Pentagon announces 2015 Budget

[San Mazer]

So guys, on Monday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced the proposed budget for the military for the fiscal year 2015. There are some controversial cuts in the plans including shrinking the army to 440,000 from 520,000, cutting the number of Littoral Combat Ships, scrapping plans for a new armored vehicle to replace the Bradley and retiring the A-10 and U-2.

So what do you guys think?

(http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/02/24/hagel ... -32-ships/)

[L Ron Cupboard]

Sensible decision. Just look at how much more than everybody else the US spends

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26326969

[Valrifell]

America really does need to cut back on military spending, especially now that there is no real threat to national security...
anymore...

[Greed and Death]

A slap in the face to those who sought to make a career out of service to their country.

Hopefully congress raises the budget above the pentagon's request like they have in years passed.

[Oaledonia]

shrinking the army to 440,000 from 520,000,

That's fine

cutting the number of Littoral Combat Ships,

Frigates are also effective in the littorals

scrapping plans for a new armored vehicle to replace the Bradley

It doesn't need to be replaced

and retiring the A-10 and U-2.

Which both needed to be retired.

[San Mazer]

In my opinion, I think it is sensible for the most part. The only part I would change would be keeping the A-10, or at the very least, the USAF giving them to the Army or Marines. The A-10 should at least be kept on for a few decades more.

[Oaledonia]

In my opinion, I think it is sensible for the most part. The only part I would change would be keeping the A-10, or at the very least, the USAF giving them to the Army or Marines. The A-10 should at least be kept on for a few decades more.

No, the design and slow speed doesn't make sense in modern battlefields, plus the F-35c is a better plane for the job.

[Lolloh]

Meh. The military barely I needs that many troops for no good reason. I say we slash the budget to 250 billion, well above China, and cut our military size, as it's ridiculous to assume that we need so many people. And the Pentagon can just refuse the budget or donate the cash to somebody, can't they?

[Norvenia]

Sacking close to a hundred thousand dedicated professional soldiers is not the right way to cut military spending, just as slashing military pensions wasn't the right way to solve a budget deficit. We can debate about whether the US needs to possess as much military force as it currently wields, and I am inclined to believe that it does not. But I can't believe that we are prepared to debate whether or not men and women who are prepared to lay down their lives for their country deserve to be thrown out on the street without the jobs that they rely on. Out of all the ways to limit military spending, cutting personnel costs is by far the most ethically outrageous. It's both insult and injury to the men and women who risk everything to keep us safe. Surely I'm not the only one who sees a huge problem with that.

[Phocidaea]

Good for them. The DoD is the biggest tumor on the budget by a large margin. Even small cuts will help.

Also, expect "small government" conservatism at its finest in the counterarguments.

[The Cold Place]

The U-2 is hopelessly obsolete. Seriously, it was invented in the late 50-60's and probably obsolete by the mid 80's.

I think it would be absolutely crazy NOT to cut the budget when there is no organized enemy.

[San Mazer]

In my opinion, I think it is sensible for the most part. The only part I would change would be keeping the A-10, or at the very least, the USAF giving them to the Army or Marines. The A-10 should at least be kept on for a few decades more.

No, the design and slow speed doesn't make sense in modern battlefields, plus the F-35c is a better plane for the job.

In my opinion, they designed the F-35 to do too many jobs and the constant adjustments and the costly redesign have pushed it way too far over budget. The best option, I think would be to keep the A-10 right now until we see how the F-35 performs in a ground attack role.

[Oaledonia]

In my opinion, they designed the F-35 to do too many jobs and the constant adjustments and the costly redesign have pushed it way too far over budget. The best option, I think would be to keep the A-10 right now until we see how the F-35 performs in a ground attack role.

The F-35 is designed as a multi-role; that's exactly what it's doing. Keeping the A-10 would be hopeless, given that the youngest frame is from 84'; and has virtually no advantage over a multi-role. What the military is focusing on (as it should be) is cheap planes for ground attack duties; like the modernization program for the OV-10 or EMB 314

[Siaos]

I'm very happy with these cuts. They aren't massive cuts to military, but they're a good start.

[San Mazer]

What the military is focusing on (as it should be) is cheap planes for ground attack duties; like the modernization program for the OV-10 or EMB 314

I found something on the web from a few years back comparing the A-10 and F-35.

(http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... rce-budget)

However, I still see the A-10 being retained, at least till the end of the decade (perhaps in more limited numbers) as a cheap attack plane with proven reliability.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

This is great. Now if only Obie could make serious cuts to the welfare budget too.

