Doomsday for defense? (After supercommittee’s failure, cuts threaten America's military future)

NY Post ^ | November 21, 2011 | Arthur Herman

[presidio9]

The news last week from the Pentagon’s supersecret Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that it had successfully tested a hypersonic missile capable of speeds up to 3,082 mph caused quite a stir in military circles, and no wonder. Imagine being able to aim at and hit any target on the planet within an hour; or soldiers in Afghanistan calling in a pinpoint airstrike with missiles fired from Omaha.

Taken together with the successful test by the Office of Naval Research over Halloween of its hypersonic electromagnetic railgun — which, once it goes into action, can knock out approaching missiles as far away as 100 miles — and we may be entering an era as revolutionary as when gunpowder replaced the crossbow.

Unfortunately, now that Congress’ supercommittee has failed to reach some kind of budget deal, we may be doomed to crossbows for good.

The resulting sequestration of funds could strip away as much as $1 trillion from defense spending over the next decade — and put future weapons systems like hypersonic in permanent eclipse.

The House Armed Services Committee’s Democrats and Republicans have issued a chilling report on what happens if sequestration sets in.

We’ll be losing 60 ships from the Navy, including two carrier battle groups, and we’ll have 200,000 fewer troops than in 2010. Production of the Army’s Apache attack helicopter and Kiowa reconnaissance helicopter will have to shut down. No vertical take-off F-35 fighter for the Marines — and no next generation bomber for the Air Force. On top of losing ships, the Navy will also see fewer and fewer replacements,

[San Jacinto]

So if the defense budget grows at 16% instead of 23%, that’s doomsday?

[coalman]

doomsday is that public welfare will gobble up everything and defense will be drained till we are like France,Britain etc,incapable of any large,sustained effort militarily

[DarthVader]

More like doomsday for Democrats. More to blame them for.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If we can't even get believable numbers on what congress is currently spending, how do we expect them to come up with believable numbers on future spending?

We have truly fallen down the rabbit hole.

[San Jacinto]

The only thng I know for sure is that they are not going to cut anything at all—ever. I heard today that to meet the mandated goal of cutting 1.2 trillion over 10 years all they really had to do was reduce anticipated growth in spending by $980 billion over TEN YEARS.(The rest of the ‘reduction’ would be booked in as reduced interest payments.) That’s $98 billion a year in reduced increases. A pittance.

They didn’t even come close. The dims are determined to raise taxes. More taxes — no cuts. Not even “pretend” cuts. They are outright socialists across the board. No Republican is articulating anything to the contrary. This country is going to go broke, without doubt.

[snowrip]

With procurement boondoggles that are the result of decades of union contracts and a too-many-cooks-is-good-for-the-broth mentality, it may not be doomsday but we’ll feel it.

Like the tax code, the whole procurement system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt.

[refermech]

Cut everything, yes, even the military.

[snowrip]

Cut everything else and reform procurement, and the military will have more money than it can spend.

[Jacquerie]

The Navy should fit out for taking on China, nothing more and not a ship less.

[presidio9]

The Navy should fit out for taking on China, nothing more and not a ship less.

Ron Paul supporter, right? China is a major concern, but if Iran gets to sit on the Strait of Hormuz with nuclear weapons, it is going to ruin our whole century.

[TWhiteBear]

There is a lot of fat in the National Defense Education Act that should be trimmed before active military.

TWB

[Jacquerie]

[presidio9]

Let me get this straight: A Cain supporter with a limited understanding of current geopolitical issues? Priceless.

[Drew68]

The Navy is currently eating its ranks. Enlisted Retention Boards and "Perform To Serve" are the military versions of mass corporate layoffs. I'm seeing it every day. Good Sailors who've never done anything but do their jobs well are getting the naval equivalent of pink slips and being sent packing while the rest of us have to pick up the slack through longer work hours, longer deployments and increased "gun-decking".

It's quickly becoming unbearable. The Navy will survive to regret this policy, especially after the economy turns around and all the "hard chargers" who got to keep their jobs pull chocks and flee.

[presidio9]

Thanks for this. Do you have any suggestions for where the Navy COULD be cutting expenditures?

[Nowhere Man]

Cut everything, yes, even the military.

We are going to have to and although I will get flak for this I'm sure, the military will have to suffer with everyone else. There are no sacred cows here and those that are, I turn into hamburger. Like Newt Gingrich said, "I'm a hawk, but a cheap hawk." We just need to make the cuts to where the fat is and to programs we don't need anymore.

OK, I'm just brainstorming here so here goes....

I'd like to see the military use more "off the shelf" and known stuff. Also, I'd consolidate on a few basic frame structures. Take the LAV-25 for example, the basic body can be used to make the Stryker or whatever else you need. I'd strike the F-35 program. That thing screams junk to me as I say all the time. I'd keep the F-22's we have for now, most likely retire the B2 bomber, it is a "White Elephant." From what I've heard, the F-22 is a hanger queen. I'd keep the M-16 system for ground troops.

I'd have to say that we might have to make do with using our 1970's/1980's era equipment for a while yet. If I could add to the mix, instead of the F-22, I'd go with the F-15 Silent Eagle, you can get three for the price of one F-22. I think we'd also need a low-cost, basic fighter, the F-20 (beefed up F-5) would be nice. I'd also give the Navy and Marines more Super Hornets and bring back the F-14. I'd go for recommissioning more B-52's and maybe if I can, bring more B-1 bombers on the line. I'd keep the F-16 too. I'd keep the Navy at the same level for now, I wish we had more ships but I'd have4 to study that side more.

One programs I'd really add to is a missile defense system based on both ABM's and lasers. We need that badly, you know in case if Iran and/or North Korea gets uppity and afterwards, I'd turn the B-52's loose on them.

Maybe we can minimize the cuts if we do bring our troop home from Iraq and other places. In a way, Ron Paul is right (we stuck our nose in too many places), but he is also wrong too (Iran is a rabid dog you can't reason with), we just need to find that place in the middle somewhere. Also, my ideas are no means complete on this, just something to toss out as I brainstorm so your mileage may vary.

[presidio9]

If I could add to the mix, instead of the F-22, I'd go with the F-15 Silent Eagle, you can get three for the price of one F-22.

Golden Rule from our last three decades of military conflict: More does not necessarily equal better.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Nowhere Man]

Golden Rule from our last three decades of military conflict: More does not necessarily equal better.

I know there are other variables here but I know that worked for the Russians in World War II. The T-34 tank have been inferior to the German Tigers but the latter were a nightmare to keep running. Same logic to the US and Allies with the Sherman tank. I think the F-15 has a lot of life left in her, especially if we go with the Silent Eagle version to supplement what we have.