Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Save the US Navy - write your politicians via this link
JohnD
Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
Here's something the EB president asked us to all join and
send out letters for :)
[url]http://www.seapowerambassador.org/actioncenter/[/url]
The web site is correct, though. The US Navy is in some serious
trouble and a likelihood of being far too small to perform its
mandated job very soon. The numbers appear to be correct, too.
send out letters for :)
[url]http://www.seapowerambassador.org/actioncenter/[/url]
The web site is correct, though. The US Navy is in some serious
trouble and a likelihood of being far too small to perform its
mandated job very soon. The numbers appear to be correct, too.
Comments
Okay though seriously a large fleet means we can use overwhelming force to crush our enemies. We probably still have th biggest fleet in the world, but our huge fleet minimized our casualties because it lessens the chance that any enemy would want to cross us and if they did they'd loose handily. Better over-prepared then under-prepared
[B]Yep, they just rolled those ships right on up to Bagdhad on logs. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ummm.... i'm talking about the aircraft Carries that luanched plans at Iraq, and the other ships that fired Cruise Missals at Iraq
[B]Logs! Yes that is why Iraq is a desert. Okay though seriously a large fleet means we can use overwhelming force to crush our enemies. We probably still have th biggest fleet in the world, but our huge fleet minimized our casualties because it lessens the chance that any enemy would want to cross us and if they did they'd loose handily. Better over-prepared then under-prepared [/B][/QUOTE]
The problem is our military is severely undermanned, undersupplied, undertrained and underequipped to perform the mandated duties. We can't fully man our ships, Army divisions, can't fully train our soldiers and don't have enough ships, aircraft, or weapons (especially cruise missiles) to do the job. Just look at how thinly stretched we are as a result of Iraq. If one medium to large conflict popped up, we'd be unable to get the job done.
I know a former member of the USMC. Because the USMC are too small for their mandated job, he was on deployment far more than you'd care to think.
We don't have enough soldiers in the Army even to fight a 3rd rate power like Iraq without the government reneging on their promise to rotate troops out of Iraq after so much time there. We went in with fewer troops than the military thought were needed and even then, had to tap the National Guard more than ever before, including the Ready Reserve, which I don't believe has happened before in recent history.
We don't have enough warships to fulfill our responsibilities and their mandated role without delaying return to American ports and forcing our sailors to stay at sea far longer than was ever planned. This only results in lower retention rates as we're putting a heavier and heavier load on fewer and fewer men and women in our military. Our submarine force is in a more severe spot than the surface warships, with the Administration wanting to cut the sub force by 1/3. Even as it is, without that 1/3 cut, our sub forces are being stretched far too thin.
Our military air and sealift capabilities are far lower than is necessary to transport troops and equipment to battlefields.
Our combat planes are increasingly falling behind the curve. Our F-15s could be facing more modern and effective Rafales, Eurofighters, Su-27 and MiG-29 based variants, Chinese next generation fighters designed and based on the Israeli Lavi (thanks to info and assistance offered to China by Israel), and
so on. With the Comanche program cancelled and the F-22
and Joint Strike Fighter planned in numbers far lower than we
will need to replace dated aircraft, we won't be in a good spot.
Our approach during the Cold War was to face Warsaw Pact
numbers with our higher tech. When we don't have the tech
advantage, what advantage will we have when faced by
higher numbers in a future opponent?
Contrary to the uninformed tripe parroted back from some manifesto and published somewhere earlier on in this thread, I'm actually basing this from first-hand experience and observation as someone helping design the next generation of platforms. The future won't be pretty if we continue at the current low rate of production.
[B]Being over-prepared has its own dangers. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not advocating being overprepared. I'm advocating having a large enough, well enough supplied and trained military to perform its mandated role. These days, we don't have that.
Simmonds: you missed my point, I think. Go read JohnD's post 2 posts up. Just because the US is spending a huge amount on military, that doesn't mean it's all going where it should. The navy doesn't make up all of the US military.
[B]And we can all thank Clinton for the reduced military... [/B][/QUOTE]
Clinton composed all of Congress during his administration?
Clinton was the power behind George H. W. Bush (the first Bush as President), under whose administration the downsizing began (again, thanks to the legislative branch)?
Clinton has little to do with our current insufficient military.
BTW, the Virginia Class contract was awarded in 1998. Who was President then?
The CVNX contract was also awarded while Clinton was President.
[B]Yeah I know, I was just pointing out that fact to Norlion.
Simmonds: you missed my point, I think. Go read JohnD's post 2 posts up. Just because the US is spending a huge amount on military, that doesn't mean it's all going where it should. The navy doesn't make up all of the US military. [/B][/QUOTE]
The U.S. is spending far too little on the military, too. Hell, I believe we've come dangerously close to running out of useful cruise missiles both during the Kosovo campaign and the recent war in Iraq.
