• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Proposed $78bn DoD Budget Cut - EFV Scrapped, JSF Delayed

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Not too many surprises since many of the details had been leaked, especially the EFV which I think was a 'bridge too far', pardon the pun (the 'blood on his hands' comment by Mr. Loren Thompson about Gates is a bit extreme though). The JSF is also on a two year delay and the F-35B is on probation to let the Marines prove it works, again not unexpected.

Frankly I think in today's budget environment better to have DoD lead turn the cuts and have a choice in what gets the axe or trimmed than get told by someone with less knowledges.
 

statesman

Shut up woman... get on my horse.
pilot
I dont really understand adding the USAF bomber. Makes no sense. The B-52 is already slated to stay another several decades, the B-2 still hasn't been made obsolete (or paid itself off)... fine if you want to cut spending, but developing a new bomber for threats against China/Russia/N. Korea?

Also can someone explain what this means:
Disestablishing staffs for submarine, patrol aircraft, and the destroyer-squadrons plus one carrier strike group staff.
 

bert

Enjoying the real world
pilot
Contributor
I dont really understand adding the USAF bomber. Makes no sense. The B-52 is already slated to stay another several decades, the B-2 still hasn't been made obsolete (or paid itself off)... fine if you want to cut spending, but developing a new bomber for threats against China/Russia/N. Korea?

Also can someone explain what this means:

This is USAF's last chance to design a manned bomber. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to justify the added expense of a pilot.
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
Also can someone explain what this means:
I think you added emphasis where it shouldn't have been added... The emphasis should have been on STAFF. Gates is trying to reduce the bureaucratic portion of the military that we all hate. Instead of having 15 different staffs to justify an Admiral/General's star, make it more functional. Why do you need a VP Wing? A Strike Fighter Wing? Why not just have your SME's on one staff... It's how the Marine Corps does it. We've got a group CO that's in charge of multiple T/M/S (and has multiple T/M/S SMEs on staff), and a Wing CG who has the same. There is no such thing as "Marine Medium Lift Wing Atlantic"
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Also can someone explain what this means:

Disestablishing staffs for submarine, patrol aircraft, and the destroyer-squadrons plus one carrier strike group staff.

I think you added emphasis where it shouldn't have been added... The emphasis should have been on STAFF. Gates is trying to reduce the bureaucratic portion of the military that we all hate. Instead of having 15 different staffs to justify an Admiral/General's star, make it more functional. Why do you need a VP Wing? A Strike Fighter Wing? Why not just have your SME's on one staff... It's how the Marine Corps does it. We've got a group CO that's in charge of multiple T/M/S (and has multiple T/M/S SMEs on staff), and a Wing CG who has the same. There is no such thing as "Marine Medium Lift Wing Atlantic"

It makes little sense to have a VP RDML sitting in Japan (Sig too?) with his staff in charge of just two VP squadrons and two or three small detachments. It is an anachronism leftover from the Cold War when they had 24 VP squadrons total and at least 8 deployed at once. We wondered about that often over 10 years ago when him and his staff would play 'bright idea fairy' and do nothing but waste time and money which could have been better spent on us drinking more beer, nice to see someone finally saw the light.

While I am not as familiar with the Marine model what phrogpilot73 suggests already seems to largely exist with the current Navy staff, they are just much larger than they should probably be and could endure some shrinkage, as could the COCOMs which Gates has also proposed (cutting the 4-star Arm, Navy and Air Force billets in EUCOM is a start, another leftover from the Cold War).
 

KBayDog

Well-Known Member
Why not just have your SME's on one staff... It's how the Marine Corps does it. We've got a group CO that's in charge of multiple T/M/S (and has multiple T/M/S SMEs on staff), and a Wing CG who has the same. There is no such thing as "Marine Medium Lift Wing Atlantic"

We've got more than our share of fat that needs to be shed. You used the MAG as an example; so will I. Does the MAG HQ need to be as big as it is? Does every squadron function need to be replicated at MAG? (Or, for that matter, does every MAG function need to be replicated at the squadron?) This is not WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. We simply do not fight as MAGs anymore. They are just another layer of bureaucracy that could/should be looked at for possible reductions. In fact, do we even need standing MAGs anymore? Can a slightly larger Wing staff, with "site manager"-like staffs at each location, take the place of our standing MAGs? We pride ourselves in being task-organized. If there's a need for a MAG somewhere, we can always stand one up where necessary (MAG-40, for example). Bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to make reductions and keep an effective fighting force.

The suggestions by Secretary Gates will certainly draw a lot of criticism, but it appears he's actually trying to save us from the inevitable post-war draw-downs. Those of us on active duty in the mid-90s know what it was like in a post-Desert Storm military. In fact, it can be argued that we spent the better part of the 2000s trying to recover from the neglect of the 1990s. It is something that those who came in post-2001 will never understand.

Case-in-point: Our equipment. When I came in (mid-90s), we were using Vietnam-era flak jackets, field jackets, sleeping bags, and ALICE packs. OIF kicks of, and all of a sudden the "GWOT Money" kicks in. We're suddenly bombarded with ILBEs, multiple flak jackets, Gore-tex EVERYTHING, and high-speed sleeping bags. Our gear is exponentially better than it was even a half-decade ago. However, there is already griping, just a few years later, that we need "new" flaks, blankets, packs, etc. Well, if we want to continue to fund good equipment for our Marines, we need to make sacrifices elsewhere...lest we use the same gear for the next quarter century, and then play catch-up - again - when the stuff hits the fan once more.
 
Top