Will Congress cut US Military Budget in 2011?

[F-15 Eagle]

I have been reading a lot of stuff on the internet mostly rumors saying the new Congress will cut not only the defense budget but also the overall size of the US military therefor weakening it.

What ever happened to the plan to keep defense spending at current levels with 1-2% annual increases like what Gates has outlined? But then again Gates is leaving this year and who knows how pro-military the nest defense secretary will be?

With a 14 trillion dollar deficit, will congress actually cut the size of the military like what a lot of deficit-hawks, some democrats and a lot of tea party members want?

I will say cutting the defense budget and the size of the military will be the worst decision this nation could ever do. We would be repeating the same mistake the US has done in the past.

 

[PO2GRV]

I'm usualy a lurker here but I just had to respond to this thread

... will cut not only the defense budget but also the overall size of the US military therefor weakening it ....

Weaken it to what? The United States military is already the most powerful, the most expensive and the largest force in the entire world, but by how many times larger must the US military be than the next largest or next most powerful? Are you suggesting the US military should be perhaps three times more powerful? Five times? Ten times? At one point would it be safe to say the US military would be "large enough" ?

... and who knows how pro-military the (next) defense secretary will be? ....

I feel it has gone beyond being pro- or anti- military by this point. It has been long due for the United States to hold the US Military to the same expectations of fiscal responsibility that the US public, and especially the Republican party, says they wish to hold the rest of the US Federal government to. It is in the best interests of the entire United States, of every citizen, all nearly three hundred and nine million of them, that all levels of the public feel the squeeze of years of economic decline, and the US military should not be exempt from such scrutiny

...With a 14 trillion dollar deficit, will congress actually cut the size of the military like what a lot of deficit-hawks, some democrats and a lot of tea party members want?

... cutting the defense budget and the size of the military will be the worst decision this nation could ever do. We would be repeating the same mistake the US has done in the past.

Two things here. I cannot help but feel that you are insinuating that the Republican party is somehow in the "right" for not wanting to reduce the defense budget by not mentioning them by name with those other forces wishing to cut the size and scope of the military. If that is your intention then I would say that I find it more than a bit hypocritical that said party stands on a platform of slashing the responsibility, reach, and budget of the US Federal government except those sectors of the government involved with defense. If that was not what you were insinuatimg then you will pardon the misunderstanding

Secondly, it astounds me that in the same breath, so to speak, you mention the fourteen TRILLION dollar deficit overburdening the United States but malign any effort to reach savings to close or otherwise reduce that massive deficit if those savings come from cutting the defense budget

I would argue that one of those very same mistakes you mention from the past made by US lawmakers is creating the kind of conditions to allow the US deficit to reach such monumental size without the forethought to create the means or conditions to reduce that same deficit

Finally, I find it astonishing that large numbers of the US public still have not grasped the paradox of wanting the largest military in the world but wish not to play "world police". I feel that the time of the unipolar world is long past and in the time of growing capability by other states across the world that the burden of world security finally be distributed evenly by those capable of doing so

How could one possibly justify billions upon of billions of dollars spend on defense with such massive debt? If the US were a person they would be thrown into prison for such poor spending and financial planning. Now to be clear, I do not want to get into a (urinating) match over party politics but I do feel that there is nothing wrong with the United States being the largest military in the world, because afterall, someone has to be Number One, but again, by how large a margin should that be and most importantly on who's dime?

 

[NICO]

Can't agree more than what was said by PO2GV.

Politicians always want it both ways, we have to cut spending but please don't touch my favorite program/pork/jobs for my state, be it defense or Medicare or SSecurity. If you are serious about deficit reduction, EVERYTHING should be on the table.

There's a whole bunch of garbage that needs to go: EFV,LCS,cut F35B...Some programs I am not sure, you really need to look into the numbers to see if it's worth it or not. For ex: V22, lot's of people hate it and from what I heard through the grapevine,it's a pig to maintain. Problem we have already started production and entered service in numbers that are increasing, if you kill it now,do you really save a lot? Do you retire all V22s,even the brand news one? Do you keep what you have but then buy a new chopper for Marines? How much do you save in the long run with some V22s still in service and a new chopper? This is a program that you almost have to go along with it. I think it's just to late to kill now.

