Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

U.S. military in danger of returning to a ‘hollow force’

Discussion in 'World Economy' started by Shikari, Aug 21, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shikari

    Shikari 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    99
    U.S. military in danger of returning to a ‘hollow force’

    Unless President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress change current law, America’s armed forces will face an indiscriminate, across-the-board cut or “sequestration†of more than $500 billion on Jan. 2, 2013.

    There is bipartisan agreement that sequestration will cripple military readiness and return the U.S. military to the “hollow†force of the 1970s.

    The reduction would be on top of the $487 billion US in defence cuts already scheduled as part of the Budget Control Act of August 2011, the compromise to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. The law stipulated that Congress find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction or else a draconian cut of $500 billion from the military budget.

    According to U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, sequestration would also eliminate a leg of the nuclear Triad, deliver a heavy blow to U.S. missile defences, and eliminate next-generation fighter and bomber programs.

    The findings of the House Armed Services Committee were just as bleak: the smallest air force in its history; the smallest navy since before the First World War; and the smallest ground force since before the Second World War.

    Conservatives in both the House and the Senate have offered bills to avert this heavy blow to the U.S. military, but Obama — the commander in chief — has threatened to veto any bill that doesn’t raise taxes. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has absurdly called sequester a “balanced approach to reduce the deficit†and maintains that he isn’t going to back off.

    The reality is it is far from balanced. Military is less than one-fifth of the U.S. federal budget and absorbs fully 50 per cent of the sequester. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of entitlement spending, the key driver of the debt crisis, is exempt from the impact of the cuts.

    As the clock ticks closer to Jan. 2, conservatives shouldn’t allow themselves to get trapped into a “solution†or “grand bargain†that either slashes the military capabilities needed to defend America or raises taxes. This is a false choice: one is bad for national security, the other damages the fragile economy.

    After 10 years of war and major wear and tear on military equipment, the military is in dire shape and needs to be modernized. While defence expenditures did rise after 9/11, they were largely spent on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — not on modernization (i.e., new planes, ships or weapon systems).

    The U.S. military is facing a readiness crisis, one confronting not only its soldiers but also pushing its military equipment to the breaking point. Across all services, readiness problems are worsening. Breakdowns are happening more frequently. The Navy deploys ships that are barely able to sail, and members of the army have had to tape body armour to their SUVs. The U.S. military needs to be modernized, not subjected to additional cuts.

    The administration has said that “revenues†have to be a part of any solution. Yet raising taxes during a time of high unemployment and slow economic growth makes no sense. Higher taxes will adversely impact both job creation and economic growth. The reality is that the president wants to raise taxes to fuel ever more spending.

    In Washington, it seems it’s always easier for politicians to “slash defence†than it is to address the real drivers of debt in the U.S.: out-of-control spending and exploding entitlements. This is particularly unconscionable when American troops are putting their lives on the line every day.

    Owen Graham is research co-ordinator for national security and foreign policy in the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. (McClatchy-Tribune News Services)

    GuelphMercury - U.S. military in danger of returning to a
     
  2. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    And problems US military is facing is not because of lack of money, but because it has too much money; weapons programs are expensive, inefficient and ineffective (F22, F35, DDG-1000). Pork, bribes and missing money is everywhere. Due to exponentially increasing costs and complexity of new weapons, far more than normal increase, US military cannot replace its old weapons, forcing it to put aside more and more money for fixes and maintenance - and new weapons are even more maintenance hungry.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Did you notice that the biggest difference between Russia and USA is ?
    Russia makes good weapons, excellent design and good usage, and cheap.. examples AK-47, T-72, MiG-21 etc
    Where as present day the Americans are going on a stage where they want their weapon to be perfect and they do not really care for the cost they have to pay for having such a perfect weapon.
    For example F-22, it is touted as one of the BEST AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. and indeed it is good. But then now it has developed some snags. When the Americans spend billions of dollars to build a perfect fighter and then it has a problem IT MAKES HEADLINES. Where as if Su-30 MKI has an issue, it has an issue, and it would be sorted clear. I think the Americans are shooting them in the foot because of one reason .. VERY VERY LOW TOLERENCE.
    No weapon will function exactly as planned, there is bound to be some variables and this is what tolerence are accounted for. but when you have very low tolerence and there is any snag, the solutions will be compromise Thus you end up doing what you did not want to start with and this COMPROMISE IS EXPENSIVE.
    I see F-22 and F-35 going the same way..

    Anyone following my views??
     
    7 people like this.
  4. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    I am :taz:
     
  5. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Problem is that US have wrong definition of "perfection"... they believe - undoubtably influenced by MIC - that something cannot be perfect unless it is high-tech; whereas history shows that war-winning weapons were usually low-tech... Typhoon is about as far as you can go with high-tech solution without it being impractical, unaffordable and overdesigned. F22 is... several thusand kilometers south of that line, whereas F35 is on South Pole.
     
