US Armed Forces Defense Spending Cuts - List

[MathiasOfAthens]

The trillion-dollar defense budget is being cut in half over the next ten years. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced on Thursday that the Department of Defense will ask for a budget of approximately 525 billion dollars which is about where the budget was before September 11, 2001. Here are a few of the details.

• There is to be an 80,000 troop reduction in the Army by 2017.

• The Marines will shed 20,000 troops.

• The Air Force will retire 24 C-5A cargo planes and 65 of its oldest C-130 cargo aircraft.

• The number of Navy Seal Teams will increase around the world. (And we all know what the Seals can do.)

• The number of drones will increase by 30%.

•The Navy will retire seven cruisers, while keeping its fleet of 11 aircraft carriers.

• The purchase of the new Virginia-class submarines will be delayed.

• The Navy, Air Force, And Marines will slow down their purchases of F-35 stealth fighter jets.

• The Pentagon is shifting their focus from Afghanistan and Iraq to counter other potential threats in the world and to cyber-attacks.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...-defense-cuts/

I agree with these cuts but since the proposals have to be sent to congress how much of a chance is there that the Repubs will make these cuts?

[PointOfViewGun]

The only thing I don't like about it is the delay on F-35 jets project. Too many partners put in too much money on it.

Though the Congress won't accept it.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The only thing I don't like about it is the delay on F-35 jets project. Too many partners put in too much money on it.

Though the Congress won't accept it.

I see you're worried about the Turkish Air Force receiving their first F-35s after 2015...

Anyway, the fact that the Navy Seal teams will increase shows that the USA aim towards a well trained rapid reaction force and that's not a bad thing. Numbers do not always make the difference.

[PointOfViewGun]

I see you're worried about the Turkish Air Force receiving their first F-35s after 2015...

No, you don't because I didn't say that. This post of yours shows your blind nationalist bias though. This thread is not the place for that.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

No, you don't because I didn't say that. This post of yours shows your blind nationalist bias though. This thread is not the place for that.

Why this sort of attack? It's understandable to worry about your country not getting what it paid for.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why this sort of attack? It's understandable to worry about your country not getting what it paid for.

The issue is not to have jet fighters as quickly as possible but not to make already spent billions of dollars wasted.

[Condottiere 40K]

The F-35 programme should be wound down, not delayed, and the funds allocated to future fighter R&D and purchasing off-the-shelf aircraft.

[PointOfViewGun]

The F-35 programme should be wound down, not delayed, and the funds allocated to future fighter R&D and purchasing off-the-shelf aircraft.

The F-35 is the future fighter R&D...

[Dr Zoidberg]

The F-35 programme should be wound down, not delayed, and the funds allocated to future fighter R&D and purchasing off-the-shelf aircraft.

What off-the-shelf aircraft?

[Condottiere 40K]

I think that's what's described as a pig in a poke, whose death spiral has already been initiated.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think that's what's described as a pig in a poke, whose death spiral has already been initiated.

Why?

[Condottiere 40K]

Development hell - you're asking too much of an untried airframe.

I find the modularity concept attractive, but they should have just concentrated on making it great in one thing, secondarily compromising between cost and capability in stealth, and then tried reconfiguring it for other roles.

[Nietzsche]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...-defense-cuts/

I agree with these cuts but since the proposals have to be sent to congress how much of a chance is there that the Repubs will make these cuts?

Out of curiosity, how much strategic understanding of the military do you actually have? I get the strong feeling you "agree" with the cuts on monetary figures alone.

A great deal more would be saved withdrawing from Iraq/Afghanistan and a larger draw down of our military presence worldwide. When it comes to military cuts, why is the closing of bases never discussed?

[Heinz Guderian]

You dont need 11 carriers. 3. Maybe 4 tops. 4 carriers alone have a more potent air deterrence than the whole of Western Europe.

[Phier]

You dont need 11 carriers. 3. Maybe 4 tops. 4 carriers alone have a more potent air deterrence than the whole of Western Europe.

One missle = 1/2 your air power gone in a theater. No thanks.

[Caelius]

You dont need 11 carriers. 3. Maybe 4 tops. 4 carriers alone have a more potent air deterrence than the whole of Western Europe.

2 in Pacific and 2 in Atlantic. Sounds good.

To re-iterate what Condottiere and Imperial have already said, you guys (like Mathias) need to understand what those reductions would actually entail.

There are usually only 3-4 carrier groups that are active at any one time. The rest are either in the process of standing down for routine maintenance & overalls, or training for their next deployment. With US naval priorities in the Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean/Persian Gulf, and other locations....well the demand for a constant number of active carriers goes up....

One missle = 1/2 your air power gone in a theater. No thanks.

Actually it takes a lot more than one missile to sink an aircraft carrier. Maybe one could neutralize flight ops for awhile, but it wouldn't sink the ship.

Case in point:

Here's the USS Enterprise alight after an accidental bomb detonation caused a chain reaction of multiple explosions as ordinance cooked off while on a training mission in 1969.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A very similar incident occurred on the USS Forrestal in 1967 as well.