Also the mind set at the Pentagon needs to change, for ex: do we really need another missile like Joint Common Missile? Why can't we just buy more Hellfires,Mavericks and Javelins? Why spend so much money developing JCM now?

Requirements need to change to face political and economic reality. USN wants/needs to retire it's OHIOs and Tridents. Ok, I can buy that but do we need 12? One, it ain't going to happen because we don't have the money to buy 12, maybe 10, likely 8 in all but are we still facing the Soviet Union or something?

Last but not least, it will turn political and nasty because people are going to start to jockey for positions for the next elections. So any cuts supported by Democrats are going to be seen as weakness. Republicans tend to forget that Dick Cheney probably cut more programs than all Democrat party . Look it up,Cheney cut a ton of stuff, MX,B2,slashed F22 buys, troop levels, funny, he wanted to kill V22 when he was SECDEF but couldn't make it happen. More than likely we will see Republicans now defend Osprey.

SecDef Histories - Richard Cheney

 

[F-15 Eagle]

At one point would it be safe to say the US military would be "large enough" ?

Uh maybe like what they have now? I think the current 1.4 million active duty is barely enough, sure I think it needs to be larger but not at this time, we could get by with 1.4 million active troops and we do but we are stretched thin as it is.

I cannot help but feel that you are insinuating that the Republican party is somehow in the "right" for not wanting to reduce the defense budget by not mentioning them by name with those other forces wishing to cut the size and scope of the military.

I never said the Republican party was "right" on anything, Your right there re some Republicans who want to cut the defense but there are also some Democrats who don't want to cut defense. I did mention the Tea Party but whether they are actually "Republican" really depends on ones personal opinion.

Secondly, it astounds me that in the same breath, so to speak, you mention the fourteen TRILLION dollar deficit overburdening the United States but malign any effort to reach savings to close or otherwise reduce that massive deficit if those savings come from cutting the defense budget

I'm all for reducing the deficit, there are some things in the military that do need to be cut, but you have to be smart and use a scalpel and cut the things that really needs to be cut and reorganize other things, and not just use a meat axe and blindly whack away because one thinks out military is too big. I also think and I know many people will kick and scream when I say this but I think it has to be done is they really need to look at what social programs need to be cut as well, there is a ton of waste in non-military spending that needs to be cut to reduce the deficit.

How could one possibly justify billions upon of billions of dollars spend on defense with such massive debt? , but again, by how large a margin should that be and most importantly on who's dime?

Well how can one possibly justify the billions upon billions we spend on anything in the government with such a massive debt?

Again we should just settle with what we have and not cut our military below current numbers when we could possibly need it down the road.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If you are serious about deficit reduction, EVERYTHING should be on the table.

True but they should only cut what really needs to be cut, and keep/reorganize what they need to replace Cold War era weapons.

There's a whole bunch of garbage that needs to go: EFV,LCS,cut F35B...

EFV: I still don't have an opinion if the EFV is really needed or not, maybe we will have to storm a beach in the future, but then again we might be able to do that with helicopters and LCAC and not need the EFV.

LCS: Again I have mixed feelings about the LCS, on one part we need to for littoral operations such as anti-pirating and what not but on the other hand the funding for the LCS could be better spend on the Navy's new Gerald R. Ford CVNs, more Flight IIA/III DDG-51 destroyers, LHA-6 ampibious assualt ships, Virginia class submarines and the SSBN(X).

F-35B: Now here is where I ask why is the F-35B garbage? Does the USN no longer need STOVL? What is to replace the aging AV-8Bs? If they cancel the F-35B could the USN and USMC get buy with more Super Honet and newer AV-8s?

