Niner National
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,603
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 494
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: |
RE: Obama To Cut Military To Lowest Level Since 1940......
(02-24-2014 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (02-24-2014 02:32 PM)mlb Wrote: This is a long time in coming.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355
![[Image: US-defense-chart.png]](http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2014/02/24/US-defense-chart.png)
This comparison is somewhat misleading.
One, our largest single cost is personnel (about 1/3 of total or more, depending on how much labor burden you include), and there are several countries listed (Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi) where per capita incomes are such that they can provide far more personnel for far less cost. If China or Russia had the same HR cost structure as we do, they would be larger than total expenditure number on personnel costs alone.
Two, not all of those countries have the same missions and objectives. Russia and China probably come closest, but they are still continental land powers. Germany, Italy, France, and UK still structure their military around NATO partnership obligations with the expectations that the US would play big brother in any fight (sort of like we did with Libya). Brazil, India, and Japan are interesting ones. Right now they are focused primarily on self-defense, but all are starting to show some offensive tendencies. Japan has a new class of "destroyers" that are basically small aricraft carriers for helicopters--a long way from the "tin can" concept. Brazil is going to be building nuclear submarines, and has constructed a fairly amazing new facility to build them. India has a new aircraft carrier and is building another.
I'm actually working on peer-reveiwed journal article on the subject of how to get more defense for less cost.
First, the key to me is to do what Israel and Sweden and Switzerland have mastered and maintain a bunch of the strength in reserve components. All three punch way above their weight that way. That's actually what Russia and China do, too, so any worries that it would take time to mobilize reserve forces can be mitigated by the fact that our potential enemies would need time to do the same. So I would bring home most of the troops from Europe and Japan (maybe keep the troops in Korea because of the risk, but come home from everywhere else), and reduce the active force to about 1,000,000 (365,000 Army, 250,000 each Navy and Air Force, 135,000 Marines) in exchange for a 900,000 increase in reserves, giving us a potential end strength of about 2.5 million. That still comes at a savings of $20 billion or so a year, because of the difference in cost between actives and reserves. While you're at it, take about a 15-20% cut to defense constractors and other DOD civilians, saving another $10-20 billion a year.
Second, adopt the Elmo Zumwalt "high-low mix" approach to procurement. It's a waste of money to have Arleigh Burkes doing pirate patrol in the Indian Ocean when something like a Perry frigate could do the job at least as well in a low-threat environment for maybe 1/6 the capital cost. Build some Ford CVA's at $10-12 billion a pop, but buld an equal number of smaller and perhaps more versatile carriers (maybe a hybird CATOBAR/STOBAR/STOVL like the Soviet Ulyanov'sk design) at $4-6 bilion a pop. Don't build (or at least don't build so many) of the frightfully expensive projects like the LCS, the D-1000 Zumwalts, the V-22, the Marines' EFV, the army's next generation fighting vehicle. Buy some NATO off-the-shelf designs rather than spending top dollar to develop everything on the cutting edge of technology--Eurofighter Typhoons, Frech Rafales, or SAAB Grypens, or simply more F/A-18s instead of so many F35s at twice the price; Horizon or FREMM or Spanish F-100 frigates for $1 billlion instead of Burkes for $3 billion; the MEKO CSL or updated Perry/Knox frigates for half the price of the LCS; Spanish/Australian Juan Carlos amphibs for half the price of the new LHA/LHD; British Albions at $800 million instead of the San Antonio class (which are disasters) at $2 billion. It's actually often a tactical advantage to mix some low-tech in with the high-tech. The Brits in the Falklands found that their super high tech AAW Type 42 destroyers had a critical weakness that the Argentines exposed (their radars were designed for use at sea, so they couldn't pick out Argentine aircraft approaching over land from the ground clutter), so they had to send them out with low-tech Type 22 general purpose frigates as escorts to act as "goalkeepers" with their point defense Sea Wolf systems. This approach could probably save another $20 billion a year.
Third, figure out what missions to emphasize and align the forces with the missions. One mission I'd drop totally is limited warfare (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.). If you are going to fight, use overwhelming force. If you're not in to win, don't go in at all. In the long run, overwhelming force from the start saves lives and money. I would take a long look at setting up the Army and Air Force primarily to prosecute conventional wars, and reconfigure the Marines as a commando/special warfare/expeditionary specialty force--kind of a much larger and more capable version of what the Royal Marines have become. Special forces units of the other branches--Green Berets, SEALs, AF Special Operations Forces--would be retained to augment the basic Marine teams when their particular expertise is required. No more "wining their hearts and minds," at least not for the military. Those missions are almost always a waste of time. But if we're going to insist on doing that, let the Peace Corps do it. Let the mlitary focus on warfighting.
I'm still developing ideas, but this is the way I'm thinking.
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for posting. 
|
|
/
Obama To Cut Military To Lowest Level Since 1940......
