Yeah, but a lot of people here don't seem to get that. From reading most of the posts here, contractors are a big waste of money and we should have military personnel do all these support jobs. Which is totally not the problem with the military's budget. It's go a lot of problems, but money spent on contractors to serve support roles is not one of them.
Seconded. Also, WTF would the State Department do for support? Rely on the Pentagon?
enc0re on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
This is true with everything except infantry combat (and it's still true, to an extent, the US Marines have won numerous engagements over the last century while being outnumbered), many times in Gulf War 1 US tanks engaged enemy tanks without even coming under return fire. 10 T-55s would not be a match for 3 M1A2 tanks unless the latter were being ambushed at close range, and even then it's highly probably the T-55s would lose.
But wasn't this in large part to large Iraqi defensive mistakes? Iraqi picket lines repeatedly failed to radio the main force that an attack was about to occur meaning that the Iraqi's first indication that the were being attacked was their tanks blowing up. Combine this with the continual air attacks means that Iraqi forces thought that any attack was an air attack so when explosions started happening around them their first instinct was to bail out and head for the air-raid shelters. Combine that with some poor defensive positioning of Iraqi armour (massively favouring berms over terrain hugging or dug tank holes for hull down positions and you had the recipe for a turkey shoot when combined with the American tech advantage. If you take away the piss-poor Iraqi defensive mistakes then (in simming at least) the American forces started taking casualties, pretty major casualties, more than 50% of force strength in some cases.
Yes the tech helps but the fundamentals are still the fundamentals.
Yes and no. Berms are pretty quick to make. Digging in takes longer, and it requires that you know where your enemies axis of attack will be. The Iraqi's didn't know where Coalition forces were and when they would hit. Coalition forces knew within a few meters where the Iraqi's would be. So using the exact same battles and just changing the variable of digging in, yes you get higher Coalition casualties.
But the Iraqis were fucked no matter what. The Coalition had better intelligence. and better mobility. That gave them battlefield control. Even if the Iraqi's had dug in, then Coalition forces would have gone around and hit their supply lines, or simply leap frogged them and let the air support pin them with bombing. There isn't really much in the way of choke points before you get to the rivers.
But most important, even if they had dug in, Coalition tanks all had at least 2x the range with better accuracy then the Iraqi armored forces. And 3x the range of the T-55s. Digging in would have just made it take longer for a kill to happen. But they still would have been dead without a chance to return fire.
The big blunder was Khafji. It was a place where Iraqi could force us to engage them, and they inflicted a lot of casualties. The urban environment made air support less effective. But Saddam chose not to hold it with a heavy number of troops. Instead he assumed that we would use the roads like everyone else in the region.
Also didn't the Iraqs lack proper ammo for a lot of their tanks? Way I heard it several of them where stuck with training ammo since Saddam didn't plan on getting world mad at him for invading Kuwait.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It's about a Military Wargame in 02 where things didn't go well for the US.
The comments by the Reddit members are very interesting and point to a number of jaw dropping facts about the current status of carriers on the seas vs submarines.
I was under the impression these massive, expensive weapons of war were a major asset for us...not according to anyone familiar with a submarine. The war games done with the Navy trying to combat submarines sound pretty dismal. The comments make it sound like our entire approach to naval warfare is a joke. It's just a big scam to get us to keep spending money on carriers while subs lie in wait if we ever go to war.
In response to the Original Post I think the Military in general is holding onto a lot of tradition as well as having too many people comfortable with their current setup and not wanting to compete with new ideas. As the Wargame shows a determined opponent who knows how to counter our technology will be able to accomplish a ton of damage even with all our money spent.
I think the Department of Defense is run by the wealthy military contractor companies in the country and before things change the wealthy need their incentive so unless the public demands change they just keep collecting payments for making current or obsolete equipment. There is no incentive to keep the military as prepared as possible, there is only incentive at the top to keep the military as profitable as possible.
At the bottom however are the very talented people in the Military that fight to make themselves more prepared. And eventually they make small adjustments but the dollars being spent on our military are probably excessive to say the least.
The Military should do everything in it's power to be self sufficient. Bolts cost $5 per? Learn to make your own bolts. Up armored humvee's can't be build fast enough? Learn to build your own. Military Contracts have become an excuse to get fat and lazy. You build us this and we'll pay you lots of money. And then you can tell us how much money we should pay you after that. Sounds like a great plan.
Tumbler 360 on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Also didn't the Iraqs lack proper ammo for a lot of their tanks? Way I heard it several of them where stuck with training ammo since Saddam didn't plan on getting world mad at him for invading Kuwait.
I never heard that, but they didn't have the DU rounds the Russians had made for the T-72s or much beyond steel penetrators.
It's about a Military Wargame in 02 where things didn't go well for the US.
The comments by the Reddit members are very interesting and point to a number of jaw dropping facts about the current status of carriers on the seas vs submarines.
I was under the impression these massive, expensive weapons of war were a major asset for us...not according to anyone familiar with a submarine. The war games done with the Navy trying to combat submarines sound pretty dismal. The comments make it sound like our entire approach to naval warfare is a joke. It's just a big scam to get us to keep spending money on carriers while subs lie in wait if we ever go to war.
I think it's pretty generally agreed that our carrier groups would be sunk within a few days of a "hot war" breaking out between the US and another nuclear power. The carriers are useful for force projection against less competent targets. When you're winning anyway, they're phenomenal and I would guess they reduce our casualties a lot compared to what we'd otherwise sustain.
Of course, if you think we ought not intervene militarily around the globe, these advantages shrink.
