US Military Faces Deep Budget Cuts

[Agamemnon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/politics...artner=homepage

Looks like the US military, along with every federal department, has been asked to find billions in space to alleviate the crushing burden of the US deficit. Seems a little awkward to me to be cutting $60 billion from the Armed Forces over the next 6 years, especially when it appears as though the US is committed militarily in Iraq for a good chunk of that time, if not all of it.

Is this the US restructuring the way it spends money on war, away from R and D and more on actual fighting (armour for vehicles)? Does it seem right that a US military that is already fairly strained for resources should be searching for budget short-cuts?

I'm a little confused about these cuts, as I thought the US just went through massive personal and corporate tax cuts, and appeared to have no problem spending money hand over fist. Fiscal responsibility seems a little late at this point in the game, but I'm sure its probably necessary to keep our neighbours to the South in good credit standing.

[Agamemnon]

Anyone want to fix the thread subject spelling I don't know how

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 30 2004, 09:07 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/politics...artner=homepage

Looks like the US military, along with every federal department, has been asked to find billions in space to alleviate the crushing burden of the US deficit. Seems a little awkward to me to be cutting $60 billion from the Armed Forces over the next 6 years, especially when it appears as though the US is committed militarily in Iraq for a good chunk of that time, if not all of it.

Is this the US restructuring the way it spends money on war, away from R and D and more on actual fighting (armour for vehicles)? Does it seem right that a US military that is already fairly strained for resources should be searching for budget short-cuts?

I'm a little confused about these cuts, as I thought the US just went through massive personal and corporate tax cuts, and appeared to have no problem spending money hand over fist. Fiscal responsibility seems a little late at this point in the game, but I'm sure its probably necessary to keep our neighbours to the South in good credit standing.

Isn't the theory that governments overspend in poor economic times as stimulus and then cut back on expenditures when economies recover?

Its easy to spend but rare is the government that follows through with fiscal responsibility later.

Cutting $10 billion a year from a $420 billion military budget that had risen 41% in only three years really isn't a stretch. That's a cut of only 2.4 per cent.

One F-22, I think, costs about $1 billion, a pretty bizarre number when it might take a 2 cent seagull in an intake to bring it down. Then again, the USAF is probably still reeling from losing to the Indian Air Force and MiG's in maneuvers earlier in the year.

All in all, the overall cutbacks throughout the USA federal budget looks like a lame duck President beginning to prep his party's standing for the next election. And that would include a sharply lower American presence in Iraq by 2008, anywhere from zero to 50,000 soldiers in that country.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 09:59 PM
Isn't the theory that governments overspend in poor economic times as stimulus and then cut back on expenditures when economies recover?

Its easy to spend but rare is the government that follows through with fiscal responsibility later.

Cutting $10 billion a year from a $420 billion military budget that had risen 41% in only three years really isn't a stretch. That's a cut of only 2.4 per cent.

One F-22, I think, costs about $1 billion, a pretty bizarre number when it might take a 2 cent seagull in an intake to bring it down. Then again, the USAF is probably still reeling from losing to the Indian Air Force and MiG's in maneuvers earlier in the year.

All in all, the overall cutbacks throughout the USA federal budget looks like a lame duck President beginning to prep his party's standing for the next election. And that would include a sharply lower American presence in Iraq by 2008, anywhere from zero to 50,000 soldiers in that country.

Cowperson

That's certainly the 'Reganomics' theory talking, spend when poor, cut when wealthy. I have no idea whether or not that works, I'm sure many don't subscribe to it totally. Also, the US economy would have to be 'healthy' for the cuts to start, wouldn't it? I know its recovering, but I didn't think it was 'great' yet by a long shot.

I just think it doesn't look great for a President who seems to lack total trust from the troops (esp after the armour fiasco) to go ahead and ask for the military to give some money back. It may be necessary, and even a good idea (as opposed to the whole spending like there's no tomorrow idea), but I can't see it looking good for him, from a soldier's perspective.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Dec 30 2004, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Dec 30 2004, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 09:59 PM
Isn't the theory that governments overspend in poor economic times as stimulus and then cut back on expenditures when economies recover?