  6. ManuSankar

    ManuSankar Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    588
    Spending cuts in US defense budget is inevitable.US spends way too much money in Defense.

    [​IMG]
    here’s a pie chart on how Washington spends its money…
     
  7. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Total defense spending is around 1,2 trillion USD actually.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    As you from the Avatar its that of Joachin Pieper, an SS - Colonel who commanded a regiment and battlegroup of Liebstandarte,
    Most historians say that King Tiger was the best tank of the war, it was perfect in design except the engine. But if you see the most successful design was the Soviet T-34. T-34 had poor finishing but it was built with lot of tolerence and so it was able to function even under most adverse conditions.
    Tank against Tank: King tiger would have mauled T-34, but then when it came to actual tank battles where the tanks moved, the Soviets developed strategy of mass movement of tanks in waves and getting some T-34 very close to the King tigers and where these nullified the advantage of King tigers heavy armour.
    There is no chance to make a perfect weapon because there will always be an upgrade, so they have to really consider the cost and life of the weapon before they try to develop something perfect and then end up with compromise making it imperfect again.

    Each so called Perfect Weapon from USA has its design flaws, only few experts are able to find them. It is matter of time that during some actions each of these perfect weapons will be taken to washers.
    And the morale is effected when the soldiers who are drummed about the perfect weapon realize and notice flaws and they do not have a plan B.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Back in the real World:

    Commentary: Defense cuts won't hurt that much

    Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

    Across-the-board spending cuts will be the most damaging thing to hit the Defense Department since Pearl Harbor.

    That is, if you believe the defense establishment.

    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta claims that so-called sequestration will have a catastrophic impact on our national security and create a hollow force.

    Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are sounding the alarm about the profound negative consequences to our national security and economy.

    And the Aerospace Industries Association claims that sequestration would result in the loss of more than 1 million jobs.

    Korb: What Iraq pullout means to the budget

    Sequestration certainly is not a smart way to cut the defense budget. But close analysis of these claims makes it clear that they're wildly exaggerated.

    If automatic reductions in defense spending go into effect, the fiscal year 2013 base (or non-war) budget will be reduced by $55 billion to $500 billion and remain at that level in real terms for the next decade. This will result in a total reduction of $500 billion over a decade from projected levels of defense spending.

    But it also means the Pentagon will still be spending more in 2013 after sequestration than it did in 2006, at the height of the Iraq war, and more than we spent on average at the end of the Cold War and during the first Gulf war.

    Moreover, the United States will still account for 40% of the world's military expenditures -- 70% if you combine that with what our allies spend.

    These cuts come after 13 straight years of defense increases, which brought defense spending to levels not seen since World War II.

    Are those hyperventilating about sequestration really claiming that we wouldn't be able to provide for national security?

    As for jobs, there are at least three reasons why sequestration will have only a minimal impact in 2013.

    First, the reductions are unlikely to have much impact on the hundreds of billions of dollars in existing multi-year defense contracts.

    Second, in making the reductions, DOD can also tap other funds beyond its requested $550 billion base budget, in essence giving it $721 billion from which to cut next year.

    For instance, it can choose to draw on its requested overseas war funding budget of $88 billion since it has items like routine personnel costs that have nothing to do with the wars. Plus, the DOD could draw from its $83 billion in unobligated balances, which is money authorized but not yet spent.

    Third, sequestration will not have an impact on foreign military sales, which were over $40 billion this year and account for about 25% of the revenues of major defense companies.

    DOD, in short, does not have a resource problem. It has a management problem. Its leaders did not have to enforce fiscal discipline during the gusher of defense spending between 2001 and 2010. As a result, it wasted $50 billion on weapons systems it later cancelled and has cost overruns topping $500 billion on 95 major weapons systems.

    Sen. McCain himself called the acquisition process for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons program, a scandal and a tragedy. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, said the department was guilty of "acquisition malpractice" in managing the F-35 program.

    Even those who believe defense spending should be reduced object to the "meat ax approach" of sequestration in which all items in the defense budget would be cut equally. They have a point. But there are other alternatives.

    One, laid out by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, would achieve the same level of required savings under the Budget Control Act, but implement the cuts more gradually. This would be done by reducing projected levels of inflation-adjusted spending by 2.2% a year over the next decade. To do this, however, Congress would need to amend the BCA.

    But even the prospect of such a work-around, which would give Pentagon leaders more say about where and when the cuts occur, isn't enough to convince them to proactively plan for potential funding cuts, which they say would be catastrophic.

    Really? This from the organization that planned for a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union that would have destroyed civilization as we know it?

    If they need a guide, they can turn to a plan by the co-chairmen of the president's Deficit Reduction Commission (Bowles-Simpson), which outlined $973 billion in cuts to defense over the next decade.