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
It disappoints me that new soldiers these days don't have to do K-patrol, which would be serving out portions, washing, and scrubbing the dishes and brushing/mopping the floors. It's an all day detail, usually an entire platoon was detailed out for it.
Yeah, this isn't true
As in I just did it Wednesday, and was told I was assigned to KP about 45 minutes before I was due to start working there
Really now? I just spoke with some recruits fresh out of BCT and they didn't have to do KP at all. I spoke to buddies who went after I did and they also didn't have KP. Maybe it's changed? When I went, we had it at least once a month.
If so, good.
Well, mine was a special case (some sections were certing for deployment and the company assigned to perform KP was a bunch of assholes and pulled some bullshit so somehow I got put on KP, but whatever I get Monday off for it), but yeah, we have a company in our battalion assigned to make food/perform KP for any other battery out in the field
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
It's about a Military Wargame in 02 where things didn't go well for the US.
The comments by the Reddit members are very interesting and point to a number of jaw dropping facts about the current status of carriers on the seas vs submarines.
I was under the impression these massive, expensive weapons of war were a major asset for us...not according to anyone familiar with a submarine. The war games done with the Navy trying to combat submarines sound pretty dismal. The comments make it sound like our entire approach to naval warfare is a joke. It's just a big scam to get us to keep spending money on carriers while subs lie in wait if we ever go to war.
I think it's pretty generally agreed that our carrier groups would be sunk within a few days of a "hot war" breaking out between the US and another nuclear power. The carriers are useful for force projection against less competent targets. When you're winning anyway, they're phenomenal and I would guess they reduce our casualties a lot compared to what we'd otherwise sustain.
Of course, if you think we ought not intervene militarily around the globe, these advantages shrink.
Well thats true. Another example was the 2004 Joint Winter Nato exercise a single Ula class sub kept the entire landing operation at bay. It even sank the flagship of the Royal (British) Navy HMS Invincible. In the end they had to disqualify it in order to get the exercise moving again.
For those that don't know(and who would) the Ula class is a diesel electric sub costing around 100 mill USD.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It's about a Military Wargame in 02 where things didn't go well for the US.
The comments by the Reddit members are very interesting and point to a number of jaw dropping facts about the current status of carriers on the seas vs submarines.
I was under the impression these massive, expensive weapons of war were a major asset for us...not according to anyone familiar with a submarine. The war games done with the Navy trying to combat submarines sound pretty dismal. The comments make it sound like our entire approach to naval warfare is a joke. It's just a big scam to get us to keep spending money on carriers while subs lie in wait if we ever go to war.
I think it's pretty generally agreed that our carrier groups would be sunk within a few days of a "hot war" breaking out between the US and another nuclear power. The carriers are useful for force projection against less competent targets. When you're winning anyway, they're phenomenal and I would guess they reduce our casualties a lot compared to what we'd otherwise sustain.
Of course, if you think we ought not intervene militarily around the globe, these advantages shrink.
Well thats true. Another example was the 2004 Joint Winter Nato exercise a single Ula class sub kept the entire landing operation at bay. It even sank the flagship of the Royal (British) Navy HMS Invincible. In the end they had to disqualify it in order to get the exercise moving again.
For those that don't know(and who would) the Ula class is a diesel electric sub costing around 100 mill USD.
I remember a story about a UN excersize where the americans were very pleased about their naval security and how nobody got close to their ships. Until a danish sub commander produced photo's taken up close of carrier and battleship nametags. I'll have to see if I can dig up a source.
Well, mine was a special case (some sections were certing for deployment and the company assigned to perform KP was a bunch of assholes and pulled some bullshit so somehow I got put on KP, but whatever I get Monday off for it), but yeah, we have a company in our battalion assigned to make food/perform KP for any other battery out in the field
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
Battery...did you do BCT at Ft. Sill? Are you a red-legger? I did my BCT & AIT there in 2002.
Evigilant on
XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Well, mine was a special case (some sections were certing for deployment and the company assigned to perform KP was a bunch of assholes and pulled some bullshit so somehow I got put on KP, but whatever I get Monday off for it), but yeah, we have a company in our battalion assigned to make food/perform KP for any other battery out in the field
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
Battery...did you do BCT at Ft. Sill? Are you a red-legger? I did my BCT & AIT there in 2002.
I do not like Oklahoma because of that infernal place. Oh hey, let's drop ice in the middle of May! Oh hey, it's hot as hell right now, not a cloud in th---oh shit, thunder/lightning/tornado storm.
To get back on topic, I remember reading an article on how a lot of the budget goes to the Army, Air Force and Navy R&D and procurement. That the big branches don't want to give up their toys they would use to taunt the other branches. For example, the DDX, the F-22/F-35, and the massive future comm. thing the Army is trying to develop. At least that future helicopter and future mobile howitzer where scrapped.
Granted there will likely not be another power vs power conventional war for quite awhile, however you can't just stop developing technology and then start it again when you need it. Take a look at the stealth program and how long it took to actually get combat ready vehicles out. If anything needs to be looked at, it needs to be the R&D, acquisition and production phases.
I also think that retired Lt. Gen. in the millennium exercise in command of the red forces needs to be hired and retained as a test bed against current and future weaponry. What he did was amazing and shows the weaknesses inherent in our system, and rather than look the other way we should find out how to strengthen and combat those types of threats, since they are obviously real, obviously cheap, and obviously very effective.
Paying half a trillion dollars for what is in practice military hegemony seems like a goddamn bargain to me, and it always amazes me that people bitch about it.
