Defense Department cuts [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

nikimcbee

03-02-11, 12:41 AM

Okay so we don't have money for every program under the sun and it's time to visit the military budget. Everybody wants to cut the military budget, so....

What would you cut? Where would you trim the fat out of the budget (military)?

What programs do we need/ don't need?
What bases to we close/ keep open?
How big should our force be?
Vets benifits?

How about the CIA budget?:hmmm:

What do you guys think? It's open to anybody (all nations, not just US), as it seems everybody is hard up for cash.

The floor is open.:know:

GoldenRivet

03-02-11, 12:44 AM

First i would cut into the cash we are sending out to develop OTHER nations' military assets.

say... a 30% reduction across the board.

nikimcbee

03-02-11, 12:47 AM

First i would cut into the cash we are sending out to develop OTHER nations' military assets.

say... a 30% reduction across the board.
You mean like Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel?

GoldenRivet

03-02-11, 12:58 AM

You mean like Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel?

Sure.

Any nation we are pouring money into in order to help them advance their military potency.

we obviously need to have a massive phase out of Iraq and Afghanaland. I think we have done just about all we can do in both locations.

Defense is an expensive business, and its hard to justify virtually any budget cuts.

If i were to trim the fat from the budget, the trimming would end with defense cuts... not start there.

I think there are a lot of special interest items around the nation that need to be trimmed, i think politicians should take a pay cut to the point that it would attract only the truly patriotic individuals in this nation.

Current congressional salary is just over $170K... i say eliminate the salary. They are in session for about 150 days a year right? cool... then the new pay rate will be $400 per day in session. daily per diem will be $1.55/hour for each 24 hour period in session. Automatic enrollment in Obamacare.

I could sit and get a lot of ideas.

GoldenRivet

03-02-11, 01:03 AM

Use of Air Force One should be limited to international trips, or during domestic trips in a time of crisis.

All domestic trips of over 300 miles can be relegated to a Gulfstream V (http://royal2b.com/jet/image/Gulfstream%20V.JPG)

save a lot on the fuel bill that way

nikimcbee

03-02-11, 01:13 AM

I don't see why we need new ACs, why not just maintain the old ones. I guess the sub force is doing its best to adapt by concerting SSBNs to SSGNs.

I wonder how much it costs to mothball some this high tech stuff? (like the F-22, say) Just find a big warehouse and store them.

I'd cut smaller bases. Why does OR need an air national guard. As anti-military as OR is, they sure freaked out about cutting them.:haha:
How many bases are there in the interior of the country ( not weapon's depots).

nikimcbee

03-02-11, 01:15 AM

gimpy117

03-02-11, 01:15 AM

well first of all...we need to reign in the JSF and other defense programs that keep going grossly over budget.

TLAM Strike

03-02-11, 07:49 AM

Can the JSF and replace it with the Silent Eagle and stealth Hornet.
Cancel the DDX and restart DDG 51 Production. Consider non Aegis DDG platform (big missile boxes but no radar).
Reevaluate the LCS program and consider buying overseas designs like the Danish Knud Rasmusen class.
Place the B-2 in reserve.
Non nuclear guided missile submarines. Big punch low cost.

Jimbuna

03-02-11, 07:54 AM

Decommission a few carriers and their airwings then give them to your favourite cousins across the pond....that should save a few $ :DL

TLAM Strike

03-02-11, 09:04 AM

Decommission a few carriers and their airwings then give them to your favourite cousins across the pond....that should save a few $ :DL

The Royal Navy would need to bring back Press Gangs just to get enough sailors to crew them! :O:

Plus changing all the operating manuals and signage in to British English would bankrupt the Royal Navy. :haha:

the_tyrant

03-02-11, 09:14 AM

Public transit could make money, why can't the military do the same?

just a random thought

TLAM Strike

03-02-11, 09:23 AM

Public transit could make money, why can't the military do the same?

just a random thought

You mean like Tribute? :hmmm:

:haha:

I Like It! :yeah:

Jimbuna

03-02-11, 09:32 AM

The Royal Navy would need to bring back Press Gangs just to get enough sailors to crew them! :O:

Plus changing all the operating manuals and signage in to British English would bankrupt the Royal Navy. :haha:

LOL :DL

razark

03-02-11, 10:19 AM

Public transit could make money, why can't the military do the same?

just a random thought
Are we renting out the military to the highest bidder? How exactly would that work?