Also the mind set at the Pentagon needs to change, for ex: do we really need another missile like Joint Common Missile? Why can't we just buy more Hellfires,Mavericks and Javelins? Why spend so much money developing JCM now?

There you have a good point, JCM is waste and needs to go, like I said in my last post, they need to use a scaple not a meat axe and this is a perfict example.

Requirements need to change to face political and economic reality. USN wants/needs to retire it's OHIOs and Tridents. Ok, I can buy that but do we need 12? One, it ain't going to happen because we don't have the money to buy 12, maybe 10, likely 8 in all but are we still facing the Soviet Union or something?

Do we need 12 SSBNs when Russia is only building 8 Bories? Well that depnds on how large a nuclear deterent we need and how we deploy those warheads. If we stick with the new START and keep our 1550 active warheads perhaps its best to deplay them on SSBNs because the sea based leg of the nuclear triad is the most survivable so we need 12. Just my theory.

 

[NICO]

To begin with, one really needs to look at the services. They have become very top heavy management wise, we should retire/streamline command. I read somewhere we have more generals/admirals that during WWII. Then we have to take a serious look at what they do BEST and get rid of the dead wood.

For example: I think we should cancel F35B. I am not even sure Marines need they own little private air force but OK, let's sat they need it, why can't they just buy SHornets like the Navy? But if one is serious about cutting spending, every branch should have to justify something like having your own private air force and if they can't make a good enough case,bye-bye. Same would go with amphibious ops, Marines last hit a beach in anger, like what, INCHON? Maybe a few ops during Vietnam, they were used as decoys in Gulf War I. I hear people say we might need it in the future, that's a very nice capability to want around but is it MUST HAVE? If we do retain some capability to "hit the beach", maybe we should just use choppers and LCACs?

Every service should have to do this,USAF example would be bombers. Do we retain 3 types? and if we need to replace all 3, what have bombers REALLY been used for? USAF might want the latest in speed/stealth but again, haven't USAF bombers really been used more as "bomb trucks"? Are we going to buy a $2 billion bomber to penetrate the best defended airspace in the world and then turn around and use it to drop a SDB on a mud hut?

The NAVY does the same thing by the way, we use $2-3 billion A.Burke class destroyer to go after a bunch of pirates that are in boats that the average American Sunday fisherman wouldn't be caught/seen in. It is a mindset that needs to change,fast. One, we can't afford it anymore and it's a poor use of resources, 1 Burke class has close to more firepower/capability (ABM) than most of Africa put together. It's just stupid. I really liked the initial Streetfighter concept, I remember reading about it in Proceedings but it has morphed into LCS which I don't think is what the USN needs or can afford.

Basically, the USA has arrived to the point (like most countries around the world) where we can't just buy everything we want, we have to start to make choices between nice to have and absolutely need to have.

Finally, once that is done, you can start looking at specific programs and I will reuse the same 2 examples because I think they work the best:

1. Example I used with JCM: Current missiles are just fine, still have potential like new warheads and propellants, no need to retrain, large stocks, in production. Why do you need JCM? How many other system are being replaced or in development that REALLY need to be replaced? Do we really need GCV? If we do need it, why not continue looking at Stryker or Piranha 4/5? What about updated Bradley? If the threat is going to be not much different in the next 20 years, why develop new systems when the current ones are still valid? Generally, we have a tendency to replace perfectly good weapons because well, that's what we do. That's not much of a solution when you are facing massive debt.

2. Example SSBN: eventually you need to replace combat systems. I'm okay with that but do we need numbers like the Cold war is still going on? I would put JSF in that category, do we really need to replace 2000 F16/18 and AV8Bs with 2000 JSFs?

I know some of my ideas will get people mad but we have arrived at the point where business as usual won't cut it anymore. I don't think it's just about what we buy or don't buy but we need to have a in depth look at the services.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]NICO[/FONT]: OK so how many F-35 fighter jets and Arleigh Burke class destroyers should we have/need?