I don't see the problem with spending money on more expensive planes and ships, because stuff like that is the reason the US is the worlds only remaining superpower.
I do have a problem with the ridiculous amount of waste present in the military industrial complex. I doubt that Obama and Gates, talented as they are, can do anything other than take a few minor steps at making what we put into the military equal to what we get out of it, but if they can show the seriousness of the problem to the public and get the ball rolling then future presidents and secretaries of defense could make some progress.
Ah who the hell am I kidding, we're going to get wrecked by our debt and have a revolution when we don't have any money to spend on non-defense domestic spending. At least I'll be dead by then (probably).
Picardathon on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Well, mine was a special case (some sections were certing for deployment and the company assigned to perform KP was a bunch of assholes and pulled some bullshit so somehow I got put on KP, but whatever I get Monday off for it), but yeah, we have a company in our battalion assigned to make food/perform KP for any other battery out in the field
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
Battery...did you do BCT at Ft. Sill? Are you a red-legger? I did my BCT & AIT there in 2002.
Yep, BCT, AIT, and I'm stationed there
Jesus, at least I've seen Jackson and Gordon for my training. Although I'm stationed here as well (Sill).
Hows about that tornado scare a few days ago?
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It disappoints me that new soldiers these days don't have to do K-patrol, which would be serving out portions, washing, and scrubbing the dishes and brushing/mopping the floors. It's an all day detail, usually an entire platoon was detailed out for it.
Yeah, this isn't true
As in I just did it Wednesday, and was told I was assigned to KP about 45 minutes before I was due to start working there
We never have to do KP, due to the fact my unit is the size of a football team.
EOC and Headcount, yeah, but we're off of those duties as well. I love being 214's golden children.
So consider- WW2 proved that military technology played a huge role in winning a war. Battleships were made useless by carriers, and trench warfare was made useless by tanks with air support. The nations which had not adapted, like Poland and France, were crushed.
Now conisider that technology has advanced far more rapidly since WW2, then it ever had before.
It's entirely possible that someone, somewhere will come up with a new weapon which will render the US military obsolete. And since no one has any idea what that weapon might be, they have no choice but to spend money on every possible military tech they can think of, because it just might be the one that saves everything.
Of course it's not likely that we'll fight a major conventional war any time soon, but "better safe than sorry", no?
Well.... You would do well to remember that during WW2 the Germans had the best weapons(Tanks, Aircraft and Rifles), the best soldiers(the fanatical SS) and the best generals(Guderian) AND STILL LOST. And they didn't lose to the side-show that was the Allied invasion of Normandy, they lost to the juggernaut that was the Soviet Red Army. You know the Army that only armed half its soldiers and told the rest to pick up their buddy's weapon when they fell.
It doesn't matter if you got the strenght of 5 men when you are outnumbered 10-1.
Well I think all those claims are very questionable, but I really don't want to debate the details of WW2 here. Can we just agree that WW2 proved that having a technological edge in warfare can be very important?
Sure a technological edge is important, just not as important as having more men, more guns and more tanks.
[snip]
You're not really talking about the superiority of numbers VS technological superiority, you're just saying that a counter measure like helicopter VS Tank would win. Yes that's true, but irrelevant. We're saying that the same helicopter (which is top of the line with the best trained pilots in the world) would be no match against superior numbers of crappier helicopters.
To some extent you're correct, but you're assuming an incremental increase in technology. In the case of USSR vs. nazi Germany, both sides had tanks, automatic rifles, and planes, so there wasn't any huge technology gap. What if we have a battle more like WW1, where a small group of entrenched machine guns could massacre vast numbers of infantry? Having more infantry doesn't really help when you're infantry is completely useless. When the British were using machine guns to subjugate their African colonies, the results were even more lopsided.
In modern times, The F22 might actually have this same sort of advantage. In simulations, it can shoot down something ridiculous like 100 enemy fighters without being touched. When you have a really overwhelming technological edge like that, increased numbers don't help much. And it's not like the US military has small numbers, anyway.
I'm siding with the crowd that would like to review military spending a bit more. The F-22 might be able to shoot down "something ridiculous like 100 enemy fighters" in a simulation, but that doesn't change the fact that it fact that its development and production has easily cost "something ridiculous like 1000 times" the comprable deployment costs of say, one of the MiG-23s that it could so easily shoot down. I'm probably just a pessimist, but I'd tend to think that the simulation is very much the best, most ideal scenario of combat situations.
Meanwhile, if a bird is sucked into one of the air intakes on an F-22, that thing will plummet to the ground and crash like a $140 million fireball like any other fighter jet. Of course, this also applies to comparable in-development fifth-generation fighters like the Su-47, so it's nice to know we're not the only one in denial.
I'm sure there are much better military minds than myself who can explain why these scenarios are not as likely and why $140 million (or however much) is a safe investment in terms of the military advantage for most likely scenarios provided the weather is right and there are no birds etc. etc. etc., but we should still entertain the notion that war is usually not executed quite on the terms expected. A fifth generation fighter that costs $200 million is as vulnerable to sabotage as an updated third generation fighter that costs one fifth or one tenth of that.
This isn't helped by the fact that the military function of the United States has changed so radically, but our spending habits don't seem to have. We're still on Brezhnev's detente level of spending--but the likelihood of some sort of gigantic World in Conflict showdown, when both sides can effectively match eachother in terms of technological development if not numbers (we've got more modern carriers than the USSR, but they have more modern strategic bombers than we do, etc.) has declined dramatically. It just seems as though spending hasn't changed enough to reflect that.