    The most serious security problem facing the nation is our federal debt. Reducing defense won't solve that problem. But since defense accounts for 20% of federal expenditures and 50% of all discretionary spending, it can and should reduce be reduced to 2006 levels, sequester or no sequester.

    The American people support it. And if the Pentagon's leaders can't do it, they don't deserve to be there.

    Commentary: Defense cuts won't hurt that much - Aug. 2, 2012
     
  10. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    11,496 Migs 21 produced
    Modern Air-to-Air & Air-to-Ground kill
    Iraqi Mig-21 kill record:
    1 Iranian F-14 Tomcat
    Indian Mig-21 kill record:
    4 PAF F-104 Starfighters

    Migs Killed in air to air combat, to long to list but about 95

    KILL RATIO 5:95

    smestarz: Russia makes good weapons, excellent design and good usage, and cheap.. examples AK-47, T-72, MiG-21.

    JUST A REALITY CHECK.........
     
  11. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Frankly it is decided not to reply to monkey crap. but here goes, specially for you

    Did you check how the MiGs were shot down. Dude, if USA puts an AA like you in a B-2 or F-22, then even Supermarine Spitfire can run rings round you. When it is about plane, it is not only about plane but also who uses it and how well trained he is.
    Training will always be difference between two adversaries. Good quality training is primary and secondary would be the plane.
    A well trained pilot in not so superior plane will have a better chance of winning, than a less trained pilot in superior plane.
    If you cannot understand the point.. then don't bother, it is well too much for your brain to comprehend.

    Do not forget that your famous world beaters PATTON TANKS were ground into the sand by outdated Vickers Valiant.
    Sabre Jets flown by Pakistani pilots were downed by Gnats another so called outdated plane.

    Your untrackable F-117 was shot down by a Russian Surface to Air missile and that is AMERICAN TECH FAILING WHERE IT SHOULD NOT. I think when the F-117 pilot ejected after being shot he would be mouthing "How the F did they see me? How the F did they see me? "

    Now, do not be so upset when countries do not want to buy your expensive weapons or the junk that you now offer.

    By the way, you should ask your Vietnam war buddies, how they felt when their Star wars tech M-16 jammed in face of Viet Cong forces running at them with AK-47s and everybody knows how reliable Ak-47 ARE.

    By the way, for the record. The people who died by bullets of AK-47 far far exceeds the deaths caused by your bombing of Hiroshima Nagasaki... I am not boasting on behalf of AK... but when you see a legend, respect it or get a cap busted in your butt.

    Another interesting thing, recently a member posted a nice IRST shot of B-2 taken from Eurofighter Typhoon, and in case your country comes up against any country having such capability and well trained pilots, your B-2 bomber fleet would be obsolete, and I wonder how it would feel to have a US$ 2 Billion per plane obsolete just overnight.
     
  12. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Have you ever noticed the IRST are allways from close up and of the top where the heat is ehausted by the technology that keeps the leading edges and bottom cool.. but come on calling a plane like the Mig 21 great and there being 11,500 produced , and hundreds crashed, and their loss ratio in combat was more then 10 to 1. I mean if you call the Mig 21 a good weapons, excellent design and good usage, and cheap.. I would shutter to think you would call bad, and just how cheap is a Mig 21 considering 100 crash an ten are shot down per each kill a Mig 21 makes.
     
  13. s002wjh

    s002wjh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    7
    lol talking about AK. i couln't hit a big 16inch target from 300yrd no matter what ammo i use, but AR15 right on bullseye. although i admit ak is pretty reliable but current gen of m16/ar15 are pretty reliable too.

    as for f117, its record are still good. no one know how the f117 was shot down, there were thousands sorties during bosnia war fly by f117, only one shot down, thats still above 99% sucess rate.

    as for IRST, B2 has technology to hidden its IR signature, and IRST highly depends on wheather, and doesn't have the range as radar etc. and i'm sure US government and the company involve in B2 test IRST on B2 before thats the basic requirement for B2.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    1 F117 was shot down, another was damaged, by a single SAM battery which used unconventional tactics (long waveleght radar + IR missiles). F117s had flown 1 300 sorties in that war.

    F16s, meanwhile, suffered one aircraft hit by SAMs (which went down) out of 4 500 sorties.
     
  15. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    IRST and or radar can pick up a stealth plane near a bombing target, so far no plane has been able to shoot down a stealth plane even over Baghdad. Even if a plane whos radar is as not near as strong as ground based radar could detect an F22 or F35 its doubtufl if theri missiles could get and maintain a radar lock. Now that the induction of the PAK-FA has been put off until 2022, I am starting to doubt it will ever even be built. I think India is just keeping their option open and will bail on the project befor then. Even India is starting to realize the T50 and PAK-FA is a turkey.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page