What want McCain right now the more accurate for see eventuals changes.
Plus 110 bill for FY 2018 with inflation a little less right now Trump i see in general + 80 billions actualy FY 2016 base budget 530 billions.
With 80 billions or a little less yet possible do good things, i don't see need for SOC yet many SFs for terrorists war mainly and the zero losses politic in Western countries for public opinion from Desert Strom 1991... which is in fact except for these very large Victory for some reasons impossible don' t exist wars without losses ofc sadly but it is the true.
In more SF use very expensive materials sometimes almost customised US have largely enough the need now is for conventionnal forces in number Armored Bdes, SSNs etc..;
USMC also have a size very decent. end 1980's has also 180000 pers.
But in 1st breaking the sequestration with increase impossible.
The highest priority for the 115th Congress must be to repeal the Budget Control Act and work with the next President to increase defense spending in line with a new defense strategy. So long as the Budget Control Act is the law of the land, any claims to rebuild our military will be empty.
And to consider US President Is elected for only 4 years and 8 maximum.
Main points for forces size
Today, the U.S. Navy is 274 ships. This was already short of the joint force requirement of 308 ships. And that was before the Chief of Naval Operations announced that the Navy should grow to 355 ships to address the growing fleet sizes and capabilities of our adversaries.
However, with sufficient funding, the Navy could procure 59 ships for 2022 so to 333
The Navy currently has approximately 830 frontline strike fighters. Its projected shortfall will grow from 29 aircraft in 2020 to roughly 111 aircraft in 2030. The continued delays to the F-35C have exacerbated these shortfalls, while delaying the modernization needed to keep pace with emerging threats. Over the next five years, the Navy should therefore procure 58 additional F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and 16 additional EA-18G Growlers, while continuing to procure the F-35C as rapidly as possible
The current force of 182,000 Marines is too small. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 has authorized a force level of 185,000, while the Marine Corps currently conducts an extensive study to determine its ideal force size. Previous studies, such as the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, have recommended 202,000 Marines. Others have proposed higher based on historical experience with major wars and extended contingency operations. At a minimum, an active force of 194,000 is necessary to sustain the 1:2 ratio. It is safe to assume that the Marine Corps could grow at 3,000 Marines a year and reach 200,000 by Fiscal Year 2022, with the possibility of exceeding that if operational requirements demand it.
The Air Force has divested over 400 combat fighters in the last five years alone and now has only approximately 1,100 combatcoded fighter aircraft. This is well short of the requirement stated in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance for the Air Force to maintain 2,250 total fighter aircraft in order to field 1,200 combatcoded fighters.
Inventory 1950 + 160 bombers ; 1200 fighters in active can be interesting eseverals Sqns 100 - 200 fighters.
In more some A-10 these last years about 60 AF have lost in 2010 254 fighters F-15-16 coz many troops in Irak, Afghanistan about 1500000 and cost in more after crisis economic and sequestration come.
Reshaping the Army must be the priority, but resizing it is also necessary. The Army has been cut by 100,000 soldiers since 2012. It is time to chart a new course. The Army should conduct a study to recommend the optimum size and shape of the future Army. Outside recommendations have suggested an Active Army well above 500,000 soldiers. A realistic objective is to add 8,000 soldiers a year through Fiscal Year 2022. Anything beyond this rate of growth risks diminishing recruiting standards. The Army would then have the option to continue increasing end-strength should requirements demand it. It is assumed that the Army Reserves and National Guard may also increase to correspond with the growth of the Active Army.
This additional end-strength should serve several purposes. First and foremost, it should be used to fill holes in existing formations, increasing the number of trained soldiers available for duty. This will improve readiness for the Army. Additional end-strength could also be used to retain heavier force structure that was set to be eliminated, such as the 11th Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea, and build new heavier forces, such as additional Armored BCTs or a 12th
Army npw 470000 pers need at less + 50000 for have 3 Bdes in the 10 Div, now 6 / 10 also Armored Bde regain her 2 Inf Company lost as before in more several Bde created mainly Armored, Aviation also interesting the 101 Air Assault have 2 logic specialized dvision for airmobile combat.
New combat vehicles MBTs etc.. and mainly a new SPG the M-109 is outdated.
Nuclear forces
Maintaining New START treaty force levels of 400 ICBMs, 240 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) on 12 nuclear submarines, and 60 strategic bombers;
Replacing the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, developing a follow-on ICBM (the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent), and fielding a sufficient number of dual-capable B-21 heavy bombers;
Replacing the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) with the Long Range Stand-off missile (LRSO) for the bomber force and extending the service life of the B61-12 nuclear bomb, W76-1, W78, W80, and Interoperable Warheads;
Modernizing the nuclear command and control and communications system;
Providing a nuclear capable variant of the F-35;
All is planned not for ICBMs but yes Minuteman III even with warheads from formers LGM-118 Peacekeeper very accurate are old to replaced.
U.S. Senator John McCain Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
This paper’s recommended amount of $640 billion for Fiscal Year 2018 is an increase of $54 billion above the current President’s budget. Following Fiscal Year 2018, the defense budget should grow 4 percent annually, which is required to sustain an actual build-up of the military. That would amount to a total of $430 billion over the next five years in additional defense spending above President Obama’s current plan. Annual growth above inflation is necessary to build military capabilities while contending with increasing internal costs like healthcare.
The budget increase would repair the damage to our military in two ways. First, it would address approximately $80 billion of “unpaid bills”—the rosy assumptions about cost growth that the Department of Defense has baked into its current projections. This $80 billion would not actually buy the military any increase in capabilities. Second, the remaining $350 billion of the budget increase would begin to dig the military out of years of budget cuts. It begins the development of capabilities necessary to deter great power competitors. It undoes cuts to capacity that have gone too deep. And it finally provides a path forward to fix readiness.
A budget of $640 billion does not include transferring enduring OCO costs to the base budget. The current abuse of the OCO account is a byproduct of the BCA. It can only be fixed once there has been a complete repeal of the BCA and its discretionary spending caps.
The frames of these two pistols could be swapped with each other ( it's actually just a polymer shell), same for the magazines, slides and barrel. The only serialized part is actually a stainless steel assembly that holds the fire control group that sits inside the polymer frame. These are not like the World war 2 Lugers that were all hand machined and parts matched. if a major war came you could subcontract out parts of these and as long as the tolerances matched you could assemble new pistols from the spare parts.
It's a gun built like lego blocks.
