NYT interactive military budget cutter

[Zinegata]

*facepalm*

Did they ever consider that helicopters and tilt-rotors cannot land vehicles necessary for modern combat?

(Not to mention the CBO already said they won't be cheaper unless nuke-powered?)

[Chirios]

4) Is there any possibility of integrating the US military with foreign militaries in the vein of the UK? For example, could the US for all future missions involving the Mediterranean (i.e North Africa), procure an agreement with the EU for military assistance? Or is this completely stupid?

Because this is America that's crazy stupid. We treat even the Canadian military like shit and they are all intents and purposes our smarter colder cousins. The idea of simply running joint exercises with anyone but Britian gets opposition so trying to intergrate "colonial" forces into the American umbrella is crazy from our prospective. Besides our foreign forces are the Canada, the UK and South Korea on our short list of countries that follow us into any war.

It's good to have an answer to these kinds questions. I'm considering joining the UK Royal Marines so it's interesting to here from people already serving.

Again, out of curiosity, do people feel that Europe, as the worlds' largest economy doesn't pull it's weight militarily in international affairs? For example, in cases involving the Middle East or Southern Asia?

[Block]

*facepalm*

Did they ever consider that helicopters and tilt-rotors cannot land vehicles necessary for modern combat?

Sure they can. Everything but MBTs that're in the Marines TO&E is air mobile.

[Block]

Again, out of curiosity, do people feel that Europe, as the worlds' largest economy doesn't pull it's weight militarily in international affairs? For example, in cases involving the Middle East or Southern Asia?

People in the US? Yes. There's a sentiment that whenever Europe gets in trouble they come to us for help, and that NATO and most UN peacekeeping missions don't function without us.

[Zinegata]

*facepalm*

Did they ever consider that helicopters and tilt-rotors cannot land vehicles necessary for modern combat?

Sure they can. Everything but MBTs that're in the Marines TO&E is air mobile.

Can they do it in the numbers necesssary to support modern combat operations of an entire MEF though? Because while you can air-transport individual vehicles, doing it in mass numbers is not exactly ideal.

[Lonestar]

Again, out of curiosity, do people feel that Europe, as the worlds' largest economy doesn't pull it's weight militarily in international affairs? For example, in cases involving the Middle East or Southern Asia?

Europe doesn't. The Europeans couldn't even fight a low-intensity war(libya) without the US kicking in the door and providing most of the ISR assets. And then they ran out of guided munitions, forcing them to raid the stocks of non participating countries(like Germany...what are the odds that those stocks are going to refilled?).


It would be like if Venezuela went to shit and the US couldn't do anything about it unless the French Navy and RN did the hard(expensive) work of taking out the air defenses first. Europe can't get a handle on stuff that occurs in their own neighborhood without running to the US, and then wonder why Americans sneer at them.

Because they were going to be better, cheaper carriers with the whiz-bang new F-35, giving amphib groups a huge punch while still being able to land troops via chopper or tiltrotor.

....That isn't why. It's because in order to more easily accomadate V-22s and F-35s(both larger than their replacements) they needed more hanger space. Heavy vehicles tend to be on the LPD and LSD in the ESG anyway, not on the LHDs.

[Zinegata]

....That isn't why. It's because in order to more easily accomadate V-22s and F-35s(both larger than their replacements) they needed more hanger space. Heavy vehicles tend to be on the LPD and LSD in the ESG anyway, not on the LHDs.

Ok, that sounds more reasonable.

[ChaserGrey]

Europe doesn't. The Europeans couldn't even fight a low-intensity war(libya) without the US kicking in the door and providing most of the ISR assets. And then they ran out of guided munitions, forcing them to raid the stocks of non participating countries(like Germany...what are the odds that those stocks are going to refilled?).

It would be like if Venezuela went to shit and the US couldn't do anything about it unless the French Navy and RN did the hard(expensive) work of taking out the air defenses first. Europe can't get a handle on stuff that occurs in their own neighborhood without running to the US, and then wonder why Americans sneer at them.

It grows especially tiresome when being sneered at concerning the superior European social state. Frankly, I've long been of the opinion that we should pull about a third of the troops out of Europe and let the Europeans discover what it's like to have to defend themselves...but with Europe's finances in their current state that could cause a lot of trouble just to be able to say I told you so.

....That isn't why. It's because in order to more easily accomadate V-22s and F-35s(both larger than their replacements) they needed more hanger space. Heavy vehicles tend to be on the LPD and LSD in the ESG anyway, not on the LHDs.

