The Clinton military budget cuts myth

[Mr Bean]

And there was a crippling need to bombard Serbia with TLAMs? It was a national security issue that they could not do so indefinitely?

Not so much indefinitely but so-much they could only do so for another three weeks at full-tempo or prehaps another two months at much reduced attacks


The problem is the fact that exact numbers rarley get reported both due to security concerns or simple lack of intrest in the media but suppose that in some strange land much like the US we had an example rather like what acutal happened in which... lets say four hundred missles were used and we were down to less than sixty and we could have another thirty out to the shooters in two weeks with another eighty out there within... three months.... then we might suppose that the issue at hand is rather a problem of keeping enough on hand to fight just oooh one conflict at a time rather than any in rapid succesion or two at a time which we might or might not do but I can almost say we most certinaly don't

[Vympel]

Can we do this relative wise?

What other nation in the world would had been capable of deploying to battle in a moment notice fully operationally ready, with full stocks of spare parts and ammunition?

Quite simply, none.

The smart bomb inventory for OIF was produced in GWB's term; much of the Clinton-era arsenal, IIRC, was expended in Afghanistan.

Dubya was using paid-by-Clinton's budget JDAMs etc. up until October 2002, if not longer. Quite a few JDAMs were expended in Afghanistan, yes?

The retirement of the Intruder meant that the USN lost its long-range strike aircraft.
The Tomcat filled that gap (just) but once it's retired the USN loses a capability which isn't going to come back until the JSF enters service. That's If it enters service.
And they lost the KA-6D at the same time. Damn.

The Intruder is an old fashioned, single use bomb-truck that's been made obsolete by advances in PGMs. The Hornet and Super Hornet may not be it's equal in range and payload, but they more than make up for the loss in versatility and avionics. And this is coming from someone who hates the Super Hornet for it's marked inferiority to the F-14 (which is a moot point really, considering that the F-14s mission is obsolete).

[Oddysseus]

I was just looking through a Brookings Instititute report on defense policy choices for the new Bush Admin: http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815700792/html/R1.html

According to it, when Cheney talked about the cruise missile shortfall, we had still available 10 times the invenstory available for the Gulf War. As for the JDAM (Joint Direct Action Munition), they were pretty new and only a "small" number had been built and inventoried yet. Since then we've bolstered that inventory (not because GW's some genius, but because enough time has passed to build them).

[Stormbringer]

Here's Oliver North, 1999, Stormbringer

"More than 600 U.S. combat aircraft are now engaged in this undeclared war and over 30,000 reservists have been alerted for active duty because six years of Clinton's military cuts have gutted the U.S. armed forces."

Noone ever claimed he neutered the military huh? I could dig up more, but I was sure you knew that Clinton 'gutted' the US military is an article of faith among hte right wing.

I believe he would fall under the crackpot part of my post.

*sigh* The myth that Bush Snr. would've been any better.

That might well depend on what was cut.

What I was wondering is why you said it in the first place.

Well, you put the quote up.

Can you point to any need for aviation assets in recent campaigns? I can't. There's a difference between "this aircraft is cool, *proceed to bitch about it's demise*" and "we *need* this aircraft".

The upgraded Intruders. We had them, this wasn't some pie in the sky wish list project! And with air groups under strength and a lot of naval aviation simply consisting up bomb truck duties they would have been useful.

What deployment problems?

JFK couldn't deploy on time due to various problems. I believe the same problems arose with Constellation.

??? Considering that Bush was playing with Clinton's budget until October 2002, I fail to see how this is anything but another myth.

Why? Because we did have some to use? Even Clinton didn't use them all.

[Vympel]

I believe he would fall under the crackpot part of my post.

Fine then.

The upgraded Intruders. We had them, this wasn't some pie in the sky wish list project! And with air groups under strength and a lot of naval aviation simply consisting up bomb truck duties they would have been useful.

That's not an answer to the question. Every military loves having more stuff, whether they need it is and whether they're worth keeping is a completely different matter. I don't recall hearing of any aviation asset shortages in the last two campaigns.

JFK couldn't deploy on time due to various problems. I believe the same problems arose with Constellation.

The Captain of the JFK was relieved of his command for that. Which tends to imply that he was responsible for some of it. Considering the JFK had quite an active career throughout Clinton's tenure, this is not a serious problem.

Why? Because we did have some to use? Even Clinton didn't use them all.

Do you know how many PGMs of all types were dropped during OEF? There were plenty to use.

