Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Well, as you all know I was preaching massive cuts before the huge Iraq war buildup. Well, they are coming back in a big way. I would say that the new bomber might not (will not) make it, the FCS will be drawn out another decade at least (2030?) and the Navy will stay on track for a 250 ship Navy.

 

The House Appropriations Committee had Rep. Murtha give a summary to the press on what the Dems have in plan once they regain the White House, Senate and House. He stated, "Down the road, the minute this war is over, defense spending is going to go like this", he then made a sharp downward motion with his hand. "We will have susbstantial cuts", causing defense spending to plummet. The first target is FCS and the Army knows it. Murtha said "The FCS is unaffordable." The appropriators also cut the ARH helo production and returned it to R&D only, and cut 571 million from the Navys LCS program.

 

They added money for more Strykers to replace what would have been FCS vehicles. and gave the Air Force full funding on the F-22 and almost doubled the money on the F-35 from what was requested by the administration.

 

Now for the Gunguy commentary. This is the same lying group of Dems that said they would approve all reset funds and rebuild the Army to a bigger and better capability then it used to be. They said they would fund the military modernization programs if they were put in office. This actually caused me to to back track on my usual proclamations of big cuts coming down he pike for the military. Well, the lying Dems have stuck to their normal ways. They will radically slow down modernization and stretch out (meaning create huge cost overruns) on existing or new programs.

 

FCS, in serious trouble if the Dems win big. The Navy will continue to shrink and the Army and Marines will not get the updated equipment they need, instead they will continue to use the existing stuff they have now. I predict a massive Dem sweep as people want out of Iraq NOW, not tomorrow. Oh well, at least we will have our private guns....Whoops! those will go too! Oh and the Dems are planning on opening the gays in the military issue again. It wants the military to actively recruit gays for military service.

 

I don't want to sound all negative, but this is where we are heading financially for our military. The good years will be over next election.

 

Any opinions from our elite group of prognosticators? I would appreciate hearing from others who are gazing into the "crystal ball" of Tanknet future predictions. After all if we don't prognosticate, who will? :D

Posted

If you have substantial cuts, I'd guess you will still be spending twice what the rest of the world spends on defence combined. OK, that may be an exaggeration but you can see where I'm coming from. You'll still have a healthy Air Force and Navy and the Dems probably won't want your Army seriously risked again until people forget what happned this time around - ie in about 15 to 20 years. As for FCS vehicles effectively being replaced by Strykers, your prediction is exactly what would have happened anyway. LCS was meant to be relatively inexpensive and has been seriously gold-plated so I could see it's being canned altogether. I don't see big inroads into civilian gun ownership - maybe some pesky token restrictions like the AWB. Actively recruiting gays? I don't see why you should actively recruit from specific sexual persuasions but that's arguably what the US military has been doing until recently, so what's the problem?

Posted

I just don't believe that defense spending will be affected much if the Dems win the White House. First, of all, defense spending will take hit when we get out of the White House no matter which part is in control. Without the forces in Iraq, there will be less of a need for $100B Emergency Supplementals. Second, of all many of the cuts cited above have bipartisan support. The Littoral Combat Ship has struggled largely because of poor contractor oversight, and there is a general feeling among Republican and Democratic members of the Approps Committees, that the Navy dropped the ball in a big way.

 

FCS has always struggled. There were cuts the last couple of years (when the committees were Republican controlled), because the Army has struggled to sell the FCS concept to Congress. Many, people fail to see how FCS is useful when we can barely pay for the maintenance right now. Some have also questioned if "lighter" is really the way to go. The point is, the cuts to FCS again have bipartisan support. If you have access, I would recommend reading the transcripts of the Congressional hearings on FCS, they're rather illuminating.

 

It's also highly unlikely that the Dems are retreating from their support for an expanded Army. Considering, that every single Democratic presidential candidate has endorsed the expanded force, it's unlikely that they won't continue to support it when they're elected. Not to mention that their is a tremendous amount of support among Democratic Members of Congress as well.

 

Perhaps rathering than worrying about whether the Democrats are going to cut a somewhat bloated defense budget (largely because of Iraq), we should be questioning why this current administration has cut Veteran's benefits, with the support of a Republican led Congress.

Posted

FCS needs to be cut, despite the GO's wishes. The damn costs just rose again last week to over $170B.