I can think of ways to use the military to gain income, but it's not exactly a list of the most ethical methods.

the_tyrant

03-02-11, 10:26 AM

Are we renting out the military to the highest bidder? How exactly would that work?

I can think of ways to use the military to gain income, but it's not exactly a list of the most ethical methods.

Bodyguards?
Movies?

August

03-02-11, 10:34 AM

then the new pay rate will be $400 per day in session.

Yeah and it's only paid if they actually show up.

tater

03-02-11, 11:10 AM

The military has wanted to make large cuts for years. There are way too many bases.

The trouble of course is that there are many bases not for military reasons, but political reasons. Every base is a case cow for some congressional district. Everyone wants cuts—in someone else's district.

They have independent base closure panels, and then many of their recommendations are overturned as the congress critters align to fight it (here in NM one of the few things the dems and reps agree on and cooperate on 100% as a delegation is to never touch ANY of our bases unless it's to make them bigger!).

Still, the bulk of cuts need to be SS and Medicare or pretty much all is lost.

Ducimus

03-02-11, 05:46 PM

Heh, I can think of a few ways the USAF can cut costs.

Put the fighter mafia out of power. Those high tech jets they want so much? F22, JSF, etc etc, wahtever whatever.......Do we *REALLY* need those when F16's, F15's, etc seem to be doing the job admirably?

Stop spending so much damn money on base beautification. As an AF Civil Engineer, ive spent time on Air bases, Army camps, and a NCTC. Air bases look MUCH nicer, and it is unneccessary.

For example, ive helped to installed fencing on one Airbase, that looks kinda like this:
http://www.bellprivacyfence.com/images/IMG_1397.JPG
This type of fencing is NOT cheap, and we put it up all over the place. A chain link fence with a stretch of canvas would have accomplished the same thing, for 1/4 to 1/2 the cost. But nooooooo. The General wanted a pretty base more then functional equipment. (I hate Toy Bases)

The "Spend all the money or we won't get as much next year" system needs to be redone. For those that don't know. Government agencies are alloted a fiscal budget. They get so much money a year. If they do not spend it, they don't get as much next year. From a big picture standpoint this makes sense. Why give an area more money that what they use and drive costs up? The trouble is at a local level these agencies are fearful of not having enough money to get their job done next fiscal year. So they make sure they spend ALL they money they get ever year, however they can.

The end result? At the end of the fiscal year, you have 1 and 2 stripe airman being "issued" 50+ dollar tools, that they do not sign a hand receipt for. Which means, they don't have to give them back. If you never signed for it, its yours to keep. So Dear taxpayer, Thank your my Leatherman, my Super leatherman, Gerber multifunction tool, and Makita cordless drill. All free, on your dime.

I kid you not, at one base i saw a guy going through the CE compound literally tossing these things out of a crate at anyone who wanted one. Naturally, we ALL did, who'd pass that up? (They were THAT desperate to spend the rest of the budget) Of course this was 14 years ago. Maybe times have changed. (I doubt it).

Armistead

03-02-11, 06:19 PM

Sure.

Any nation we are pouring money into in order to help them advance their military potency.

we obviously need to have a massive phase out of Iraq and Afghanaland. I think we have done just about all we can do in both locations.

Defense is an expensive business, and its hard to justify virtually any budget cuts.

If i were to trim the fat from the budget, the trimming would end with defense cuts... not start there.

I think there are a lot of special interest items around the nation that need to be trimmed, i think politicians should take a pay cut to the point that it would attract only the truly patriotic individuals in this nation.