Instead, it looks like we, the US, are still in the whole 'Adolf Hilter' mindset of flash and awe--every tank we're building is a modern King Tiger, promising to kill one-hundred enemy tanks provided everything works out perfectly and no one drives face-forward into a sand ditch and while I know we've learned something from that, I don't think we've learned enough. Our MBTs are fantastic, I'm sure, but they're not so fantastic given the huge cost behind them and they're still not perfect. And once they're in the sand ditch, they suck as much as a T-55--except you could probably get the T-55 out a lot easier, and it's less of a loss.
In the Pacific War, it cost approximately $1 billion to do $1 billion dollars of damage with B-29s against Japanese infrastructure (courtesy of, I believe, 'The Best war Ever'), due to the costs of maintaining B-29s, airfields, fuel, ordinance, and the logistical nightmare. Some would argue that was an absolute steal--though given the same war had seen the ability to do $1 billion of damage for, say, $100,000 with a old-fashion rubber-wheeled gun, it reflects quite a change. It looks like we're wandering into the territory of "$1 billion worth of damage for $1 trillion is a great bargain, let's do that!".
TL;DR--I think we've adopted an unshakable attitude of absolute technology superiority at any costs, and at some point, unpredictable circumstances of warfare are going to laugh at that. I can't shake the feeling that, like the Third Reich, we can't successfully maintain the sort of enthusiasm for weapon weapons sold by $1 million advertising pitches and fruit baskets (or cocaine) for Generals. But I'm saying this as someone who spent his 14 months in service of the ROCA sitting around doing laundry for my COs. If anything, it led me to the firm belief that our own fantastic, American-sponsored military technology could absolutely dominate the enemy until they figured out that we were practically sabotaging it ourselves for our hatred of it. Not the same thing as the US Army, I'm sure. I'm sure my worries about inflexibility, unlike my worries of expenditure, are probably as much a product of superstition for my prior experience.
Synthesis on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Well, mine was a special case (some sections were certing for deployment and the company assigned to perform KP was a bunch of assholes and pulled some bullshit so somehow I got put on KP, but whatever I get Monday off for it), but yeah, we have a company in our battalion assigned to make food/perform KP for any other battery out in the field
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
Battery...did you do BCT at Ft. Sill? Are you a red-legger? I did my BCT & AIT there in 2002.
Yep, BCT, AIT, and I'm stationed there
Jesus, at least I've seen Jackson and Gordon for my training. Although I'm stationed here as well (Sill).
Hows about that tornado scare a few days ago?
Oh man that was a blasty-blast So awesome, I was really looking forward to losing all of my shit
Although I do get to leave here for someplace infinitely better with much better weather and an all-around more interesting place in a month and a half
It's Iraq
Rent on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Well, mine was a special case (some sections were certing for deployment and the company assigned to perform KP was a bunch of assholes and pulled some bullshit so somehow I got put on KP, but whatever I get Monday off for it), but yeah, we have a company in our battalion assigned to make food/perform KP for any other battery out in the field
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
Battery...did you do BCT at Ft. Sill? Are you a red-legger? I did my BCT & AIT there in 2002.
Yep, BCT, AIT, and I'm stationed there
Jesus, at least I've seen Jackson and Gordon for my training. Although I'm stationed here as well (Sill).
Hows about that tornado scare a few days ago?
Oh man that was a blasty-blast So awesome, I was really looking forward to losing all of my shit
Although I do get to leave here for someplace infinitely better with much better weather and an all-around more interesting place in a month and a half
It's Iraq
Holy shit, who are you deploying with? If you have your deployment ceremony at Goldner you'll probably see my unit there.
Yeah, I was in the gym when the lights when out. The employees were directing us to "go into the bathrooms until the power comes back on."
150 sweaty dudes in a 10x10 bathroom? No thank you.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
C-26 TAB, I'm deploying end of May
Also, if you're talking about Goldner do you live in the 3700 block? Because I do
Rent on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Looks like the F-22 program is getting killed. So are a bunch of other things. Despite that, the military budget seems to actually be getting an increase. Kinda neuters the debate on if doing things like curtailing high-cost, (arguably) low-use projects would be beneficial from a fiscal perspective; the money just gets spent elsewhere.
Looks like the F-22 program is getting killed. So are a bunch of other things. Despite that, the military budget seems to actually be getting an increase. Kinda neuters the debate on if doing things like curtailing high-cost, (arguably) low-use projects would be beneficial from a fiscal perspective; the money just gets spent elsewhere.
Looks like the F-22 program is getting killed. So are a bunch of other things. Despite that, the military budget seems to actually be getting an increase. Kinda neuters the debate on if doing things like curtailing high-cost, (arguably) low-use projects would be beneficial from a fiscal perspective; the money just gets spent elsewhere.
He's wanting to switch the F-22 money for F-35 money. Bah humbug.
Looks like the F-22 program is getting killed. So are a bunch of other things. Despite that, the military budget seems to actually be getting an increase. Kinda neuters the debate on if doing things like curtailing high-cost, (arguably) low-use projects would be beneficial from a fiscal perspective; the money just gets spent elsewhere.
He's wanting to switch the F-22 money for F-35 money. Bah humbug.
While he [Gates] capped the number of the latest combat planes, the Air Force’s F-22s, that would be bought, he increased the numbers for its planned successor, the F-35, promising to spend billions more on it.
Based on the article, they end up with a little over two thousand of the F-35s by doing so.
The F-22s stop at 130-140 planes. Wasn't the total production going to be less than 500?
Less than 500 -> 2000+ is the decision? Doesn't seem entirely wackball.