Okay, let me be more precise. The America class was designed around the F-35, and to a lesser extent the V-22. Now that the F-35 is running into more and more problems, it's looking like they might not be such a good buy versus more Wasp class ships, which can also operate choppers (though not as many), have a well deck (which makes them more flexible) and cost about $750 million a copy versus a projected $3.4 billion for the America class. With the F-35B running into trouble the LHA-6 class is looking like not much bang for a whole lot of bucks.

[Lonestar]

Okay, let me be more precise. The America class was designed around the F-35, and to a lesser extent the V-22. Now that the F-35 is running into more and more problems, it's looking like they might not be such a good buy versus more Wasp class ships, which can also operate choppers (though not as many), have a well deck (which makes them more flexible) and cost about $750 million a copy versus a projected $3.4 billion for the America class. With the F-35B running into trouble the LHA-6 class is looking like not much bang for a whole lot of bucks.

Okay, and if the America class *wasn't* bought and we just kept on making Wasps(and by the way, the Makin Island cleared over a billion dollars, thanks in part for it having gas turbines, so don't act like it's super-duper cheaper to keep up with LHDs) then we would have been hard pressed to put the same # of F-35s as Harriers on LHDs. Buying the America class makes sense in this context. To put it bluntly, it's fucking retarded to not order supporting systems for a weapons system that is going to be the anchor of USMC fixed wing aviation.

[Lonestar]

- There are already a ton of successful corvette designs in the world that we could have had customized, designs that already existed and would not have cost nearly as much. Check out the Swedish Visby class corvette- very nice, very stealthy, .

BWAHAHAHAHAH


No.

and costs around a third as much as an LCS.

And still potentially isn't as capable. Can't have a air det on it for one.

[ChaserGrey]

I dunno about you, but even a billion a copy seems pretty dramatically cheaper than $3.4 billion a copy. And my point is that the F-35B is still running into a lot of trouble meeting weight targets, which is delaying and driving up the cost of the other versions as well. If the -35B *doesn't* end up being the "anchor of USMC fixed-wing aviation", the Americas start looking worse all the time.

Ideal? No. But the cuts are going to have to come from somewhere, and I'm not sure the Marines need a class of baby carriers for a jet that still might not work.

[Zinegata]

Okay, and if the America class *wasn't* bought and we just kept on making Wasps(and by the way, the Makin Island cleared over a billion dollars, thanks in part for it having gas turbines, so don't act like it's super-duper cheaper to keep up with LHDs) then we would have been hard pressed to put the same # of F-35s as Harriers on LHDs. Buying the America class makes sense in this context. To put it bluntly, it's fucking retarded to not order supporting systems for a weapons system that is going to be the anchor of USMC fixed wing aviation.

The greater overlap seems to be between America and the full-deck carriers if the issue is cramming in more F-35s.

I don't really see the Marines doing an invasion without a carrier backing them up.

[ChaserGrey]

BWAHAHAHAHAH


No.

Care to expand on that? Like, giving actual reasons for your disagreement besides saying "No"?

And still potentially isn't as capable. Can't have a air det on it for one.

Yep. And an LCS isn't nearly as capable as an Arleigh Burke, yet manages to cost about 75% as much as one. LCS is too expensive to buy in sufficient numbers to replace the Perrys, so what's the point of the program? If we're going to go with a lot of cheap platforms, we should at least manage the program like we mean it.

[Simon_Jester]

Well I think scaling back forward deployments would be a good compromise, compared to eliminating it entirely. OTOH they're based in another country, so from my point of view I would wonder whether the host country enjoys the arrangement or wishes it changed. So long as things are mutual then I have little problem with it.

I have not recently heard of Britain or Germany trying to get US troops out of their country. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened; sometimes I miss things.

And yes I know that punishing stuff that goes over budget can result in unintended consequences. On the other hand, stuff like Constellation and Space Telescopes and such the like is more important to me than a couple hundred overhyped strike fighters, whose ONLY utility is dropping bombs on people. Sure it would be nice to have the JSF but it would be even nicer if they didn't have so many problems with making the system work.

Stofsk, the Joint Strike Fighter is slated to replace the entire damned air force, less the big multi-engine bombers. It's not just a couple hundred, it's what's supposed to replace everything currently on the market. A lot of the latest generation of weapons have been designed to work with its systems, too- kill the F-35 fighter and you kill a lot of the smart munitions and sensors and so on that were designed for it.

