Quadrennial Defense Review to Propose Killing Two Carriers, Cut JSF, Cancel EFV

[K1052]

As I linked to a month back in another debt thread, the author said that as the US debt gets worse militar spending will be cut, as has happened in other nations and the US will by extension become weaker.

The US probably doesn't need 11 carriers but it's not like it spends a crazy amount of GDP on military. Also, if funding has to be cut, should it be cut here? I don't know, but I bet there are other areas that could be cut first.

If the US could sell these to another decent nation it would be a good idea, though, like a strong ally. Canada has no carriers and England's barely qualify as aircraft carriers. HMS Beaver, Canada's first carrier.

Modern carriers are extremely expensive and complex to operate. Most navies besides ours don't have the inclination, money, or experience or they would be doing it already.

Though at least we don't sell the Canadians crappy ships that catch fire before you can get them home like England does.

 

[StageLeft]

Modern carriers are extremely expensive and complex to operate. Most navies besides ours don't have the inclination, money, or experience or they would be doing it already.

Though at least we don't sell the Canadians crappy ships that catch fire before you can get them home like England does.

Probably Canada could "own" it but contract out much of the maintenance to the US.

 

[Sclamoz]

Your history is distorted as well. The bad actions by the USSR and China were in no small part part of a larger power struggle in which the US played a key role in continuing and pressuring them to act badly.

I can name you a long list of weaker nations in which the US played a key role in the mass killing and oppression of people to maintain 'our interests' over the last century - there is plenty of immoral brutality to go around. Our role as a leader of democracy is unfortunately heavily weighted to words over deeds.

It wasn't really our fault though, countries like the Soviet Union and China forced our hand!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Good, we spend far too much on the military as it is. Such a waste. Of course once we kill off all that military spending we'll all discover together the myth of the US capitalist system.


Regardless,

Who the hell is going to threaten us anyway?

Meet my pal ICBM.

 

[ElFenix]

sounds more like Gates' plan to make the pentagon responsible to soldiers in the field, rather than the disconnect that has developed between the two. what real use is large numbers of manned fighters when drones are doing most of the fighting?

 

[dmcowen674]

The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.

When will it be weak enough that you will leave?

 

[lord_emperor]

What does the US need with 12+ supercarriers anyway?

England has 2 under construction.

France has 1 planned.

Russia partially built 2 and sold them to China, where they remain unfinished as far as I know.

 

[Craig234]

It wasn't really our fault though, countries like the Soviet Union and China forced our hand!

There is a bit of truth in that, insofar as each major power competing used the 'threat' of others to justify their own wrongs - sometimes with some truth to it.

The weaker nations were often caught up in the middle, pawns to be abused by someone. Some countries were pointlessly spurned by the US and turned to the commnists in desparation.

But in many cases, it was not about other powers, for example many Americans to our south had terrible things done to them by the US for our own wrong reasons, not because of a foreign power.

When you have a mirror situation - the US justifying anything in the name of stopping the evil Soviet world domination, and the Soviets justifying anything in the name of the opposite, you have a problem.

Ironically, in my opinion, much of the US's best behavior was caused by our policy to try to beat the communbists by winning over nations by being the 'good guys' when we saqw people turn to the communists when we or our allies were sons of bitches. By preaching our support for freedom - mostly starting with JFK - we were able to win over some ountriues, but we had to back it up. Suddenly the US was interested in being a benevolent superpower and respecting other's independance, sometimes.

Even our civil rights movement benefitted from this - it wasn't until the picture of Bull Conner's dogs attacking black kids got global attention that JFK really made civil rights more of a priority.

Vietnam was a good example of our mistake, where we had a nation ready to be our ally if we'd support their independance from France, and we drove them into the arms of the communist camp.

Too often, we've been the lazy power who could care less about the people, and our indifference for their abuse fuels revolution and then we declare the need to attack that enemy.

The cold war had many victims in the third world from all sides - and some good to come out as well. But as the most powerful nation, the US certainly had its own choices much of the time. Some good some bad.

 

[werepossum]

That's where I stopped reading because you showed youyr post to be idiocy, mot worth a response.

I have little doubt I more strongly oppose the USSR understanding its wrongs than you in you ignorance.

If you can get rid of the idiocy you can try again.

your worker's paradise, you should be very embarrassed for the garbage.