Its easy to spend but rare is the government that follows through with fiscal responsibility later.

Cutting $10 billion a year from a $420 billion military budget that had risen 41% in only three years really isn't a stretch. That's a cut of only 2.4 per cent.

One F-22, I think, costs about $1 billion, a pretty bizarre number when it might take a 2 cent seagull in an intake to bring it down. Then again, the USAF is probably still reeling from losing to the Indian Air Force and MiG's in maneuvers earlier in the year.

All in all, the overall cutbacks throughout the USA federal budget looks like a lame duck President beginning to prep his party's standing for the next election. And that would include a sharply lower American presence in Iraq by 2008, anywhere from zero to 50,000 soldiers in that country.

Cowperson

That's certainly the 'Reganomics' theory talking, spend when poor, cut when wealthy. I have no idea whether or not that works, I'm sure many don't subscribe to it totally. Also, the US economy would have to be 'healthy' for the cuts to start, wouldn't it? I know its recovering, but I didn't think it was 'great' yet by a long shot.

I just think it doesn't look great for a President who seems to lack total trust from the troops (esp after the armour fiasco) to go ahead and ask for the military to give some money back. It may be necessary, and even a good idea (as opposed to the whole spending like there's no tomorrow idea), but I can't see it looking good for him, from a soldier's perspective. [/b][/quote]
Our friend Captain Crunch can better comment but . . .

I don't think the average grunt ducking bullets in Fallujah cares if he has one less F-22 circling over him. He probably cares if that $1 billion has been directed to armour-up his humvee or maybe buying him a few Stryker's to ferry him around in.

When I see a military budget like that I think it's looking beyond Iraq, which will wind down as far as the USA is concerned well within that six year time frame.

Its a budget that is admitting the pressure on the USA military reserve system was unacceptable and damaging. That's what it is saying. Its an admission the USA Army doesn't have enough permanent soldiers to rotate into and out of theatre to meet any prolonged threat. When the Iraq conflict was being contemplated, Donald Rumsfeld rejected suggestions the military needed to add another pemanent division to its strength, saying reserves would be able to handle the short-term pressure. Now, almost three years later, we see a different tune.

Cutting into the F-22 program is the most interesting thing there. Air superiority over any air force in the world is a BIG thing for the deep thinkers at the Pentagon so you have to wonder what that might be about.

Lastly, 2.4% per annum doesn't qualify as a "big" cut. Most of that 41% increase over the last three years remains.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 10:17 PM
Lastly, 2.4% per annum doesn't qualify as a "big" cut. Most of that 41% increase over the last three years remains.

Cowperson

I guess 60 billion sounds a lot bigger than 2.4%.

Agree about the Raptor, I'm surprised they'd cut the budget to their air-superiority vehicle of the future. Maybe they could afford them w/out missile defense...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Dec 30 2004, 10:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Dec 30 2004, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 10:17 PM
Lastly, 2.4% per annum doesn't qualify as a "big" cut. Most of that 41% increase over the last three years remains.

Cowperson

I guess 60 billion sounds a lot bigger than 2.4%.

Agree about the Raptor, I'm surprised they'd cut the budget to their air-superiority vehicle of the future. Maybe they could afford them w/out missile defense... [/b][/quote]
If I was reading it right, its $10 billion a year over six years on a $420 billion annual budget. That's 2.4%.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 10:29 PM
If I was reading it right, its $10 billion a year over six years on a $420 billion annual budget. That's 2.4%.

Cowperson

Yep, that's what the article says. Like I said, 60 Billion dollars sounds like a lot more than 2.4% (ie, if you were to hear one #, you might react differently than if you heard the other #).

$60 billion can feed the world for a year, 2.4% of the US military's budget is a 'drop in the bucket' for the military. Same #, two perspectives I guess is what I was getting at

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Dec 30 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Dec 30 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 10:29 PM
If I was reading it right, its $10 billion a year over six years on a $420 billion annual budget. That's 2.4%.