Being undermanned, undertrained, unersupplied and not having enough weapon platforms tends to drive more people out of the military, which only feeds a dangerous cycle.
Let me pull up my information and update it. I was involved in a debate about the same subject not too long ago. ;)
for perspective
We're buying recycled Abrams tanks from you guys to replace Leopard Ones, not Twos, ONES.
We're still flying Aardvarks, (when they manage to stay in the air when we want them to).
We're buying the cheap ass, under equipped JSF in very small numbers.
We've got 5 conventional submarines entering service, and even those bled our naval finances dry, were struggling to buy another couple destroyers and frigates.
We've got thousands upon thousands of milles of coastline to protect, thousands of square miles of dirt to protect. Thankfully the tyranny of distance is to our favour this time.
We dont have a nuclear deterrent.
We have about six missiles to share across our whole defence force.
Lets face it, the worlds military is declining.
We're too dependent on super expensive, high tech systems which we can niether maintain nor sustain for too much longer. Even 'brushfire' wars are obscenely expensive, even if you remove the costs of ordinance and personel, the fuel budget alone for all those fuel whore turbines in both aircraft and the Abrams is crippling.
Einstein put it rather well, even if he was talking more about Nukes than conventional weapons :
[I]I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with but I do know that World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones. [/I]
The most expensive luxury in the world is the second best military.
There has to be a big shift somewhere or military systems are going to implode. I don't think throwing more money at it will fix it.
[url]http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf[/url]
As you can see during the years President Bush (senior) was in office, our military was being reduced because the Cold War thawing out. Below you will find the total force reduction in each branch of service from 1988 to 1992:
Army: 161,397
Navy: 50,684
Marine Corps: 12,821
Air Force: 106, 131
After Operation Desert Storm the bulk of the Reserve and National Guard forces were deactivated which causes the above statistics to be slightly off. However, I was unable to find any statistics on these forces on the DoD web site.
Now, President Clinton took office in 1993. Here's the total force reductions from 1993 to 2001 when he was in office:
Army: 91,622
Navy: 132,140
Marine Corps: 5,445
Air Force: 90,780
As you can see the Navy took the largest hit overall with Army and Air Force right behind it during the Clinton Administration. Frankly, our forces were already small enough, but apparently Clinton didn't believe in that. =) So, a few dozen base closings later we arrive at our 2001 statistics.
Only after President Bush (junior) took office did our armed forces increase for the first time in over a decade. Unfortunately, the DoD's stats are only current to 2002. The 2003 statistics have not been released.
I'm still looking for the rest of the Navy information. To top it all off, our Navy's web site ([url]www.navy.mil[/url]) is just about THE WORSE government web site I've ever seen. Pretty bad for the most powerful fleet in the world. :)
[B]We have 3 frigates and a troop transport. [/B][/QUOTE]
The canadian navy has 12 Frigates, 4 destroyers, 12 Patrol ships and 4 Submarines and 2 supply ships. The frigates are to serve around 50 years in active service with refits.(They will be decomissioned around 2040), The Destroyers will be decomissioned around 2010 after 40 years of service.
During the late 1980's the Canadian Navy was in very bad shape, most of the ships where out of date, and very crapy. During the early 1990s the goverment spent around 7 billion Building and refiting ships.
Now its the Army that its some what out dated. Now they are Replacing the Leopard C1's with MGS Tanks, But arnt Replacing the Leapard C2.. Now the are talking about Finaly replacing the Sea Kings...
Probaly next decade its going to be the Air Force that going to be out dated.
The Candian armed forces is realy under-funded even more then the US Military is. But still seems to preform very well despite this.
I was going to metion that I think the problem with the US Military is that it could be mispending alot of its money, and not puting the money where it needs to be like Biggles said. Also If I remember correcty the US Navy is Decomissioning Ships ever 10 years and Building new ones and so on, I would try to build ships that would last a few decades with refits;)
[B]for perspective We're buying recycled Abrams tanks from you guys to replace Leopard Ones, not Twos, ONES. We're still flying Aardvarks, (when they manage to stay in the air when we want them to). We're buying the cheap ass, under equipped JSF in very small numbers.[/quote][/b]
Australia also doesn't have as much of a population or the world responsibilities of the U.S.. Not being a superpower does have its benefits, eh?
[QUOTE][B]We've got 5 conventional submarines entering service, and even those bled our naval finances dry, were struggling to buy another couple destroyers and frigates.[/quote][/b]
A certain company (the one for which I work) is also in Australia performing some work on the Collins Class subs too, if I remember correctly. They will be nice little boats when this joint project has been completed, though.