If you cannot post in accordance with very well-known factual history please at least try to have some semblance of spelling and grammar. As for my point about Churchill, read any decent military history of World War II and the debate between Churchill's preferred plan of attacking into Europe via Italy (and thus cutting off the Soviet Union from doing what it did) versus Stalin's and Roosevelt's preferred plan of attacking across the channel. You've evidently been reading anti American political books. Even after the invasion of Normandy had succeeded in gaining a foothold, Churchill fought against launching Anvil/Dragoon right up until its actual landing, arguing that those troops were better spent invading through Italy, thus freeing the small occupied states at least up through the Balkans and forestalling the Soviet Army from entering Poland or Germany. American commanders (including FDR) saw the problem as a strictly military problem, accepting the USSR as an ally. Churchill on the other hand looked past the current military problem to the political and military problem caused by an ambitious Soviet army inside Western Europe. Churchill lost that battle, but half a century of slavery for millions proved him correct. Here's a Wikipedia article (I hate using wikipedia to make a point but real books are not available for free referencing) on this very thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely we should cut 2 carriers. We should probably cut 3 or 4. We have vastly more military resources than we need to perform any task outside of foolishly occupying middle eastern nations on false pretenses.

Military spending is absolutely essential up until the point at which you can enforce your strategic objectives. Spending beyond that is the worst kind of government spending possible. If the government spends $1 million building a bridge, people can use that bridge, commerce increases, whatever. If they spend $1 million on a tank, society gains no benefit from it.

I think it is difficult to argue that we do not spend considerably in excess of what is necessary to implement reasonable strategic goals for our country, therefore cut, cut, cut away! (don't stop with the carriers)

 

[rudder]

I would rather the carrier groups stay and close some bases around the world.

 

[yllus]

Sounds rather fitting if you buy into the drones replacing manned fighters theory of warfare.

 

[garndawg]

OK, I'll play...

I have no problem with that. JSF is already developed and should the need arise, we can just build more. Cut the 2 older carriers and dock them somewhere. Maybe if needed we can recommission them. Weren't we building another carrier even after the USS Ronald Reagan? Maybe sell some old ones to some friends (Australia, for instance).

This is my field. Has been for about two decades. Let me start by asking two questions:
If you park your car in your garage for a full year, what will be required to make it dependable when you return to it after that time? Even if you have the foresight to "winterize" it prior.

How much more complex a carrier than your car, eh?

You also might consider that out of the carrier groups we have, there's typically five tied to a pier at any given time (crew rest/refit, drydock overhaul, etc). That's quite a bit of ocean to cover with six ships...

Next, regarding JSF, it is NOT developed (only three aircraft currently flying with about five YEARS worth of development ahead of it.) With some SIGNIFICANT technical challenges to overcome, I might add.

The F-22 is fully developed, but that line is shutting down right now. To restart the Raptor would require three years' work before the next one rolled off the assembly line. And that would assume that you could keep the same quality team together that exists today. Aerospace personnel do not pop out of bushes just because you post a job opening.

Incidentally, GAO latest predicts $90mil / tail for the JSF/F-35. For what it's worth, the last buy of Raptors was down to $110mil / tail. (As opposed to that $140mil number you keep hearing about...) Pretty signficant capability difference there, too. Chew on that when you hear Gates/co talking about "saving costs"...

sounds more like Gates' plan to make the pentagon responsible to soldiers in the field, rather than the disconnect that has developed between the two. what real use is large numbers of manned fighters when drones are doing most of the fighting?

Um, no.

Don't compare some Afgan hillbilly hajii to a 2nd rate military (Iran, Pakistan). Or a 1st rate one (India, China, Israel).

We definitely should support the infantryman with everything we have. And we do. Just look at the total % of the budget that goes to the Army/Marines.

But that's not really Gates' doing. No one in the defense industry can really make sense out of Gates. Whatever agenda he has, it's not obvious, and not just about best bang-for-buck.

Next, drones are not air-air weapons. They make great recon and even a decent bomb truck, but that's about it for now. What makes you think we can develop a capable air-air software package when we can't even get a decent spell/grammar check code? Do you really think the ASE types are going to have better code than Microsoft? A drone's coding is only as good as anticipated scenarios. So even the best drones have a man-in-the-loop, for when the programming can’t handle the sitrep. To defeat, cut the RF link and then hit it with a situation it's not programmed for. Drones = aluminum showers without wetware. And RF links are so terribly easy to jam. Especially at the source. To quote: "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. ~Werner von Braun


In short, we are the best. Any reasonable person/head of government realizes this. A logical person will not punch you if they know you will hit back twice as hard.