They currently have 185 F-22s, 400 F-15s, 1200 F-16s and 1000 F/A-18 and around 100 AV-8B. Why should they cut from the 2000+ F-35 fleet plans if not only do we need them to fill our current fighter squadrons but other nations 5th generation fighters such as China's J-20 and Russia's PAK-FA T-50 are being built?

And the Navy's 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers will reach their retirement age by 2021 which will need to be replaced by newer Flight III Burkes.

And if they do cancel the F-35B(which is unlikely) they should at the very least buy 400 additional Super Hornets and increase the carrier fleet from 10-11 to something more like 12-13 to make up for it.

This Thursday Gates is expected to announce $100 billion in savings and cuts to some programs such the EFV which is likely to be killed, an Army programs to develop a medium range SAM, as well as to restructure the F-35 by extending testing for the F-35B by 2 years.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Surely 1.4 million is enough as it's not just about pure numbers any more but the quality of the troops in the field and as the US has some of the best armed forces they should more than make up for any lack of numbers.
I'm from the UK and our Military is tiny compared to the US but it's still considered capable as our troops are on a par with US with regards to training and being able to do a job without flooding the field with cannon fodder.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

My hope will be if they are willing (congress as a whole) to cut defence they will look at other areas to cut with the same critical eyes, guys making their 10th deployments to Afghanistan to help rebuild the country and make it safer for the average afghan civilian, they might argue that we are streched a little bit thin but at the moment thats the job. When I was in (way back in 2005) not counting initial training we were at sea for 3 months out of every 8 (ssbn standard crew rotations, 3@ sea, month refit, 3 on shore training while the other crew out, month refit etc.) I can imagine those guys at sea for say 6-14 months on end they would probably agree that that would be streching it alittle thin.

I dont have a problem with say the Marines having their own intergral air support as those guys on the ground really like to look up and be able to see friendly's that can be tasked to take out a hardened building or similar fortification that will absorb alot of punishment and possiably kill alot of personnel.

EFV: nice concept but not really needed at this time, we are not really into the amphibious assult business right now and while it would be a nice capability our guys dont really need it atm.
SSBN(X) : might want to decide what we want on our survivable nuclear deterant before we just go and design and build something arbitrarily.
JCM : I actually havent heard anything on this but I have been out of it for sometime now.
Excessive Officers/top heavy : yeah go ahead and retire most of them make it 30 and out like the enlisted side, finish your last command once you hit 30 for the normal rotation and then time to put you out to pasture, if they are drawing a retirement check then they can still be called back as officers.

I'm not going to pontificate on what else we should cut as that falls outside the realm of purely defence / military topics :argue. I love that this forum tries to leave most politics and fanboyism at the door.

 

[Belesari]

Peter the current amount of troops isnt enough. When 1% of the US population is underarms i find that a problem. Right now we have men who have seen their kids maybe 4 years of the last 10. They keep going back and back and back. There needs to be enough troops to give them a break and time to spend state side.

The US currently stations forces all over the world. Many in combat in Afghanistan and other places and in smaller numbers like in Korea. Smaller being the size of some nations armies. Some of these forces are stationed for treaty purposes some because they bring a balance and make people think twice.

I dont think we need the Bases in Europe anymore. If ya'll cant defend yourself after all this time........ Not to mention many europeans seem to see us at the real enemy anyways.

I think africa is lost. No one is going to do anything there. The stigma of imperialism real or imagined and of being called a racist is simply to strong. Some countries such as france keep there old holding by holding the reins of power behind the screen. The US i think is out.

We could save a massive amount but to really do it right we need more troops.

Consider to really do COIN in iraq we needed to goin with almost half a million troops. We didnt we know how that went.

Its not flooding the field with cannon fodder. Western nations train their troops to were using them as cannon fodder is just insane not to mention western nations are cassualty averse ( i think its more we simply dont like things to cost alot and take along time). You simply must have Alot of troops for COIN. That doesnt mention all the massive legions of support troops.