Cowperson

Yep, that's what the article says. Like I said, 60 Billion dollars sounds like a lot more than 2.4% (ie, if you were to hear one #, you might react differently than if you heard the other #).

$60 billion can feed the world for a year, 2.4% of the US military's budget is a 'drop in the bucket' for the military. Same #, two perspectives I guess is what I was getting at [/b][/quote]
I didn't say it wasn't a big number or that it wouldn't solve world hunger.

I said it was 2.4% and it wasn't a big deal on a $420 billion budget.

In 1984, I was wandering around LA (with a sleeping bag in the back of a Chevette) and noticed the LA Times had one section for normal help wanted career ads and three sections for militiary industrial complex type jobs. That was right around the time Reagan was really getting going building up the US military. And right around the time the USA seemed to really begin jump starting itself out of the effects of the 1981-82 recession.

Does that have anything to do with this? I have no idea. Just me poor head wandering late in the day.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

I think we're going to see a interesting re-alocation of funds over the next 6 years in the U.S. military as the priorities are starting to shift right in front of our eyes. The days of the U.S. worrying about attacks by a sophisticated enemy with a similar TOE is unlikely due to geography and due to the fact that the U.S. has a huge gap in technology and numbers at the moment, and its unlikely that the Russia's and China's are going to be willing to spend the hard currency required to close the gap.

In terms of modern Warfare American doctrine is that thier forces have to be able to fight in two major engagements and two peacekeeping actions at the same time. Iraq has shown that its not possible to do that with current infantry levels.

Tho the American's have to cut $60 billion over the next 10 years, its likely that the advanced projects will see deeper cuts then that

Things that are going to be chopped

The developement and deployment of the new Virgina class submarines will probably go away and the venerable LA 668i will be forced to go through and extensive but cheaper upgrade. The logic behind that is that outside of the British nobody can really touch the American Silent Service

The developement and deployment of the next generation aircraft carrier will probably be cut way back and 1 carrier task force will be retired (this is a huge savings when you consider that one carrier airwing will also be retired)

The F-22 Rapier development will probably be carried on in my opinion, but like the B-1 bomber project the demanding specs will be scaled back to make the planes more affordable.

The use of air to ground armed drones will be increased to replace the deployment of more expensive manned jets.

The size of the regular army will be increased as will thier armour and arnament load, the future of warfare over the next 6 years will be centered around fighting small roving bands of troops as opposed to a heavy quotion of armor and long ranged artillary. In fact the spending for special forces units will probably go way up.

Expect a heavy recruiting platform to increase the size of the regular forces. The continued use of reserve forces is hard on moral and hard on the economy.

The amphibious assault fleet will be drawn down as the use of airbourne troop transporation will increase

Expect to see a downsizing of heavy armoured units to pay for this, also the expected replacement of the M1-A1 will probably be put on hold for the time being.

The costly maintenance of older F-14's, 15's and 18's will be lowered through the accelerated replacement of these planes by new platforms.

When you look at what the American's are going to spend over the next 6 years %60 billion is next to nothing, but whats going to change is how that money is used.

The American's know that a lot of mistakes were made when it came to the strategies of fighting a war in Iraq, expect spending to reflect that

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 30 2004, 11:01 PM
I didn't say it wasn't a big number or that it wouldn't solve world hunger.

I said it was 2.4% and it wasn't a big deal on a $420 billion budget.

Cool... I didn't refute or disagree w/ anything you've said.

I'm just stating that 60 billion is a huge number, regardless of whether or not it is a part of an even huger sum.

[RougeUnderoos]

Interesting thing

http://www.f-22raptor.com/index.php

highlights: The F22 costs 250 million bucks per plane. One of them crashed on December 20th and the other 29 they already have are grounded temporarily. The "cutback" would be from 227 total planes to 160.

