Military buget cut proposals would take US to 1940 troop levels.

[Trooper]

In your mind, if we don't have the best and most modern air force in the world, who does?

We have just about seen the last of the F16 due to age. F15 is close to being gone. A10 is close to being gone. F22 has not been bought in number and same with F35. It is so bad that many Air Guard wings have to use Navy F/A18s. The F/A-18 is about the only fighter we have in any numbers. Yes we have a some bombers and a very good airlift. But we are close to not have any airpower.

 

[Trooper]

Yeah, all those nations with military bases on our soil. All their droning of our citizens, black sites, extraordinary renditions, threats, interventions,night raids and fueling unrest. Can't believe the things we have to put up with from all those foreign bullies strong arming us.

They are bullies. They might not be on our soil but we are exposed to their actions via the news. And they could influence sources of resources we need. We no longer have control of any large deposits of copper. China does. Thus less and less brass or copper jacketing for bullets. China now controls most of the rare earth ore.

And all the "Bullies" would have to do is fund an insurgency within our own people. Fund and arm gang bangers as an example. Would not be that hard to smuggle AK-47s, ammo, RPG-7s and explosives across the border. Or assist drug gangs in setting up back alley weapons manufacturing. Get a little civil war going. They do not have to invade, just assist people like those here who believe that we have to fight our own government in killing our fellow citizens.

 

[Tsigos]

And my QUESTION is WHERE are all these UNEMPLOYED, Men, and Women, going to go to WORK ?????

The Word - Jobsolete - The Colbert Report - 2014-25-02 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[halfmileharry]

Hagel was brought in to be the hatchet man and cut the military/monitary drain.
Right, Wrong, indifferent, it's just coming down to freeing up money to put into social programs aka buying votes. See it different?
This leadership has already shown a lack of caring or respect for the foundation of this country, constitution, or freedom.
Our military is just the next in line to get the Vaseline treatment.

 

[arthrimus]

We have just about seen the last of the F16 due to age. F15 is close to being gone. A10 is close to being gone. F22 has not been bought in number and same with F35. It is so bad that many Air Guard wings have to use Navy F/A18s. The F/A-18 is about the only fighter we have in any numbers. Yes we have a some bombers and a very good airlift. But we are close to not have any airpower.

And the fleet of 2,443 F-35s, which will be in service before Russia or China start producing their first entries into the 5th gen fighter world, will in no way counteract our shrinking fleet of 1970s era fighters. Not to mention the existing fleet of 187 F-22 Raptors.

Those in the know project that in ten years the USAF will operate 15 times the number of modern aircraft that Russia will, and 20 times what China will.

BTW: I'm with many of the people lamenting the retirement of the A-10. Replacing it with the F-35 to me is completely missing the point. The A-10 is a giant, heavily armored gun with wings. The F-35 is simply not comparable.

 

[Trooper]

And the fleet of 2,443 F-35s, which will be in service before Russia or China start producing their first entries into the 5th gen fighter world, will in no way counteract our shrinking fleet of 1970s era fighters. Not to mention the existing fleet of 187 F-22 Raptors.

Those in the know project that in ten years the USAF will operate 15 times the number of modern aircraft that Russia will, and 20 times what China will.

BTW: I'm with many of the people lamenting the retirement of the A-10. Replacing it with the F-35 to me is completely missing the point. The A-10 is a giant, heavily armored gun with wings. The F-35 is simply not comparable.

Those estimates may not be accurate. We may see more reductions of aircraft with no replacements. We have a problem now finding enough aircraft to train our current pilot staff. Plus the FAA is appearing to make it harder to be a private pilot thus there is increased pressure for military pilots to shift to the airlines. In 20 years we may not have any civilian training programs left. And a military that is mostly ceremonial.

 

[9mmfan]

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter, the F-22 is. The Air Force needs at least twice that to replace aging aircraft. From what I can find, the Air Force has about 230 F-15's. Do 137 F-22's replace the 230 F-15's?