 

[Belesari]

My hope will be if they are willing (congress as a whole) to cut defence they will look at other areas to cut with the same critical eyes, guys making their 10th deployments to Afghanistan to help rebuild the country and make it safer for the average afghan civilian, they might argue that we are streched a little bit thin but at the moment thats the job. When I was in (way back in 2005) not counting initial training we were at sea for 3 months out of every 8 (ssbn standard crew rotations, 3@ sea, month refit, 3 on shore training while the other crew out, month refit etc.) I can imagine those guys at sea for say 6-14 months on end they would probably agree that that would be streching it alittle thin.

I dont have a problem with say the Marines having their own intergral air support as those guys on the ground really like to look up and be able to see friendly's that can be tasked to take out a hardened building or similar fortification that will absorb alot of punishment and possiably kill alot of personnel.

EFV: nice concept but not really needed at this time, we are not really into the amphibious assult business right now and while it would be a nice capability our guys dont really need it atm.
SSBN(X) : might want to decide what we want on our survivable nuclear deterant before we just go and design and build something arbitrarily.
JCM : I actually havent heard anything on this but I have been out of it for sometime now.
Excessive Officers/top heavy : yeah go ahead and retire most of them make it 30 and out like the enlisted side, finish your last command once you hit 30 for the normal rotation and then time to put you out to pasture, if they are drawing a retirement check then they can still be called back as officers.

I'm not going to pontificate on what else we should cut as that falls outside the realm of purely defence / military topics :argue. I love that this forum tries to leave most politics and fanboyism at the door.

Agree EFV was a good idea in itself but was far to agressive in new technologies. I think the navy needs to ask itself why it cant operate within 50 miles of shore. Find a way. Sorry neither LCS nor DDG-1000 is it.

 

[NICO]

Hopefully we will be able to leave the politics out of it, I agree. I will repeat myself, if we are serious as a nation about cutting our debt, just cutting a program here or there isn't enough. The real money is in SSecurity, Medicare and defense. So it will be painful and the sooner we take our medicine, the better and quicker we will get. Since this is about defense, well, we have to cut not just programs but capabilities. Full scale amphibious ops probably has to go or at least seriously downgraded. That means no EFV. If Marines want their own aviation branch, maybe a 100 SHornets or maybe something like AT6Bs. Navy shouldn't replace CGs, just continue with the Burkes III. NAVY will be lucky to keep 10 carriers, maybe 2 in a reduced state of ops. USAF needs to slash the number of fighters, probably in half. Actually, Rumsfield if I remember looked at something in that range. USAF probably should retire all bombers, maintain minimum amount of Minuteman possible.

I actually believe the faster we get rid of some of these legacy systems the better and faster it will be for our military to re-equip with what we really need. I was in the Army, some of the stuff we had was not first rate. As a nation, I think we did a piss poor job of supporting/equipping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Belesari stated and I will go further, why do we still have some many bases in Europe? Why are we paying for the defense of Europe and Japan? I follow what the Brits are doing (AIRPOWER mag), they have canned Harriers,carriers,cut A400, retire Sentinel,etc......So why does the USA still maintain such a large military? Many bases in continental USA need to go too.

If Asian nations are so scared of China, then why are they all so happy and in a hurry to sign economic trade agreements? I was in China last year when TAIWAN signed a bunch of agreements with mainland China, sure didn't appear to me that Taiwan was scared of impending invasion, it was more like how can we make even more money with trade with China. If they are scared, let them spend their money on their defense, then US can decide we will continue to help/cover you with our military. I think we are being taken for granted that USA will always be there, we need a more balanced and adult relationship with our Asian/European friends.

I am not an economist but I don't think you need to be one to realize that as our debt mounts and our dollar has been weakening for years and will continue to weaken,confidence around the world will decrease, interest rates are bound to go up ONE day, our debt will be to much for us to pay, so we will have to slash maybe half DODs budget, I don't know when this will happen but our politicians on both sides of the aisle keep talking but really aren't doing anything, I am afraid it will only get worst.

