Comments on: Aerospace Group Sees Looming Budget Battle

By: CR

CR — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:56:39 +0000

“…the defense of our country will be a grave risk due to their inexperience and lack of knowledge world politics“
F-22, do you mean to say that this administration has exhibited a clear understanding of the power structures at work in the Middle East (tribal, etc.) and exhibited any real understanding of the underlying causes and getting at the root of Islamic extremeism?
Seems to me it is our ground forces engaged in Iraq (pat on the back to the USMC and US Army) that have taken the initiave and figured out that engaging the tribal leaders in Iraq reaps enormous dividends.…this administration seems to lack even the rudimentary understanding of the region and how to fight the extremeists.

By: Jim Hunter

Jim Hunter — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:31:24 +0000

Just a couple of comments.
Cole, amen. I am an old (retired) grunt with two sons in the service. Over time, we have forgotten the role of the other services (and the budget and spending show it). The ground forces are the ones that take and hold ground (in other words win the wars, unless you nuke the enemy). The last time the Air Force won a war, we nuked Japan (but it was the Army Air Corps then). Unless we plan on using nukes, we need to cut the Air Force and Navy Subs. If we ever find Osama, do you think it will a grunt or Airman?
Rob, you said “Once the Dems get in office our miltary is screwed. They’ll slash forces again as well as bottom the budget.” Correct English aside, if you are a ground pounder, you are already screwed with the current administration. I might note that the last time the US won a war, we had a Democratic president. Bottom line, your “dems” argument is hollow.
I think we do need a Navy and an Air Force (and Coasties), but they do not need all the expensive toys. We need grunts with the best equipment and best support we can give them.

By: F-22 Flight Tester

F-22 Flight Tester — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:16:14 +0000

The 2008 elections will be the pivot point for each branch of the military. If the Democrats win, Hillary or Obama are not qualified nor schooled enough to know what it takes to have our country protected as it need to be. The USA is the policeman of the free world and we must always be prepared to respond at a moments notice anywhere in the world where our assistance is needed.
As our technology advances so does our weapon systems and their capability. We are able to do more with less. We do not need as many F-22

By: Moving to New Zealand

Moving to New Zealand — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:47:43 +0000

It’s Vietnam all over again! The Iraqis have thrown down their weapons, put on civilian clothes, and ran from battle. They refuse to fight. Military Justice in the Iraq Army is a joke. They will not even punish them! Why should we shed our life blood when they don’t even give a damn? At least the English were grateful we were in their country and they fought and died like hell in WWII. So did the South Koreans. Let them fight their own civil war. Enough is enough!

By: MichaelB

MichaelB — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:16:36 +0000

Cole, What specifically is it that the army needs and isn't getting? These conversations always seem to involve "The Air Force doesn't need ABC and the Navy doesn't need XYZ" and darn little "the army needs more money for CDEF and G". Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for making sure the army gets what it needs - but that doesn't seem to be what you want to talk about. Does FCS need more money? Are we not spending enough on MRAPs? Is RESET of army vehicles not being funded sufficiently? Let's talk about that then. I can't tell whether you're really concerned about what the army needs, or what the navy doesn't...

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:52:39 +0000

Carlos: “Missle Defense is a must, New subs is a must, aircraft is a must. Infantry can be train enroute to War.“
———————
Not smart Carlos. Missile defense is only effective against rogue states and even that is uncertain. Do it, but don’t depend on it.
Airpower is a must but the threats we realistically face have few numbers of the best systems. Our F-22/F-35 force would annihilate them, to include China, in short order. Our ground forces would have a tougher time with China.…but irrelevant since we are unlikely to fight them anyway. That MADD thing, remember. Taiwan just voted the way China wanted, as well.
Airpower cannot FIND hidden enemies, enemies using decoys, and enemies embedded in the civilian population. If they can find the latter, ROE prohibit engagement in many cases. Only ground power can route out the hidden enemy so that joint air and ground power can defeat them. Only ground power can win hearts and minds during Stability ops through daily interaction with the populace.
Naval power cannot come ashore. Marines can but they are ground power traveling around on ships. Naval power is necessary, but they too can make greater use of unmanned sea vessels. A few big subs with lots of unmanned sea vessels counters lots of small manned diesel subs everytime.
Infantry that don’t train prior to coming to war, die in war. Korea taught us that. The bad guys don’t wait for us to train. Future Combat Systems embeds training in manned ground vehicles so that you have a mobile simulator for Soldier training. Other services should embrace simulation to a greater degree as well.
Today we also expect infantrymen to be jacks of all trade and play peacemaker, nation-rebuilder, and disaster assistance provider. Gets back to who do we need more of…and the answer is always more grunts and more grunt equipment.

