US military budget: How would you change it?

[giblets]

Didn't I just say that since the Corps only accounts for 4% of the budget directly from the DoD budget that General Amos' 8.5% is probably including the cost of the support the Corps receives from the Navy?

How much is the cost of medical support? Is it over twice the cost of the Corps' operational budget? Seems too high but hey, Gen. Amos says 8.5%. The Corps has its own logistics, supply, finance, recruiting, etc.

The Marine Corps is renowned for its budget frugality, use of Army hand-me-downs, etc. It should not be surprising that the Corps is more effective with its budget than the other branches.

Army hand-me-downs? I didn't know they also depended on the army for support.

[Al B. Sure!]

Army hand-me-downs? I didn't know they also depended on the army for support.

Yeah the Corps probably still is using all the equipment that the Army abandoned at the Chosin Reservoir

[Felch]

Yes, the American forces are historically quite skilled at locating and bombing the Canadian forces actually on the ground doing the dirty work.

In the case I remember, with the tweaked out pilot, the Canadians were in a training area. Of course, the fact that they were in a training area just makes the pilot's actions even more baffling.

[Asher]

In the case I remember, with the tweaked out pilot, the Canadians were in a training area. Of course, the fact that they were in a training area just makes the pilot's actions even more baffling.

Depends which incident you are referring to.

[giblets]

Hey, that gives me an idea for how the other branches can replicate the frugality of the marines: rely on another branch for logistical support and beg the other branches for some of their weapons and stuff. If all of the branches tried that, imagine the savings

[ColdWizard]

Army fights on land
Navy fights on water
Airforce fights in the air
Marines fight on... land? They're just a miniature army with an ego problem. They're redundant.

Marines play on the beach.

[Felch]

Hey, that gives me an idea for how the other branches can replicate the frugality of the marines: rely on another branch for logistical support and beg the other branches for some of their weapons and stuff. If all of the branches tried that, imagine the savings

It probably would be better if there were one logistical branch that provided all the doctors and basic equipment.

[Patroklos]

As General Amos said a few months back before the House Armed Services Committee:



Wikipedia says 4% so I'm assuming General Amos is including the cost of support from the Navy in that 8.5%.

The US gets its most bang for its buck with the Corps.

31% of ground forces for 8.5% of the budget? How the hell do you not think the Corps is a veritable budget steal?

Thats still disengenuous. In the case of the tactical aircraft for instance, I highly doubt they are including the carrier services provided by our CVNs and LHDs/LHAs whose operational and procurement costs are covered entirely by the Navy.

Also, while they provided 31% of the ground forces that is almost entirely light infantry. We can debate how much it is still needed, but the Marine corps is not going to stand up well at all against a peer competitor fielding heavy weapons and mechanized arms. Things like tanks and the like are more expensive than light infantry and thats the Army's bag.

In short, of course the Marines are cheap because their mission areas rarely cover the expensive portions of the overall defense budget.

[Jon Miller]

I like the idea of a military based around:

Nuclear Deterrent
Carrier Strike Forces (with Marine support)
UAVs (for the lighter 'carriers')
Information Asymmetry (with a focus on space/cyber)

Obviously if someone else builds a super fighter jet, we will need one too. But we don't need any more effort put into that right now.

Heavy weapons aren't needed to have 'just around'. The exception is Carriers/Sattelites.

JM

[Patroklos]

I think you are not taking modern procurement times into account. Even allowing for the current programs having a lot of waste and uneeded delay, a major weapon system is going to require in the neighborhood of a decade in development before fielding. If its something like a ship or an aircraft it could be years more before it is at a level for substantial untilization.

There is no such thing as liberty ships or having your car factories churning out tanks after a few months of retooling.

[Jon Miller]

I do include ships. And the planes for the ships should allow for 'decent' fighter jets to produced quickly.

As far as heavy armor goes, they should be able to be produced quicker and they can start to be designed if there is a threat that seems to require them.

JM

[Felch]

Thats still disengenuous. In the case of the tactical aircraft for instance, I highly doubt they are including the carrier services provided by our CVNs and LHDs/LHAs whose operational and procurement costs are covered entirely by the Navy.

Also, while they provided 31% of the ground forces that is almost entirely light infantry. We can debate how much it is still needed, but the Marine corps is not going to stand up well at all against a peer competitor fielding heavy weapons and mechanized arms. Things like tanks and the like are more expensive than light infantry and thats the Army's bag.

In short, of course the Marines are cheap because their mission areas rarely cover the expensive portions of the overall defense budget.

How many tank battles are we getting into these days?

[Asher]

Why do the Marines fly the same aircraft as the Navy from US Navy carriers?

[Al B. Sure!]

Why do the Marines fly the same aircraft as the Navy from US Navy carriers?

Marine Aviation has been around since May 22, 1912 and has a storied history.





Its purpose is to provide close air support for the infantry within the Marine command structure.

The Marines are the military's quick-strike combined-arms task force.

[Asher]

I don't give a **** about history. Same planes from the same carrier, no need for an entirely ****ing different organization to pilot them.