Current congressional salary is just over $170K... i say eliminate the salary. They are in session for about 150 days a year right? cool... then the new pay rate will be $400 per day in session. daily per diem will be $1.55/hour for each 24 hour period in session. Automatic enrollment in Obamacare.

I could sit and get a lot of ideas.

Most of them aren't in it for the pay, if pay was the reason they would be elsewhere running law firms. Many are in it for the after effect, those high paying lobbiest jobs, sitting on boards, etc... I think you could pay them 0 and 90% of the same people would still run.

As for defense cuts, shut down those many left over cold war bases in Europe, restructure and place them on our southern border protecting America.

Neptunus Rex

03-02-11, 10:20 PM

High ranking officers!

US Military is way too top heavy for the force structure they have.

August

03-02-11, 10:30 PM

As for defense cuts, shut down those many left over cold war bases in Europe, restructure and place them on our southern border protecting America.

Completely agree.

I'm not in favor of closing more stateside bases though. We've concentrated our forces far too much already. There should be at least one military base in every state.

nikimcbee

03-03-11, 12:23 AM

What do you think about closing the oversea bases?

Or scaling them way back?

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 09:31 AM

What do you think about closing the oversea bases?

Or scaling them way back?

Our enemies are overseas. Waiting for them to come to us would be stupid. :03:

August

03-03-11, 09:36 AM

Our enemies are overseas. Waiting for them to come to us would be stupid. :03:

He said close permanent overseas bases, not eliminate our response capability. Engineers can whip up a functional base in a few days. We're paying a lot of money to keep units stationed in Germany for example that no longer serve much purpose, at least not enough to justify their expense.

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 09:43 AM

He said close permanent overseas bases, not eliminate our response capability. Engineers can whip up a functional base in a few days. We're paying a lot of money to keep units stationed in Germany for example that no longer serve much purpose, at least not enough to justify their expense.

What about stocks of propositioned gear?

What about our overseas ELINT stations?

Are the Engineers going to built them under fire? (I'm not talking about a few pots shots with a sniper rifle here, I mean heavy attacks.)

August

03-03-11, 09:47 AM

What about stocks of propositioned gear?

What about our overseas ELINT stations?

Are the Engineers going to built them under fire? (I'm not talking about a few pots shots with a sniper rifle here, I mean heavy attacks.)

It takes comparatively few troops to run an Elint station or maintain a warehouse. We're talking combat troops and their dependents. What is the advantage to keeping a few divisions in, say Europe, that could not be achieved back in CONUS?

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 10:03 AM

It takes comparatively few troops to run an Elint station or maintain a warehouse. We're talking combat troops and their dependents. What is the advantage to keeping a few divisions in, say Europe, that could not be achieved back in CONUS?

I say get rid of the dependents, for one.

I'm thinking less europe more asia.

How long would it take to get several divisions mobilized and fully transported over seas. Key word seas, the heavy gear needs to go by ship. 72 hours to get underway? Another 48 to cross the Pacific? Basically a week, the $heet could be over by then.

August

03-03-11, 10:32 AM

I say get rid of the dependents, for one.

I'm thinking less europe more asia.

How long would it take to get several divisions mobilized and fully transported over seas. Key word seas, the heavy gear needs to go by ship. 72 hours to get underway? Another 48 to cross the Pacific? Basically a week, the $heet could be over by then.

Well base closings are not an all or nothing proposition. Keep what you need and close the rest.

But I hear your point about deployment time. You just need to remember that you're also putting those troops way out on a limb. Look at 1942 Philippines. We lost a lot of desperately needed troops and materiel that could have been used elsewhere.

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 12:44 PM

Well base closings are not an all or nothing proposition. Keep what you need and close the rest.