 

One FCS BCT will cost more than the entire Army National Guard's budget for a single year. Think about that. And the Army seriously thinks they will procure 15 BCT's worth. The complexity of the systems is another major stumbling block, especially when there are 2 and 3 year recruiting contracts to deal with.

 

The Navy doesn't need to grow - unless it's in the littoral arena. What other blue water Navy is out there that is even close? None.

 

The Air Force doesn't need a long range bomber. It has B2's, B52's and B1's, and within a decade a UAV variant will come around to replace the B52.

 

Wow - recruiting gays! Shocking! We'd rather have criminals in the Army right now than gays, just look at how gays were discharged and how many criminal waivers were issued for new recruits in the last year. I'd rather have a gay guy in my pants than a criminal any day of the week. Now I'd have a problem with a gay criminal, but THANK GOD Recruiting Command hasn't gone there yet!

 

What good years are you talking about? I've had 4 friends buried since 01 and 2 more have been crippled. Yeah, they've been just fucking great.

Posted

I don't see big inroads into civilian gun ownership - maybe some pesky token restrictions like the AWB.

Haven't looked or listened to Democratic "leadership" lately, Chris?

 

Actively recruiting gays? I don't see why you should actively recruit from specific sexual persuasions but that's arguably what the US military has been doing until recently, so what's the problem?

Naturally the Democrats will want to recruit gays. A gay military is a Democratic military.

 

As for the "persuasions," the military adjusted to non-whites, Catholics, and wymmyn, so I imagine they'll adjust to gays.

Posted

I don't see big inroads into civilian gun ownership - maybe some pesky token restrictions like the AWB.

Haven't looked or listened to Democratic "leadership" lately, Chris?

 

I've been listening (albeit not too intently) for decades. There's a big difference between what some of the Dems leadership say they'd like to do and what actually ends up happening. A lot of what they do say also gets taken out of context - someone writes a book called 'It takes a village' and someone extrapolates it to mean they're going to take your children away and raise them in Khmer Rouge style camps. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Guest pfcem
Posted

You need to stop getting your news only from the "main stream" media. While it is true that there are a lot of people unhappy with the current situation in Iraq, the public DOES NOT want to get out of Iraq anywhere near as much as is reported in the "main stream" media. Polling is an art form & you can (& the "main stream" media DOES) form the questions to skew the results towards a desired result.

 

It is far from a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will make significant (if any) gains in the upcomming elections. The approval rating for Congress is (depending on which poll you look at) between 10-15%. No incumbent candidate for either house is safe.

 

And as has been pointed out by others (for the most part) the cuts being talked about have bipartisan support & are (for the most part) mostly in programs that have had higher than average cost increases.

Posted
FCS has always struggled. There were cuts the last couple of years (when the committees were Republican controlled), because the Army has struggled to sell the FCS concept to Congress. Many, people fail to see how FCS is useful when we can barely pay for the maintenance right now. Some have also questioned if "lighter" is really the way to go. The point is, the cuts to FCS again have bipartisan support. If you have access, I would recommend reading the transcripts of the Congressional hearings on FCS, they're rather illuminating.

Are the transcripts available online?

Posted (edited)
Haven't looked or listened to Democratic "leadership" lately, Chris?[/b]

 

No kidding, they should call them 'no gun left behind'. And I just got my Utah CCW too:( If Montana separates I'm buying land, period.

Edited by Luckyorwhat
Posted
No kidding, they should call them 'no gun left behind'. And I just got my Utah CCW too:( If Montana separates I'm buying land, period.

 

I've been posting here (or TN's predecessor) for eleven years. When GWB won the first time round I breathed a sigh of relief, not because nothing really bad happened to your gun laws (you'll recall he didn't repeal the AWB either, but rather let it expire) but because I knew I wouldn't have to listen to another five years of 'if they try to impose just one more gun law* I'm going to head for the hills and join the armed resistance' BS. I know that's not what you're saying, but there was plenty of that kind of talk here (also to a much lesser extent prior to GWB's second win).

 

*Note that no previous gun law (since the 18th Century), however punitive, had provoked any such action (Timothy McVeigh being a possible notable exception to the rule) somewhat undermining the credibility of such claims.

Posted
Are the transcripts available online?