Cost-wise, the tradeoff between F-22 and F-35 is that you can get 3 F-22 for the price of 5 F-35.
The F-22 is the best fighter in the world (consierably better than the F-35 in terms of air superiority) and it's already been developed. We're going to pay for this down the road in the form of having to develop another new fighter sooner. I don't think we're going to save money by doing this, and it is certainly going to reduce our capability.
I can only hope Secretary Gates sees farther than I do.
While he [Gates] capped the number of the latest combat planes, the Air Force’s F-22s, that would be bought, he increased the numbers for its planned successor, the F-35, promising to spend billions more on it.
Ok, that makes my earlier observation flat out wrong. I was under the impression the spending saved by cutting the F-22 production was about the same as the spending going into raising the F-35 production. Now I'm just confused
While he [Gates] capped the number of the latest combat planes, the Air Force’s F-22s, that would be bought, he increased the numbers for its planned successor, the F-35, promising to spend billions more on it.
Ok, that makes my earlier observation flat out wrong. I was under the impression the spending saved by cutting the F-22 production was about the same as the spending going into raising the F-35 production. Now I'm just confused
I hope to God (and I'm an atheist) this is not a case of someone thinking higher version number equals better.
Well if my earlier thought had been correct and you could get 2000+ of the things for what less than 500 of the other cost it might track, the earlier claims in this thread about the F-22 being able to shoot down eleventy billion fighters nonwithstanding.
But with a margin that close, I can't fathom the thought process. The other planned cuts seem pretty well-reasoned, but this one has me befuddled.
While he [Gates] capped the number of the latest combat planes, the Air Force’s F-22s, that would be bought, he increased the numbers for its planned successor, the F-35, promising to spend billions more on it.
Ok, that makes my earlier observation flat out wrong. I was under the impression the spending saved by cutting the F-22 production was about the same as the spending going into raising the F-35 production. Now I'm just confused
I hope to God (and I'm an atheist) this is not a case of someone thinking higher version number equals better.
Someone call him and tell him how many P-51s you could make for the price of one F-22.
I guess the difference is that F-35 is being co-developed by other European nations, so they'll be splitting the bill, and as long as other people buy it it will make it easier to maintain them as well as subsidizing a US company that builds it.
Although it's performance is questionable at best.
The total number of active duty general officers is capped at 302 for the Army, 279 for the Air Force and 80 for the Marine Corps.[1] For the Army and Air Force, no more than 16.3% of the service's active duty general officers may have more than two stars, and no more than 25% of those may have four stars.[2][3][4] This corresponds to 12 four-star Army generals, 11 four-star Air Force generals and 3 four-star Marine generals.
Basic pay for an O-7 to O-10 is limited by Level II of the Executive Schedule which is $14,750.10
So, yeah...general officers, of which there are between six and seven hundred or so, make a combined total of over $116M a year. Oh, and that's not counting the One-stars.
Not to mention DoD civilians, a good portion of whom are retired service members. I know for a fact that a lot of the civilians working in Information Management jobs are former service members who retired, then got DoD jobs, so they're going to end up with double retirement.
Yeah, the US military costs a lot of money, but generally speaking, we probably have one of the most well off militaries in the world. Military troops are very well taken care of, at least while they're in the service.
The total number of active duty general officers is capped at 302 for the Army, 279 for the Air Force and 80 for the Marine Corps.[1] For the Army and Air Force, no more than 16.3% of the service's active duty general officers may have more than two stars, and no more than 25% of those may have four stars.[2][3][4] This corresponds to 12 four-star Army generals, 11 four-star Air Force generals and 3 four-star Marine generals.
Basic pay for an O-7 to O-10 is limited by Level II of the Executive Schedule which is $14,750.10
So, yeah...general officers, of which there are between six and seven hundred or so, make a combined total of over $116M a year. Oh, and that's not counting the One-stars.
Not to mention DoD civilians, a good portion of whom are retired service members. I know for a fact that a lot of the civilians working in Information Management jobs are former service members who retired, then got DoD jobs, so they're going to end up with double retirement.
Yeah, the US military costs a lot of money, but generally speaking, we probably have one of the most well off militaries in the world. Military troops are very well taken care of, at least while they're in the service.
Don't forget that, to my knowledge, all active-duty general officers are provided with pretty damn nice houses. And after about two stars or so (depending on the position), staff as well.
Still, $116M a year is pocket change for both the budget overall and the defense budget. And $200K or so a year isn't exactly that much when you're talking about a job that generally requires a post-graduate degree, combat experience, and a decade or two (leaning towards two) of service. I have no idea how quickly it's possible to get a star, but considering that most officers never do it seems like it takes a pretty long and full career to get there. Especially to move past one-star.
And unless you've taken up the burden of military service for more than a couple years or so, I think you might want to think twice before you start talking about how well taken care of our servicemembers are. They may be better off than members of other militaries in the world, but compared to other Americans the bottom third or two are doing more like "pretty okay." I know that during my deployment my wages, even factoring in tax-free status and ignoring the concept of overtime (yay hundred-hour weeks!), came in at about $9 an hour. At best.
At least two decades of service, though virtually all of the education post-bachelor occurs during service.
And, post commander's get sweet little castles (overlooking the garrison flag pole, too), but most generals that don't live on Star Row (the block the PC lives on, that's what it was called at Huachuca) just take the housing allowance and live off base, as do most officers and senior enlisted, family or not.
But again, $116 seems like pocket change, but that's not even 700 troops. Last I heard the Army alone has about a half million soldiers, give or take. Don't quote me on that, I don't remember exactly.
