US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
The 11 carrier requirement is a legacy from the cold war.Frankly, I am amazed it lasted this long without revision

11 carriers? that's nuthin'! When I joined the USN on August 25th 1971 the USN had 18 active carriers.. and on 31 August 1991 when I retired from the USN we had 15 active carriers.

Unless the US is secretly hell bent on world conquest, why does it need to have more of everything than the rest of the world combined when it comes to the military?

It's called deterrence..and because we can.

Also the US has commitments to NATO and SEATO it must fill.

Such as one carrier in the western pacific at all times.

One carrier in the Persian Gulf region at all time.

X number of carriers ready to be deployed at all times.

In 2004 the USN deployed 7 carriers worldwide at once...It was called Summer Pulse 2004..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Because they can.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The 11 carrier requirement is a legacy from the cold war. Frankly, I am amazed it lasted this long without revision.
Actually plawolf, it is not really a legacy of the Cold War and it has been significantly revised since then. Through much of the Cold War the US had 16 or more Carrier groups. At the end of the Cold War it was 15. There has already been over a 30% reduction.

So, 11 Carriers is not a left over and the cold war number has already been significantly reduced.

With 11 carriers, it is credable that the US can surge seven to eight carriers at once. This in keeping with ensuring that treaty obligations can be met should there be conflict in multiple areas at once. May not seem likely at this point...but the deterrence factor helps it stay that way too.

I believe, with the current mind set building in the US, that 11 will remain the number, though there may be times when 10 are commissioned as the Ford Class comes online...with an 11th at all times either going through quals or fitting out. Not too differnet than now when only 7 or 8 or so are available because of refit or refueling the nuc.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
11 carriers? that's nuthin'! When I joined the USN on August 25th 1971 the USN had 16 active carriers.. and on 31 August 1991 when I retired from the USN we had 15 active carriers.



It's called deterrence..and because we can.

Also the US has commitments to NATO and SEATO it must fill.

Such as one carrier in the western pacific at all times.

One carrier in the Persian Gulf region at all time.

X number of carriers ready to be deployed at all times.

In 2004 the USN deployed 7 carriers worldwide at once...It was called Summer Pulse 2004..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Because they can.

Ok, my bad, should have checked the cold war carrier numbers.

But with all due respect Popeye, looking at the US budget deficit and national debt, it doesn't really strike me like the US can maintain it's current force levels and military expenditure.

I am sure I do not need to remind you that the USSR fell not because of some fancy US superweapon, but because of economics.

I am not saying the US is going to collapse like the USSR did, but it is hard to see how the current level of deficit and debt growth can be sustainable in the long-term.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
it is hard to see how the current level of deficit and debt growth can be sustainable in the long-term.
They can't.

But the most nassive amount of waste, debt, and spending is not occurring with the military. Hundreds of billions are wasted in other areas, trying to creat the impossible, buying votes and influence, and throwing money away.

For example, a 700 billion dollar stimulus that we now are learning principally went to infuse companies and projects like Solyndra, where there was no hope for success, but were much more geared towards paying off political debts.
 
Last edited:

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
They can't.

But the most nassive amount of waste, debt, and spending is not occurring with the military. Hundreds of billions are wasted in other areas, trying to creat the impossible, buying votes and influence, and throwing money away.

For example, a 700 billion dollar stimulus that we now are learning principally went to infuse companies and projects like Solyndra, where there was no hope for success, but were much more geared towards paying off political debts.

Not to mention the bailouts that went to politically connected banks and similar subsidies to well connected corporations that send jobs overseas. At least the defense contractors that work on the carriers actually deliver a good product, unlike, for example, contractors in Iraq.

<soapbox/politics mode terminated>
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
As with so many things in the military budget, what started out as a good policy is now a money maker for entrenched interests. Carriers are still relevant, but one less means less contracts for a lot of companies that have many connections with Navy bureaucrats and officers, many of whom have carrers that are tied up in Navy aviation. It's hard to convince them that cutting even one carrier is a good idea.
I'd like the see the Navy explore next-gen aviation of the type imagined in Jeff's book, Dragon's Fury. Big subs launching UAVs.