[Looger]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 30 2004, 11:18 PM
The F-22 Rapier development...

played a tad too much wing commander a decade or so ago?

it's ok, i did too...

as to the subject at hand the military seems to pretty much spend all you throw at it, it's like medicare - things can always get better. can they be adequate on less money?

absolutely.

but effective militaries the world over run on shoestring budgets and in many cases are far more efficient man-for-man.

the f-22 is so far ahead of much of the world's air forces currently in deployment that a setback in the 2-3 year range on the first major deliveries would probably be an insignificant effect.

what european air forces refer to as '5th generation' is nowhere near what the US and russia refer to it as. and russian development is a long, long way from full-scale deployment.

china's numbers of MiG-31s and Su-27 variants are mere handfuls, the bulk of their air force is far less advanced.

there is no urgency.

as to the needs of infantry including armour and numbers, we are dealing with far cheaper deployments/changes and i'm sure rumsfeld's replacement will have that on the top of his list.

special forces being more numerous and prominant? i agree. though what america calls special forces is a little amusing.

america's military machine in my opinion needs to be shaken up a bit, unfortunately for the boys on the line that only happens after the pine boxes start coming home.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Looger+Dec 31 2004, 04:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ Dec 31 2004, 04:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Dec 30 2004, 11:18 PM
The F-22 Rapier development...

played a tad too much wing commander a decade or so ago?

it's ok, i did too...

[/b][/quote]
Jesus, now I feel like a moron.

and yes I'm still a big fan of the wing commander series, except for that god awful movie.

[Looger]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Dec 31 2004, 05:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Dec 31 2004, 05:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

played a tad too much wing commander a decade or so ago?

it's ok, i did too...

Jesus, now I feel like a moron.

and yes I'm still a big fan of the wing commander series, except for that god awful movie. [/b][/quote]
ain't that the truth.

man, someone actually tried to convince me once that i had no right to hate the movie because chris roberts was/is the producer, but good lord.

randomly chosen names and places from the games, ship designs that went from sleek and elegant to bizarrely ugly, absolutely laughable in nearly every way, the kilrathi looked like eels or something.

what kills me is that they made a movie, i think for like $3 million - wing commander 3. john rhys-davies, malcolm mcdowell, mark hamill, tom wilson, and probably a few more recognizable names. why not just use the original film stock and splice in some action scenes with cgi/etc.? wing commander 3 was a GREAT movie. in fact i think the game was a little sub-par, but worth playing for the cinematics.

maybe they figured the audience would get deja-vu over mark hamill flying down a canyon to deliver a one-shot planet-killer weapon...

as for the old games i could not for the life of me find the kilrathi saga on store shelves, it was released for a microscopic amount of time - its existence was but a rumour. i downloaded it from underdogs.org but the music is disabled, one of the best parts of the games.

great games, they have not found equal yet in the shock-from-previous-favourite category. absolutely amazing. i can't even think of the best space combat sim previous to wing commander. when that came out it blew me away. a game requiring 4+ MB on the hard drive? unreal!

maybe those fan-remakes are coming soon - could never get "unknown enemy" to run properly...

oh i forgot - ever read 'end run' and 'fleet action'? the rest of the books are quite bad with the mediocre exception of 'false colours' in my opinion but those two were total trash but greatly written trash - like 'sten'.

edited for bookal content

[CaptainCrunch]

I was one of the lucky ones, I managed to buy the Kilrathi Saga, and every once in a while I'll break it out and spend some time playing it.

Wing Commander 3 was a defining moment in game history, and your right it would have been a far superior movie to the actual movie.

Sadly I thought Wing Commander IV had a superior plot line, but it focused on the movie side more then the game side. No game has ever reproduced the terror of a torpedo run like Wing Commander 2 where you had to basically sit still for two minutes while an enemy ship was coming in at you with cannons blazing.

Its amazing when you look at the actors that played in that series of games, and in the Privateer series.

the final Wing Commander Prophecy had really good game play and in game physics, but it was released unfinished which is why half way through the game you get very few movies, and why the enemy capital ships don't explode. Its a real shame.