Edit: See this-

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

 

[arthrimus]

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter, the F-22 is. The Air Force needs at least twice that to replace aging aircraft. From what I can find, the Air Force has about 230 F-15's. Do 137 F-22's replace the 230 F-15's?


Edit: See this-

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Trust me, I'm no fan of the F-35, but the fact is that unless it is canceled and replaced by resumed F-22 production or a new design entirely, we will ultimately have an unbelievably huge fleet of them. Far outnumbering our rivals regardless of whether it is technically superior to them or not. There are people here predicting a complete disbandment of our military; the same people who have been fooled into believing that we need to spend, spend, spend, on our military to keep up with some nebulous hypothetical enemy which has ten times our military might. No such enemy currently exists, and until such an enemy does, we needn't waste our money.

 

[halfmileharry]

Like it or not we have obligations and interests around the world that must be met. Those active and subject to be called up will be stretched to the limits of human endurance with little relief.
Is there waste and questionable spending? Undoubtedly.
We need to keep the Warthog in service or an updated version at least. Few machines are adept or capable of doing it's intended job.

 

[Trooper]

Like it or not we have obligations and interests around the world that must be met. Those active and subject to be called up will be stretched to the limits of human endurance with little relief.
Is there waste and questionable spending? Undoubtedly.
We need to keep the Warthog in service or an updated version at least. Few machines are adept or capable of doing it's intended job.

We are also facing pressure that potential enemies are modernizing their small arms. China just went with a bullpup in 5.8mm, Russia looking to move towards 6.8mm. It is going to force us to get rid of the M16/M4 and go towards a GPC in 6.5mm which means a new rifle.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

We have a different world to consider when talking about the existence of a standing army. The world is a much smaller place now than it used to be so our preparedness must reflect that reality. Now, current and recent past thinking has said that a large Active military force is the answer. To a degree that thinking has proved helpful in our most recent engagements because we don't have to spend long periods of time to bring in large numbers of new recruits and equipment to enable us to project force.

How do we solve the problem of needing rapid projection of force while still reducing our military spending? I've often wondered if there should be a greater integration of the Reserves into the Active Duty. The National Guard is under the authority of the States and should remain that way so we leave them alone. What would the viability be of creating Reserve units to serve alongside active units that draw from the local populations near Stateside Bases? These Reserve Personnel would still maintain training standards as they already do but in the event of a rapid activation they would already be connected to an Active unit. Overseas locations would still have to be manned by Active Duty personnel but temporary assignments of Reserve and Guard units to these locations can provide experience and keep up manning. Afghanistan and Iraq have already proven that the Reserves and National Guard can perform at least the same level or even above the levels of their Active Duty counterparts.

I don't know...I think I need more time to think about how it could work...



It's not just current decision makers at fault here. It's a tradition of policies that have created this acquisition nightmare.

I'm afraid you're just a bit behind the times as concerns "integration" between Active components and Reserve components. Prior to Gulf War II, National Guard and Reserve units were chronically understaffed and underequipped compared to Active forces, and generally considered (by the Actives) to have inferior training and capabilities (I got that stupid idea knocked out of me the first time a Guard unit composed of UH-1M gunships and Kiowas kicked our modernized unit of AH-1s and Kiowas in a face-to-face exercise). Such parochialism was rampant among the Active duty hierarchy that the 48th Armored Division's (GA National Guard) pre-deployment evaluation prior to Gulf War I was blatantly rigged by their Active Duty graders so they wouldn't pass.

However, extended combat operations (and the fact that Reserve Army Aviation units outnumbered Active Duty units 60%-40% ) cause DoD to rethink its traditional positions. Thereafter, Guard and Reserve units began to be upfitted to compare with Active forces, and funding for extended trainups was provided, while the entire Army mobilization and deployment package was retooled to allow successful integration of Active and Reserve units to Brigade strength levels (down from Division level deployment schemes).

