as much as one idiotic LCS without any firepower and use. And what is means the Cruise Missile treatment the Carrier will be possible in range of the Chinese Land based Cruise missiles (for example the DH10 how has a possible range of 4000 Kilometers and the already mass fielded CJ-10 how has a range of 2200–3000 kilometers and it is used on mobile launchers and also used by the Chinese Bomber Fleet) and the carrier are surly in range of See Based Cruise missiles and Ant ship missiles so pleas don’t forget that the Chinese Fleet is enabling to fight the US Navy in blue water and they get stronger from year to year and not weaker like the US-Navy.

The typical Mistake what the US Military make is the renounce of supplementary skills and a backup strategy a mistake what the Chinese and the most enemy’s don’t make. For example nearly the entire DDG51 Fleet is unable to attack enemy surface Ships and they have only one defense Defense line(SM2,ESSM) against Air to Ship missiles why the Navy has not installed CIWS or RAM Systems. And the Navy has also completely failed to develop a capable Anti Ships Missile and also failed to a Cruise Missiles how can penetrate modern air defense System and the Chinese has a lot of them. The USA put all is eggs in one basket (Carrier) and make also new platforms like the X47C extremely vulnerable against cheap asymmetric Strikes. So in a conflict with Red China the PLA will only have to shut down 4–6 Satellites and the entire Drone fleet of the USA becomes useless and after they have to concentrate their entire Force to eliminate some US Carriers and they won the conflict.

The USA needs first more firepower and a better defense to combat the Chinese treatment and this means a new hypersonic or very stealthy Cruise Missiles how can fired by Submarines, a same capable Anti-ship missiles how can fired from VLS and from Air Platform and the USN needs also a better multi-layer defense against Ant ship Missiles (SM6, ESSM, RAM, CIWs and Electronic Counter maneuvers).

It makes no sense to have the best Submarines and the best Surface Ships with the largest carrier them you don’t have ammunition how can kill the enemy. Or you really believe what a Tomahawk can penetrate in an Air space how is defended by modern Chinese/Russian Ari defense (S300, HQ21, HQ19, HQ12 and Tor M2)? So the new strategy is not so bad they ask for a new Air to Air Missile and a Virginia Class Submarine how can carry more cruise missiles and for more Long Range Drones and more important for a new Bomber but they do it not aggressively enough.

Actually, DOD contractors are going under the knife in a big fashion. Right now they comprise about 39% of the DoD; that’s going to drop to 25% (the prewar size). I’m currently stationed at Fort Stewart and they’re in the process of firing about 300 DoD civilians right now.

Even if Germany would go to 4% GDP defense spending, their deficit would be much much lower than the US compared to GDP. They were successful in slowing down entitlement spending.and keeping tax revenue high. Their unemployment is low because they are focused on export of high tech items see Siemens and alike and they are dominating car manufacturing worldwide. When you lower taxes in the US, it will stimulate the economy, of China that is.
I am still curious what you practically propose to avoid sequestration which is coming in Jan 2013.

Yow move numbers around in your estimates and assume all the other numbers remain static. If Germany had tripled the amount of defense spending that would have removed a huge amount of liquidity from their market. That would have resulted in less money to leverage into economic activity.

To offer the US as an example if we had spent 1.3 % of GDP on defense all along our ratio of debt to GDP would be much lower as well. In our budget if we went to that level it would be $4.8 trillion over ten years. Roll that into reductions in corporate tax rates and our rates could drop to 0%. Absolutely no corporate income tax would result in an explosion in economic growth. Every major company in the world would move it’s HQs here overnight. The point being Germany’s economy is doing well precisely because they don’t spend poop on their defense not in spite of it. Their economy wouldn’t be doing as well if they spent at the level we do.

Make sure the waste is identified,first. Investigate like our lives depend upon it, Don’t cut so deep, we bleed out.

That’s why I am all for the Connecticut ANG getting C-27js. At least it supplements the C-130 fleet and even helps out on CONUS missions as well.

You actually write too much, you should write less. You’d be clearer in what you are trying to say.