In the past, I think there were a lot more resistance to the idea of replacing top gun human pilots with Atari 2600 joystick jocks. But if you look at recent US Military commercials on TV, there's more emphasis given to UAV operations (or at least an attempt to make it look cool). So I think we're in a transitory era between manned combat pilots to remotely-controlled armed UAV's.

In civil aviation, I think we'll keep human pilots in the cockpit a bit longer, going from actually flying and landing the aircraft, to being the "emergency backup" to automated flight systems. But eventually they will be replaced by automated systems too.
 

delft

Brigadier
The Roman Empire in the end couldn't defend itself because it also needed to maintain the senators in the style they were used to. The US now need to maintain the the bankers and the defense contractors in the style they are used to. The politicians all need scores of millions in order to be re-elected. The other waste is the result of these three.
But the world can very well live without a hyper power, just as it was able to live without the Roman Empire.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I am simply amazed just how many people are looking too toss off the United States of America. Some I know, it's just there political aim nations like Iran, and dictators who need too feed there populous with bad news of else where too keep there people from dealing with there real issues.
The US has been though worse we will adapt move on and change it's part of the way of things we simply need too stop convincing ourselves that the ship is sunk and start fixing the holes.
Did the World live after the fall of Rome? Yes Was it as peaceful? Did the peoples live any where near as well? NO.
but then again it was not the senators who really killed it it was the division. the Old Western Roman Empire that centered in Rome fell when the Emperors split it into two empires the prosperous Eastern Roman empire, and the Plague infested over stretched war ravaged western. The Western half could not stand with out The Bread basket of Rome, that eastern half that would be what we refer too as the Byzantine Empire. It lasted another 200 years until plague and war and the Crusades killed it with the fall of Constantinople. America the new Rome?
Even that is a very politically pointed statement.
imperialism. How can one have an Empire with out completely annexing states? I am sorry perhaps the Patriotism that still burns in me has blinded me but I see no Empire. I see a nation that has reached a level of power that other nations envy and would be more then happy too see burn. I see people who see the greatness was reached and what still could be, yet wish with all there hearts too trample it under foot simply because it's there view that such things are wrong.
People Who pay lips service too the rights of others only so long as they agree. When some one points too any other point of view must be rioted and forced out of the debate by force... I see a most endemic form of hypocriticalisum that worries me deeply. I also see a very real almost Demigodory in it too.

However I feel I have just practiced a bit of Hypocrisy my self as This thread Is very much Not the place for my own gripes about the political status but rather is oriented specifically too news on the US military.
KC-46: Model Program, Yet Potential Delays Exist
By DAVE MAJUMDAR, Defence News
Published: 13 Oct 2011 20:17

The U.S. Air Force's KC-46 tanker is a model acquisition program in several ways, yet four things may keep the aircraft from entering service on schedule, senior defense officials said.
Above, an artist's rendering of the KC-46 tanker. (The Boeing Co.)

"We need to use the type of procurement practice that we used on KC-X on as many programs, frankly, as we can," said Shay Assad, the Defense Department's director of defense procurement and acquisition policy. "In those instances where we can define our requirements in a firm way, we need to use this type of contract."

Assad conceded there are many who oppose fixed-price contracts, and he noted that DoD spent a huge amount of time to lay out the Air Force's precise requirements. But if the risks are fully understood and the requirements are constructed soundly, Assad told lawmakers Oct. 13, such contract vehicles are appropriate.

Assad said the KC-46 contract offers great advantages to the government. Boeing is completely responsible for any price increases above the contract ceiling price. Boeing estimates the program's cost at $5.2 billion, which means that the company will swallow a loss of about $300 million unless it can bring costs down, Assad said.

The contract ceiling is $4.83 billion, Maj. Gen. (sel.) Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force's KC-46 program manager, said later.

Bogdan said the contract is meant to give Boeing every incentive to manage costs ruthlessly. The Air Force is now obligated to buy just four test planes, he said. The rest of the 179 aircraft are options, including the 18 fully operational planes that Boeing is obligated to deliver by August 2017, he said.

If the company can't deliver on its promises, the Air Force can start the follow-on KC-Y or KC-Z programs sooner than planned, Bogdan said.

Air Force acquisition executive David Van Buren, who was also testifying, said that if the KC-46 works as advertised, the Air Force could dispense with replacing the KC-10 with a heavy tanker. However, the Air Force wants to keep its options open, he said.