Believe it or not, the biggest driver for cutting the military forces is personnel costs; both the cost of pay and allowances, and the associated housing, support, and medical costs associated with military personnel. While military pay grades might not compare to civilian pay (at least at the lower pay grade levels) the percentage of personnel costs vs capital expenditures is very comparable to many large corporations. And those military personnel costs are competing with the current Administration's need for money to pay for more important priorities like ObamaCare and Welfare.

Even if DoD drastically cut our Active forces and placed even more emphasis on Reserve forces, it wouldn't save enough money to pay for Democrats' vote-buying goodies, so the military has to be pruned.

Now, what happens once the nation comes to its senses (if it does) and realizes the military has been cut back too far and needs to be refurbished and enlarged once again? Say, we don't need that industrial-strength military for 50 years (an unlikely scenario; we haven't gone 60 years without a war in our entire history) but then we decide that - the world being a dangerous place - we need to upgrade our military strength again. Will we have saved any money? No, nor will we have saved any time or resources; the drastic steps needed to rapidly build a military force structure, obtain needed equipment and expendables, and the wastage involved from having to re-learn the lessons lost over time will end up costing us more than it would have to maintain a reasonable-sized military force, capable of projecting power worldwide (which is actually a pretty efficient form of deterrence) in the first place.

All we need to do is heed the lessons of post-WWI, post-WWII, the post-Jimmy Carter Era and Gulf War II. But, no, we won't heed those lessons, and our children or grandchildren will pay the price in blood.
However

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And the fleet of 2,443 F-35s, which will be in service before Russia or China start producing their first entries into the 5th gen fighter world, will in no way counteract our shrinking fleet of 1970s era fighters. Not to mention the existing fleet of 187 F-22 Raptors.

Those in the know project that in ten years the USAF will operate 15 times the number of modern aircraft that Russia will, and 20 times what China will.

BTW: I'm with many of the people lamenting the retirement of the A-10. Replacing it with the F-35 to me is completely missing the point. The A-10 is a giant, heavily armored gun with wings. The F-35 is simply not comparable.

What in the world makes you think that the military is going to purchase the F-35 in any appreciable numbers? The F-22 was supposed to be the next-gen air supremacy fighter, but the line was shut down before enough of them were built to replace the F-15s. We haven't had enough airlift capability to support all our military operations since the end of the Vietnam war; cutting the size of the military won't even ameliorate that shortfall. And now we're planning to replace last-generation fighters with a bastardized design that has yet to prove itself capable of meeting its design standards while being billions over budget - and you think the current government will fund 2000+ of them? Not. Going. to happen.

 

[ryknoll3]

I don't really see how you can say this since we've been the target of an invasion for the past 30 years and have been totally unwilling to suppress or prevent it.

Invasion by which foreign power?

Kut, haven't you heard of the Chinese military strategy of coloring their skin brown, sneaking over our southern border and take up job picking lettuce, hanging drywall, bussing tables and doing the other jobs "Americans don't want to do" until they have sufficient numbers to destroy us from within?!?!?

 

[Trooper]

Kut, haven't you heard of the Chinese military strategy of coloring their skin brown, sneaking over our southern border and take up job picking lettuce, hanging drywall, bussing tables and doing the other jobs "Americans don't want to do" until they have sufficient numbers to destroy us from within?!?!?

We have a rather large illegal Chinese immigrant population in Indianapolis. Not sure how they are getting in. A lot of these folks seem to be located around the Lafayette Square area.

 

[boljr01]

Shortsighted

I don't know, but that can certainly be cut, too. The US armed forces is overdue for cutting, no matter what some might say. We have no need for over 1 million people under arms. We're not fighting a world war or anything like it. It's just another drain on a precious resource that needs to be returned to the people it was stolen from.