But I hear your point about deployment time. You just need to remember that you're also putting those troops way out on a limb. Look at 1942 Philippines. We lost a lot of desperately needed troops and materiel that could have been used elsewhere.

well I think holding the Philippines in 42 was not a bad thing. If the fleet was not crippled the Philippines would have been a great place to stage an attack against Japan, that was the basis of the old War Plan Orange. If Mac Arthur's air force wasn't annihilated on the ground it could have been a real pain in the Japanese's backside. I know some of MA's officers wanted to bomb Formosa right away but the decision got postponed right up until the B-17s got plastered.

Holding the Philippines would have helped cut off the Japanese from the Dutch East Indies. Save the oil of the Dutch East Indies and you deny the Japanese one of their main reasons for starting the war with the Allies. If anything we should have fortified the islands more.

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 01:01 PM

The military has wanted to make large cuts for years. There are way too many bases

They have begun. In 2006 the decision was made to start closures. It is called BRAC. Base Realignment and Closure. I have been involved in a few. We moved Naval Station Willow Grove ME262A.

Here she is:

https://s-hphotos-ash2.fbcdn.net/61117_430894757674_505952674_5285181_4255660_n.jpg

She is in Pensacola now. Check the link:

http://www.allcoastaircraftrecovery.com/photo_albums/messerschmitt-me-262b/

Fort Meade is growing. Aberdeen's tank museum is heading to VA. We were asked to quote moving a rail gun (German). BRAC is on going.

We work with:

http://www.allcoastaircraftrecovery.com/

He disassembles and we transport. :DL

Bilge_Rat

03-03-11, 01:56 PM

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 01:59 PM

...but does the US really need 70 nuclear subs, including 40+ LA class attack subs?

Yes. Because I think they are cool. :D

Tchocky

03-03-11, 02:02 PM

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 02:18 PM

this may be heresy around here...

...but does the US really need 70 nuclear subs, including 40+ LA class attack subs?

seems to me you could scrap 20 LA class subs without having any effect on US defence capability.

If you combined the number of submarines are potential enemies have they have about 100-120 subs combined. We have about 50 SSNs so we are only outnumbered about 2-1. Between the US and the PRC we have nearly parity in submarine numbers although our subs generally better.

Bilge_Rat

03-03-11, 03:44 PM

If you combined the number of submarines are potential enemies have they have about 100-120 subs combined. We have about 50 SSNs so we are only outnumbered about 2-1. Between the US and the PRC we have nearly parity in submarine numbers although our subs generally better.

no doubt, but the only credible threat would be from the Russian or Chinese navy.

The Russians have 78 subs, 61 nuclear and 17 diesel. However, 74 of the 78 were built before 1991 and have been rotting at dockside for 20 years.

The Chinese have 63 subs, 11 nuclear and 52 diesel, but 1/2 of the diesel boats are obsolete.

So the question still comes up: How many nuclear attack subs does the US need?

In 1982, just the presence of 3 UK subs (and one sinking) caused the entire Argentine Navy to stay bottled up in port. The UK subs could have laid waste to coastal traffic up and down the Argentine coast if they had wished.

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 04:21 PM

no doubt, but the only credible threat would be from the Russian or Chinese navy.

The Russians have 78 subs, 61 nuclear and 17 diesel. However, 74 of the 78 were built before 1991 and have been rotting at dockside for 20 years.

The Chinese have 63 subs, 11 nuclear and 52 diesel, but 1/2 of the diesel boats are obsolete.

So the question still comes up: How many nuclear attack subs does the US need?

In 1982, just the presence of 3 UK subs (and one sinking) caused the entire Argentine Navy to stay bottled up in port. The UK subs could have laid waste to coastal traffic up and down the Argentine coast if they had wished.

You just had to mention the Falklands right? Well just one modern Argentine diesel made three or four attacks and British surface ships and submarines with out being directly attacked. All the attacks missed or were decoyed. So three British SSNs and one SSK failed to stop one SSK.

But if you just want to go by numbers...