So basically, kill the F-35 and the great bulk of the US Air Force will be permanently stuck in the 1990s, for most practical purposes, until they develop the next advanced fighter design some time in the 2030s or 2040s. And I'm sure that design won't have any problems with design complications, or going over budget, or anything like that, because we all know that normally complicated aerospace projects are completed on time and on budget without complaining, dammit!

And of course, we're still left with the "wings fall off" problem as the fighter airframes the F-35 was supposed to replace get into their third, fourth, and fifth decades. We can physically replace the planes with versions of the F-15, F-16, and F-18 still on the market... at a large fraction of the cost of buying the damn F-35s in the first place, which eats most of the savings from canceling the program after sinking a ton of costs on it.

Killing the F-35 five or eight years ago might have saved enough money to justify the cost of doing it. Now, it would just be a way of pissing away the money we spent developing it and utterly fucking over the US Air Force. It's not your air force, so you don't have to care about that... well, actually the RAAF will be Not Happy about not having any F-35s to buy, as will many other countries around the world. They were counting on it too.

Honestly, cancelling the F-35 at this stage of development would just massively fuck over every air force in the world that wasn't planning to buy Russian, Chinese, or maybe Eurofighter.

At least warships will have more than one type of mission, and I agree with the guy who said that cancelling the amphibs is a bad idea. Having ships like that is a good thing, having ships like the LCS? Yeah, fuck that piece of shit.

LCS is a piece of shit, the submarines and AEGIS cruisers aren't.

[Lonestar]

Care to expand on that? Like, giving actual reasons for your disagreement besides saying "No"?

Sure. I had a buddy on a CG out of Norfolk that did BALTOPS in '05. They tracked the Visby just fine with the Spook 9. This was with Carter-era shit.

Yep. And an LCS isn't nearly as capable as an Arleigh Burke, yet manages to cost about 75% as much as one.

Incorrect. The most recent Burkes come in at over $1.2bil a head and the Flight IIIs are likely to cost more than the Zumwalts(over $2b a unit). The First two LCS hulls, one of each class, still came in at under $500mil for the flyaway cost, even if they weren't the $250mil initially promised.

LCS is too expensive to buy in sufficient numbers to replace the Perrys, so what's the point of the program? If we're going to go with a lot of cheap platforms, we should at least manage the program like we mean it.

...The LCS isn't a Perry replacement, you nincompoop. It isn't a convoy escort.

I dunno about you, but even a billion a copy seems pretty dramatically cheaper than $3.4 billion a copy. And my point is that the F-35B is still running into a lot of trouble meeting weight targets, which is delaying and driving up the cost of the other versions as well. If the -35B *doesn't* end up being the "anchor of USMC fixed-wing aviation", the Americas start looking worse all the time.

Ideal? No. But the cuts are going to have to come from somewhere, and I'm not sure the Marines need a class of baby carriers for a jet that still might not work.

I love this logic.

"The F-35B might not work so we should not build the next big deck to more easily accomadate them."

which will no doubt be followed by:

"Now we don't really have anything to fly them off of, so why do we have them?"

The greater overlap seems to be between America and the full-deck carriers if the issue is cramming in more F-35s.

I don't really see the Marines doing an invasion without a carrier backing them up.

Actually, that is the expectation. It's why we've moved away from the CVBG and into seperate strike groups. So the expeditionary strike group(3 amphibs + 3 escorts) deploys seperately from the carrier strike group(1 carrier, 3 escorts). The Marines won't be doing difficult opposed landing without a carrier, but then they aren't going to be trying to hit the beach against the Iranians with just one ESG anyway.

It's worth pointing out that the only fixed wing avation that was flown off a USN ship during the Libya campaign were harriers from a LHD.

[Zinegata]

Actually, that is the expectation. It's why we've moved away from the CVBG and into seperate strike groups. So the expeditionary strike group(3 amphibs + 3 escorts) deploys seperately from the carrier strike group(1 carrier, 3 escorts). The Marines won't be doing difficult opposed landing without a carrier, but then they aren't going to be trying to hit the beach against the Iranians with just one ESG anyway.

It's worth pointing out that the only fixed wing avation that was flown off a USN ship during the Libya campaign were harriers from a LHD.

Can we cut down a carrier or two then?

[Lonestar]

Can we cut down a carrier or two then?

I actually would be perfectly okay with that...if we had another several dozen intercontinental bombers in exchange. It's cheaper to fly stuff from CONUS then it is to have a carrier + escorts doing circles a couple of hundred miles off the coast.

[Simon_Jester]

Ghetto Edit:

Again, out of curiosity, do people feel that Europe, as the worlds' largest economy doesn't pull it's weight militarily in international affairs? For example, in cases involving the Middle East or Southern Asia?

I don't really feel that way, but that's because I doubt any likely military crisis in the next ten years will inconvenience them enough to make them wish they had a better military.

It's a lot easier to accept having no ability to project armed force into other people's countries when you don't care whether or not China tries to swallow Taiwan, or whether Pakistan and India fight a nuclear war, or whether Iran declares sovereignty over the Straits of Hormuz. The EU policy on those things is, as far as I can tell, "we don't actually give a shit, except insofar as giving a shit is really cheap."

[Shrugs]

Their call.

Okay, and if the America class *wasn't* bought and we just kept on making Wasps(and by the way, the Makin Island cleared over a billion dollars, thanks in part for it having gas turbines, so don't act like it's super-duper cheaper to keep up with LHDs) then we would have been hard pressed to put the same # of F-35s as Harriers on LHDs. Buying the America class makes sense in this context. To put it bluntly, it's fucking retarded to not order supporting systems for a weapons system that is going to be the anchor of USMC fixed wing aviation.

As I remember it, the difficulty is that the F-35B is turning out to be a Major Problem Child, and a big source of the general problem-child nature of the F-35 program.

Part of me wonders whether it would have been smarter to just design three fighters with three different names for three different purposes, instead of one fighter that has three almost completely different 'models' for three different purposes.

- There are already a ton of successful corvette designs in the world that we could have had customized, designs that already existed and would not have cost nearly as much. Check out the Swedish Visby class corvette- very nice, very stealthy, .

BWAHAHAHAHAH. No.

and costs around a third as much as an LCS.

And still potentially isn't as capable. Can't have a air det on it for one.

I don't think I agree with ChaserGrey's take on it, so let me ask:

Let's go back to basics.

Why did we need the LCS, did we get what was promised by the people who took our money to build the LCS, and in light of the current facts on the ground does it still make sense to build a shitload of LCS instead of a smaller number of new Arleigh Burkes? Or, hell, get a license-built version of someone else's frigate design or something like that?

Was it ever worth spending this kind of money to get a zippy, lightly armed little corvette in the first place?

BWAHAHAHAHAH
No.

Care to expand on that? Like, giving actual reasons for your disagreement besides saying "No"?

For one, the Visby-class ain't stealthy, except when standing stil. Because the shitty un-hydrodynamic unstable hull design they used to make it have such low radar cross section throws up a huge plume of spray when moving at any speed, which shows up on radar just fine.

There aren't a lot of uses for a ship that's only stealthy with the engines turned off, especially when it's less seaworthy and less capable than a normal ship of equal tonnage

There's a reason the Swedes aren't building any more of them...

Yep. And an LCS isn't nearly as capable as an Arleigh Burke, yet manages to cost about 75% as much as one. LCS is too expensive to buy in sufficient numbers to replace the Perrys, so what's the point of the program? If we're going to go with a lot of cheap platforms, we should at least manage the program like we mean it.

The real lesson is "someone should have had the balls to question whether LCS made any sense back in 2006. Or earlier. Lots earlier."

This is very different from the F-35. With the F-35, we are very close to getting a decent plane that provides everyone with some much-needed upgrades to bring their air arms into the 21st century. It's been a long wait, but this is the worst time in the whole development cycle to lose patience.

With the LCS, my understanding is that we are very close to getting a crappy ship that provides us and only us with verrrry slightly more than nothing. The fact that we've been waiting so long for this shit sandwich doesn't mean we should wait for it to be served up.

[Elfdart]

I got it to over 1.1 trillion dollars in cuts. I am not at all surprised that one of the most popular options is 'cut back on forward deployments in Europe and Asia'. I only wish I could cut it completely.

I noticed the same thing with the other budget page set up by the NYT. Using the Times' loaded checklist, I saved $914 billion. If I was allowed to remove all troops from Europe and elsewhere I'd save another $139 billion.

[Elfdart]

It grows especially tiresome when being sneered at concerning the superior European social state. Frankly, I've long been of the opinion that we should pull about a third of the troops out of Europe and let the Europeans discover what it's like to have to defend themselves...

Against whom?

[Zinegata]

Against whom?

Makarov and the entire Red Army of course.