Didn't stop Bin Laden, now did it?

Oh, and there's an idiot in SW Asia right now that think's it's his Mission From God to bring about the Apocalypse. Dropping an retaliatory ICBM on his head in Tehran would be Right. Down. His. Alley.

Deterence doesn't work when the other guy WANTS to be a martyr...

 

[alphatarget1]

OK, I'll play...



This is my field. Has been for about two decades. Let me start by asking two questions:
If you park your car in your garage for a full year, what will be required to make it dependable when you return to it after that time? Even if you have the foresight to "winterize" it prior.

How much more complex a carrier than your car, eh?

You also might consider that out of the carrier groups we have, there's typically five tied to a pier at any given time (crew rest/refit, drydock overhaul, etc). That's quite a bit of ocean to cover with six ships...

Next, regarding JSF, it is NOT developed (only three aircraft currently flying with about five YEARS worth of development ahead of it.) With some SIGNIFICANT technical challenges to overcome, I might add.

The F-22 is fully developed, but that line is shutting down right now. To restart the Raptor would require three years' work before the next one rolled off the assembly line. And that would assume that you could keep the same quality team together that exists today. Aerospace personnel do not pop out of bushes just because you post a job opening.

Thanks for your insight. I just don't know if it's absolutely necessary that we maintain military superiority to the rest of the world. We currently have 11 supercarriers (just wikied, correct me if I'm wrong). Why do we need that many when most of the conflicts we'd be dealing with in the future are smaller scale conflicts that don't require a lot of sea power? We cut 2, and there are still 9. Still a ton of power projection capabilities unmatched by any country in the world in the next 2-3 decades at least.

JSF they should probably keep building, but I don't know about the F22s. Spending so much money on R&D and then shutting it down seems stupid.

 

[Craig234]

Looks like a well informed post, but I have a comment on the mentality shown in one statement.

OK, I'll play...
You also might consider that out of the carrier groups we have, there's typically five tied to a pier at any given time (crew rest/refit, drydock overhaul, etc). That's quite a bit of ocean to cover with six ships...

How do all the rest of the nations of the world feel, when they don't have six?

Isn't it interesting how easy it is to sort of make your self 'ruler of the world' who has to 'cover it'?

Why do we need to 'cover the world' all the time?

Why is it 'justiafible defense' for us to have overwhelming dominace but unacceptable for someone else to?

Next, regarding JSF, it is NOT developed (only three aircraft currently flying with about five YEARS worth of development ahead of it.) With some SIGNIFICANT technical challenges to overcome, I might add.

The F-22 is fully developed, but that line is shutting down right now. To restart the Raptor would require three years' work before the next one rolled off the assembly line. And that would assume that you could keep the same quality team together that exists today. Aerospace personnel do not pop out of bushes just because you post a job opening.

Incidentally, GAO latest predicts $90mil / tail for the JSF/F-35. For what it's worth, the last buy of Raptors was down to $110mil / tail. (As opposed to that $140mil number you keep hearing about...) Pretty signficant capability difference there, too. Chew on that when you hear Gates/co talking about "saving costs".[/quote

Sorry spent several miuntes holdig down backspace to delete the extra text and am not going to get rid of all of it.

 

[StageLeft]

OK, I'll play...



This is my field. Has been for about two decades. Let me start by asking two questions:
If you park your car in your garage for a full year, what will be required to make it dependable when you return to it after that time? Even if you have the foresight to "winterize" it prior.

How much more complex a carrier than your car, eh?

You also might consider that out of the carrier groups we have, there's typically five tied to a pier at any given time (crew rest/refit, drydock overhaul, etc). That's quite a bit of ocean to cover with six ships...

Next, regarding JSF, it is NOT developed (only three aircraft currently flying with about five YEARS worth of development ahead of it.) With some SIGNIFICANT technical challenges to overcome, I might add.

The F-22 is fully developed, but that line is shutting down right now. To restart the Raptor would require three years' work before the next one rolled off the assembly line. And that would assume that you could keep the same quality team together that exists today. Aerospace personnel do not pop out of bushes just because you post a job opening.

Incidentally, GAO latest predicts $90mil / tail for the JSF/F-35. For what it's worth, the last buy of Raptors was down to $110mil / tail. (As opposed to that $140mil number you keep hearing about...) Pretty signficant capability difference there, too. Chew on that when you hear Gates/co talking about "saving costs"...



