Gates Proposing Cuts in Military Budget

[TLAM Strike]

If anyone cares now...

Defense Tech posted some info on what Gates said...

We’ll have a more detailed look at winners and losers the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined today, but I thought it might help to get the discussion going and for those of you who weren’t watching it live to list the biggies now…

• F-35B will go on a “two year probation” and move to the “back of the line” on development behind the “C” and “A” model. More F/A-18EF Super Hornets will be purchased and older F/A-18 Hornets will have their service lives extended for the Marine Corps to make up for the “B” delay or cut.
• EFV is gone. Savings will be used to upgrade the AAV with more armor, better electronics and weaponry.
• Army SLAMRAAM canceled.
• The Non-Line of Sight Launch System gone.
• Drawdown by 27K Soldiers and up to 20K Marines from end strength in 2015

What’s in — Air Force:

• More Air Force Reapers.
• More EELVs.
• Modernize F-15 radars.
• New long range nuclear strike bomber — that can be “optionally piloted.”

Army:

• More money for Army suicide prevention.
• Modernize the Abrams, Bradley and Stryker vehicle.
• More MC-12 surveillance aircraft.
• Quicker development of Grey Eagle UAV.
• Quicker development of vertical UAS.

Navy:

• More money for jammers.
• More money to upgrade and refit Marine Corps equipment used up in war.
• More money and accelerated development of an unmanned strike capability.
• Life extension for 150 F-18s.
• New ship classes, including a destroyer, LCS, oilers and ocean surveillance craft.

Missile Defense:

• More long range interceptors.
• More radar sites in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

Gates said the 2012 DoD budget request will be $553 billion, $13 billion less than planned in the previous FYDP. He added that the new FYDP numbers are $78 billion less than previously planned.
“We think we have tightened up a good bit,” Gates said. “We think this is a sustainable budget.”

I don't disagree with anything Gates has proposed...

[gimpy117]

why the Nuclear strike bomber?

I thought those days were behind us?

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

why the Nuclear strike bomber?

I thought those days were behind us?

Why? Did the rest of the world give up their nuclear weapon delivery capabilities?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

why the Nuclear strike bomber?

I thought those days were behind us?

Might have something to do with the increase in Chinese ABM development and the basic ABM capabilities of the best selling Russian S-300 missile system.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by August

Why? Did the rest of the world give up their nuclear weapon delivery capabilities?

You've got :

• ICBMs
• SLBM
• B-1Bs and B-2s
• venerable B-52s

Why would you need a new long range nuclear capable bomber ?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Tessa

One thing Reagan had was a real backbone, he wouldn't let anyone intimidate the US. He was a big fan of cruise missles, and wasn't afraid to have Battleships/Destroyers in the area launch attacks at those whom struck at us. He wasn't afraid of "polictial correctness" and used the armed forces when they were needed.

Doing wars by proxy is easy. Its even easier launching 1 or 2 missiles, or carrying precision strikes. But look what happens when the US military goes to war. Vietnam you lost. Iraq you lost. Afghanistan, you're not winning.
In fact the US had never "winned" in any sense a large scale war after WW2.
That should tell you something.

Had Reagan been president in the 90's there's a good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened, why? Because at one point Bin Laden was at a know location, coraborated by several reliable sources. All Clinton had to do was order the strike and 1 cruise missle would have brought him down. This chance happened right after the Lewinski scandal broke and didn't take the action he should have because it might have possibly make his political situation worse. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William Tecumseh Sherman

Hindsight is always 20/20. Sure Regan had a backbone, when dealing with the libyians. He had no qualms launching an air strike against gheddafi. But look what happend in lebanon. Us marines left lebanon. And during the Clinton years US troops got to leave somolia for the same political reasons.
On the other hand just as gheddafi had luck and was not killed in that famous strike, so Bin Laden got lucky and was not killed in the cruise missiles attacks. S-h-i-t happens. Its not colored republican or democrat.