Potenital Enemies:
74 Decrepit Russian Boats (4 for 1)
4 modern Russian SSNs (1 for 1)
11 PLAN Nucs (1 for 1)
26 PLAN modern Diesels (2 for 1)
26 PLAN old Diesels (3 for 1)
North Korea 70 old or short ranged diesels (4 for 1)
Iran 3 Diesels (2 for 1)
Iran 11 Short ranged Diesels (3 for 1)
Venezuela 2 diesels (2 for 1)
Cuba 1 short ranged diesel (3 for 1)

Nations with Subs that are a revolution away from becoming enemies.
Pakistan 5 Diesels (2 for 1)
Algeria 2 Diesels (2 for 1)
Egypt 4 upgraded old diesels (2 for 1)

Now if you add them up to my ratios I figure we need 75 attack submarines to be equal to our enemies or potential enemies. We have 58(+2) SSNs/SSGNs in the USN.

Ducimus

03-03-11, 04:23 PM

Are the Engineers going to built them under fire? (I'm not talking about a few pots shots with a sniper rifle here, I mean heavy attacks.)

I think so, if it proves neccessary. Every branch has combat engineers, and their all self contained units, trained, and equiped to work independantly, "outside the wire". Air Force combat engineers, have even gone so far as to have an airborne detachment. Yeah thats right, Air Force engineers that went through army jump school. Makes me wonder what the world is coming to.

AVGWarhawk

03-03-11, 04:28 PM

So the question still comes up: How many nuclear attack subs does the US need?

Enought to dominate the worlds oceans! :DL

TLAM Strike

03-03-11, 04:37 PM

I think so, if it proves neccessary. Every branch has combat engineers, and their all self contained units, trained, and equiped to work independantly, "outside the wire". Air Force combat engineers, have even gone so far as to have an airborne detachment. Yeah thats right, Air Force engineers that went through army jump school. Makes me wonder what the world is coming to.

My point is are they going to be able to build an airbase with underground aircraft shelters/fuel tanks while taking BM fire and enemy air strikes?

I guess they are going to need air cover from carrier planes to do it until they finish and the air force can fly in. So the Navy would have to divert its carriers from locating and sinking enemy warships and striking targets on land to cover the Air Force Engineers as they build the air force and airbase. If the place where they are trying to build an airbase is contested by enemy ground troops than its becomes even more difficult.

Ducimus

03-03-11, 05:35 PM

It's my understanding that everything's a joint task force in this day and age.
Each branch supporting the other in some capacity. (As an AF engineer, ive built up ammo and patriot missle battery emplacements for the Army, we've borrowed Army medics, etc etc. )

One thing i know for certain though. If the engineers don't work, nothing works.

Neptunus Rex

03-03-11, 08:36 PM

this may be heresy around here...

...but does the US really need 70 nuclear subs, including 40+ LA class attack subs?

seems to me you could scrap 20 LA class subs without having any effect on US defence capability.

Try thinking operationally.

50 boats.

25% in overhaul, intermediate upkeep (that's in drydock).
25% in standdown and train up for deployment. This also includes weekly training operations or quickie "missions"
25% transiting to or from deployment.
25% on active deployment. (That's peace time war patrol for you nubs.)

That leaves effective 12 boats on mission, with another 12 for possible re-tasking.

Ships sensors allow coverage of about 2,600 to 7,000 square miles.

With 12 boats, thats 31,200 to 84,000 square miles.

The oceans cover how many square miles?:hmmm:

There are 40% less boats than 20 years ago, but the current mission tasking is the same or even greater.

The Chinese are spending more money and resources on submarines than they are on surface combatants.

India is leasing Soviet Akula class boats. And I think we can expect more "leasing" by the Russians.

Iran has 4 Kilo class diesel boats.

Dollar for dollar, capability for capability, the submarine is the most effective ocean platform for interdiction (or denial) at sea than any surface "target". (And nations that desire a blue water navy realize this.)
But they are not as glamorus as the BIG surface weanies, like carriers.:rock: