NYT interactive military budget cutter

[Siege]

The C-17 is an expensive aircraft to own and operate. When a nation has a big air force and a lot of stuff to move around the globe, like the USA, those might not be serious drawbacks but for a typical European military, whose air forces aren't that big and which don't have as pressing a need to shuffle vast quantities of military air freight about they are. It's a major expense most nations can do without also because, as Simon pointed out, few European militaries seriously expect to be doing much fighting (or airlifting) on their own. Those that do, like Britain and France, have their own heavy lift, and those that don't participate in the NATO C-17 pool. It's a rather splendidly efficient solution to a potentially very expensive problem. And anyway, should for some reason those C-17s not be available they can always lease an AN-124 from the Russians.

[Skgoa]

Yeah, you have to factor in cost (esp. opportunity cost) when choosing what to do. Strategic airlift is so unlikely to be useful enough and so unlikely to not be available, that it just does not make any sense to spend money on this capability. We have strategic sealift and we are getting amphibs. (Unless they cut the budget even further.)

Really, this is exactly the kind of difference in strategic thinking between european countries and the US I mentioned. Germany doesn't want to be leader of the free world and Germany has no strategic interest in most places of the world that the rest of the alliance doesn't have as well. So it makes no sense at all to plan for unilaterally invading anywhere, because it simply is not going to happen.
As a contrast, look at the UK: they have many interests all over the world that only they care about. And so they have to be able to project much more power much farther. (e.g. Falklands) Consequently, they are building two big carriers. Or look at the US: they want to be able to have local superiority everywhere in a very short time. (e.g. bombing Lybia at the same time as forcing the straight of Hormuz open, hunting pirates of the coast of Somalia, showing the flag in Taiwan and South Korea, etc.) So the US needs a certain number of entire carrier battle groups to be availabe at any given time. Since ships can't be on station eternally, they actually need a multiple of that. Hence 11 US Navy carriers, 60 or so destroyers and hundreds of other ships.

[Skgoa]

*facepalm*

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

I just came across this: http://www.richardcyoung.com/politics/m ... tform-mlp/
Also, the Marines have special vehicles for use with V-22s.

[weemadando]

Also, the Marines have special vehicles for use with V-22s.

Yes.

It's a Willys Jeep in all but name.

Which is totally viable in either:

a) a low intensity COIN campaign where the primary weapons are IEDs and RPGs.

or

b) on a traditional battlefield where a soft vehicle like that is easy picking for literally EVERYONE.


It's a great little people mover/bag carrier, but it is by no means a replacement for being able to put armour in the field which light lifters, even Chinooks and V-22s can't do.

[Skgoa]

Then it's a good thing that the Marines use CH-53s.

[weemadando]

I like your toy cars (are they just 2 man TOW/MILAN carriers) . But folks were talking about modern armour in US inventory - Bradley, Stryker, LAV & Abrams.

Of these I believe only the LAV can be carried, and that's a slung load.

[Sidewinder]

Skgoa, the Wiesel is NOT in US military service, with the exception of seven used for testing. USMC Super Stallions can't carry something the USMC can't even get their hands on.

[Skgoa]

He used the words "can't" - as did you. That is factually wrong. The USMC could do it if they wanted to. They chose not to.

[Beowulf]

He used the words "can't" - as did you. That is factually wrong. The USMC could do it if they wanted to. They chose not to.

light lifters, even Chinooks and V-22s

He didn't mention CH-53Es.

[Kryten]

He used the words "can't" - as did you. That is factually wrong. The USMC could do it if they wanted to. They chose not to.

It isn't really what he was referring to as 'armour'-it's barely bigger than a humvee, and about as well protected.

[Sidewinder]

He used the words "can't" - as did you. That is factually wrong. The USMC could do it if they wanted to. They chose not to.

The USMC needs to convince Congress to approve funding for the purchase of Wiesels, before they can get their hands on it. This will be a time-consuming process, which involves finding a domestic company to license the design, include waterproofing and other modifications the Marines will insist upon, and manufacture it. After all the fuckups with the EFV and the F-35B, not to mention the Osprey's troubled development, the USMC has a very slim chance of getting some Wiesels- especially as the US Army is unlikely to buy it, because

1) as a light vehicle, it's unlikely to be as well-protected as the heavier vehicles the US military uses, e.g., M2 Bradley, Stryker, LAV,

2) the US military already spent a lot of money developing the M-ATV, another light armored vehicle, so why should it buy another?

Without the promise of commonality, and with the Marine Corps' small size (relative to the other services), an American Wiesel will seem too expensive to justify its use in a role the M-ATV is arguably able to fulfill.

[Skgoa]

And none of that invalidates the fact that modern combat vehicles can be ferried into action via vertical envelopment. Which was the the actual point that was being contended here.

He used the words "can't" - as did you. That is factually wrong. The USMC could do it if they wanted to. They chose not to.

light lifters, even Chinooks and V-22s

He didn't mention CH-53Es.

*headdesk* Really? Is it that difficult to parse a couple of sentences?

[Lonestar]

There's a finite amount of CH-53s dude. In fact, they are so limited that they are being yanked off Presidential detail for service overseas.

[Dominus Atheos]

I don't know if this counts as a necro, but here's a link to the results of this interactive budget puzzle.

As I said in the OP, if you just go with cuts that have 40% or higher support, the 10-year military budget gets cut by $963.7 billion.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know if this counts as a necro, but here's a link to the results of this interactive budget puzzle.

As I said in the OP, if you just go with cuts that have 40% or higher support, the 10-year military budget gets cut by $963.7 billion.

DA, you forgot to put a link in your link.

[Dominus Atheos]

Whoops.

[weemadando]

The Kohler Report

A nice comparison of world military budgets at 1:20ish for a few seconds.