US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

SlothmanAllen

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the American branches for how things have played out. Most of the problems in the military come from corruption and the encouragement of bad practices. Look at the Navy's inability to design any new ships; you can blame the American government all you want, but at the end of the day, it's the fault of the admirals in charge of the designs. Moreover, the other elephant in the room is that there are plenty of officers in the US military who can see the writing on the wall but who are simply unwilling to say anything about it.

Politics and geopolitics played an important role in the issues the US is having. Post Cold-War the US military budget was massively slashed. So basically the 90s were spent with much smaller budgets. On top of that, the government closed tons of munitions and shipbuilding facilities rather than modernize them all in the name of efficiency. Then you get to 2000s and the War on Terror which lasts 20 years of continuous deployments. While the budgets got much bigger, it was all related to small scale conflicts as apposed to rebuilding large scale capacity against near-peer threats.

If the US still had the shipbuilding and other industrial capabilities of the 80s they would be far better able to counter China's growth.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
You ignore that kind of build up like in the Reagan era was not sustainable. George Bush Sr. lost the elections vs Bill Clinton precisely because of the crumbling economy and high government debt.
That is when expressions like "it's the economy, stupid" became popular.
 
Last edited:

SlothmanAllen

Senior Member
Registered Member
You ignore that kind of build up like in the Reagan era was not sustainable. George Bush Sr. lost the elections vs Bill Clinton precisely because of the crumbling economy and high government debt.
That is when expressions like "it's the economy, stupid" became popular.
They sustained massive deficits from the early 90's until today and yet their country has not collapsed. The idea that deficit spending was going to collapse the country within a limited time frame has been proven to be totally incorrect.
 

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
Politics and geopolitics played an important role in the issues the US is having. Post Cold-War the US military budget was massively slashed. So basically the 90s were spent with much smaller budgets. On top of that, the government closed tons of munitions and shipbuilding facilities rather than modernize them all in the name of efficiency. Then you get to 2000s and the War on Terror which lasts 20 years of continuous deployments. While the budgets got much bigger, it was all related to small scale conflicts as apposed to rebuilding large scale capacity against near-peer threats.

If the US still had the shipbuilding and other industrial capabilities of the 80s they would be far better able to counter China's growth.
BS. Military commanders have to be able to deal with non-ideal situations. They never get all the toys they'd like to have, and it's their job to make due. There are many problems in the US MIC right now, and the Pentagon is basically failing to address all of them. Nobody is even willing to speak the truth to the American people or to Congress, so at least half the blame goes to them. Is it possible that the people speaking out will forfeit their careers over it? Yes, it's very likely. But if the people at the top are gutless like that, then shouldn't they get all the blame for it as well?

They sustained massive deficits from the early 90's until today and yet their country has not collapsed. The idea that deficit spending was going to collapse the country within a limited time frame has been proven to be totally incorrect.
That's more or less true as long as people are willing to lend money to the US government. However, if spending is unchecked, there's a limit to that and we may well be seeing the early signs of declining confidence.
 

Lethe

Captain
Without the PLA being on the trajectory that it is, the US actually has massive capability and technological overmatch over all of its other adversaries.

Excluding China, I think you could make the case that American power is actually increasing. The ongoing evolution and multiplicative integration of advanced technologies is allowing capital to translate more directly and effectively to power than ever before, while further diminishing the relationship between mere people and power. For all the talk of global development, only China has clearly achieved escape velocity such that its power is actually increasing relative to the United States. Even other advanced and formerly powerful nations such as Japan and the European nations are in increasingly obvious decline relative to the United States. Without wishing to veer entirely off-topic, I think the strengthening relationship between capital and power, via technology, and the diminishing relationship between people and power is a serious long-term problem for humanity at large, one that promises to manifest both between and also within nations.

If the PLA's capability growth was more in line with some 2000s era unsaid projections of capability growth, then all US programs (despite their current setbacks) today would be roaring unmitigated successes; F-35, F-22, Virginia.

Even without China, I think there would still be some hand-wringing about the age and shape of the inventory, though without the same sense of urgency. USN SSN inventory requirements have been remarkably, almost suspiciously insensitive to PLAN developments in the 21st century, with only a single significant revision, back in 2016, that increased the SSN inventory goal from 48 to 66 boats. There are a few possible explanations for that, starting with the possibility that USN still doesn't rate China's current or near-future submarine inventories, or that different strategic geographies and technological developments mean that USN intends to meet China's current and future submarine inventory more asymmetrically than it did the Soviet submarine threat in the Cold War. But what it really looks like is a "requirement" that is derived from supply side considerations and constraints, i.e. budgets and the submarine industrial base.

