US military budget: How would you change it?

[Medex]

Ah, the Hitler school of job creation.

Yeah.. well I tried to join the military but they rejected me because they said my goose-step was ridiculous and reminded them of something out of John Cleese skit.

They said I might have promising career cleaning toilets in a bullet factory. So I'm really stoked about that.

[Asher]

I like this DL a lot. I say Loinburger.

[Medex]

That is my father's defence of CF in Afghanistan:

"They weren't doing anything else anyway...."

:doh:

Well.. you know I kinda think like your old man. What else are they going to do. Toronto just doesn't get enough snow to keep them occupied full time.

[Medex]

I like this DL a lot. I say Loinburger.

Your making me hungry. It must be getting close to dinner hour.

Does this burger come with cheese?

Hey and I want my damn dance.

[Hauldren Collider]

I didn't realize it was so easy to get under MikeH's skin.

[Hauldren Collider]

Mike, you have just admitted to the fact that you guys totally free ****ing ride on the US defense spending. What you haven't realized is that if we made the kinds of cuts Asher so ignorantly espouses, it's not plausible that Europe would have the backbone to pick up the bill.

[MikeH]

And the problem would be?

[Kitschum]

The terrorists win.

[Asher]

Mike, you have just admitted to the fact that you guys totally free ****ing ride on the US defense spending. What you haven't realized is that if we made the kinds of cuts Asher so ignorantly espouses, it's not plausible that Europe would have the backbone to pick up the bill.

What's ignorant is maintaining the obscene military budget to fight other people's wars as your country slips perilously into further debt.

[MikeH]

The terrorists win.

[Dinner]

I like this DL a lot. I say Loinburger.

It seems like it would be him. It's such an obvious troll.

[Whoha]

Some people believe genocide is bad.

Which is all the more reason not to get involved. It is the rebels who have pushed a quarter of a million foreigners out of Libya. If Europe wants so badly to deal with this problem then they can pony up.

[TCO]

Iraq and Afghanistan: get out. Just do it. Make sure we protect the forces as they move out and take any equipment we really care about and destroy any crypto or the like.

Army and Marines: Cut a lot.

Navy and Air Force: cut moderately.

Bases: BRAC on steroids.

[TCO]

One simple suggestion to cut some defense dollars I think is viable and does not sacrifice any core mission:

Replace half our submarine fleet with modern diesel electric submarines.

The US got away from diesels in the eighties, our last two being decommissioned in the mid nineties. The idea was to standardize the force to all nuclear and by doing so keep the most advanced and capable boats during the drawdown of the same period. There is some merit to this, as by the nineties there weren't any modern diesels to keep around anyway but this also meant we kept the most expensive units and we continue to build to this expensive high end capability.

What I would suggest is that the US purchase and Americanize the German Type 212 submarine. It is just as advanced in all its capabilities it has as a US Virginia-class SSN and all the capabilities it lacks we can add to it for the most part.

The only real hit in capability it will take is sustainability. Sustainability is nice, but can it really be claimed that with our current overseas naval bases and all our allies around the world we really need a sub that can go around the world three times without stopping? And when sustainability beyond the 212s range becomes a problem I am only suggesting making half the force diesels, that still leaves a few dozen SSNs to do that work. We could station 212s at Guam and China and NK would still be in normal deployment range, station them in Bahrain (we already have ships there) and all of 5th Fleet is in deployment range and station a few in Europe for our Med needs if these are required. They are non nuclear so they have more of a range of options as far as operating from allied facilities as well as not needing the extensive facilities required to station a nuclear vessel somewhere. On top of that, forward deployed 212s would not have to waste time and money transiting from the the US proper all the time which is what most of them do now. Additionally, there is a whole lot of savings in not having to provide nuclear trained crews for these subs, which requires at least a year of expensive schools (to include the mainenance of three reactors just for training) between joining and actually hitting the fleet.

There are currently 55 SSNs in the US fleet. A Virginia-class sub costs 1.8 billion, a 212 costs 500 million. Assuming a full production run of both outfitting our Navy with 60 submarines and 30 of each thats a savings of 39 billion over the entire production window over building just Viriginia-class boats for procurement savings alone.

Thats just rough back or the napkin figures, there would be costs for the contracting of the design and modification to US needs and I don't expect the 60 submarine requirement to last but its a place to start.

A nuclear submarine and a diesel are night and day in terms of capabilities (and I have done exercises showing that). The way the US uses our subs (and just in general the way we do naval deployments and support CINCS around the world and specops [which in the sub community has nothing to do with SEALS...those are diver ops]) are not compatable with diesel boats. In addition our ability to operate nuclear subs is a knowledge advantage that is very hard for others to duplicate.

I do think the pushing through of Virginia and of Seawolf (and disposal of LAs and Sturgeons) since the mid-90s, was short-sighted and not needed. That was the whole gotta keep EB occupied argument which was poopoo from the ass (force first, contractors second). All that said, we are where we are, now.

[TCO]

But a diesel sub is just stupid. They are the weapon for coastal defense. The opposite of what we do. Diesels are never where you need them, when you want them. Can't go fast on the battery. Can't really go that fast even on the diesel. Noisy as hell on the surface or snorkeling. Forward deploying is not the answer (never where you need them, the whole force is tinier, basing rights blabla).

A diesel is like an aircraft carrier with harriers and helos on it. Just not the same thing and tossing away a huge advantage in operational knowledge.

If you really want to get rid of some subs, just get rid of them. And have some more frigates. Oops. I mean LCSes or whatever they call them now.

But don't kid yourself that you replace the capability with 3 diesels for one nuke. they just can't be used in the same way to take the fight to the enemy. They are defensive, not offensive.