Time for me to get of my soap box.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Personal opinions aside the facts are that Gates will reduce military spending by $78 billion over the next 5 years and freeze military spending with no extra money beyond the rate of inflation for for 2015 and 2016.

The US Army will be reduced to 520,000 active troops and the Marines to 187,000(still more than what they had in 2007).

EFV is gone, as in dead in the water. The future of the marines ship to shore capability is up in the air.

F-35B is put on a two year probation to give time for LM to show off the jets reliability.

Pentagon to cut spending by $78 billion, reduce troop strength

Gates Puts Lockheed Marine Corps F-35 on `Probation' - Bloomberg

 

[Waylander]

As if the European bases exist because the small number of combat troops in them defends Europe...

Their sole reason to exist these days is that the US wants to retain their global footprint and these bases and installations are much closer to alot of hotspots than the stateside bases.

As for reducing the Armed Forces of the US, I am with PO2GRV and NICO on this. They brought up some important points apart from "Oh, no. They are scratching my shiny forces."

 

[RubiconNZ]

Gates Reveals Budget Efficiencies, Reinvestment Possibilities

Well here is the start of it with this release
Each service has a more specific article relating to their respective "efficiencies"

The main things of interest to me were:

The large reduction of Flag Ranks, approximately a hundred to go. :whip

The termination of the EFV, disappointing but understandable.

The termination of the Army's SLAMRAAM if the army didn't want it in Oct 2010, then it was going to go

More F-18's plus refurb of 150 more as a stop gap.

F-15's get new radar updates, (AESA I assume) to keep them in the air longer

Early buys of Oilers, Destroyer, LCS and a new Ocean Surveillance Vessel.

From a glance mostly sensible plans really, though as a spectators p.o.v. I suppose.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

It should be noted that even if they do reduce the size of the marines by 15,000-20,000 and the army by 27,000 by 2015, the US military will still be larger than is was in 2006 when Gates first took office by 40,000 troops. We will still have 1.4 million active troops plus another 1 million in reserve and in national guard. So reducing the military by 47,000 does not really mean anything except for billions of dollars in savings to modernize our war fighting capabilities and reducing the deficit. All in all this is good news.

 

[RubiconNZ]

It should be noted that even if they do reduce the size of the marines by 15,000-20,000 and the army by 27,000 by 2015, the US military will still be larger than is was in 2006 when Gates first took office by 40,000 troops. We will still have 1.4 million active troops plus another 1 million in reserve and in national guard. So reducing the military by 47,000 does not really mean anything except for billions of dollars in savings to modernize our war fighting capabilities and reducing the deficit. All in all this is good news.

The biggest challenge will be changes to TRICARE and other veteran services, that most of all must be tackled to retain budget stability, its going to be messy an unpopular but it needs to be done.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

SS, Medicare, Mediaid and interest payments is projected by CBO to form ~65% of govt expenditure by 2020. Defense will take up ~15% (and that's assuming an paltry annual growth of 1.66% per year for 10 years which is likely to be much more). Even if defense budget cuts by a third which won't happen, its only 5% savings so that's chicken feed.

Consider if pay is going to go up by under 1.6% every year for the next 10 years? Won't happen.

Not so sure what "major" defense cuts are going to happen. No one intends to cut taxes, not even for the rich.

Once the debt ceiling is increased, US gross debt will exceed 100% of GDP this year or next (2/3 held by public). The reality is that US is already starting to print $ rather than borrow. Looking on the bright side, there is no limit on how much $ can be printed.

 

[My2Cents]

Expect the budget next year to be the same as last year, and adjust programs to fit.

Then the politicians will insist on changes to benefit their interests. No telling what it will look like after they get done, but it will not grow.

 

[Nemeses2011]

Yeah, did anybody notice Republican lawmakers included funds for 12 F-22's, either that, or part of a continued resolution? I predict the GOP congress will keep the F-22 line going past the 186 F-22's.