And, yeah, I really was comparing our military to the militaries of other countries. My point was that the standard of living costs money. So part of that huge amount more we spend has something to do with the quality of life our troops have compared to other countries.
Also, while I was in the service, I was lucky enough to be in garrison the whole time, and, well, I had just as much living space as I have now, only I had a much nicer car, free medical, money to buy clothes, money to buy food, and I didn't pay for power, water, or extended (non-digital) cable. I got out as an E-3, and I honestly haven't made that much money before or since.
And all of this says nothing regarding the amount of land the US military maintains. I'm not even talking about all the crazy amounts of land they use, just the stuff they actively maintain.
Also, while I was in the service, I was lucky enough to be in garrison the whole time, and, well, I had just as much living space as I have now, only I had a much nicer car, free medical, money to buy clothes, money to buy food, and I didn't pay for power, water, or extended (non-digital) cable. I got out as an E-3, and I honestly haven't made that much money before or since.
Yeah, my story is pretty much exactly the same as far as active duty time. I lived it up, even as a PFC. Then I got called up with the Guard for Iraq (after being out for a few years), and I thought to myself that this is what active soldiers are doing like every other year at the moment.
The upsides seem a lot less awesome once you've seen the downsides, like having people try to kill you repeatedly. And not seeing my wife for a year and a half (except for two weeks of leave).
I don't think you meant that to be rude, but I didn't realize I had to state my credentials to participate in the conversation.
I didn't mean it to be rude, I just think that a lot of dudes who either have never spent time in or who spent all their time in garrison (like myself before a few years ago) would say the same thing...but once you've experienced the flipside of the coin you realize that soldiers really aren't paid all that well in the grand scheme of things. Even the retirement benefits seem kind of lackluster in times like these.
Yeah, I have absolutely no delusions about exactly how lucky I am. Seriously, I almost got stationed with the 11th Signal Brigade. You would know them as the AT&T of Iraq. My orders got changed, like, the day I flew out, to HHC, Garrison.
The important thing to remember is that, as shitty as it seems in our military, the other guys don't make nearly as much, even comparatively.
Of course, seventy virgins is a hell of a retirement plan, hard to beat that
Posts
Seconded. Also, WTF would the State Department do for support? Rely on the Pentagon?
Yes and no. Berms are pretty quick to make. Digging in takes longer, and it requires that you know where your enemies axis of attack will be. The Iraqi's didn't know where Coalition forces were and when they would hit. Coalition forces knew within a few meters where the Iraqi's would be. So using the exact same battles and just changing the variable of digging in, yes you get higher Coalition casualties.
But the Iraqis were fucked no matter what. The Coalition had better intelligence. and better mobility. That gave them battlefield control. Even if the Iraqi's had dug in, then Coalition forces would have gone around and hit their supply lines, or simply leap frogged them and let the air support pin them with bombing. There isn't really much in the way of choke points before you get to the rivers.
But most important, even if they had dug in, Coalition tanks all had at least 2x the range with better accuracy then the Iraqi armored forces. And 3x the range of the T-55s. Digging in would have just made it take longer for a kill to happen. But they still would have been dead without a chance to return fire.
The big blunder was Khafji. It was a place where Iraqi could force us to engage them, and they inflicted a lot of casualties. The urban environment made air support less effective. But Saddam chose not to hold it with a heavy number of troops. Instead he assumed that we would use the roads like everyone else in the region.
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/86zwj/the_united_states_does_not_like_being_beaten/
It's about a Military Wargame in 02 where things didn't go well for the US.
The comments by the Reddit members are very interesting and point to a number of jaw dropping facts about the current status of carriers on the seas vs submarines.
I was under the impression these massive, expensive weapons of war were a major asset for us...not according to anyone familiar with a submarine. The war games done with the Navy trying to combat submarines sound pretty dismal. The comments make it sound like our entire approach to naval warfare is a joke. It's just a big scam to get us to keep spending money on carriers while subs lie in wait if we ever go to war.
In response to the Original Post I think the Military in general is holding onto a lot of tradition as well as having too many people comfortable with their current setup and not wanting to compete with new ideas. As the Wargame shows a determined opponent who knows how to counter our technology will be able to accomplish a ton of damage even with all our money spent.
I think the Department of Defense is run by the wealthy military contractor companies in the country and before things change the wealthy need their incentive so unless the public demands change they just keep collecting payments for making current or obsolete equipment. There is no incentive to keep the military as prepared as possible, there is only incentive at the top to keep the military as profitable as possible.
At the bottom however are the very talented people in the Military that fight to make themselves more prepared. And eventually they make small adjustments but the dollars being spent on our military are probably excessive to say the least.
The Military should do everything in it's power to be self sufficient. Bolts cost $5 per? Learn to make your own bolts. Up armored humvee's can't be build fast enough? Learn to build your own. Military Contracts have become an excuse to get fat and lazy. You build us this and we'll pay you lots of money. And then you can tell us how much money we should pay you after that. Sounds like a great plan.
I never heard that, but they didn't have the DU rounds the Russians had made for the T-72s or much beyond steel penetrators.
Of course, if you think we ought not intervene militarily around the globe, these advantages shrink.
Also, my BCT we didn't do KP but we made up for it by cleaning the ever-living fuck out of everything
Well thats true. Another example was the 2004 Joint Winter Nato exercise a single Ula class sub kept the entire landing operation at bay. It even sank the flagship of the Royal (British) Navy HMS Invincible. In the end they had to disqualify it in order to get the exercise moving again.
