Mr Gates Cuts to Defense

[JonMusser]

i would like by apologizing if this is a duplication..

although i can not agree with cutting carriers and still do not agree with shutting down production of F-22. i do find my self agreeing with Gates the there is way to much Bureaucracy in our military. it is possible for our navy to make the Ford class cheaper by making it take longer to build i am okay with that. i am not however okay with cutting construction of carriers altogether
- I think Gates should have slowed production of F-22 just so we could keep it in production in case a need raised.
- i think slowing production of F-35 is smart especially for the US i am not saying cancel any orders i am saying instead of delivering 200 (note this is just an example) ordering 50 to 100 we are the only country to have 5th generation aircraft we do not need an air force with 1000 F-35 by 2015(just another example) instead we can upgrade an strengthen our legacy Fighters which most are best in the world anyway. having said that i think in the end our branches should receive there full order of fighters just over a longer period of time.
- though i get Americas military almost always wants the vary best i think in developing new tech that being fiscally responsible and being realistic in what we want for our equipment to be would be smart. i think the US navy should have a new cruiser i think the US should have a new destroyer. but do we need either to displace 16,000 tons to 20,000 be realistic. the Zumwalt is a lame ship just because it is to good if i had it i would never send it in cause i wouldn't want it lost. the same with the CGX.
- I love the Arleigh Burke class having said that we have or well have 60 of them i think it is time for a new design (preferably a little stealthy) but instead the US navy made the Zumwalt the most unbelievable ship. is it a great ship I think so do we need it No.
- further more do we need a CGX that displaces 20,000 tons i do not think so maybe MAYBE one in the area of 16,000 tons but 20,000. Why?
- i can not imagined a troupe needing something so simple as additional bomb sniffing dogs and that need has to be sent through FOUR generals that is a military bureaucracy WAY to big!
- do we need 11 carriers i think so would i be to upset if there were just 10 probably not but i do not think anything past ten is realistic. other wise next time there is some cr@p going on in the world president may not able to say where is the carriers.

i have every bet of respect for the military i think they should get what they need when the need it (if not before) but i also believe in over kill and waste and it seems all this government is doing is wasting or creating over kill

FOXNews.com - Secretary Gates to Slash Pentagon Budget in Search of $10 Billion in Savings

i hope i didn't break any rules i post rarely but wanted to voice this thoughts on Gates and his recent speeches which i agree with to an extent.

Jon

 

[StevoJH]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly what you are saying, but a couple of points.

1) USAF and USN fighters are not necessarily the most advance versions of their particular fighters in existance. For example the UAE has more advanced F-16's then the USAF. And the USAF fighters may be good, but many of them are old, and nothing lasts forever. It would cost as much to zero hour the airframes as it would for new fighters that are more advanced.

2) Stretching out the construction of a ship decreases the cost year on year but leads to an increase in total construction cost for the ship, as shown when the UK recently decided to stretch out the construction time of their new Queen Elizabeth class Carriers.

3) Personally I am of the opinion that the Burkes are effectively cruisers in the first place and that larger surface combatants are not needed. However what is needed is a new destroyer/cruiser design of similar or smaller size as the burke with a smaller crew and updated radars, combat systems and propulsion systems. The basic design of the burke is now 25 years old.

4) The USN could quite easily retire quite a few carriers and still be able to outmatch any airforce on earth except possibly the Russians and Chinese.

The easiest way for the US Military to save 10 billion dollars would be to pull out any remaining forces from Iraq ASAP and get them sent to Afghanistan, get afghanistan sorted out and you will be able to save way more then 10 billion per year.

Short term, retire USS Enterprise (massive savings if it had been done before her latest refit), reevalute US requirement for US Army/US National Guard heavy formations, Special Forces, Helicopter Units (big savings here, Helicopters are EXPENSIVE) and USAF/USAFR/USANG Fighter squadrons (particularly the earlier blocks of F-16's).

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Gates is cutting the over bloated bureaucracy funds not weapons, the $10-15 billion will actually go to military modernization.

"Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual savings needed to prevent an erosion of U.S. combat power.

He took aim what he called a bloated bureaucracy, wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and outlined an ambitious plan for reform that's almost certain to stir opposition in the corridors of Congress and Pentagon."

1. The Flight III DDG-51 will replace the canceled CG(X). It will be at least 10,000 tons.

2. With the F-22 capped at 187, the USAF really needs the F-35 badly to replace aging F-15s and F-16s.

3. The Navy does need 10-11 carriers, I think 10-11 ships i fine but don't go below that number.

 

[JonMusser]

Gates is cutting the over bloated bureaucracy funds not weapons, the $10-15 billion will actually go to military modernization.

"Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual savings needed to prevent an erosion of U.S. combat power.

He took aim what he called a bloated bureaucracy, wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and outlined an ambitious plan for reform that's almost certain to stir opposition in the corridors of Congress and Pentagon."

