The US Military on the cheap. How would you do it?

vegas giants said:

Train to defend the homeland. That means our shores. No more wars in foreign lands unless they attack us.

That should save a few trillion

Click to expand...

That is also known by another name, "Isolationism".

And we all know how well that worked the last 2 times we tried it. Over 500,000 dead and another 1 million or so wounded.

PIPEWRENCH said:

First I would make a distinction between combat soldiers and non combat soldiers and change the pay and benefit structure. If you are sitting behind a desk in complete safety I don't think you should get the same benefits as the person out their getting shot at. No 20 year full retirement for those in non combat roles. I would close most of our bases in other countries. We could still commit to being their ally and coming to their aid if attacked. But we don't need to be securing other countries borders when we can't secure our own. I would assist in coalitions but not take on the role of fighting other countries battles. Nation building needs to end and we can supply and train them to fight for their freedom but not do it for them. But the number 1 priority would be not let the rich and powerful use our military for their profit and exploitation of people and resources all over the world.

Click to expand...

Not just no, but hell no.

Because now you get into the question of what is a combat and a non-combat person. Is a person who works in the engine room of a Destroyer "non-combat"? Even though they share the same risks as somebody in the CIC that pushes a button?

What about the clerk that works in a forward staging base in Afghanistan? They come under mortar attacks, just like those sitting in a FOB somewhere.

Sorry, this idea is complete garbage. Because without those doing logistics and support you have no combat troops.

Oozlefinch said:

That is also known by another name, "Isolationism".

And we all know how well that worked the last 2 times we tried it. Over 500,000 dead and another 1 million or so wounded.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment.

PirateMk1 said:

A thought I had if I was President and faced with a 3/4s reduction and no choice in the matter, would be to adjust the priority to a MAD type of posture. Whereas offensive capability in conventional sense is limited severely and minimal personal is utilized to the maximum extent possible, and the same time upgrading and maximizing my unconventional offensive capability. Basically almost all tactical war fighting elements would be reduced to a small very flexible special operations group for reprisal and very limited conventional warfare. All the heavy conventional war fighting equipment given to the National Guard or Reserves, or sold to allied nations or mothballed. The strategic nuclear war fighting elements would be upgraded and made highest priority. The nuclear triad would have maximum priority over all other possible units and nuclear testing renewed. The emphasis in the triad would be on ICBMs upgrading and expansion, then the Air Force strategic bombers outfitted with nuclear armed missiles with supersonic capability. Just enough capability to punch through most air defense relatively inexpensively. The navy's ballistic missile and cruise missile submarines would be upgraded an added to on as needed basis. The cruise missile subs would have amongst their missiles nuclear armed variants as the case would warrant at the time up to a full load. New boats would be added slowly on an as fully funded basis as needed, alternating SSGN and SSBN as they come. The idea is to maximize the military punch weight to dollar such that even at vastly reduced money the country is well defended in case of all out war.

Click to expand...

Actually, our Nuclear Weapons are actually damned cheap to operate. That is because we really have not made any new ones in decades, the cost now is minimal because it is all simply maintaining what we already have.

And then you have the fact that Special Operations of any kind are highly intensive in the back end. The normal figure used is that it takes 10 back end types for every 1 groundpounder in the front. Move to SF type operations and not only is each person much more of an investment when it comes to equipment and training, it is also closer to 100 to 1 when comparing support to individuals.

I have friends in SF, and also in SF units. The number of people needed to keep a single unit operating is insane, pretty much a Battalion of support for a platoon. The simple fact is, the more specialized a combat unit becomes, the more expensive it is and the more material is required to support it. That is why we did not train all units to the level of Rangers or Raiders (let alone Airborne) in WWII.

From entry into boot camp to being assigned to an Infantry unit, it only takes less than 6 months to make a fully trained Marine Infantryman.

Green Berets, you are looking at 3 years to have one fully trained. That means that if that is going to be the mainstay of your military, they are going to spend the first 3/4 of their enlistment just training. Then only bee effective for a single year before they get out.

Sorry, but most of these ideals are really really bad.

vegas giants said:

Train to defend the homeland. That means our shores. No more wars in foreign lands unless they attack us.

That should save a few trillion

Click to expand...

What are we going to "attack them" with? If we haven't been patrolling the seas don't you think anyone attacking us and knowing all our forces are centralized in mainline USA might attack those locations? Wouldn't they station their own carrier groups and submarines to nail our forces as the leave base?