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't A lot of pay services (Congressional Quarterly; Federal News Service; etc.) make most of the transcripts available (especially the Defense committees). Unfortunetly, most of those services are pretty expensive. My larger point was, if you read the hearings, or listen to them live (which is usually available on the Committee websites), there is a tremendous amount of bipartisan support for many the cuts originally cited in this posting. The hearings are were you really hear people's positions on different programs and the budget, not in 30 second sound bites on the nightly news or at a press conference. And when it really comes to understanding, I'd recommend reading the industry publications (JDW, Defense News, etc.), they offer the best analysis and coverage of these issues. You're not going to get the same level of depth in the Washington Post, or even Fox News. Shocking as it may be.

  • 5 weeks later...
Guest oncedrunkgrenadier
Posted

Democrats say they want to protect the troops by bringing them back from Iraq but then they do not want to fund the Military. This is the US Army not the Bundeswehr. Troops need cash to stay above par. Anyways, I got to talk(and drink) with the Command Sergeant Major of the 1UA(Experimental)'s NLOS unit. They are testing out theories and battle tactics with the FCS. When we get this FCS system up and running, I can not see any opposing force able to take on the US Army(excluding the Chinese's anti-satillite missiles). Self guided arty, recon vehicles that are silent and able to take HEAT rounds, the ability for a scout 100KM away able to report live feed of enemy movement to any CO in the brigade.

 

I got a chance to work with the stryker vehicle and was not impressed. They resemble a kevlar covered bus more than anything else. They are bulky, and if they get hit with power lines it is game over for the whole vehicle(The Zussman training ground accident out of Ft Knox.).

Posted
I have yet to find anyone who actually believes that FCS will enter service, regardless of what happens to the budget.

 

 

BFT is one part of the FCS and has been in operational use since 2003.

There are a few others out there as well.

 

While I tend to agree that a lot of the tech they are working on will not reach the field in its' current incarnation, I do believe that the r&d and research will evolve into better systems.

Posted (edited)
FCS, in serious trouble if the Dems win big. The Navy will continue to shrink and the Army and Marines will not get the updated equipment they need, instead they will continue to use the existing stuff they have now.

 

I predict the Navy will shrink in hulls but won't represent a massive drop in capability. What they'll do is trade in some of their smaller vessels for even smaller vessels, and larger vessels for bigger vessels. The remaining OHP-class Frigates will be gone and replaced with LCS type things. The Zumwalts will start to replace the oldest Arleigh Burke Destroyers and Ticos. The conventionally powered CVs might get retired early. Marines, at the very least, will continue to get their Osprey (it's the program that NOBODY can seem to kill).

 

Oh and the Dems are planning on opening the gays in the military issue again. It wants the military to actively recruit gays for military service.

 

Oh my God! This will destroy the military-industrial complex!

 

Honestly, this is going to happen eventually, so you might as well just brace yourself. More than half the world's armies allow it, including the British, Canadians, Israelis, French, Indians, Germans, and on and on.....

 

I'm sure there was similar consternation when Truman opened the military to African Americans in 1948.

 

The good years will be over next election.

 

I thought the "good years" were over when the wall came down? Honestly, you act like Reagan is leaving office. The 600 ship Navy sailed a long time ago.

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke
Posted
I predict the Navy will shrink in hulls but won't represent a massive drop in capability. What they'll do is trade in some of their smaller vessels for even smaller vessels, and larger vessels for bigger vessels. The remaining OHP-class Frigates will be gone and replaced with LCS type things. The Zumwalts will start to replace the oldest Arleigh Burke Destroyers and Ticos. The conventionally powered CVs might get retired early. Marines, at the very least, will continue to get their Osprey (it's the program that NOBODY can seem to kill).

:huh:

 

The USS John F. Kennedy (CV67) was decommissioned in Mayport, FL., March 23, 2007.

 

The USS Kitty Hawk (CV63) is slated for replacement, USS George Washington (CVN73) taking her place at Yokosuka, by USS George H.W. Bush (CVN77) in 2008.

 

I don't see how the CV(s) could be retired earlier...

 

The Zumwalt class was to replace the Spruance class (which are ALL already gone) & the OHP class not the Arleigh Burke &/or Ticonderoga classes. The last I heard the USN is not planning on any more than 7 DDG1000 & as it is it will be lucky if it even gets more than 3-4 of those.