1. The Flight III DDG-51 will replace the canceled CG(X). It will be at least 10,000 tons.

2. With the F-22 capped at 187, the USAF really needs the F-35 badly to replace aging F-15s and F-16s.

3. The Navy does need 10-11 carriers, I think 10-11 ships i fine but don't go below that number.

first of all i am surprised i was not attacked for agreeing that most of these cuts were okay

- yes he wants major cuts to the Bureaucracy and i think that is smart!
- 10-11 carriers is what we need and it seems the navy wants to ditch the Enterprise before the for however when the Ford comes active then there would be 11 again < which i am okay with
- i think the F-16, F-15, and F-18 can be updated for a longer life and a slower build schedule for the F-35 put into place.
- the only service which i believe really needs a new Fighter is the Marines

Steve:
- Agree that the we need a new ship design a little smaller or equal in size the the Burkes which would have stealthier design
- and i would not be willing to raise ship build times over more years the navy needs these ship yards and their workers.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

first of all i am surprised i was not attacked for agreeing that most of these cuts were okay

- yes he wants major cuts to the Bureaucracy and i think that is smart!
- 10-11 carriers is what we need and it seems the navy wants to ditch the Enterprise before the for however when the Ford comes active then there would be 11 again < which i am okay with
- i think the F-16, F-15, and F-18 can be updated for a longer life and a slower build schedule for the F-35 put into place.
- the only service which i believe really needs a new Fighter is the Marines

Steve:
- Agree that the we need a new ship design a little smaller or equal in size the the Burkes which would have stealthier design
- and i would not be willing to raise ship build times over more years the navy needs these ship yards and their workers.

The F-15s, 16s and 18s can only be updated for so long, then there will be a time to retire them and replace them with the F-35s.

As for the Burkes the new flight III will be larger not smaller.

 

[JonMusser]

The F-15s, 16s and 18s can only be updated for so long, then there will be a time to retire them and replace them with the F-35s.

As for the Burkes the new flight III will be larger not smaller.

okay i understand about the Fighters but the newest ones can be modernized to extend there life until the government can learn to manage there money better

the Burke design is 25 30 years old it is time it is replaced with in my mind a new stealthier design i know they chose to just use the off theshelf Burke i am arguing for something better.

 

[spectre000]

I have to agree with some of what Gates is proposing. But I would add cuts to some of our overseas bases. Does the US really have to have F-15s based in the UK? The 173rd Arbn Bde in Italy? US troops in the Sinai. Thousands of troops in South Korea. In a crisis you can easily fly in the fighter jets and transport the troops to a combat zone. Keep our troops and planes in the US, out of range of NK artillery, Chinese IRBMs and the like.

The days of keeping so many troops overseas seems pointless. The US has its entire commercial airline industry at its beck and call. Hundreds of 777, 747, Airbuses, etc to fly tens of thousands of troops and materials to Busan, Kuwait, Colombia, Europe, Asia, at anytime. The Warsaw Pact got schooled on this every year during our REFORGER exercises. 1991 and 2003 also showed that when going to war, sometimes you get months to build up first.

 

[JonMusser]

I have to agree with some of what Gates is proposing. But I would add cuts to some of our overseas bases. Does the US really have to have F-15s based in the UK? The 173rd Arbn Bde in Italy? US troops in the Sinai. Thousands of troops in South Korea. In a crisis you can easily fly in the fighter jets and transport the troops to a combat zone. Keep our troops and planes in the US, out of range of NK artillery, Chinese IRBMs and the like.

The days of keeping so many troops overseas seems pointless. The US has its entire commercial airline industry at its beck and call. Hundreds of 777, 747, Airbuses, etc to fly tens of thousands of troops and materials to Busan, Kuwait, Colombia, Europe, Asia, at anytime. The Warsaw Pact got schooled on this every year during our REFORGER exercises. 1991 and 2003 also showed that when going to war, sometimes you get months to build up first.

-though i i do agree we do not need as many super bases around the world i do believe we need troops in South Korea and some forces in Europe

-more to the point both Rumsfeld and Gates were pro small special ops bases world wide which could move to take out threats world wide which i to am a major supporter of
- i do not believe we need as many troops forward deployed as we currently do but i also do not think we need to stop forward deploying our forces

 

[F-15 Eagle]

okay i understand about the Fighters but the newest ones can be modernized to extend there life until the government can learn to manage there money better

the Burke design is 25 30 years old it is time it is replaced with in my mind a new stealthier design i know they chose to just use the off theshelf Burke i am arguing for something better.

What ship is there in the world that can match the Burke class destroyers? The Burkes which are actually cruisers named destroyers for political reasons are the most powerful ships ever built, nothing can match them or even come close t their fighting power.

 

[JonMusser]

What ship is there in the world that can match the Burke class destroyers? The Burkes which are actually cruisers named destroyers for political reasons are the most powerful ships ever built, nothing can match them or even come close t their fighting power.

yes i get that F-15 but i think the Burkes Design is old and can use a new stealthier look i get that it is the best i am not say much needs to change but the Burke class has no stealth and america needs its destroyers to have Stealth in my Mind

 

[Moebius]

yes i get that F-15 but i think the Burkes Design is old and can use a new stealthier look i get that it is the best i am not say much needs to change but the Burke class has no stealth and america needs its destroyers to have Stealth in my Mind

The merits of increased signature reduction (stealth) for Burkes or their sucessors are debatable depending on the ships' mission/role. Stealthyness is of limited utility for any of those ships that will used as the sea based componenent of BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) due to the fact that they will be actively using their sensors for most of the time while they are on station.