Bullseye said:

What are we going to "attack them" with? If we haven't been patrolling the seas don't you think anyone attacking us and knowing all our forces are centralized in mainline USA might attack those locations? Wouldn't they station their own carrier groups and submarines to nail our forces as the leave base?

Click to expand...

Which carrier groups would they be using? Russia has one and China has one. We have ten. You dont think we can defend the homeland with 5?

vegas giants said:

Which carrier groups would they be using? Russia has one and China has one. We have ten. You dont think we can defend the homeland with 5?

Click to expand...

Sure, if all five were fully maintained, trained and armed, but that's never the case. And, as I said, carriers would be some of the first targets - probably well before enemy ships got within shooting range. And getting a carrier group in position to strike back can take a week or two.



See, one of the reasons for overseas bases is to be ready immediately for sustained operations. Without based overseas how do we fuel and resupply our forces?

Bullseye said:

Sure, if all five were fully maintained, trained and armed, but that's never the case. And, as I said, carriers would be some of the first targets - probably well before enemy ships got within shooting range. And getting a carrier group in position to strike back can take a week or two.



See, one of the reasons for overseas bases is to be ready immediately for sustained operations. Without based overseas how do we fuel and resupply our forces?

Click to expand...

I spent ten years in the navy. Tell me which CSG is currently not fully maintained? Lol

How dies China, Russia and almost every other country get by without hundreds of overseas bases?

Face it. What we have is for attack....not defense

vegas giants said:

I spent ten years in the navy. Tell me which CSG is currently not fully maintained? Lol

How dies China, Russia and almost every other country get by without hundreds of overseas bases?

Face it. What we have is for attack....not defense

Click to expand...

I spent 22 years in the Navy most of it dealing with operational planning and future requirements. Understand that maintaining a carrier requires it to undergo multi-year overhauls, as do the other ships of its battle group. With only five groups rather than the current ten ships and aircraft will wear out quicker and require more down time as will the crews.


We really don't Have "hundreds" of bases overseas. China and Russia are expanding their overseas presence, BTW.

Bullseye said:

I spent 22 years in the Navy most of it dealing with operational planning and future requirements. Understand that maintaining a carrier requires it to undergo multi-year overhauls, as do the other ships of its battle group. With only five groups rather than the current ten ships and aircraft will wear out quicker and require more down time as will the crews.


We really don't Have "hundreds" of bases overseas. China and Russia are expanding their overseas presence, BTW.

Click to expand...

Which CSG is not maintained? 5. 2 on each sea border and one on refit. No country on earth could touch us. You really only need on on each sea border. One in and one out.

Bring the troops home and defend the borders.

vegas giants said:

Which CSG is not maintained? 5. 2 on each sea border and one on refit. No country on earth could touch us. You really only need on on each sea border. One in and one out.

Bring the troops home and defend the borders.

Click to expand...

You're not listening. Maintaining carrier battle group is a complex operation. Not every ship is ready to go to sea every day. Some won't be able for 2-3 years, Others can be ready in a few months and others are on stand by to sail almost immediately. There are NO battle groups NOT being maintained but that doesn't mean they're all ready to sail and fight tomorrow.

By the away the military is prohibited by law from law enforcement within the US.

Bullseye said:

You're not listening. Maintaining carrier battle group is a complex operation. Not every ship is ready to go to sea every day. Some won't be able for 2-3 years, Others can be ready in a few months and others are on stand by to sail almost immediately. There are NO battle groups NOT being maintained but that doesn't mean they're all ready to sail and fight tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Dude they have to beat one carrier group. Russia has one decent one and China has one really crappy one. We can see them coming long before they get here. 5 to one is not enough?.??


Eisenhower is right. It's never enough

vegas giants said:

Dude they have to beat one carrier group. Russia has one decent one and China has one really crappy one. We can see them coming long before they get here. 5 to one is not enough?.??

Click to expand...

LOL, maybe you missed where I said disabling our CVBGs would be one of the first acts of the war.

vega giants said:

Eisenhower is right. It's never enough

Click to expand...

I wonder if he ever wished he had more troops on D-day and through the rest of the war.

Bullseye said:

LOL, maybe you missed where I said disabling our CVBGs would be one of the first acts of the war.

I wonder if he ever wished he had more troops on D-day and through the rest of the war.

Click to expand...

Then we need 20. No 30. There can never be enough

PirateMk1 said:

All of what you write is very true, IF we stick to the current way we procure and operate them.

You would think a drone would be the perfect thing to test in combat conditions at home by running them through live fire gauntlets, I have yet to hear of a program do that.

