 |
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
Good point, who are they going to fight?
Increase in spending seems to be about $500 a year per person in the US, couldn't that be better spent on internal problems? |
I guess whomever we wish?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
As for who we might be ready to fight? Whole lotta people in china. If they ever get mad at us, we would need to be prepared.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
I am wandering who are the next nine states.
40% US next nine together spend the same as US...
I guess they are Russia, China, UK, France, Italy, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey any other guesses? Iran, Japan, Taiwan, Spain, Germany come to mind?
I think that the first five are defintiley in with Turkey and India the next best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back. The requirement that US armed forces be able to fight two fully fledged wars with two separate adversaries simultaneously may recently have been dropped, but only because it would be hard pushed to find two such equal foes to fight. |
Bullshit. Win-hold-win was abandoned because it was not militarily viable with the Clinton era force structure.
A lot of US equipment, like those B-52's, are older than the crews who use them, and most fixed-wing combat aircraft in the US inventory have more than 100% of their structural design limit flying hours. The A-6 Intruders had their lives extended for a while by replacing main wing spars, when many of the aircraft had over 300% of their structural design limit flying hours.
For the US to redevelop a meaningful anything, anytime, anywhere warfighting capability, it's going to take a lot of bucks. Unfortunately, particularly with a USAF chairman of the JCS and a mostly air-based war in Afghanistan, a lot of those spending priorities are skewed. That doesn't mean that the overall spending levels are incorrect, though.
BTW, the article is full of inaccuracies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
Zobo: we had special forces units on the ground from the very beginning....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Bullshit. Win-hold-win was abandoned because it was not militarily viable with the Clinton era force structure.
A lot of US equipment, like those B-52's, are older than the crews who use them, and most fixed-wing combat aircraft in the US inventory have more than 100% of their structural design limit flying hours. The A-6 Intruders had their lives extended for a while by replacing main wing spars, when many of the aircraft had over 300% of their structural design limit flying hours.
For the US to redevelop a meaningful anything, anytime, anywhere warfighting capability, it's going to take a lot of bucks. Unfortunately, particularly with a USAF chairman of the JCS and a mostly air-based war in Afghanistan, a lot of those spending priorities are skewed. That doesn't mean that the overall spending levels are incorrect, though.
BTW, the article is full of inaccuracies. |
So are the spending levels quoted in the article wrong?
If you are spending that much money and the US military is still as shite as you seem to claim, then your boys are doing something wrong.....
I would ask for my money back if I were you....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
I could be wrong, but I think that a good percentage of that money actually goes to people who sign up. The armed forces give away a ton of money just to join or for scholarships. I got a letter offering me $50k now as a sign on bonus, and $35k bonus for 2 years on top of regular salary if I would sign up. and i wouldn't even have to go until after I graduate!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
I think the point missing is that as a %-age of GDP, the $400 billion figure is not that large (less than 4% of GDP). $400 billions seems like a large number, but if you have to obtain people/technology/munitions in the US market, then you're going to be paying a pretty penny. You can't exactly import this stuff from China...
The overall objective is to always be prepared with overwhelming force (Powell Doctine), whether there is an identifiable enemy or not (Rumsfeld Corrollary). This is actually quite persuasive for most Americans and the price tag for that preparedness is secondary.
If you have to ask how much it costs, you probably can't afford it anyway...
btw, I agree with MtG that the article is filled with inaccuracies and half-truths.
Last edited by DanS on 14-02-2002 at 04:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:17
|
|
The spending levels are not wrong, but the significance of them is not addressed. I was referring to inaccuracies such as the reason for abandoning win-hold-win, and the relative power of the US. That speaks to a pretty casual (at best, and being polite) level of understanding.
As far as getting money back goes, yeah, a lot of it could come back - there is a huge amount of BS spending to put some jobs in some Senator's state or Representative's district, even when the military doesn't want the hardware.
The need for the funding level is there - IF the money is spent in the right places. Since the US emphasizes technology and standoff capability to minimize casualties, everything from ordnance to the weapons platforms that deliver it are high priced.
A good example of what goes wrong (besides the porkbarrel spending) is the last stages of the A-6 Intruder, which was the Navy's only all-weather strike aircraft from the Vietnam war on. After the last version, the A-6E had been out for a while, the Navy decided it needed a new all-weather strike aircraft. After a few years of dicking around and typical procurement meddling, the A-12 Abortion (shoulda been called that) seemed to be the way to go.
Well, there were some delays, partly because the civilian expert weenies decided that even though the Navy, Air Force and Marines all have different fundamental missions, they should all have the same plane. Never mind that that's always failed.
Since the A-12 wasn't gonna be ready, and A-6E is out of date, let's do an A-6F, with new engines, new digital avionics. limited self-defense capability, and a few other tweaks. After a couple of years of playing with the A-6 idea, somebody figures out it's gonna cost X for Y years before the A-12 comes out, so it's not cost effective, since we're spending for both the A-6F and the A-12 development at the same time.
So the A-6F dies, the A-12 is back on schedule, but next time, the Clinton budget weenies decide to **** around with the A-12 development budget because the price keeps going up. (hint: if you change the ****ing specs every five minutes, the price goes up)
The net result over several years is we end up with no A-6F, no A-12, a bandaid fix on the A-6E at extra cost, and the whole thing gets replaced by some more F/A-18s and a degradation in the Navy's all-weather strike capability. Not to mention several billion pissed away in vacillation.
That's the sickness in the procurement cycle. The money gets spent, but the needs don't get met. At least if this funding level holds, programs will get built, instead of developed and aborted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Kaak,
quote:
I could be wrong, but I think that a good percentage of that money actually goes to people who sign up. The armed forces give away a ton of money just to join or for scholarships. I got a letter offering me $50k now as a sign on bonus, and $35k bonus for 2 years on top of regular salary if I would sign up. and i wouldn't even have to go until after I graduate! |
DAMN! If I got a letter like that I'd sign up in a heartbeat - seriously. That's basically $120,000, over less than 3 years, almost half of it immediately, plus additional salary you get for signing up for, what, is it 2 or 3 years now? That would totally be worth it to me.
And regarding military spending:
I'll agree that the following issues need to be addressed in the US military:
-the pay of enlisted men
-maintenance of equipment
-modernization/replacement of equipment
-spare parts inventory
-training regimen
I do NOT think that the US military needs more men, more equipment, more units, or more bases. We have plenty as it is. We don't NEED to prepare for a win-hold-win scenario - which was always bullshit, by the way. We NEVER had the capability for that. I think the necessary money for the things I listed above should come from closing military bases, especially those overseas and ones in the US that are basically just "pork", reducing operational tempo to 0, and reducing foreign deployments to 0. It would also be great to cut back the Army a good deal (but increase funding for the National Guard, and possibly Reserve formations), as well as the Navy. Oh, and the article is wrong - we don't have 7 carriers, we have 12, or will have 12 when the USS Reagan is completed 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
The Independence was put into mothballs recently, are you counting that one?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-02-2002 20:29
|