Um, no.

Don't compare some Afgan hillbilly hajii to a 2nd rate military (Iran, Pakistan). Or a 1st rate one (India, China, Israel).

We definitely should support the infantryman with everything we have. And we do. Just look at the total % of the budget that goes to the Army/Marines.

But that's not really Gates' doing. No one in the defense industry can really make sense out of Gates. Whatever agenda he has, it's not obvious, and not just about best bang-for-buck.

Next, drones are not air-air weapons. They make great recon and even a decent bomb truck, but that's about it for now. What makes you think we can develop a capable air-air software package when we can't even get a decent spell/grammar check code? Do you really think the ASE types are going to have better code than Microsoft? A drone's coding is only as good as anticipated scenarios. So even the best drones have a man-in-the-loop, for when the programming can’t handle the sitrep. To defeat, cut the RF link and then hit it with a situation it's not programmed for. Drones = aluminum showers without wetware. And RF links are so terribly easy to jam. Especially at the source. To quote: "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. ~Werner von Braun


In short, we are the best. Any reasonable person/head of government realizes this. A logical person will not punch you if they know you will hit back twice as hard.

Didn't stop Bin Laden, now did it?

Oh, and there's an idiot in SW Asia right now that think's it's his Mission From God to bring about the Apocalypse. Dropping an retaliatory ICBM on his head in Tehran would be Right. Down. His. Alley.

Deterence doesn't work when the other guy WANTS to be a martyr...

Cool. Considering we discuss war here so much it's a shame we have only literally a handful of people who are engaged in it in any capacity.

 

[QuantumPion]

How much do you want to bet that one of the carriers Obama scraps is the USS George Bush, lol.

 

[theeedude]

I don't feel less safe having read this thread, that money can be better spent in home than investing in being world police.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Looks like a well informed post, but I have a comment on the mentality shown in one statement.

OK, I'll play...
You also might consider that out of the carrier groups we have, there's typically five tied to a pier at any given time (crew rest/refit, drydock overhaul, etc). That's quite a bit of ocean to cover with six ships...

How do all the rest of the nations of the world feel, when they don't have six?

Isn't it interesting how easy it is to sort of make your self 'ruler of the world' who has to 'cover it'?

Why do we need to 'cover the world' all the time?

Why is it 'justiafible defense' for us to have overwhelming dominace but unacceptable for someone else to?
.

The world has looked toward the US and expected the US to be the policeman and fireman.
1) The UN is incompetent
2) The US is very giving without demanding much in return.
3) The US allows other coutnries to slap our faces and yet we turn the other cheek and keep on giving.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't feel less safe having read this thread, that money can be better spent in home than investing in being world police.

A military has more uses than invading other nations. Particularly with defending our own.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, I'll play...



This is my field. Has been for about two decades. Let me start by asking two questions:
If you park your car in your garage for a full year, what will be required to make it dependable when you return to it after that time? Even if you have the foresight to "winterize" it prior.

How much more complex a carrier than your car, eh?

You also might consider that out of the carrier groups we have, there's typically five tied to a pier at any given time (crew rest/refit, drydock overhaul, etc). That's quite a bit of ocean to cover with six ships...

Next, regarding JSF, it is NOT developed (only three aircraft currently flying with about five YEARS worth of development ahead of it.) With some SIGNIFICANT technical challenges to overcome, I might add.

The F-22 is fully developed, but that line is shutting down right now. To restart the Raptor would require three years' work before the next one rolled off the assembly line. And that would assume that you could keep the same quality team together that exists today. Aerospace personnel do not pop out of bushes just because you post a job opening.

Incidentally, GAO latest predicts $90mil / tail for the JSF/F-35. For what it's worth, the last buy of Raptors was down to $110mil / tail. (As opposed to that $140mil number you keep hearing about...) Pretty signficant capability difference there, too. Chew on that when you hear Gates/co talking about "saving costs"...



Um, no.

Don't compare some Afgan hillbilly hajii to a 2nd rate military (Iran, Pakistan). Or a 1st rate one (India, China, Israel).

We definitely should support the infantryman with everything we have. And we do. Just look at the total % of the budget that goes to the Army/Marines.

But that's not really Gates' doing. No one in the defense industry can really make sense out of Gates. Whatever agenda he has, it's not obvious, and not just about best bang-for-buck.