[Oaledonia]

What the military is focusing on (as it should be) is cheap planes for ground attack duties; like the modernization program for the OV-10 or EMB 314

I found something on the web from a few years back comparing the A-10 and F-35.

(http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... rce-budget)

However, I still see the A-10 being retained, at least till the end of the decade (perhaps in more limited numbers) as a cheap attack plane with proven reliability.

That article is a blog, and is horribly misinformed. The gun on the A-10 is hardly able to pierce 3rd gen tanks, but now with 4th and even 5th ten it can't damage them. Modern air defense would tear Thunderbolt up, because that armor is nothing if your enemy is firing a semi-decent missile at you. The A-10 is slow, can't reliably defend itself, bulky, and gives huge radar signatures. He also compared it to the F-35b, which no one will use. It's the F-35c that I am referring to.

The A-10s' "proven reliability" is so far against nothing more then obsolete soviet tanks and air-defense, not a semi or fully modern military with strategic air defense with S-300s. It's far from cheap, it's hard to repair and impossible to replace if damaged, and is only worth the number of hard points it carries.

[San Mazer]

I found something on the web from a few years back comparing the A-10 and F-35.

(http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... rce-budget)

However, I still see the A-10 being retained, at least till the end of the decade (perhaps in more limited numbers) as a cheap attack plane with proven reliability.

That article is a blog, and is horribly misinformed. The gun on the A-10 is hardly able to pierce 3rd gen tanks, but now with 4th and even 5th ten it can't damage them. Modern air defense would tear Thunderbolt up, because that armor is nothing if your enemy is firing a semi-decent missile at you. The A-10 is slow, can't reliably defend itself, bulky, and gives huge radar signatures. He also compared it to the F-35b, which no one will use. It's the F-35c that I am referring to.

The A-10s' "proven reliability" is so far against nothing more then obsolete soviet tanks and air-defense, not a semi or fully modern military with strategic air defense with S-300s. It's far from cheap, it's hard to repair and impossible to replace if damaged, and is only worth the number of hard points it carries.

Ah, never mind them. Maybe I should get more accurate sources. Well, you've given me some good points as far as the F-35 goes. But as I see it, the F-35 should be given a chance to tested in the ground support role before the A-10 is retired (Which I believe was the original plan.) But I suppose we'll just have to see what happens in the Pentagon.

But one thing I believe the government can learn from this is how to handle a program like the F-35's in future.

[Viritica]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/pentagon-set-slash-military-pre-world-war-ii-levels-n37086

Firing the opening salvo in a bloody budget battle, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recommended drastic cuts of billions of dollars that would take American military forces to its lowest level since before World War II.

The cuts in military spending, forces and weapons programs address the stark reality of growing budget pressures at home while pointing to the improbability that the United States will engage in a large ground war.

“As we end our combat mission in Afghanistan, this will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition [the Defense Department] is making after 13 years of war,” Hagel said in the Pentagon briefing room.

The reductions will come at a price, he said.

“As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risk in certain areas,” Hagel said, citing gaps in training and maintenance and a smaller force that would be stretched thin if major conflicts broke out in several places at once.

WATCH: Defense Secretary Hagel Talks About Military Cuts

The plan — which asks for $522 billion, more than China, Russia and the British defense budgets combined — is certain to face stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will battle for every troop, weapons program and dollar.

Rep. Buck McKeon, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said President Obama and Hagel are trying to “solve our financial problems on the backs of our military — and that can’t be done.”

The key components of the Pentagon proposal:

♦The Army would be reduced to between 440,000 and 450,000 — a 10 percent deeper cut than originally planned and the lowest level since 1940, when it had 267,000 active members. Hagel said the current troop level of 520,000 is bigger than necessary and “larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready.”

“Our analysis showed that this force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater…while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary,” he said of the pared-down Army.

Special operations forces will grow from 66,000 to 69,700 to deal with counterterrorism and crisis response.

"As a consequence of large budget cuts, our future force will assume additional risk in certain areas."

♦The entire fleet of A-10 “warthogs” would be eliminated and replaced by the F-35. The so-called tank-killer, designed in the 1970s to go after ground targets, is not nimble enough and too expensive to maintain because of its age, Hagel said.

Cutting it would save $3.5 billion over five years. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., whose husband was an A-10 pilot, has already vowed to fight plans to ditch the fleet.

US Air Force A-10 fighters stand in line SHAH MARAI / AFP - GETTY IMAGES FILE
U.S. Air Force A-10 fighters stand in line on the runway at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, on Dec. 18.
♦The U-2 spy plane, the stalwart of Cold War reconnaissance, would be retired in favor of recon drones. The U-2 would be replaced by the unmanned Global Hawk, which is considered to have greater range and endurance. “This decision was a close call,” Hagel said, but reduction in the Global Hawk’s operating costs made it a better bargain.