I own all of the wing commander books, and honestly I did like False Colors for its realism from the concept of carrier operations. I thought the rest of the books were solid but not spectacular. But I really thought Action Stations was the best book from a pure depth standpoint, its too bad that the early war series won't be finished now.

[Looger]

CaptainCrunch,

you are correct on wing commander 4, how the fighters were no longer 'killers' - wc1 and wc3 capital ships were pretty much defenseless.

i really like action stations until a friend of mine wrote a review on amazon, i hate to say i was swayed by a post-read review but i hadn't really thought of the ww2 parallels, and how strong they were:

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Whether you are a Wing Commander fan, or just a casual sci-fi reader, this novel is painful to read. Starting with WC fans, yes, this book has Yet Another Brand New Fighter Force. Thought some of those WC I planes were supposed to be around pre-war? Nope, instead there's Wildcats, Hurricanes, Falcons, and a whole slew of others. Thought phase shielding was a brand new technology in WC II? Nope, not only did it exist pre-war, it's the main plot technology. For you casual readers, there's the wonderfully one-dimensional characters. Not all of the characters, mind you, but enough of them. Seems every fleet officer knows that the Kilrathi are going to attack, have even guessed where, when, and how. Every politician is supremely evil, in that way only politicians can. Except for a few cases, the Kilrathi are big, stupid, honour-bound warriors, living for the fight and ignoring everything else. But the biggest problem with this novel is readily apparent to anyone who knows anything about Pearl Harbour, Midway, and the pacific war in WWII. You see, if you know what happened in those battles, you know the plot of the entire book. Now, modeling historic events is a good literary tool, it helps lend some credibility to a plot, helps with the suspension of disbelief since you know something similar has happened in the past. But here, it's taken WAY too far. Damn near everything in the book is lifted directly from history. The Kilrathi are portrayed as the unknown, warlike society, while the Confederation is the "sleeping giant," to quote a Kilrathi! Carriers and their fighters are seen as second fiddle to battleships, until the main battle proves all those battleship officers wrong. The Kilrathi war plan is a sneak attack on the Confed's largest base outside Terra using a war plan that the Confed wargamed a few years earlier, just like Pearl Harbour. Even the small details are here, from Midway's faked equipment breakdown, to the "Tora, Tora, Tora!" victory call. Of course, this is all explained away in the foreword, where the "authour" describes the novel as a "companion piece" to a historical study of the Kilrathi war. Bottom line, this book is not sci-fi, it's history with a different setting, and it just doesn't work. When will authours learn that if they don't like established parts of a fictional universe, it is possible to work around them? They do not have to re-write the universe, just to make their story "better." Some people actually like continuity.

as to 'false colours' i dug it back up, and was astonished that i'd forgotten aboot the foreshadowing to wing commander 4, with tolwyn splitting from the confed herd. actual deep stuff, in the context of these books anyway.

the only thing that really bothered me aboot the battles in that book were the vulnerability of the prized kilrathi carrier, it seemed to me to be so brittle for something that was supposed to be nearly invincible in 'fleet action'.

but anything with jason bondarevsky has potential for a good read. and max kruger!

for me the series was revived with prophecy/prophecy gold, then nothing. origin was bought by EA and it seems wc was not in their plans.

the fans continue:

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?gameid=4026

http://www.wcnews.com/news/showupdate.php?id=5999

anyone find a good fan remake that they can get to work?

[Agamemnon]

Wow, this thread went way off topic. I remember the old WC games that were pre-CD. Remember having like 12 hard disks for those games? I think I had to upgrade to 8 megs of RAM for WC2

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Dec 31 2004, 05:58 PM
Wow, this thread went way off topic. I remember the old WC games that were pre-CD. Remember having like 12 hard disks for those games? I think I had to upgrade to 8 megs of RAM for WC2

I liked the Wing Commander movie - pure sci-fi cheesecake.

Then again, I had no idea there was a Wing Commander video game so I'm not comparing it to anything.

Cowperson