The contract isn't all stick; there is a carrot being offered, too.

"The good news for us is, if they finish that program for less than $4.8 billion, for every dollar less, we get 60 cents of it and they get 40 cents of it," Bogdan said.

Nonetheless, both the program office and Boeing have cash in reserve in case of problems, Bogdan said.

Van Buren said that the service also got a good deal because the first two production lots will be built to a firm fixed price, while subsequent aircraft fall under a "not-to-exceed" pricing structure.

But if Congress cannot pass a 2012 budget, the entire tanker effort could head toward disaster. Disruptions to cash flow would have "very negative" consequences, Van Buren and others said.

If the service operated on a continuing resolution for the whole year, the program would wind up $203 million short, which could require the entire deal to be restructured.

The KC-46, meant to offload 212,000 pounds of fuel and double as a cargo plane, is well into its first year of development, Bogdan said. The aircraft is being designed with a 40-year lifespan and will undergo its preliminary design review in 2012 and its critical design review the following year, Van Buren said.

The first flight of a 767-2C airframe without the tanker-specific hardware will occur in 2014; a fully equipped KC-46 aircraft will fly by the end of that year, Van Buren said.

Engineering and manufacturing development will wrap up in 2016.

Bogdan said Boeing will put the KC-46 through two sets of preliminary and critical reviews under military and civilian procedures.

Boeing is projecting that it will deliver 18 operational aircraft five months before the deadline in August 2017, Bogdan said.
Four Threats

Bogdan said there are four potential threats to the schedule.

Boeing is building the KC-46 as a military derivative of a commercial airframe, which normally means completing the aircraft as a civilian product, then modifying it for military service. But Boeing and its subcontractors are building the tanker as a military aircraft from the outset. For example, the emplacement for the refueling boom might be built into the plane at the factory, rather than being cut out of the fuselage later, Bogdan said.

But this risks delays if the subcontractors can't immediately build the modified components correctly, he said.

The second potential pitfall, Bogdan said, is that Boeing is contracted to deliver an aircraft with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type of certificate. There are two parts to this requirement: the baseline 767-2C must first get its Amended Type Certificate (ATC), as all new variants of existing civilian aircraft must; but also, the plane must get a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for all of its various military modifications, Bodgan said.

These steps would normally be done in sequence, but production modifications require them to be done at roughly the same time, which means any course corrections may cause delays, Bogdan said.

The Air Force could simply issue a military-type certificate, but then the service couldn't use the testing already done by civilian users, which would make operating the plane more expensive, he said.

Third, flight testing may not go as smoothly as Boeing hopes, Bogdan said. The company, in partnership with the FAA, is efficient at testing new civilian aircraft, but testing military aircraft is more complex.

Fourth is software.

"I've never been on a program where software was not an issue," Bogdan said.

Boeing plans to reuse much of its civilian software, which Bogdan said is a good move. But modifying code for military use is always difficult, he said. Another good move, he said, is setting up three labs to support KC-46 software development, including one dedicated to the tanker program. But he said he will be watching software progress like a hawk.

Putting the Boeing 787 cockpit avionics into the KC-46 may cause integration problems, but will be well worth it to get an upgradable, reliable and vastly more capable system, Bogdan said.
Outfitting Soldiers head to toe

October 6, 2011

By Bob Reinert, Army.mil

The Advanced Combat Helmet is a modular system that weighs less, fits better and is more comfortable than its predecessor. Modular, flame-retardant and moisture-resistant pads act as the suspension system between the wearer's head and the helmet. The cotton polyester chin strap, a four-point design, allows for quick adjustment and includes a new ballistic protective pad for the neck that adds ballistic protection between the bottom of the helmet shell and the top of the Interceptor Body Armor collar.
The combat glove is fire-resistant para- or meta-aramid, and contains conductive anti-static fiber. The glove is form fitting, offering maximum dexterity, tactility, flexibility and flame and cut protection. The leather palm is hair sheepskin or goat kidskin. The gloves protect the Soldier's hands while moving objects, navigating rough terrain, and during mission operations.
The Army Combat Boot is a tan-colored, temperate weather combat boot with a moisture-resistant, rough-side-out cattlehide leather and nylon duck upper. It contains a waterproof breathable membrane and integrated safety features such as limited fire-, conductive heat- and liquid fuel penetration-protection.
Knee and elbow pads provide dismounted Soldiers with protection for knees and elbows while engaged in tasks that subject these areas to possible injury or discomfort caused by impact, pressure, or protruding objects and debris (rocks, gravel or glass, for example).