♦The Navy would buy two destroyers and two attack submarines a year, but 11 cruisers would be mothballed for modernization.

♦The Army would retire its Kiowas and Jet Ranger training helicopters. Meanwhile, the National Guard would trade the Army its weapons-laden Apaches for Black Hawks, which are seen as more suited for peacetime activities and disaster response.

♦The Air Force would slow the growth of its drone program, increasing to a force of 55 around-the-clock combat patrols of Reaper and Predator aircraft, instead of a planned 65.

♦One-percent raises would take effect, but there would be other benefit changes – making military members pay for some of their housing, cutting $1 billion in commissary subsidies and changing health-care benefits.

“Although these recommendations do not cut anyone’s pay, I realize they will be controversial,” Hagel said.

Blue Star Families expressed concern: "When too many of aspects of the pay and benefits structure change at the same time or there is too much uncertainty with the compensation system, we fear reaching a tipping point where our military families can no longer recommend service, recruiting becomes even more difficult, and our nation's security needs cannot be met."

♦The Pentagon will also push for base closings in 2017, though Hagel pointedly noted that Congress has rejected its last two requests on that front.

WATCH: NBC's Jim Miklaszewski on Where Defense Cuts Will Hurt Most

His proposal came with a series of warnings to Congress that if sequestration-level cuts are reimposed in 2016, he will have to start chopping even deeper.

That scenario would mean retiring the George Washington aircraft carrier, mothballing six additional cruisers, slowing the purchase of destroyers, eliminating the KC-10 tanker fleet, cutting flying hours – and slashing the Army’s troop level to 420,000.

That much of a plunge would affect the military's capability to deploy into combat, said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I'm telling you — 420 is too low," he said emphatically.

To avoid the worst-case scenario "will require Congress to partner with the Department of Defense in making politically difficult choices,” Hagel said.

NBC News' Kara Kearns contributed to this report.

So, what do you think NSG? Personally I've always been force cutting the military budget a little but setting it back to pre-WWII levels is scary and ridiculous. I mean, does no one remember just how militarily weak we were before WWII?

[Agritum]

I love how said plan apparently still involves more budget spending than the defence spending of Russia, China and UK combined.

[Ritulus Terra]

Weak is not something that has applied to the USA in a very long time, and this is not going to change that in the slightest.

[Arkiasis]

Long overdue and much needed. Though it's sad to see such beautiful machines like the Lockheed U-2 and A-10 Thunderbolt leave.

[Yesgirlistan]

There's another thread for this, I think.
Someone else already posted one.

[Wytenigistan]

I love how said plan apparently still involves more budget spending than the defence spending of Russia, China and UK combined.

Which has to be the case for now, unfortunately. Once we get ourselves into a situation it is hard to get out of, that is why I am against a militaristic method of solving problems in the first place.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I always get frustrated at the newsies saying we're slashing the military to pre-WWII levels (I would know, I was there dammit!). Not only does any connection to WWII only come from active troop numbers (440,000 is the lowest SINCE before WWII when we had 267,000) but it also ignores EVERYTHING else.

This isn't WWII any more. Boots on the ground aren't always necessary, and can be replaced in some instances by drone or aerial missions. We now have a modern Air Force with drones and airplanes which can provide such. Alongside of that, we have so many more capabilities than we had before WWII (our active troops can be deployed amazingly faster, the equipment they have is significantly better (and there's more of it), etc.). That some analysts portray it as some travesty that active troop levels are being cut just points out their own knee-jerk response they would/do have against ANY military cuts, no matter what they are.

The U-2 is quite replaceable with drones. I can only imagine Global Hawk radar signatures are smaller than the U-2s possibly could be just because of the initial difference in size (though that's speculation on my part). I regret seeing the A-10 go just because the F-35 is a boondoggle shit-pile of a replacement, but that ship sailed six+ years ago when the F-35 program was doubled down on.

Hell, the military could likely use some more cutting (I'd venture to propose retiring a few of these new namby-pamby Generals and Admirals bloating the ranks, but that may just be my own bias against the whippersnappers talking), the main reason such cuts face opposition is because congressmen don't want to look like "I tuk yur jerbs!" to the military personnel and families in their districts/states and because they don't want to let go of the sweet teat of Pentagon spending that funnels in.

Also, as the article mentions, seeing as expenditures will remain greater than China, Russia and the British combined, I think we'll remain just dandy.