Drones or bot should be cheap and disposable almost as disposable as a missile or other munitions. A drone should also be a set it and forget it machine such that it requires minimal personnel to use effectively. They should require very minimal maintenance and repairs should be exceedingly simple if they are bothered with at all. Drones should be manufactured, stored in boxes and used when needed until they are destroyed or recycled. Practice with drones should be in hostile live fire environments constantly exposing them to the extremes of combat to expose and learn and cope with and eventually remove weaknesses of the designs constantly testing limits and improving them.

Our military does the exact opposite in their drone programs. A combat machine is by its very nature meant to be expendable if necessary. Yet we build boondoggles that put substantial resources into a few very expensive machines that are very good and cant afford to be lost. How do you use those effectively?

Click to expand...

Cheap, fast, good. Pick any 2, because you can not have all 3.

And when it comes "live fire gauntlets", that is damned expensive! It is not often that we try to shoot down projects still in development, especially when they cost millions of dollars per unit.

And nothing in the military works with "minimal maintenance". Under combat conditions, each major part of a PATRIOT Battery requires roughly 2-4 man hours of maintenance per hour of operation. Quite literally they are constantly cycling between operating and being maintained all day long, every day. And that is routine for any piece of equipment, from a truck to a B2 bomber. It is expensive, and always maintenance intensive because they are supposed to last for decades.

But ultimately, do you want things that are cheap and disposable, or expensive and built to last? Because you can not have both.

Bullseye said:

I spent 22 years in the Navy most of it dealing with operational planning and future requirements. Understand that maintaining a carrier requires it to undergo multi-year overhauls, as do the other ships of its battle group. With only five groups rather than the current ten ships and aircraft will wear out quicker and require more down time as will the crews.


We really don't Have "hundreds" of bases overseas. China and Russia are expanding their overseas presence, BTW.

Click to expand...

Our Capitol Ships have always been like that. And that has not changed when it moved from Battleships to Carriers. On average every 3-5 years at sea, they then need a year or two in the shipyard. Even more so if they are getting major upgrades.

And the "hundreds of bases" is really a misnomer. Oh yes, you can find lists of "hundreds of bases", but a great most of those are actually under 100 individuals. A 25 man team that works at a foreign airport that also handles a significant amount of US government traffic (including State Department) is technically a "US Base". So is the port detachment that handles the traffic in and out of a port overseas.

And many do not realize that there are hundreds of foreign military bases in the US by the same definition. Fort Bliss has been the home to a German "base" for decades. And there are permanent detachments of Japanese and Israeli forces there as well.

Oozlefinch said:

Our Capitol Ships have always been like that. And that has not changed when it moved from Battleships to Carriers. On average every 3-5 years at sea, they then need a year or two in the shipyard. Even more so if they are getting major upgrades.

And the "hundreds of bases" is really a misnomer. Oh yes, you can find lists of "hundreds of bases", but a great most of those are actually under 100 individuals. A 25 man team that works at a foreign airport that also handles a significant amount of US government traffic (including State Department) is technically a "US Base". So is the port detachment that handles the traffic in and out of a port overseas.

And many do not realize that there are hundreds of foreign military bases in the US by the same definition. Fort Bliss has been the home to a German "base" for decades. And there are permanent detachments of Japanese and Israeli forces there as well.

Click to expand...

The idea that China and Russia can defend their countries with one carrier group but we need ten is laughable.

Fort Bliss is an American base. Thete are no foreign bases on US soil

Oozlefinch said:

Simple, it's impossible.

But if you insist, fire 90% of the contractors and civilians working in the DoD. Fire all the civilian doctors and nurses and use the draft capability of the PHSCC to fill those roles at a lower cost.

Forbid all first term enlistees from either being married, or having children.

And it really is impossible. The largest single expenditure in the DoD budget is manpower. Salary, medical, housing expenses, training costs, and the like. This is well over 1/3, and at times almost 1/2 of the annual budget. It is impossible really to cut it by the amount you want unless we do like China and Russia, and pay our personnel like $100 a month.

Click to expand...

Basically this. The only way to achieve this is massive manpower cuts. Even that wouldn't get you there, because you have to buy people out.


I have a few ideas where we could cut less drastically over time.

Rexedgar said:

I served in the ADA battalion attached to the 82nd ABN division in the early 1970’s. We had a shop that built and flew RC airplanes for target acquisition. Every year the division put on a show for the brass/Congress. The two years I was there, it was called “Brass Key.”