NATICK, Mass, Oct. 6, 2011 -- Scientists, engineers, textile technologists, clothing designers, retired military equipment specialists and experts in other fields at Natick take Soldiers' apparel and equipment quite seriously. They work daily to improve their functionality, durability and comfort.

They assist in the design of helmets and body armor, boots and gloves, uniforms and flame-resistant materials. If you can imagine Soldiers wearing it, these professionals are probably trying to improve upon it.

"These are very passionate, dedicated and knowledgeable folks (who are) researching and developing items that our warfighters need to survive, but also will be comfortable wearing," said Jay Connors, division leader, Warrior Equipment and Systems Division at Natick Soldier
Research, Development and Engineering Center, or NSRDEC. "They're dedicated daily to doing that. It's ingrained in them.

"They are dedicated in this vein because they want to do the right thing by our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. They want our warfighters to have the best stuff."

Connors is quick to point out that the people at NSRDEC support Program Executive Office Soldier in this quest. "As the life cycle manager, the uniform, from boot to helmet, belongs to PEO Soldier," Connors said. "(These are) their items." What NSRDEC does is provide PEO Soldier with the engineers, clothing designers, textile technologists and chemists to support PEO Soldier's mission of fielding Soldier clothing as well as individual and personal-protective equipment."

Connors, a former Marine Reservist, has traveled to Afghanistan three times as an Army civilian and knows firsthand what Soldiers are using.

"I was issued quite a bit of gear, to include the (Improved Outer Tactical Vest) and an (Advanced Combat Helmet) for these trips," Connors said. "I wore the gear completely confident that it's the best stuff out there."

His NSRDEC colleagues, including Ben Cooper, share that confidence. Cooper spends a lot of time thinking about what's best for Soldiers' feet as the footwear project engineer in the Footwear Performance Laboratory. The biomechanical and physical analyses performed there have direct application into the development of footwear for Soldiers, special operators, Marines and Sailors.

The FPL literally puts footwear through its paces, testing stiffness, heat insulation, impact, pressure, flexibility and slip resistance. If the shoe fits, it's thanks to the crack FPL staff and a laboratory filled with testing equipment.

"From our perspective here in the lab, we kind of look at the Soldier as a high-performance athlete," said Cooper, himself a former college athlete. "We're keeping that in mind whenever we're working on things for them."

If there's a job that needs to be done by the Army, chances are the FPL has designed footwear to help Soldiers accomplish it. They've turned out waterproof boots, hot-weather boots, cold-weather boots, and blast-protective boots.

"I want the Soldiers to know that we're here working to improve their systems so that they can do their job the absolute best," Cooper said. "Everyone here is working extremely hard to make sure we can satisfy all their needs so that they (don't have to) concentrate on whether or not their equipment's going to fail, and they can concentrate on their mission.

"We get feedback all the time from various Soldiers in the field. Whether it be questions about what boots they can use, what boots should they use, what's available. We're always hearing from the field."

That feedback went directly into development of the Army Mountain Combat Boot with Afghanistan in mind.

"The terrain in certain parts of Afghanistan is pretty extreme and pretty rugged," Cooper said. "Especially in northern Afghanistan, (for) Soldiers traversing mountains and very, very rugged terrain, the Army Combat Boot was not filling all of their needs. It became very apparent that they needed something to fill the capability gap that existed."

The result was a more rigid boot with increased ankle stability. "I think that the Soldiers have been very, very happy with this boot, especially for those (who) are actually in that environment, operating in the mountainous terrain," Cooper said. "We have then continued to try to improve this item."

More recently, the mountain boot lacing system has been modified for enhanced performance. "(Soldiers) wanted something that would lock their laces," Cooper said. "So we added a lock lacing system by the comfort notch. This is actually specially designed so when you're lacing the boots, it really locks in there."

Cooper and the FPL won't stop with the mountain footwear. Next up is the Modular Boot System.