[QUOTE][B]We got thousands upon thousands of milles of coastline to protect, thousands of square miles of dirt to protect. Thankfully the tyranny of distance is to our favour this time. We dont have a nuclear deterrent. We have about six missiles to share across our whole defence force.[/quote][/b]
Luckily, Australia probably doesn't need a nuclear deterrent. It would be nice if there were more than six missiles to help defend the country, though.
[QUOTE][B]Lets face it, the worlds military is declining. We're too dependent on super expensive, high tech systems which we can niether maintain nor sustain for too much longer. Even 'brushfire' wars are obscenely expensive, even if you remove the costs of ordinance and personel, the fuel budget alone for all those fuel whore turbines in both aircraft and the Abrams is crippling.[/quote][/b]
It doesn't have to be and shouldn't have to be that way, though. BTW, the turbine on the M1 tank has certain advantages, too :)
[B]I was going to metion that I think the problem with the US Military is that it could be mispending alot of its money, and not puting the money where it needs to be like Biggles said. Also If I remember correcty the US Navy is Decomissioning Ships ever 10 years and Building new ones and so on, I would try to build ships that would last a few decades with refits;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Poor spending choices are part of the problem, yes. The other problem is the US defense budget has been cut far too much, ever since Ronald Reagan. He's the last Republican President of which I was a fan...at least with his foreign policy.
BTW, US ships are designed for considerably longer than a 10 year lifetime. Hell - their midlife refit is after considerably longer than 10 years.
The Defense Department decided to retire all non-VLS equipped warships, though. That web site is correct in that the number of retired ships far outstrips the build rate for new ships. Politicians haven't remembered lessons learned when the draw-down and cuts after WWI left us unprepared for WWII.
[B]btw I'm not denying a topflight military is a good thing. What I'm saying is something has got to give. We just can't keep spending like we do when it comes to the military.[/B][/QUOTE]
Sure we can. We just can't keep allowing tax cuts for the rich to be enacted.
BTW, I'm also worried about replacing some of the heavier units with light Stryker battalions. That's a cluster-f waiting to happen.
[B]As you can see the Navy took the largest hit overall with Army and Air Force right behind it during the Clinton Administration. Frankly, our forces were already small enough, but apparently Clinton didn't believe in that. =) So, a few dozen base closings later we arrive at our 2001 statistics.[/QUOTE][/B]
Just as Bush the First wasn't responsible for the military cuts (the legislative branch was), neither was Clinton.
[QUOTE][B]Only after President Bush (junior) took office did our armed forces increase for the first time in over a decade. Unfortunately, the DoD's stats are only current to 2002. The 2003 statistics have not been released.[/QUOTE][/B]
It certainly doesn't feel like our armed forces are where they need to be, in terms of funding, manning, supply, and number of platforms. If they were, we wouldn't be drawing so heavily upon the National Guard and Ready Reserve, and wouldn't be postponing rotations back home.
[QUOTE][B]I'm still looking for the rest of the Navy information. To top it all off, our Navy's web site ([url]www.navy.mil[/url]) is just about THE WORSE government web site I've ever seen. Pretty bad for the most powerful fleet in the world. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. That's why I go directly to the source when I need any info for work. :)
[B]We need to increase pay to encourage more good men and women to join up. Okay I am biased as a Finance Staff Sergeant in the US Army, but I think we need to offer incentive for soldiers who they be more encouraged to get involved in pressing for better weapon systems from Congress. The Super-soldier stuff with the HUD displays in the helmets, rifles that see around corner and sound detection equipment that shows where the enemy is firing from is astonding. The phalanx mini-guns they want to put on tanks are really cool. I agree we need more funding for weapon systems, advanced equipment production and soldier salaries. The questions is were is all the money going now and is it being used effectiently. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. If we don't start treating our military members better, especially the NCOs with experience (Chiefs, Sergeants, etc.), we're going to be in some NASTY stuff, hip-deep. Treating the soldiers the way we have been...tends not to result in high retention rates, eh?
That USMC example I mentioned. Over a one year (12 month) period, he was on deployment for 9-10 months. He was a Sergeant in a support unit.
There was supposed to be another round of base closings coming up, but I believe Bush delayed them.
[B]Erm... that's Robert [i]A[/i]. Heinlein. [i]Expanded Universe[/i], if I'm not mistaken, or at least something republished there. [/B][/QUOTE]
Doh! Arthur [i]C.[/i] Clarke, Robert [i]A.[/i] Heinlein, how right you are. :o