Big cuts coming to US military

Skybird · 02-24-14, 07:47 PM

Having less grunts to pay monthly fees, means not so much, financially.

The real cost saver would be to reduce the influence of the defence industry on the policy makers.

The quality of competitors' defence quality, namely China, becomes better ands better,m the Americna lead is shrinking both in quantity and quality, and due to the technology race the ability to compensate numerical inferiority by technical superiority is declining: the higher the level is already is, the smaller the improvments that can be gained by the higher investements for them needed. Oh dear, can one say it that way or did I just mess up the language?

Needless to say, the more specialised and higher in quality one's own forces are, the more precious they become and the more costly and potentially war-decisive even small losses become, because for the same money you then can maintain only smaller forces: loosing for example one destroyer when you have two hundred, is one thing. Loosing one destroyer when you only have ten, is something very different.

What I disagree with is to phase out the A-10s. Not because of sentimental reasons, but because of what these planes can do - and the F35 cannot. For many CAS type of missions, I think the A10 is the - sometimes much - better aircraft, still. And last time I read about it, many ground commanders agreed with that assessment.

02-24-14, 07:47 PM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,696 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Having less grunts to pay monthly fees, means not so much, financially. The real cost saver would be to reduce the influence of the defence industry on the policy makers. The quality of competitors' defence quality, namely China, becomes better ands better,m the Americna lead is shrinking both in quantity and quality, and due to the technology race the ability to compensate numerical inferiority by technical superiority is declining: the higher the level is already is, the smaller the improvments that can be gained by the higher investements for them needed. Oh dear, can one say it that way or did I just mess up the language? Needless to say, the more specialised and higher in quality one's own forces are, the more precious they become and the more costly and potentially war-decisive even small losses become, because for the same money you then can maintain only smaller forces: loosing for example one destroyer when you have two hundred, is one thing. Loosing one destroyer when you only have ten, is something very different. What I disagree with is to phase out the A-10s. Not because of sentimental reasons, but because of what these planes can do - and the F35 cannot. For many CAS type of missions, I think the A10 is the - sometimes much - better aircraft, still. And last time I read about it, many ground commanders agreed with that assessment. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.