"One of the things that we were working to improve is trying to come up with a single system that might be able to fulfill capability gaps that may exist," Cooper said. "This is a three-component system. A Soldier would be issued all three components; two removable liners, an insulated gaiter, and base boot. The base boot would be a hot-weather (flame-resistant) boot."

The system would be capable of operating in dry and wet temperate environments and extreme hot and cold temperatures.

"Instead of carrying around a number of different boots, (Soldiers) could have a single system to fulfill their needs in multiple operating environments, and a wide temperature range (minus 65 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Cooper, adding that the goal is fielding by fiscal year 2013.

"I think that people are really chomping at the bit to get this, and we're working very hard to get the items in the system so that Soldiers can take advantage of it. We're putting a lot of effort into this program right now," he said.

All the recent footwear innovations have helped cut down on lower-leg injuries.

"Across the board, all lower-leg injuries, especially for basic trainees, have come down due to the technology incorporated in the boots," said Cooper, who noted between a 10-to-30 percent reduction in injuries.

Change is just as much a constant for Natick clothing designers as it is for Cooper in the footwear lab. And that change comes fast.

"With operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, getting the right equipment to our military men and women is absolutely critical," said Annette LaFleur, team leader for the Design, Pattern & Prototype Team. "The pace at which we design or improve an item and it gets to the field needs to be rapid."

LaFleur's team tailors its work to the operational area.

"The physical environment in Iraq and Afghanistan covers all extremes; extreme heat, cold, sand, wind and sun," LaFleur said. "Some operating environments are known for fine sand and/or rugged mountain terrain, so to design with the focus on durability and repair-ability is key."

According to LaFleur, what the Soldier wears or carries must work as a system.

"Therefore, integration is a critical part of the design process," she said. "The goal is to design clothing that enhances the user's ability to perform their mission, quality of life, and protection (and) survivability."

The place and mission, said LaFleur, make the clothes.

"There has been an increased focus on incorporating protective flame-resistant fabrics into clothing, consideration of venting or using breathable fabrics or design methods, ballistic and blast protection, and always thinking 'light' when designing or improving an item," LaFleur added.

Connors pointed out that LaFleur, Cooper and others at NSRDEC work together to turn out the best for Soldiers and Marines.

"This division is all about collaboration," said Connors, "and as a result, each of the services we support gains better knowledge, better data and the ability to make better decisions because of the synergy within the teams and the rest of the NSRDEC that we and the services have enabled here."

Ultimately, it comes down to getting the best products into the hands of the warfighter, a process in which Connors and his colleagues obviously take satisfaction.

"Seeing the uniforms and equipment being worn every day on the news and knowing that you're part of the Army team responsible for the development and fielding of those items," said Connors, "is pretty huge and personally rewarding."

With that in mind, the NSRDEC staff won't let up in its efforts. Connors wants Soldiers to know that.

"To the men and women in the field, you can believe there are people back here working to make sure you have the best stuff," said Connors, "the right stuff to meet your mission requirements."
CENTCOM: RPG downed Chinook in Afghanistan

By Deb Riechmann - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Oct 13, 2011 12:50:28 EDT

KABUL, Afghanistan — U.S. military investigators have concluded that the Chinook helicopter crash in Afghanistan that killed 30 U.S. troops in August was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade that hit the rear rotor, causing the aircraft to fall vertically to the ground and burst into flames.

The Aug. 6 crash was deadliest single incident for U.S. forces in the decade-long war and the Taliban claimed responsibility. No one survived the crash in Tangi Valley of Wardak province, about 60 miles southwest of Kabul.

“A previously undetected group of suspected Taliban fighters fired two or three RPGs in rapid succession from the tower of a two-story mud brick building approximately 220 meters south” of the aircraft, said the official investigation report, issued Wednesday by the U.S. Central Command. “The first RPG missed the helicopter, but the second RPG struck one of the blades on the aft (rear) rotor assembly and exploded.”

The report said that after the rotor was hit, the helicopter spun violently and then crashed in a dry creek bed where it was engulfed in flames. The fire triggered several explosions of fuel and munitions.

Among those killed were 17 members of the elite Navy SEALs, five Naval Special Operations personnel who support the SEALs, three Air Force Special Tactics Airmen, an Army helicopter crew of five, seven Afghan commandos, and an Afghan interpreter. A military dog also died.