For those that don't know(and who would) the Ula class is a diesel electric sub costing around 100 mill USD.
I remember a story about a UN excersize where the americans were very pleased about their naval security and how nobody got close to their ships. Until a danish sub commander produced photo's taken up close of carrier and battleship nametags. I'll have to see if I can dig up a source.
Battery...did you do BCT at Ft. Sill? Are you a red-legger? I did my BCT & AIT there in 2002.
Yep, BCT, AIT, and I'm stationed there
Oh god, you have my sympathy.
I do not like Oklahoma because of that infernal place. Oh hey, let's drop ice in the middle of May! Oh hey, it's hot as hell right now, not a cloud in th---oh shit, thunder/lightning/tornado storm.
To get back on topic, I remember reading an article on how a lot of the budget goes to the Army, Air Force and Navy R&D and procurement. That the big branches don't want to give up their toys they would use to taunt the other branches. For example, the DDX, the F-22/F-35, and the massive future comm. thing the Army is trying to develop. At least that future helicopter and future mobile howitzer where scrapped.
Granted there will likely not be another power vs power conventional war for quite awhile, however you can't just stop developing technology and then start it again when you need it. Take a look at the stealth program and how long it took to actually get combat ready vehicles out. If anything needs to be looked at, it needs to be the R&D, acquisition and production phases.
I also think that retired Lt. Gen. in the millennium exercise in command of the red forces needs to be hired and retained as a test bed against current and future weaponry. What he did was amazing and shows the weaknesses inherent in our system, and rather than look the other way we should find out how to strengthen and combat those types of threats, since they are obviously real, obviously cheap, and obviously very effective.
I do have a problem with the ridiculous amount of waste present in the military industrial complex. I doubt that Obama and Gates, talented as they are, can do anything other than take a few minor steps at making what we put into the military equal to what we get out of it, but if they can show the seriousness of the problem to the public and get the ball rolling then future presidents and secretaries of defense could make some progress.
Ah who the hell am I kidding, we're going to get wrecked by our debt and have a revolution when we don't have any money to spend on non-defense domestic spending. At least I'll be dead by then (probably).
Jesus, at least I've seen Jackson and Gordon for my training. Although I'm stationed here as well (Sill).
Hows about that tornado scare a few days ago?
We never have to do KP, due to the fact my unit is the size of a football team.
EOC and Headcount, yeah, but we're off of those duties as well. I love being 214's golden children.
I'm siding with the crowd that would like to review military spending a bit more. The F-22 might be able to shoot down "something ridiculous like 100 enemy fighters" in a simulation, but that doesn't change the fact that it fact that its development and production has easily cost "something ridiculous like 1000 times" the comprable deployment costs of say, one of the MiG-23s that it could so easily shoot down. I'm probably just a pessimist, but I'd tend to think that the simulation is very much the best, most ideal scenario of combat situations.
Meanwhile, if a bird is sucked into one of the air intakes on an F-22, that thing will plummet to the ground and crash like a $140 million fireball like any other fighter jet. Of course, this also applies to comparable in-development fifth-generation fighters like the Su-47, so it's nice to know we're not the only one in denial.
I'm sure there are much better military minds than myself who can explain why these scenarios are not as likely and why $140 million (or however much) is a safe investment in terms of the military advantage for most likely scenarios provided the weather is right and there are no birds etc. etc. etc., but we should still entertain the notion that war is usually not executed quite on the terms expected. A fifth generation fighter that costs $200 million is as vulnerable to sabotage as an updated third generation fighter that costs one fifth or one tenth of that.
This isn't helped by the fact that the military function of the United States has changed so radically, but our spending habits don't seem to have. We're still on Brezhnev's detente level of spending--but the likelihood of some sort of gigantic World in Conflict showdown, when both sides can effectively match eachother in terms of technological development if not numbers (we've got more modern carriers than the USSR, but they have more modern strategic bombers than we do, etc.) has declined dramatically. It just seems as though spending hasn't changed enough to reflect that.
Instead, it looks like we, the US, are still in the whole 'Adolf Hilter' mindset of flash and awe--every tank we're building is a modern King Tiger, promising to kill one-hundred enemy tanks provided everything works out perfectly and no one drives face-forward into a sand ditch and while I know we've learned something from that, I don't think we've learned enough. Our MBTs are fantastic, I'm sure, but they're not so fantastic given the huge cost behind them and they're still not perfect. And once they're in the sand ditch, they suck as much as a T-55--except you could probably get the T-55 out a lot easier, and it's less of a loss.
In the Pacific War, it cost approximately $1 billion to do $1 billion dollars of damage with B-29s against Japanese infrastructure (courtesy of, I believe, 'The Best war Ever'), due to the costs of maintaining B-29s, airfields, fuel, ordinance, and the logistical nightmare. Some would argue that was an absolute steal--though given the same war had seen the ability to do $1 billion of damage for, say, $100,000 with a old-fashion rubber-wheeled gun, it reflects quite a change. It looks like we're wandering into the territory of "$1 billion worth of damage for $1 trillion is a great bargain, let's do that!".
TL;DR--I think we've adopted an unshakable attitude of absolute technology superiority at any costs, and at some point, unpredictable circumstances of warfare are going to laugh at that. I can't shake the feeling that, like the Third Reich, we can't successfully maintain the sort of enthusiasm for weapon weapons sold by $1 million advertising pitches and fruit baskets (or cocaine) for Generals. But I'm saying this as someone who spent his 14 months in service of the ROCA sitting around doing laundry for my COs. If anything, it led me to the firm belief that our own fantastic, American-sponsored military technology could absolutely dominate the enemy until they figured out that we were practically sabotaging it ourselves for our hatred of it. Not the same thing as the US Army, I'm sure. I'm sure my worries about inflexibility, unlike my worries of expenditure, are probably as much a product of superstition for my prior experience.