[Phier]

T
Actually it takes a lot more than one missile to sink an aircraft carrier. Maybe one could neutralize flight ops for awhile, but it wouldn't sink the ship.

The issue with accidents is they happen where you would expect them too, the flight deck or even the ordnance storage areas. The flight deck is designed to be able to handle a crash landing, so a bomb on the surface would not penetrate with an accidental detonation. A anti-ship missile would be near the water line, penetrate into the ship, then explode where its not expected. Of course the whole ship was designed with that possibility in mind but the damage would be far worse than an explosion on deck. Even if the ship wasn't sunk, it could be out of commission for an extended period of time.

As long as naval power is important, and it will be until orbital weapons platforms are the rage, you can't really have 'too big' a navy. We have countries like the UK who fret over if they could defend some islands from a South American nation due to a lack of naval power. I was in Ireland during the first Falklands war and they had a hard enough time then.

But isn't increasing taxes risky also? I think there is going to have to be some give somewhere, I just don't know which aspect.

The biggest employer in the US is the Federal govt, lets cut some pork there

[motiv-8]

The issue with accidents is they happen where you would expect them too, the flight deck or even the ordnance storage areas. The flight deck is designed to be able to handle a crash landing, so a bomb on the surface would not penetrate with an accidental detonation. A anti-ship missile would be near the water line, penetrate into the ship, then explode where its not expected. Of course the whole ship was designed with that possibility in mind but the damage would be far worse than an explosion on deck. Even if the ship wasn't sunk, it could be out of commission for an extended period of time.

Phalanx system and other point defense systems take care of this. Check out YouTube for examples of how they work.

Also, it's a hell of a task to even get close enough to a carrier to lock a weapon system on it, to actually succeed would be quite an achievement that I'm not sure any navy is up to at present.

As long as naval power is important, and it will be until orbital weapons platforms are the rage, you can't really have 'too big' a navy. We have countries like the UK who fret over if they could defend some islands from a South American nation due to a lack of naval power. I was in Ireland during the first Falklands war and they had a hard enough time then.

They really didn't. The difficulty the British had during the Falklands conflict was with logistics, not power, and part of the problem was that their greatest ally, America, didn't lift a finger to help. Once they got going, Argentina didn't stand a chance.

The biggest employer in the US is the Federal govt, lets cut some pork there

Yes, great idea under current conditions. Let's cut some "pork" and put even more unemployed workers out there.

You're absolutely right. The government has never used resources to protect the private interests of lobbyists and big business under the guise of security.

What does this even have to do with your original statement regarding the "entertainment industry", or the current cuts in the DoD right now?

[sumskilz]

You dont need 11 carriers. 3. Maybe 4 tops. 4 carriers alone have a more potent air deterrence than the whole of Western Europe.

Hmm... that's exactly the kind of talk I'd expect out of someone from a severely carrier deficient nation.

[Caelius]

The issue with accidents is they happen where you would expect them too, the flight deck or even the ordnance storage areas.

Uh....it's actually the opposite.

The 1967 Forrestal fire for instance was an absolute worst case scenario for an accident aboard a warship, and at one point nearly led had the Captain give the abandon ship order. As a result the USN has had fire fighting and emergency response protocols in place for exactly the kind of unexpected major catastrophe situations that could arise during carrier operations.

Both the Forrestal and Enterprise incidents (along with a few others) were taken so seriously that even today a Carrier skipper can get relieved of command for even minor accidents if their superiors don't think they marshaled the crew efficiently enough.

The flight deck is designed to be able to handle a crash landing, so a bomb on the surface would not penetrate with an accidental detonation.

We're not talking about just one bomb though, but multiples, each creating and adding to a shipborne inferno burning at thousands of degrees, and more than hot enough to melt through armored steel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A anti-ship missile would be near the water line, penetrate into the ship, then explode where its not expected. Of course the whole ship was designed with that possibility in mind but the damage would be far worse than an explosion on deck.

On the contrary i'd say that protection from anti-ship missiles along the waterline armor belt is probably more anticipated in most contemporary carrier designs today than expecting major damage to occur on the flight deck itself.

Even if the ship wasn't sunk, it could be out of commission for an extended period of time.

The aircraft carrier didn't displace the Battleship as the King of the high seas simply because they have greater striking power. They are incredibly durable too, as long as the ship can stay afloat and flight ops aren't compromised most carriers could probably remain on station for an extended period of time before being relieved and going for repairs. All of which would depend on the nature of the damage in the first place of course.

They really didn't. The difficulty the British had during the Falklands conflict was with logistics, not power, and part of the problem was that their greatest ally, America, didn't lift a finger to help.

Ugh....why do people still go with the ridiculously misinformed version of history in which the US "turned its back" on the UK?

Why does the satellite intelligence the US provided the Royal Navy planners, along with brand new AIM-9Ls (which somehow "slipped" out of the NATO war stock even though the Falklands conflict wasn't under the jurisdiction of Article V) never get any kind of recognition? To say the least of the efforts the US went to walk a fine line with other S. American states while backing the British?