All of which is to say that I don't think USN's struggle with increasing Virginia-class submarine production is a problem relative to China and its developments, rather it is a problem relative to the more basic tasks of recapitalising the existing inventory, and relative to inventory goals that were set back in the unipolar moment of the mid-1990s. The root of that problem is the failure to accelerate Virginia procurement beyond 1 boat per year from the early 2000s, as was originally envisioned. That didn't happen until FY2011, almost a decade behind schedule. In the interim, the Global War on Terror required more funds to be allocated both to operations and maintenance, and to the acquisition of unsexy equipment such as MRAPs, Predators, and body armour. The failure to ramp up Virginia-class procurement and production in the 2000s, and the difficulties that have subsequently been encountered in doing so, has led the timelines to converge with those for the Columbia-class SSBN program, straining the submarine industrial base. The decision to incorporate Virginia Payload Modules on Block V boats (and future Block VI boats yet to be contracted) adds further additional cost and complexity to the task.
 
Last edited:

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
They sustained massive deficits from the early 90's until today and yet their country has not collapsed. The idea that deficit spending was going to collapse the country within a limited time frame has been proven to be totally incorrect.
It was Reagan who started the era of mega budget deficits with his Build Up program and the construction of a 600-ship Navy during the Cold War.

Until the Reagan administration, public debt was under control, but after him, the era of mega deficits began and never ended, with intervals between Democratic presidents who implemented some fiscal austerity.

This trend of overspending and astronomical public deficits, resulting in the reckless increase in public debt, is due to the Reagan administration; the president definitively initiated an era of mega deficits.

To give you an idea of what has been highlighted, in 1941, public debt was reduced to 45% of GDP. In the following year, it rose to 48%, and the following year, it jumped to 70% of GDP, all before D-Day. In 1944, the percentage rose from 70% of GDP to around 91%, and by the end of the war, it reached 114%, peaking in 1946 at around 119% of GDP.

From then on, the trend declined during Dwight Eisenhower's impressive term, with public debt falling from 68% of GDP at the beginning of his term to 52% of U.S. gross national product.

The Republican administration was also marked by the only one to achieve a fiscal surplus since the end of the war; since the end of the war, all Republicans have run fiscal deficits, with the exception of Eisenhower. The decline in public debt reached 31% of GDP in 1981, at the beginning of Reagan's term, and he handed over the country in 1989 with the country owing 50% of GDP, a 19% increase in total debt. An impressive feat.

Since the 1980s, the only presidents who have shown any decency in budgetary and fiscal matters were:

Bill Clinton - 1993/2001
Having campaigned promising increased spending, healthcare reform, and more social policies—the US was still reeling from the effects of the 1991 recession—Clinton, as soon as he took office, faced a problem similar to that faced by Tony Blair: distrust in the financial markets.

Expecting that the Democratic president would deliver on his campaign promises, and with Congress controlled by Democrats eager for more spending, including the intention of reforming the US healthcare system to make it more progressive, investors reacted accordingly: they began dumping US government bonds, selling them in large volumes.

Consequently, yields on 10-year bonds jumped from 5.2% to 8% (an exorbitant rate by American standards).

Beset by this loss of credibility -- an episode that became known as the "bond vigilantes" -- and with greater difficulty in financing his deficits, Clinton made a surprising shift in his economic policy: under the guidance of Robert Rubin (one of the best Treasury Secretaries the US has ever had), Clinton began to demonstrate an enviable -- and to this day unmatched -- fiscal austerity: he was the only American president since the 1950s to present a budget with a nominal surplus.

When Clinton took office in January 1993, government spending was equivalent to 22.1% of GDP. By the time he left office in January 2001, it had fallen to 18.2% of GDP.

And the American economy, during the Clinton years, enjoyed enviable prosperity, growing above 4% for five consecutive years, with unemployment falling from 8% to 4%, and with a record number of people employed relative to the total available workforce.

Barack Obama - 2009/2017
Do you know when the American economy began to recover after the 2008 financial crisis? Exactly when the government lost its effectiveness. In practice, the Obama administration ended in 2012, when he was reelected without a majority in the House. From 2013 onward, his administration was completely paralyzed. The federal government entered gridlock. With Congress gridlocked, with no new spending approved, the government budget showed a fantastic improvement, going from a deficit of 12% of GDP to a mere 2.5%.

Since 2012, what has Obama done? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In terms of legislation passed, there was only Obamacare in 2010, already on the verge of being repealed. But from 2010 to 2016, he passed no other legislation. He never managed to pass another law. His long-awaited healthcare reform stalled completely, and no other interventionist measures were passed. The most Obama managed to do was change the name of a mountain, give interviews to comedy talk shows about his White House routine (whether he makes sandwiches or walks around in his underwear), and express frustration at his inability to impose stricter gun laws.

I don't need to mention George W. Bush, Biden, and Trump. These three need no introduction.
 

mack8

Junior Member
We need to see H-20 flying soon, can't let the americans have a moment of respite. Rumours suggest even PAK-DA is relatively close to roll-out/first flight, not sure how accurate that is, but a double whammy of H-20 and then PAK-DA flying in the near future would be eye-watering.
 
Top