While final autopsy reports were still being reviewed, it’s believed that all 38 persons on board died rapidly after the crash.

The troops killed were flying into the area to aid an Army Ranger platoon, which had been flown in earlier to try to kill or capture a Taliban leader.

Investigators found no wrongdoing by those involved in the mission. The decision to transport all 38 who were killed in one helicopter was “tactically sound” to mitigate the risks of ground fire, the report said.

The report dismissed speculation that the troops aboard the helicopter were lured into the valley by insurgents with advance knowledge of the landing site.

“The shoot down was not the result of a baited ambush, but rather the result of the enemy being at a heightened state of alert due to three and one half hours of ongoing coalition air operations concentrated over the northwestern portion of the Tangi Valley,” the report said.

According to the report, by 2:45 a.m. on Aug. 6, Army Rangers had cleared a compound and detained several suspected insurgents in Tangi Valley. Base commanders, however, were getting reports about insurgents assembling nearby and summoned the 17-member elite SEALs team.

The group of insurgents was reported to be growing, so before the SEALs team left on its fatal mission, a decision was made to expand the squad to 33 personnel, including the Afghan interpreter and troops.

Once it arrived near the compound, the helicopter descended to about 100 to 150 feet from the ground and slowed to about 58 mph, then came under fire. More than 10 feet of the rotor blade was lost and within seconds, the rear and the “forward rotor blade systems separated from the aircraft, and the main fuselage dropped vertically into a dry creek bed,” the report said.

The aircraft was engulfed in a “large fireball” until it burned out several hours later.

Eight hours later, the remains of all 38 victims and the dog were recovered.

In other developments, the U.S.-led coalition said a NATO service member died Thursday following a roadside bomb explosion in southern Afghanistan and another died in a roadside bomb explosion in the east. The coalition did not release any other details. So far this year, 465 NATO service members have died in Afghanistan, including at least 348 Americans.
Dempsey: F-35 could be on chopping block

The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Oct 13, 2011 16:03:15 EDT

WASHINGTON — The military’s top officer on Thursday opened the door for large cuts to the troubled F-35 fighter jet program.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said developing and building three variants of the high-tech Joint Strike Fighter creates fiscal challenges for the Defense Department.

Dempsey appeared before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Three versions of the F-35 are being built to support airfield operations (F-35A), short takeoffs and vertical landings aboard amphibious ships (F-35B) and aircraft carrier operations (F-35C).

The Pentagon’s biggest weapons program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns. One variant of the plane suffered cracks in the bulkhead after it flew just 1,500 hours out of a planned 16,000.

Dempsey said he is committed to developing a fifth-generation fighter, but questioned whether the U.S. could afford all three F-35 variants.
Panetta: Further cuts would be devastating

Meanwhile, defense leaders and members of Congress said the Pentagon must be spared from any budget cuts beyond an initial plan to slash at least $450 billion over the next 10 years.

The military, they said, must not take even deeper cuts — a looming threat if lawmakers fail to agree on $1.2 trillion in federal budget savings by Thanksgiving and instead allow automatic cuts to kick in.

Panetta said President Obama shares his view that the Pentagon should be shielded from any additional budget cutting.

Panetta and Dempsey pounded home their message that further cuts would create national security risks and devastate the military.

“I don’t say that as scare tactics, I don’t say it as a threat, it’s a reality,” Panetta said. He said the initial $450 billion reduction will “take us to the edge” but any more than that would hollow out the force and “badly damage our capabilities for the future.”

Despite questions from the committee members, Panetta and Dempsey provided no details on any planned spending cuts and they gave no specifics on how U.S. military strategy might be affected. They said they are still reviewing the issues.

During the early part of the hearing, eight protestors were arrested by Capitol police when they began shouting anti-war chants. Seven were charged with disruption of Congress and one was charged with simple assault.

During a news conference after the hearing, Republicans on the panel echoed the plea to spare defense from further reductions.

“We’re saying: No more cuts,” said Rep Buck McKeon, R-Calif., the committee chairman.

And Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, highlighted Panetta’s statement earlier that Obama shares his view that there should be no further cuts.

“I think it’s important for the president as commander in chief to make his views known,” Thornberry said. He said it’s a message that congressional Democrats need to hear.