Next, drones are not air-air weapons. They make great recon and even a decent bomb truck, but that's about it for now. What makes you think we can develop a capable air-air software package when we can't even get a decent spell/grammar check code? Do you really think the ASE types are going to have better code than Microsoft? A drone's coding is only as good as anticipated scenarios. So even the best drones have a man-in-the-loop, for when the programming can’t handle the sitrep. To defeat, cut the RF link and then hit it with a situation it's not programmed for. Drones = aluminum showers without wetware. And RF links are so terribly easy to jam. Especially at the source. To quote: "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. ~Werner von Braun


In short, we are the best. Any reasonable person/head of government realizes this. A logical person will not punch you if they know you will hit back twice as hard.

Didn't stop Bin Laden, now did it?

Oh, and there's an idiot in SW Asia right now that think's it's his Mission From God to bring about the Apocalypse. Dropping an retaliatory ICBM on his head in Tehran would be Right. Down. His. Alley.

Deterence doesn't work when the other guy WANTS to be a martyr...

You make some valid points here, but there's more to the picture I think. First, even with 2 or 3 (or 4) fewer carriers we wouldn't be covering the world with only 6 ships. We have quite a few LHA's, LHD's, and LCC's. While these ships do not equal a carrier's strike firepower, this ability is still significant, not to mention our large force of tomahawk capable ships.

I don't think mothballing the older carriers is necessary, I would just scrap them outright. In the eyes of quite a few people (many of them in Congress) we can simply never have a powerful enough military. I happen to think that the trillion or so dollars we spend a year on the military is quite a bit more than is necessary. Hundreds of billions of dollars could be better spent or not spent at all.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't feel less safe having read this thread, that money can be better spent in home than investing in being world police.

A military has more uses than invading other nations. Particularly with defending our own.

Remember that having a perceived weak military and a isolationist/no interventive attitude encourages wanna-be troublemakers to flaunt their stuff.

Japan in the 30's and early 40's was willing to take on the US because of what was being projected.

No one stood up to Germany - everyone had shut down after WWI - hot air was all that could be mustered against her.

Currently
All those genocides in Africa because no one cares to step in. Those doing so, have no fear that anyone will stop them.

The problems in Burma - no one wants to stick their noses into it, yet the same people will happily complain about the stink.

 

[Zebo]

The world has looked toward the US and expected the US to be the policeman and fireman.
1) The UN is incompetent
2) The US is very giving without demanding much in return.
3) The US allows other coutnries to slap our faces and yet we turn the other cheek and keep on giving.

Not to mention the all-isreal-all-the-time UN Muslim block won't address human rights violations and slaughters taking place around the world especially in their own countries such as Saudi's using wt phosphorous and gunning down civilians right now in YEMEN. Did you even know about it? Where are the demonstrations and condemnations and 24 hour news coverage. Nothing Notta zitch back page of NYT at best.

Of course liberals will say it's ultimately our fault for supporting regime and supplying weapons. Noble savages can do no evil only USA.

The UN is worthless and hypocritical and so are liberals.

 

[theeedude]

A military has more uses than invading other nations. Particularly with defending our own.

How many aircraft carriers do we need to defend our nation?

 

[gingermeggs]

I have no problem with that. JSF is already developed and should the need arise, we can just build more. Cut the 2 older carriers and dock them somewhere. Maybe if needed we can recommission them. Weren't we building another carrier even after the USS Ronald Reagan? Maybe sell some old ones to some friends (Australia, for instance).

Not sell them, give them! Ol' Mate!
strip the nuke shit and we'll scuttle them in 40meters of water to create a diving and fish attraction! Fantastic Idea.

Pity the USA can't move from military manufacture into carbon emission reduction technologies, manufacture and installation(breeder nuke reactors, computers, battery tech, etc). Leading the next phase of technology development, not missing the economic boat it will become- but for so many fat cheese arsed, share market speculators that's considered "Medial" work, the fat lill' children of a once great nation are lazy, greedy, selfish sacks of shit, who only really make their money off point the gun, legal financial scams, labor and resource usury!
Gee that tactic is a good long term plan!*
* sarcasm
You don't have friends anywhere in the world anymore, book a flight somewhere apart from lost vegas and see the real world- that hates your capitalist pig guts out!

When envy turns to hate, it becomes a motivator which will by shear weight of numbers, will tear the stinking USA up into rotten fucken strips of shit!
Capitalist, oligarchic bastards!!!!!!!