The Chinese are not trying to seriously challenge the USN on the open ocean. They have not been producing SSNs domestically in any real serious fashion, a number of the few they have are soon to be retired. They still have not developed anyway to meaningfully communicate with them underway, and thereby have no way to integrate them into a blue water fleet setting. Their sensors are limited and designed at detecting surface targets, aka carriers, which means US SSNs would pick them off. We also recently discovered they’re far noisier than first predicted so detecting them will be easy. So your assertion their blue water capability is getting stronger and US weaker is factually incorrect.

The last comment about over estimating capabilities dove tails into essentially every other Chinese system. I understand the DH10 has a potential estimated range of 4000 km, I bet it’s far far less. In addition for any anti access weaponry to strike at OTH ranges requires
targeting information.

You point out the damage caused to some US drone options if China destroys satellites. The same is very true and really more so for China because the US has demonstrated a far better ability to neutralize satellites than China has. The US has also developed and continues to develop multiple options for maintaining OTH communication/ISR capability.

I would then move on to the fact the X47 isn’t being designed to be reliant on satellites. In a strike capacity it is going to have a far more autonomous capability. Think re-loadable cruise missile not Reaper drone. Frankly the X47 only contributes to maintaining US dominance in OTH comm as it is being designed to act as a comm hub as well from what I’ve read.

You’re also just wrong on the Burke class. It does have CIWS and the few flight IIs that didn’t will all finish being retro fitted with it by 2013. Harpoon ASM missiles weren’t included on the flight IIs but the 28 flight Is do have them.

The US has not failed to develop stand off strike capability. The JASSM(ER) is in production and is more than capable of penetrating sophisticated IADS. In addition the same weapon platform is being modified in the LRASM program for the USN and since the base weapon is developed and successful I’m sure it will do fine in the ASM role. It will give the USN an absolutely unrivaled ship launched ASM option.

Some of your assertions are factually incorrect. Your knowledge of some existing systems is also in error. In addition you aren’t aware of some programs under development that address your criticisms or are unaware about how others under development are even going to work.

In addition you tend to focus a lot on specs and don’t really bring all these different systems together into how a service operates those platforms in a unified manner.

you are in error about defense spending as far as the fiscal health of any nation is concerned. Higher defense spending in the US has not resulted in our excessive deficits. You could completely eliminate defense spending and you still would have a 700 billion dollar deficit every year. .Even if Germany would have spend 6% of its GDP over 50 years, its financially health would be sound as long as it curbs entitlement spending and keeps tax revenue high through high employment in high tech export industries which it is doing.

You are still not offering any practical solution how to avoid sequestration. If it is not tax increases in order to make the democrats agree to entitlements cuts, what is it in this real world of a divided congress? You are looking for a free lunch. It is not there.

the tea party knew that by refusing to allow tax increases in order for the democrats to accept entitlement cuts, the military would be gutted. It is this alignment with the radical left which calls the tea party’s patriotic motives into question.

Did I ever say defense spending is solely responsible for the defecit? I think if you look back you’ll notice I didn’t. Spending more money than the government takes in is what leads to deficits. Defense spending has increased 100% over the last 10 years while economic output has dropped, therefore it has certainly contributed, to say otherwise is simply incorrect.

What I said is Germany didn’t spend anywhere near what we did as a % of GDP on defense. That money not taken by the government is then still in people and businesses pockets able to generate growth. Growth leads to larger GDPs. Larger GDPs lead to the fixed revenue collection % bringing in more money without the % actually going up.

There needs to be a balanced approach to balancing the budget because any one way is too traumatic. Government spending has to come down, period. Spending faster than the rate of growth leads to economic chaos which is where we are now. You can’t tax your way out of it. Revenue collection does need to go up, but before I personally would want to see more taxes I’d want firm caps of growth in govt spending.

I’d be OK with Obamas Buffet rule if he was ok to giving it a sunset clause, agreeing to caps on growth, and earmarking the extra monies for debt reduction alone. That’s called compromise, but it doesn’t exist on either side of the aisle.

the truth remains: if we allow tax increases on the top 2%, there would be a budget deficit compromise which also would include entitleement cuts and would not include sequestration. The purpose of these tax increases is not to fix the deficit, but to reach a compromise in the real world of a divided congress. That’s where the GOP failed and the result will be a forever crippled military. Tell me how we can avoid sequestration in the real world. You have not offered any solutions. We are not living in a fantasy world.