During the hearing, Panetta urged Congress to consider cuts to mandatory federal spending programs and increases in revenues in order to meet the deficit reduction plan.

Rising deficits and deep debt have forced the federal government to slash spending — even at the Pentagon, whose budget has nearly doubled to some $700 billion in the 10 years since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The debt accord reached this past summer between Obama and congressional Republicans calls for a $350 billion cut in projected defense spending over 10 years. The Pentagon and House committee members say the actual number is more than $450 billion. The difference depends on the budget baseline that is used.

Panetta said the military has been stressed by a decade of fighting, squeezed by rising personnel costs, and is in need of modernization. In the last decade the military has focused heavily on fighting insurgencies and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than on the skills and equipment needed to fight modern armies, navies and air forces.

Meanwhile, international security issues have grown more complex, Panetta said, noting the United States must be prepared to continue dealing with violent extremists as well as the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, the prospects of cyber attackers who may target American infrastructure, and other threats.

Panetta also repeated the warning he issued earlier this week — saying that some lawmakers’ favored defense programs could be on the chopping block.

Recalling his time as a member of the U.S. House, Panetta noted that a military base in his district was cut in 1994.

“I lost Fort Ord. ... That represented 25 percent of my local economy. So I know what it means to go through this process,” he said. “We have to do this right, and we can do it right.”

If the special bipartisan deficit-reduction supercommittee fails to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts from all federal spending by Thanksgiving, defense could face additional reductions. If the panel fails to come up with a proposal, or Congress rejects its plan, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion kick in, with half of that to come from defense.

Panetta said the Pentagon is taking a comprehensive look at its spending, from overhead costs to the size of the force as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, from modernizing weapons to personnel.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House panel, said in a recent interview that it would be wise for the Pentagon to provide details on its strategic review as Congress considers spending cuts.

“I urge them to get it out sooner,” Smith said. “We’re already deep into” the next budget.

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Donna Cassata and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.
 

CardSharp

New Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is a new report from CNAS (Obama's favourite thinktank) about what future defense budget cuts might be and what their effects might be. bottom line: They say that if the cuts go beyond about $550 billion, it will be difficult to carryout the basic American policy since World War II of being engaged internationally.

Lots of people are rattling on these days about defense in an age of austerity, but the report’s authors — retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno, Nora Bensahel, and Travis Sharp — do a good job of doing more and showing how the meat will come off the bones. They look at four levels of budget cuts: about $350 billion, about $500 billion, about $650 billion, andabout $800 billion.

They don’t quite say so, but they seem to favor the first two — which is significant, because they at CNAS are saying they could live with $500 billion in cuts. Go much deeper than that, they say, and we start creeping toward isolationism.

The report bursts with provocative thoughts and suggestions. Surprisingly for a study whose lead writer is a retired Army general, it favors the Air Force and Navy over the Army and Marines. It wants to cut both groundforces back to their pre-9/11 sizes. In the deeper cut scenarios, it basically wants the Marines to get out of fixed-wing aviation, both lift and strike. It also wants the Marines out of tanks, and wants the Army to reduce its number of tanks, and to move a lot of the heavy Army force into the Reserves. It wants to radically cut back on buying new weapons, but instead to keep alive R&D until a new threat emerges.

The report also says we will be focusing less on the Middle East in the coming years and more on the Asia/Pacific rim.
*cough* China! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CardSharp

New Member
They can't.

But the most nassive amount of waste, debt, and spending is not occurring with the military. Hundreds of billions are wasted in other areas, trying to creat the impossible, buying votes and influence, and throwing money away.

For example, a 700 billion dollar stimulus that we now are learning principally went to infuse companies and projects like Solyndra, where there was no hope for success, but were much more geared towards paying off political debts.

Not to mention the bailouts that went to politically connected banks and similar subsidies to well connected corporations that send jobs overseas. At least the defense contractors that work on the carriers actually deliver a good product, unlike, for example, contractors in Iraq.

<soapbox/politics mode terminated>

I think a distinction needs to be made between the bailout and the stimulus. The bailout for the banks was a crime against capitalism. Bad businesses should fail, if you keep bailing them out without making them accountable, that would be a perverse kind of socialism for the rich. The stimulus on the other hand, most economist agree stopped the US from slipping into double digit unemployment.
 
Last edited:
Top