[August]

Originally Posted by goldorak

You've got :

• ICBMs
• SLBM
• B-1Bs and B-2s
• venerable B-52s

Why would you need a new long range nuclear capable bomber ?

Because perhaps the B-52 is getting too long in the tooth to rely on and the B1's and B2's have issues that make them unsuitable as replacements?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Because perhaps the B-52 is getting too long in the tooth to rely on and the B1's and B2's have issues that make them unsuitable as replacements?

I don't think the B-52 is "too long in the tooth" the fleet is still ready.

The B-1B was designed as a Nuclear bomber!

I don't know about the B-2...

Oh and we've still got ballistic missiles not to mention the boomers. This just seems a bit excessive that we need a new Nuclear bomber...Some company (probably Lockheed or Boeing) is going to be thrown a huge (and questionable) bone at the american Taxpayers expense.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

This just seems a bit excessive that we need a new Nuclear bomber...Some company (probably Lockheed or Boeing) is going to be thrown a huge (and questionable) bone at the american Taxpayers expense.

I don't know dude. It's your administrations plan not mine. I'd much prefer better military equipment for our ground troops but unless we know what the specifics of the situation are speculation is useless.

[Oberon]

Never understood how non-stealth strategic nuclear bombers are meant to hit their targets without being blasted out of the sky before hand. Although, I guess if the first strike takes out radar installations, then there's no way of knowing where the bombers are, but otherwise it would be a case of picking them up on long range radar, burning through the jamming and directing the patrolling aircraft in.
I guess it depends on what range burn-through is achieved vs launch range of stand-off nuclear missiles.

Altitude would also help...but then again things like the MiG-25 were designed to get up to altitude sharpish.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

I don't know dude. It's your administrations plan not mine. I'd much prefer better military equipment for our ground troops but unless we know what the specifics of the situation are speculation is useless.

I highly doubt it's our idea. Most likely some lobbyists

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Altitude would also help...but then again things like the MiG-25 were designed to get up to altitude sharpish.

I think the opposite was the plan.

Go in low and fast. Deliver the weapon. Return trip not guaranteed. That's what made some of the cold warriors heroes. They knew it would be a one way trip.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by goldorak

In fact the US had never "winned" in any sense a large scale war after WW2.
That should tell you something.

... I seem to remember something huge when I was a youngling... around 1991...

Originally Posted by Oberon

Never understood how non-stealth strategic nuclear bombers are meant to hit their targets without being blasted out of the sky before hand. Although, I guess if the first strike takes out radar installations, then there's no way of knowing where the bombers are, but otherwise it would be a case of picking them up on long range radar, burning through the jamming and directing the patrolling aircraft in.
I guess it depends on what range burn-through is achieved vs launch range of stand-off nuclear missiles.

Altitude would also help...but then again things like the MiG-25 were designed to get up to altitude sharpish.

Stand off missiles like the ALCM. The B-52 is just a bus to carry them close to shore.

Any deep inland stuff they would bring along jammer aircraft and fighters.

Originally Posted by August

Because perhaps the B-52 is getting too long in the tooth to rely on and the B1's and B2's have issues that make them unsuitable as replacements?

Exactly the B-52 airframes are old and the aircraft can no longer carry a full bomb load. The B-2 and B-1Bs do have issues, the Bone still has reliability problems, the B-2 due to its large size is vulnerable to certain new radars that have been developed since it was deployed.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

... I seem to remember something huge when I was a youngling... around 1991...


Stand off missiles like the ALCM. The B-52 is just a bus to carry them close to shore.

Any deep inland stuff they would bring along jammer aircraft and fighters.

Exactly the B-52 airframes are old and the aircraft can no longer carry a full bomb load. The B-2 and B-1Bs do have issues, the Bone still has reliability problems, the B-2 due to its large size is vulnerable to certain new radars that have been developed since it was deployed.

And what is the optimal solution accor you in this case?