I would encourage folks to read beyond headlines. They're proposing taking the Army to 440,000...of which only ~100,000 are holding rifles. The balance are support positions as others here have alluded to. Go compare that to the shooters Russia and China have.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Kut, haven't you heard of the Chinese military strategy of coloring their skin brown, sneaking over our southern border and take up job picking lettuce, hanging drywall, bussing tables and doing the other jobs "Americans don't want to do" until they have sufficient numbers to destroy us from within?!?!?

Actually, you are almost correct, although your post seems to be an exercise in sarcasm. The flood of illegals entering the country for the past 30 years is starting to display the potential to tilt the balance of power away from working-class, freedom loving Americans, since the vast majority of these illegals don't hold to traditional American values of personal freedom and personal responsibility and are perfectly willing to accept the government running their lives in return for free "stuff".

Additionally, amongst the illegals who are originating "south of the border," we're also finding evidence of other "peoples of color" infiltrating over our southern borders; specifically Iranians and other Middle Easterners, who are likely infiltrating up from Argentina, where large numbers of Iranians have been disembarking from daily flights originating in Iran. They are likely not here to find freedom from their oppressive government.

 

[cobber]

Kut, haven't you heard of the Chinese military strategy of coloring their skin brown, sneaking over our southern border and take up job picking lettuce, hanging drywall, bussing tables and doing the other jobs "Americans don't want to do" until they have sufficient numbers to destroy us from within?!?!?

Why would China want to bother invading America, after the Democrats have gutted the interior and removed all the plumbing and wiring? They ought to go to a federal court, however, and get injunctive relief preventing the US government from further depreciation of the assets they will soon enough own.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Why would China want to bother invading America, after the Democrats have gutted the interior and removed all the plumbing and wiring? They ought to go to a federal court, however, and get injunctive relief preventing the US government from further depreciation of the assets they will soon enough own.

Don't forget that in the 70s the prediction was that Japan would own all our assets - and then Japan went into an extended recession. Then the Saudis were going to buy up all our assets - hasn't happened and doesn't appear to be ongoing, probably because they're funding all sorts of little Islamic revolutions. China's rapid expansion of their industry and their entry into the world financial market is putting a financial strain on them, too. I think they're much more likely to fall back on military expansionism than to proceed to try to buy us up.

 

[cobber]

Don't forget that in the 70s the prediction was that Japan would own all our assets - and then Japan went into an extended recession. Then the Saudis were going to buy up all our assets - hasn't happened and doesn't appear to be ongoing, probably because they're funding all sorts of little Islamic revolutions. China's rapid expansion of their industry and their entry into the world financial market is putting a financial strain on them, too. I think they're much more likely to fall back on military expansionism than to proceed to try to buy us up.

I'm just going along with the INGOtian theory that they'll try to liquidate their US investments. Or repossess. Neither seems likely, but folks like to on that topic. Yes, Japan used to be the big threat. People were still wailing about the Japanese buying range land or NW forests even a few years ago. Doesn't seem to have materialized...

Expand where? I guess Laos doesn't have any alliances? They're pretty much ringed in, without bumping into a major-power alliance. If China gets into a shooting war, you can bet on a north-south partition. Then we'll have to choose between Beijing and Nanjing (and Taipei).

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm just going along with the INGOtian theory that they'll try to liquidate their US investments. Or repossess. Neither seems likely, but folks like to on that topic. Yes, Japan used to be the big threat. People were still wailing about the Japanese buying range land or NW forests even a few years ago. Doesn't seem to have materialized...

Expand where? I guess Laos doesn't have any alliances? They're pretty much ringed in, without bumping into a major-power alliance. If China gets into a shooting war, you can bet on a north-south partition. Then we'll have to choose between Beijing and Nanjing (and Taipei).

i'm not sure about a north/south division in China, but if that's so, it probably explains why the leadership is attempting to focus the action outside China's borders; an external war usually is the (temporary) cure for internal dissention.