Still, given Europe's reliance on foreign energy sources they really should pay attention more to the possibility of intervention.

[Lonestar]

Let's go back to basics.

Why did we need the LCS, did we get what was promised by the people who took our money to build the LCS, and in light of the current facts on the ground does it still make sense to build a shitload of LCS instead of a smaller number of new Arleigh Burkes? Or, hell, get a license-built version of someone else's frigate design or something like that?

Was it ever worth spending this kind of money to get a zippy, lightly armed little corvette in the first place?

What's depends, what's the corvette going to be doing most of the time?

Honestly, if the LCS is just going to be doing MIOs while doing giant circles in the Northern Arabian sea...then a little ship with 80 crew is just fine.

That said, if someone had said "we're going to by a European Corvette, replace the Eurotronics with Freedomtronics, and use that even though it can only make 22kts if the entire crew is on the fantail farting"...I would have been down with that. Shoot, I would have been down with replacing the minesweepers mine countermeasure ships with new ones that could have a air det and just using those.

As it is we've kind painted ourselves into a corner, the USN is putting ALL future minesweeping in the LCS basket. Getting rid of the LCS at this stage doesn't mean "get a new frigate or corvette" It means "get a new class of minesweepers AND a new corvette/frigate". Why anyone thinks that the procurement process for this will be spectacularly easier is beyond me. Maybe the USN will just buy two dozen NSCs. Or maybe they'll try to make a bunch of AEGIS FFGs that hover and carry a Marine platoon, because man, having that capability on the LCS was really kinda awesome.

The real lesson is "someone should have had the balls to question whether LCS made any sense back in 2006. Or earlier. Lots earlier."

This is very different from the F-35. With the F-35, we are very close to getting a decent plane that provides everyone with some much-needed upgrades to bring their air arms into the 21st century. It's been a long wait, but this is the worst time in the whole development cycle to lose patience.

With the LCS, my understanding is that we are very close to getting a crappy ship that provides us and only us with verrrry slightly more than nothing. The fact that we've been waiting so long for this shit sandwich doesn't mean we should wait for it to be served up.

I think I covered the whys for the LCS in the post already.

[Simon_Jester]

What's depends, what's the corvette going to be doing most of the time?

Honestly, if the LCS is just going to be doing MIOs while doing giant circles in the Northern Arabian sea...then a little ship with 80 crew is just fine.

That said, if someone had said "we're going to by a European Corvette, replace the Eurotronics with Freedomtronics, and use that even though it can only make 22kts if the entire crew is on the fantail farting"...I would have been down with that. Shoot, I would have been down with replacing the minesweepers mine countermeasure ships with new ones that could have a air det and just using those.

As it is we've kind painted ourselves into a corner, the USN is putting ALL future minesweeping in the LCS basket. Getting rid of the LCS at this stage doesn't mean "get a new frigate or corvette" It means "get a new class of minesweepers AND a new corvette/frigate". Why anyone thinks that the procurement process for this will be spectacularly easier is beyond me. Maybe the USN will just buy two dozen NSCs. Or maybe they'll try to make a bunch of AEGIS FFGs that hover and carry a Marine platoon, because man, having that capability on the LCS was really kinda awesome.

Ahhh. I see.

Of course, I still think we'd have been better off had we not bothered with the LCS basket in the first place, but if we desperately need the LCS for minesweeping, then I guess by God we'd better buy some for sweeping mines.

But unless I'm much mistaken, the ship is still going to suck- we'll wish we had a better corvette/frigate than the one we got, and LCS will never be what it was sold as when we agreed to pay for it in the first place.

I guess the sunk cost problem is worse than I thought.

[Zaune]

... given Europe's reliance on foreign energy sources they really should pay attention more to the possibility of intervention.

We'd be better off spending the money on reducing our dependence on imported oil and gas than trying to run COIN operations half-way across the world to keep those imports flowing, especially since that could potentially set us at odds with Russia. Besides, getting every European country to agree to participate in military intervention would be an achievement worthy of monuments, and no individual European economy can support a truly independent force-projection capability; peacekeeping operations in Africa are one thing, but an opposed landing somewhere like Iran requires a level of manpower and equipment that even the US struggled to deploy single-handed.

[Chirios]

Against whom?

Makarov and the entire Red Army of course.

Still, given Europe's reliance on foreign energy sources they really should pay attention more to the possibility of intervention.

So long as North and West Africa continue oil production and the Russian gas pipeline is maintained do they really have to worry about the rest of the world?