I don’t have any, we aren’t living in a fantasy world you are correct. This current administration and current Congress can’t compromise. I think sequestration will happen frankly. The dates were put in place though to ultimately make the elections this year decide the issue. We won’t know how this plays out until after the November elections.

To point fingers at the GOP over the Democrats is silly. The failure is in the partisanship infecting both parties. Neither can set aside ideology for the sake of the country. The sequestration process is peanuts also. It doesn’t even tackle the hard issues.

Just a thought on all of these cutbacks in our military, and shrill second guessing that goes along with them, complicated by the many political uncertainties that we face in the world and in the risks associated with the technologies and systems that we are trying to mature and field.… … (The quote is his, the capitalization is mine!)

“Intelligence, the central virtue of moral life, is being able to judge the limitations of knowledge. Though there is no substitute for intelligence, it is not enough. People may be intelligent but lack the COURAGE to act. To find a purpose in life, one must be willing to act, to put excellence in one’s work and concern for WHAT IS RIGHT before PERSONAL INTEREST.” Admiral H. Rickover

Bravo Zulu, Admiral!

Blk 30 GH cost over $220m EACH. It is the most expensive UAV ever manufactured by a factor of 1.5x. The integrated sensor package does not work as well as it could and the USAF was planning on buying 42 of them! Translate Ash Carter: “Cancelled” probably means “We won’t buy them now”. The integrated sensor package is not that different than what we would like from the U2. It is very likely that NGC will be tasked with upgrading the last sensor pack for the U2, thus decreasing the cost of the blk 30 in the long run.

Then there is the issue of the “Tasking Cycle”, i.e. how long does it take to get a Global Hawk to take pictures of a very interesting, newly appeared tactical target? Now, compare that to a U-2, particularly when both birds are airborne! :-) Its called “utility” and “responsiveness”, and in a world focused on the OODA loop, its one of those essential elements. Even with the same payloads (and they are indeed very similar), by the time a GH can be put on a pop-up target, its highly likely that the target has “un-popped”! :-)

According to Northrop Grumman (via Munoz @AOL Def), the ‘game-changing’, ‘paradigm-shattering’ Blk 30 Global Hawks were the innocent victims of a nefarious plot instigated by a shadowy cabal of ex-U-2 drivers operating at the highest level of the USAF.

BTW, did you see where NG was recently awarded a $1.2B contract for three — that’s right, just THREE — Blk 40 G Hawks? Wonder how many U-2 flights that would pay for…

Who decides “WHAT IS RIGHT”? Some guy who oh-so selflessly devoted his life to increasing the efficiency of machines that are expressly designed to efficiently launch weapons expressly designed to kill millions of men. women. and children with the maximum economic efficiency?

Gimme a break…

Actually I think it should be some old fat bureaucrat appointed to his position on the strength of his father’s accomplishments and the fact that he attended the right cocktail parties with the big campaign contributions collected at the door.Well, perhaps I lied :-)Sent from my iPhone

Since Im too large to fit into one of those funky “Mercury” style flight suits, I guess I cant take blame (credit?) for being one of those nefarious shadows, but the dollars dont lie.

It costs just as much to “operate” the payload on a U-2 (since the pilot is largely a “wetware” autopilot), so the costs must be in the “more reliable” airframe hardware, or the command links and control station that allow for remote operation. When you consider that the accountants have a running start to justifying GH based on the missing life support costs, it pretty much highlights where the money goes! :-)

Oh, the horror of all of those fine “UAS uber alles” PowerPoint briefings that go up (down?) in flames when the real costs are down on paper.

By the way, did you know that MANY of the NASA U-2 missions are now done using the leased Scaled Composites Proteus aircraft ( http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​F​i​l​e​:​N​A​S​A​_​P​r​o​t​e​u​s​_ai… based on the cost of operation! :-) You’ve got to wonder about the cost per flight hour comparsion between a Northrop Global Hawk and a (Northrop) Scaled Composites Proteus (essentially a Burt Rutan interpretation of the U-2 with modern materials and engine) would be for the same 12–18 hour mission with the same payloads onboard.