[Vympel]

The Intruder

Funnily enough:

One hundred composite wing Intruders went to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, for storage, while mostly older metal and composite-winged versions went to various museum and display locations.

By early 1999 the US Department of Defense had offered the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II aircraft to US allies. The aircraft are supported by Northrop Grumman's Aircraft Modification and Overhaul Programs organization. The company provides technical modifications and sales support services to the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command for the international effort, as well as customer integration, training, and support services for the aircraft. The configuration offered to international customers is identical to those U.S. Navy A-6E attack aircraft that were used successfully during Operation Desert Storm, with long-range, all-weather, day-or-night pinpoint bombing capabilities and standoff missile strikes. Additional A-6E missions are aerial refueling, escort, and recovery. Following the retirement from the US Navy inventory in 1997, the A-6 aircraft are now in storage, so a number are available to international customers.

[Stormbringer]

That's not an answer to the question. Every military loves having more stuff, whether they need it is and whether they're worth keeping is a completely different matter. I don't recall hearing of any aviation asset shortages in the last two campaigns.

It is an answer. As you yourself said, simply spending dollars isn't the sole determining factor in a good or bad military.

The Captain of the JFK was relieved of his command for that. Which tends to imply that he was responsible for some of it. Considering the JFK had quite an active career throughout Clinton's tenure, this is not a serious problem.

The Navy also could hardly admit that they couldn't carry out their mission now could they? And the fact that it had an active career doesn't mean it was well maintained.

Do you know how many PGMs of all types were dropped during OEF? There were plenty to use.

And of course it's impossible that we had some and bought others?

The Intruder

Funnily enough:

One hundred composite wing Intruders went to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, for storage, while mostly older metal and composite-winged versions went to various museum and display locations.

By early 1999 the US Department of Defense had offered the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II aircraft to US allies. The aircraft are supported by Northrop Grumman's Aircraft Modification and Overhaul Programs organization. The company provides technical modifications and sales support services to the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command for the international effort, as well as customer integration, training, and support services for the aircraft. The configuration offered to international customers is identical to those U.S. Navy A-6E attack aircraft that were used successfully during Operation Desert Storm, with long-range, all-weather, day-or-night pinpoint bombing capabilities and standoff missile strikes. Additional A-6E missions are aerial refueling, escort, and recovery. Following the retirement from the US Navy inventory in 1997, the A-6 aircraft are now in storage, so a number are available to international customers.

Yes, your point being? I said the A-6 was retired despite upgrades.

[Vympel]

It is an answer. As you yourself said, simply spending dollars isn't the sole determining factor in a good or bad military.

No, it's not an answer. I asked you to demonstrate a need for aviation assets.

The Navy also could hardly admit that they couldn't carry out their mission now could they?

So they just fired a Captain for no reason?

And the fact that it had an active career doesn't mean it was well maintained.

It was obviously capable of fulfilling it's missions.

And of course it's impossible that we had some and bought others?

If so, it was with Clinton's budget.

Yes, your point being? I said the A-6 was retired despite upgrades.

I was under the impression that they had all been turned into artificial reefs or some such nonsense.

[Stormbringer]

No, it's not an answer. I asked you to demonstrate a need for aviation assets.

And the fact that our carriers are short of aircraft isn't enough? Or the fact that one of the reasons we're acquiring the Hornet is to add to our strike capacity? Or the fact that our aircraft conducted enourmous amounts of sorties in OEF or OIF?

At the very least the Navy could have used the strike aircraft. They've mostly been doing bomb struck missions after all.

So they just fired a Captain for no reason?

It's called Shooting the Messanger, it has a long tradition in the armed forces.

It was obviously capable of fulfilling it's missions.

It did, but at what cost to necessary maintenance? Because it isn't now.

If so, it was with Clinton's budget.

Yes, because Bush could never alter the budgets to buy more bombs.

I was under the impression that they had all been turned into artificial reefs or some such nonsense.

Some were as far as I know; not all of them were retained in storage. But then again, how is retiring them off to the spare parts yard, that much better than simply throwing them into the sea? The Navy doesn't have them either way.

[Vympel]

And the fact that our carriers are short of aircraft isn't enough?

Not at full design capacity and "short of aircraft" are two different things.

Or the fact that one of the reasons we're acquiring the Hornet is to add to our strike capacity?

And? You think that 30-year old A-6E airframes could do that instead? Never mind that the type is single use, ageing, not as survivable, cannot defend itself, and simply adds another type to support into the fleet.

Or the fact that our aircraft conducted enourmous amounts of sorties in OEF or OIF?

Which proves what? It proves that the Intruder is not needed, that's what it proves.

At the very least the Navy could have used the strike aircraft. They've mostly been doing bomb struck missions after all.

They didn't need them. There was no shortage of aircraft, nor will there be in the forseeable future- PGMs (especially JDAM) mean that less aircraft can do more.

It's called Shooting the Messanger, it has a long tradition in the armed forces.

So the Captain bore no responsibility for the state of his vessel, simply because of a curious appeal to tradition? You think this fallacy is an explanation for the engineering officers dismissal as well? Can you explain this?

Some senior enlisted crew members have privately told DefenseWatch that certain Kennedy equipment had not functioned for over three years prior to the inspection. They reported ?gun decked? engineering logs (that is entries for maintenance not actually completed), and general cover-ups by engineering officers, keeping the command ignorant of the actual condition of the aging ship.

How the hell is a carrier supposed to get fixed if the engineers cover up it's condition?

It did, but at what cost to necessary maintenance? Because it isn't now.

Yes it is. This was after it had already been fixed of the problems that cost Joyce his job- it had been to sea since then, so this was actually the second repair it had done. This is just more indicative of the alarmist bullshit that seems to permeate discourse about Clinton's handling of the military.

Yes, because Bush could never alter the budgets to buy more bombs.

Oh look, an unsupported assertion. Next time you roll your eyes, try and back it up with an actual fact instead of a "Bush could've and I have no evidence that he did".

Some were as far as I know; not all of them were retained in storage. But then again, how is retiring them off to the spare parts yard, that much better than simply throwing them into the sea? The Navy doesn't have them either way.

Because they can be brought back if they're needed. Like the B-1Bs Congress is trying to put back in service.

[Howedar]

Some were as far as I know; not all of them were retained in storage. But then again, how is retiring them off to the spare parts yard, that much better than simply throwing them into the sea? The Navy doesn't have them either way.

AMARC is many things, but it is not simply a spare parts yard. Fully a quarter of the aircraft that move through AMARC return to active-duty US service, with more (although I don't know how many more) going to serve in other countries. Contrary to the popular conception of AMARC being a "boneyard", it is anything but. Aircraft there are mantained in a condition which permits their rapid return to service (generally from a few months to a few weeks, depending on what level of storage).

[tharkûn]

And there was a crippling need to bombard Serbia with TLAMs? It was a national security issue that they could not do so indefinitely?

It depends on what you want your military to do. Having trouble maintaining stocks while beating down a pissant country like Serbia or Iraq would be extremely bad if instead of some hellhole the US forces had to hit multiple targets or somebody with a more modern military.

Let's be honest, Serbia should have not been particularly harder than a training exercise, when problems crop up against pathetic targets you have to wonder what if a real enemy was over there instead.

I don't see how it's beside the point. In that example, it took so long to deploy heavy forces to a remote theatre that the time spent to ramp up ammo production (ammo being much easier to airlift than MBTs) would not have been an issue.

Again it depends on what you want the military to do. Officially the US military is committed to becoming more mobile and able to deploy without months of prepositioning and buildup. If you want to have the ability to wage war with on a notice of days (even if that means leaving the heavy equipment behind) then yes not waiting for ammo is significant.

I'm still waiting for a hypothetical yet realistic scenario in which the US Army needs large stockpiles of ammo on hand with no delay.

Islamic theocratics stage a civil war in Pakistan with military assistance from Iran and the POTUS wants to get in before the fundies consolidate their position (and say pick up some nukes).

It's no so much that you need to be able to go quick, it is that it requires less money and blood to take action quickly and efficiently than if you wait, let the enemy entrech, and then drive a bloody wedge across the country.

Why not? It's not as if the government will go insolvent due to the costs of ammo production.

You end up wasting loads of cash to buy at a premium. Only a problem in that it is wasted money that have been saved with better planning.

The other nasty problem is that you might exhaust capacity; there are only a handful of manufacturers who make ammo that pass military requirements. Once you exhaust the capacity from those manufacturers, and I think that is only a few million rounds a day, then you can either wait to get a few more military plants out of mothballs or buy commericial ammo with lower quality controls. Taking a dive on quality controls during active combat and increased live fire training strikes me as a rather lousy idea. Sure you could work around an ammo shortage paying premium, taking a dive on quality control, and generally half-assing it ... but at what price?