So awesome, I was really looking forward to losing all of my shit
Although I do get to leave here for someplace infinitely better with much better weather and an all-around more interesting place in a month and a half
Holy shit, who are you deploying with? If you have your deployment ceremony at Goldner you'll probably see my unit there.
Yeah, I was in the gym when the lights when out. The employees were directing us to "go into the bathrooms until the power comes back on."
150 sweaty dudes in a 10x10 bathroom? No thank you.
Also, if you're talking about Goldner do you live in the 3700 block? Because I do
Nah man they got me at 912 right next to Post HQ and Butner Field. My company building (214) is right in front of Goldner Gym, though.
Looks like the F-22 program is getting killed. So are a bunch of other things. Despite that, the military budget seems to actually be getting an increase. Kinda neuters the debate on if doing things like curtailing high-cost, (arguably) low-use projects would be beneficial from a fiscal perspective; the money just gets spent elsewhere.
I like this.
What the hell? What kind of sense does that make?
The F-22s stop at 130-140 planes. Wasn't the total production going to be less than 500?
Less than 500 -> 2000+ is the decision? Doesn't seem entirely wackball.
Cost-wise, the tradeoff between F-22 and F-35 is that you can get 3 F-22 for the price of 5 F-35.
EDIT: NYTimes has an article up too. Unfortunately it contains this gem.
I can only hope Secretary Gates sees farther than I do.
Ok, that makes my earlier observation flat out wrong. I was under the impression the spending saved by cutting the F-22 production was about the same as the spending going into raising the F-35 production. Now I'm just confused
I hope to God (and I'm an atheist) this is not a case of someone thinking higher version number equals better.
But with a margin that close, I can't fathom the thought process. The other planned cuts seem pretty well-reasoned, but this one has me befuddled.
We won't take away all your toys guys, come on now, play ball, sort of thing.
Although it's performance is questionable at best.
So, yeah...general officers, of which there are between six and seven hundred or so, make a combined total of over $116M a year. Oh, and that's not counting the One-stars.
Not to mention DoD civilians, a good portion of whom are retired service members. I know for a fact that a lot of the civilians working in Information Management jobs are former service members who retired, then got DoD jobs, so they're going to end up with double retirement.
Yeah, the US military costs a lot of money, but generally speaking, we probably have one of the most well off militaries in the world. Military troops are very well taken care of, at least while they're in the service.
Don't forget that, to my knowledge, all active-duty general officers are provided with pretty damn nice houses. And after about two stars or so (depending on the position), staff as well.
Still, $116M a year is pocket change for both the budget overall and the defense budget. And $200K or so a year isn't exactly that much when you're talking about a job that generally requires a post-graduate degree, combat experience, and a decade or two (leaning towards two) of service. I have no idea how quickly it's possible to get a star, but considering that most officers never do it seems like it takes a pretty long and full career to get there. Especially to move past one-star.
And unless you've taken up the burden of military service for more than a couple years or so, I think you might want to think twice before you start talking about how well taken care of our servicemembers are. They may be better off than members of other militaries in the world, but compared to other Americans the bottom third or two are doing more like "pretty okay." I know that during my deployment my wages, even factoring in tax-free status and ignoring the concept of overtime (yay hundred-hour weeks!), came in at about $9 an hour. At best.
And, post commander's get sweet little castles (overlooking the garrison flag pole, too), but most generals that don't live on Star Row (the block the PC lives on, that's what it was called at Huachuca) just take the housing allowance and live off base, as do most officers and senior enlisted, family or not.
But again, $116 seems like pocket change, but that's not even 700 troops. Last I heard the Army alone has about a half million soldiers, give or take. Don't quote me on that, I don't remember exactly.
And, yeah, I really was comparing our military to the militaries of other countries. My point was that the standard of living costs money. So part of that huge amount more we spend has something to do with the quality of life our troops have compared to other countries.
Also, while I was in the service, I was lucky enough to be in garrison the whole time, and, well, I had just as much living space as I have now, only I had a much nicer car, free medical, money to buy clothes, money to buy food, and I didn't pay for power, water, or extended (non-digital) cable. I got out as an E-3, and I honestly haven't made that much money before or since.
And all of this says nothing regarding the amount of land the US military maintains. I'm not even talking about all the crazy amounts of land they use, just the stuff they actively maintain.
This is bugging me
I don't think you meant that to be rude, but I didn't realize I had to state my credentials to participate in the conversation.
Yeah, my story is pretty much exactly the same as far as active duty time. I lived it up, even as a PFC. Then I got called up with the Guard for Iraq (after being out for a few years), and I thought to myself that this is what active soldiers are doing like every other year at the moment.
The upsides seem a lot less awesome once you've seen the downsides, like having people try to kill you repeatedly. And not seeing my wife for a year and a half (except for two weeks of leave).
I didn't mean it to be rude, I just think that a lot of dudes who either have never spent time in or who spent all their time in garrison (like myself before a few years ago) would say the same thing...but once you've experienced the flipside of the coin you realize that soldiers really aren't paid all that well in the grand scheme of things. Even the retirement benefits seem kind of lackluster in times like these.
The important thing to remember is that, as shitty as it seems in our military, the other guys don't make nearly as much, even comparatively.