 

The Ticonderoga class is to be replaced by CG-21 class some time in the 2020s.

 

The USS Arleigh Burke (DDG51) isn't expected to be decommissioned until 2026.

Posted (edited)
:huh:

 

I'm talking hypothetically here. Not what is slated to be done. Kitty Hawk could be replaced sooner if one were to drop the 11 carrier requirement (temporarily at least). Also, keeping in mind that the Japanese have apparently now agreed to allow a nuclear carrier to berth in Yokosuka, her unique characteristics aren't really needed by COMSURPAC anymore.

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke
Posted
I'm talking hypothetically here. Not what is slated to be done. Kitty Hawk could be replaced sooner if one were to drop the 11 carrier requirement (temporarily at least). Also, keeping in mind that the Japanese have apparently now agreed to allow a nuclear carrier to berth in Yokosuka, her unique characteristics aren't really needed by COMSURPAC anymore.

 

- John

I guess I am guilty of once again going back too far to not only the post I am replying to but the post I am relying to is a reply to. :P

 

USS Kitty Hawk will no longer be in active service (summer 08) before the 08 elections! There are only one of two things (short of her being sunk or significantly damaged) that could cause USS Kitty Hawk to be take out of service any earlier than she already is - either USS George Washington becomes available & replaces her sooner or we no longer base a carrier in Japan.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
USS Kitty Hawk will no longer be in active service (summer 08) before the 08 elections! There are only one of two things (short of her being sunk or significantly damaged) that could cause USS Kitty Hawk to be take out of service any earlier than she already is - either USS George Washington becomes available & replaces her sooner or we no longer base a carrier in Japan.

 

The Kitty Hawk's Summer 07 deployment has been widely portrayed by the USN as her "farewell tour". GW just came out of a big overhaul and sometime in the next 4-6 months the carriers will meet in Pearl Harbor to execute the same kind of material/equipment/crew swap-ex that Indy did when replacing Midway and Kitty Hawk did when replacing Indy.

 

There's probably not a heck of a lot of way to speed that up. And if there is it probably isn't worth the cost savings.

 

Enterprise going out early (prior to her 2013 decom date) is a distinct possiblity. They could also get decommission TR prior to her upcoming RCOH - which would be preferable from a cost perspective to getting rid of Nimitz which has just had several billion dollars plowed into her.

 

A big issue with decommissioning nukes, iirc, is that there are some long lead-time advance activities that have to occur. You can't just park the ship up in Bremerton and padlock the doors. Planning for Enterprise's decommissioning has apparently been underway for some time now, give the fact that they have to yank eight reactors and assorted radioactive equipment. I'm not sure how quickly her removal from service could be advanced.

 

The danger with decommissioning nukes ahead of schedule is that, so we've been told for years now, nukes are an all/nothing proposition - they can't be mothballed into Cat-B like conventional ships can. Once they are decommissioned they are struck and are unable to return to service - "rapid" expansion of the carrier force would require returning a conventional CV (the only one still technically in Cat-B right now is Kennedy, and by all accounts she's pretty f*cked up. Kitty Hawk will apparently follow the Constellation pattern and be struck quickly after decommissioning) or be defined as the time necessary for Newport News to build a new deck.

 

--Garth

Posted (edited)
The danger with decommissioning nukes ahead of schedule is that, so we've been told for years now, nukes are an all/nothing proposition - they can't be mothballed into Cat-B like conventional ships can. Once they are decommissioned they are struck and are unable to return to service - "rapid" expansion of the carrier force would require returning a conventional CV (the only one still technically in Cat-B right now is Kennedy, and by all accounts she's pretty f*cked up. Kitty Hawk will apparently follow the Constellation pattern and be struck quickly after decommissioning) or be defined as the time necessary for Newport News to build a new deck.

 

Kennedy isn't in Cat B. According to NRDF database, she's listed as inactive with no mobilization category determined. In fact, I'd be surprised if JFK doesn't go immediately into Cat D or X. Everything I've read suggests she is quite worn out and neglected. There might be enough parts between her and the Shitty Kitty to make *one* Cat-B carrier, but the smart money is on one of both of them being struck.

 

Oddly enough, four decommissioned Ticonderoga-class are set to be scrapped as well, and one additional one already was sunk as a target.

 

And pfcem is wrong. The Navy is keeping *one* Spruance in commission.

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...