By: CR

CR — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:04:04 +0000

CArlos,
You think the moderate budget cuts that Clinton enacted have had a more detrimental effect on the military (particulalry the US Army and USMC) than the current pace of operations? The current pace of operations are eroding the readiness of of military and wearing out out equipment at a much higher rate than previously planned. Not to mention retention rates and eviceration of any military leadership with the audacity to disagree with Rumsfeld.…yes I know he’s gone but the damage is still done.
Iraq was a HUGE mistake and the treatment of the military under this administration borders on contempt.

By: elizzar

elizzar — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:35:32 +0000

certainly you need to always look to the future in terms of threats — the war you fight i s never the one you planned to fight — however my point is that if we are engaged in two years, right now, which have no definite end in sight, and at the same time there is a limited pot of money, what should you do? try to fund all these exotic future technologies which may be one day be needed, or pay for things which are really needed by the men women fighting and dying now? the west enjoys a militaristic superiority over potential foes that will take decades for them to catch up on — hence why we are seeing such asymmetrical tactics. remember iraq had one of the largest armies in the world, and was conventionally destroyed in a few days for instance. no, the main justification for these ridiculously expensive super weapons is to make industry richer, and get politicans votes when they bring jobs to their area. as michael says equipment is getting older — so why not build brand new f-15s (with incrementally superior electronics / radar / missiles) at $50million than f-22s at $150million (i dont know the real dollar costs before you flame me ;-) )?

By: Carlos

Carlos — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:56:03 +0000

I agree with MichealB. We have to future wars not, then right now war. Everyone thinks that Iraq was a mistake. It was not a mistake. It show the vunarablities of the military which was left with that Clinton mindset. China and Russia had the funds and will to catch up in military might. So why are our forces degrading they way the are. Because we live in a society from the sixties that think its better to help lower income that to defense. Why would you ever cut the military just because a threat is gone? Our force level should have been the same as it was the day we left Iraq the first time. Instead they are happy to have a surplus at the end of the admin. I do fault this admin as well mostly Rumsfled. But they havent hurt the military as much as Clinton. 5–6% of GDP is sounds about right. But new weapons systems should always be keep. Missle Defense is a must, New subs is a must, aircraft is a must. Infantry can be train enroute to War.

By: MichaelB

MichaelB — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:09:28 +0000

The current procurement problems are related to the end of the cold war, but not in the way usually assumed.
In the early 1990s, the force structure was cut by about 35–40%. This meant that all the old ships, planes, tanks and guns could be scrapped — and so they were. Moreover, since we kept the new stuff, it was all in good working order and didn’t need replacement for some years.
This made a mess of the defense industrial base though, because very little was being produced. Procurement policy came to be, in no small part, about retaining the industrial base. When the goal is to retain the industrial base, it’s a lot easier to slip pork into the budget then it otherwise is.
Meanwhile, programs were canceled or extended. There’s no reason that it took 20+ years to go from the ATF specifications to IOC for the F-22… except that 10 years ago, at the post-cold war trough in defense spending, no one wanted to spend money on new anythings.
Now, things are aging. The timeline meant that a lot of things need to be replaced at the same time. The minimal procurement for several years made the industry shrink and that drives the price of developing and producing new systems up. The increased pork in the budget distorts that production, and ends up wasting a non-trivial sum of money.
Finally, a lot of people (including most commenter’s on this site) can’t see beyond todays headlines in the newspaper. Over the next 20 years, most fighter aircraft will reach the end of their service lives. So will most submarines. So will all sorts of other types of equipment. To say “what we really need is infantry, not submarines” amounts to saying we can get out of the business of having a navy. Believe it or not, there are considerations about what kind of force you want beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you ignore those concerns, you end up with the problems the US had in the late 1970s and early 1980s… when Vietnam had sucked up all the spending, and all sorts of systems were both obsolete and in poor condition.