Perhaps someone on the AF side should check! :-) Id just about guess that it might be about an order of magnitude (since I once knew what it costs to lease the Proteus, wet, with pilot! LOL!) Yes, I know, .… .… the Proteus (as we know it today) can ONLY go to 80,000 ft and the AF desperately needs 80,125 ft !!!!! LOL!

My view of this is that there is a subtle strategic decision being made to lengthen mobilization and deployment timelines that will increase the chance of such interventions being challenged politically, and decrease the chances of timely and decisive insertion during early entry. It isn’t just whacking C-5s. It is whacking C-17s first, so that the C-5s will not be replaced. The limitations of the C-130 platform are well know and understood by those in the know.

Also, if we look at the administration’s foot-dragging on a commercial version of the C-17, it also appears that they have not interest in a civilian reserve aircraft fleet that might make a difference to strategic mobility.

Please defend the assertion that a air-and-sea-only conventional engagement with a nuclear-armed opponent is any less destabilizing that introduction of conventional ground forces to the conflict. I don’t find the implicit and underlying reasoning to be at all compelling. Indeed, such thinking could be quite dangerous in time of war.

Back to the future, I’m afraid.

I think you will find that FCS or something very much like it is inevitable. While “net centric warfare” was a buzzword that actually got invented in Navy circles (Polmar, Giambastiani, etc.), the philosophy behind FCS grew out of AirLand Battle and was articulated by such intellectual heavyweights as Paul Gorman, Frederic J. Brown and William Odum. Unmanned systems are part of that equation, but only a part of it. I could cite you chapter and verse where having FCS unmanned systems in the brigade and below level fight in Iraq and Afghanistan could have made a real difference. It may be that it will take a really big war to break out all these new technologies — not unlike what happened to the machine gun in WWI and the tank and aircraft carrier in WWII.

Actually the seat on the JCS doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. The JCS is a body that ADVISES the president on OPERATIONAL matters. It is not in charge of budgets in any way shape or form. The Depts of the Army, Air Force and Navy are the action types for budget matters and the fact that there is not a “Department of the National Guard” tells you how this one is going to go.
National Guard on JCS is a figurehead anyhow since the actual guardsman (when activated) come under the Combatant Commanders (like CENTCOM) who report directly to the President.

Does not sound good. Trouble is most of the infrastructure, including DOD and contractor facilities are falling apart. Instead of firing they should be hiring to revitalize these facilities and resources.

I don’t see this as a problem. Our political and economic elites have always claimed that the core advantage of liberal capitalism is that it can make “more with less”. In that respect, isn’t the one-man-army concept the ultimate goal of our military-scientific leadership?

It’s the ‘90s all over again. Watch when the DoD’s environmental programs budget is greater the the USMC O&M budget. Hail to the CinC.

Know your history. The decision to create a separate Air Force was because of the problems experienced during WW I, the 20’s and 30′ and WW II combined and after decades of debate and analysis. The command structures between each of the services and the needs they satisfy are necessarily different. These basic differences in mission with separate leadereship and infrastructure have not been altered in the modern world.

Are you kidding a year before reup. Try 6 months prior to ETS before you can reup unless it is change of MOS high priority need. I am a Experienced Medic and 2 Ohter I know who enlisted the same year and time have been told the same thing mabey 6 months prior to your ETS you can reup. We have good records. It seems like all of us who entered after sept of 2008. will be sacrificed or have to have an ace up their sleeve.

al paris (or paeis if you like) — You seem to have a big hard on for the Tea Party and their fiscal conservative views. Ill bet you voted for the dude who’s seeming job it is to continue the gravy train for third generation welfare recipients.

90’s it is Jimmy Carter 2.0 all over again and when you lose that many people which is estimated at over 1.8 million jobs lost, the Obama ecomony will take a dive, unemplyment will rise, food stamp usage will rise and most of all with the loss of Income tax and social security taxes not to mention that feared word INFLATION, Obama will still spend more

A lot of you did not live through that period of time when inflation when it was running at double digits, interest rate over 10%, unemployment was high and food costs going up.

It will get worst if Obama stays in.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement