There has always been the so called 'pork' in our military budgets. We've seen so many systems on the drawing boards that cost millions individually, billions collectively that have gone down the tubes due to really poor evaluations prior to their initiation. It is all a sales job to members of Congress so members can go home at election time and brag about how much money they brought to their districts and their states. None of them would get reelected if they campaigned at home and stated, 'hey, I brough no money home because I didn't believe it was my job to do so.' They would get laughed out of office. Until American's understand the federal government is not a cash cow to be constantly milked, we will have politicians always promising to bring money home and brag about what they brought home during campaign season.

Realistically, we can probably cut billions from the military budget without harming our ability to defend ourselves. I'm mean really, just who are we racing against in the world that would demand we spend so much on the military? Being a realist, we have spent billions, maybe trillions of dollars over the past sixty years or so and how many wars have we actually won? I cannot think of any that were significant? We spend millions, trillions of dollars on weapons systems only to have our tactical situation being predicated upon the concept of limited warfare. It is one hell'uva a contradiction in philosophies in my opinion. Hell, systems are so expensive now, we can only buy a few copies of them...and numbers mean a lot in warfare.

If I had my choice of say 100 Osprey or 200 53's, 200 Cobra's, 200 Huey's...forget the Osprey. Tactically, I would be in a better position with large multiples of different aircraft than depending upon a limited number of expensive and complicated planes and limited numbers of aircraft. The Russians in WW 2 demonstrated numbers are effective, and less costly armaments will generally turn the tide of battle. When they faced the Germans, the Russians would have on average ten artillery pieces to the Germans one, ditto with tanks and planes. The Russians understood attrition of weapons systems, consequently they didn't care if an artillery piece only lasted 800, a 1000 rounds...they had two more to back it up.

Expensive systems means fewer in number, this reduces your tactical area of coverage. The more technical a system, the more down time and maintenance...the law of large numbers will generally prevail in a war. Again, not that it means much in America with us concentrating on limited warfare as our stock in trade. If anything, Iraq and Afghanistan have proven we need more combat trained and armed people and not more technical whiz, bang weapons systems, systems which do not function properly 100% of the time anyway. We can pick out systems that have been the most effective in both wars by looking at the results.

One would be the A-10. Relatively cheap compared to an F-15, F-16 yet the A-10 was the system the ground troops liked to see when they were in a jam (at least based upon our son's opinion and many of the men he served with in Iraq). Good tank killer, excellent air to ground cover, multiple armament systems. I don't know the exact cost of an A-10 but I would be willing to bet you could buy at least five to ten for the price of one F-16.

Huey Cobra...cheap compared to an Apache. Again, an excellent aircraft that produced beyong anyone's expectations...how many Cobra's could be purchased for the price of one Apache?

The Marine Corps and Navy are still flying the Intruder...still gets the job done as a counter measure/jamming/targeting aircraft. What could be built for millions more that could do a better job, yet they want to? Is the Intruder old? Sure it is but it can be repaired and overhauled, updated (as they have done).

The list is lengthy but I believe I have made my point. There has to be limitations on expenditures in all aspects of government, the military being one of them. I say ax many of the systems the military is pushing for, redirect a percentage of that money toward higher pay to the troops, better equipment for the troops and use the savings to help pay down our debts.

I also have to comment on the author mentioning Homeland Security...a gross waste of the taxpayers money, another large labyrinth of government bureaucracy that has only complicated our situation. Between the CIA, FBI, NSC and all of the alphabet soups we have involved in defending America, the last thing we needed was another one. Any president should have gotten up to snuff all of the agencies we already had by appointing qualified people to manage them expecting and demanding all agencies work together in our defense, coordination being the dominant word in their work and vocabulary...instead we add more turf defenders. I would dismantle Homeland Security.

Bottom line, only American's can demand accountability from our elected officials...and most of us do not and that is why we find ourselves in our current situation. People yak when it comes to presidential elections but very few follow through and become part of the process and solution. Nearly everyone forgets a citizen has more than an obligation to vote. Too many think and believe they have accounted themselves by just voting...being a citizen means more than that and doing more.

S/F Gordon

quote:

It is not my intention to make this a political column because an op-ed piece in a military publication should focus on the military.

What a novel idea.

If one of us had said we should put the CinC in Jail, we'd be gone from these web pages, fast.

The truth hurts. This guy seems to know what he is talking about, and I cannot help but remind others that Obama said the exact same thing last night and a few times before it, and I paraphrase; "No powerful nation can maintain their national security with their economy failing".

Smart man, that Obama.

There is so much that the military in general seems to be wasting money on. The Army has too many bonuses, the land warrior system could also be cut. The Marines are designing a new amphibious assault vehicle they do not need. The Navy stealth ships that are unneccessary.

The weapons acquisition system we currently use is a disaster that drives up the costs, but is furthermore inherently corrupt. Then we've got those in congress that impose hardware on the services that they don't even want.

What we need to do is set up a military strategy and purchasing system such as that used by the British to put a halt to this nonsense. That would save many billions of dollars (not to mention putting a halt to "cost-plus").

quote:

The Navy stealth ships that are unneccessary.

I must disagree. The stealth ships are already coming into the services and their reduced radar presence is crucial for future operations. In fact all new destroyers are already being built with stealth features, with the newest of the new being built with stealth technology as their main innovation and defense against incoming weapons, and that is a good thing.

"Burke" class ships are already designed with stealth features to reduce their radar signature, as will all new Aircraft Carriers and they haven't canceled completely the "DDG-1000" line of ships either. If you look it up you will see how impressive it is. We can stay 50-Years ahead of any other power in the world with those ships, and control of the sea lanes is crucial to staying competitive in the "new world order"(term originally coined by G. Bush 41), especially with regards to international trade. Without a powerful Navy? That would not be so easy.

Stealth IS the "wave" of the future, and without them we risk becoming a 2nd-Class sea power.

No thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
If one of us had said we should put the CinC in Jail, we'd be gone from these web pages, fast.

The truth hurts. This guy seems to know what he is talking about, and I cannot help but remind others that Obama said the exact same thing last night and a few times before it, and I paraphrase; "No powerful nation can maintain their national security with their economy failing".

Smart man, that Obama.

The author actually stated "However, never have I seen a more worthless bunch than the current Congress and President when it came to looking out for the citizens of the United States." The author went on to say "It just isn't enough to say we should clean house in Washington; we should put most of them in jail."

In case anyone forgets, Obama and McCain are part of Congress. Maybe the author was refering to them as being part of the problem.

McCain has been a part of that Washington crowd, the Republican crowd, the ones who led us into the mess we are in - since 1980. He IS that crowd.

Obama has been saying clean up the mess in Washington and trying to propose ways to do exactly that since 3 years ago, when he first arrived in Washington.

Hardly two peas in a pod.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
McCain has been a part of that Washington crowd, the Republican crowd, the ones who led us into the mess we are in - since 1980. He IS that crowd.

Obama has been saying clean up the mess in Washington and trying to propose ways to do exactly that since 3 years ago, when he first arrived in Washington.

Hardly two peas in a pod.

What exactly did he propose to clean up the mess? He is just as guilty as anyone else in Congress.