There was all the division had to offer displayed on one of the impact areas. Artillery, anti armor weapons, everything but troops. Just before the final display of fighters from Pope AFB dropping napalm and going to after-burners, we flew the RC plane across the front of the viewing area. There were half a dozen M-60 set up on stands where the gunners were firing from standing positions. My job was setting up the commo. One time, after the third pass without any damage, the controller screamed into the microphone and said “Crash the God-damned plane on the next pass!”

Click to expand...

I am one of those that believes drones should remain in use as observation, and that is about it. And I am not alone in that.

There have been far to many friendly fire near misses and even neutral targets hit by drones than I am really comfortable with. Now that is always a problem in war, always has been and always will be. But the fact that drones can never have the same kind of situational awareness as a real person that has always made me very resistant to actually putting weapons into them.

We have been using drones in observation for decades, that is actually nothing new. Heck, in the Gulf War we had entire Iraqi Battalions trying to surrender to Navy observation drones. And 60s are never really good at shooting down something like a drone.

Now, what they should have done to impress the hats in the dog & pony show is to drag out a few M163 VADS. An M113 with a 20mm VULCAN machine cannon would surely have done the trick.

vegas giants said:

The idea that China and Russia can defend their countries with one carrier group but we need ten is laughable.

Click to expand...

Good point. Kyrgystan and Great Britain should probably also have the same size Navy, because they are about the same size physically, and the idea that different countries face different geopolitical situations or requirements doesn't need to be considered

cpwill said:

Good point. Kyrgystan and Great Britain should probably also have the same size Navy, because they are about the same size physically, and the idea that different countries face different geopolitical situations or requirements doesn't need to be considered

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Well if kyrgystan was rich like Great Britain they probably would

Oozlefinch said:

I am one of those that believes drones should remain in use as observation, and that is about it. And I am not alone in that.

There have been far to many friendly fire near misses and even neutral targets hit by drones than I am really comfortable with. Now that is always a problem in war, always has been and always will be. But the fact that drones can never have the same kind of situational awareness as a real person that has always made me very resistant to actually putting weapons into them.

Click to expand...

I would be uncertain of this argument - it strikes me that you are allowing anecdote to serve in place of data.

Armed Drone operations tend to produce (for example) fewer CIVCAS than ground operations, and they also extend our operational reach into areas where we cannot put manned assets. The option often isn't between "a drone or an F16", but "a drone or nothing".

vegas giants said:

Yeah I agree. Well if kyrgystan was rich like Great Britain they probably would

Click to expand...

:doh

No, they wouldn't. Kyrgystan is a land-locked country in central Asia, while Great Britain is an island nation dependent on sea-based supply lines.

cpwill said:

Basically this. The only way to achieve this is massive manpower cuts.


I have a few ideas where we could cut less drastically over time.

Click to expand...

Manpower cuts, to what exactly? Should we cut 1 of the 3 Marine Divisions? Should we cut half of the only Armored Division we have left? Cur 2 of the 5 Air Defense Brigades we have?

And guess what? This is exactly what was done in the early 1990's. All this did was create the need to increase the number of civilians and contractors needed because a great many jobs still have to be done, if the military does it or not. The number of chow halls on each base will still likely not change, but since there are less people to work them that is what has led to most of them today being run and manned primarily by civilians. Not enough people to do the job anymore, but it still needs to be done.

And there is a limit to how far you can shrink the military, until we are about as intimidating as France.

Here is a good example. In 1982, the US military was 2.1 million. And for all the talk during that era of the "Reagan build-up", at it's height during his administration the military only hit a high of 2.17 million in 1987.

In 1993, we saw those numbers shrink a lot though. From 1.8 million when the Cold War ended, to as low as 1.3 million in 2001. That was the era of a lot of the jobs being turned over to contractors, because they still needed to be done.

And the highest numbers in the military since 9-11? Well, that would be 1.43 million, way back in 2010. Today, the total is 1.35 million.

So how much further should the manpower shrink? We are already once again seeing Reserves and National Guard being activated more and more often to fulfill the needs of the country. My last unit has actually had at least 1/3 of it's personnel active in one country or another for over 5 years now. Literally as soon as one group returns, another one leaves. And they are about to stand down from that mission next year, and move to one that will be less of an always active operation, but they will be responding to almost any emergency that pops up that the DoD thinks they can handle.

vegas giants said:

The idea that China and Russia can defend their countries with one carrier group but we need ten is laughable.

Fort Bliss is an American base. Thete are no foreign bases on US soil

Click to expand...

IF they strike first defense isn't going to be a big concern. Even if a carrier group survived it would have to sail for several days to be able to attack and you can bet China or Russia will have a gaggle of subs between CONUS and wherever the carriers were going.