Pentagon announces 2015 Budget

[New Colorado Republic]

I admit I'm a little upset cause now I have a lower chance of getting into the navy.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Heck yeah, slash that shit.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Now take all of that money and throw it at fixing our infrastructure. Anything leftover can go to NASA-...Oh, I see. Subsidies for corn growers and oil. That's...nice.

[Meritocratic States]

It has been a long time coming.

Now we wait for the next five largest defence spenders go like; "We'll take you on, bro."

While I do not approve of cutting jobs for the men and women defending their country, it is necessary. The US has bigger problems than a couple of suicide bombers.... like their enormous deficit.

[New Colorado Republic]

Heck yeah, slash that shit.

But...but how will I pay for college?

[Wamitoria]

I feel like we shouldn't get rid of the A-10. We should probably be focusing on the more ridiculous miltech projects in the budget before that.

[Marcurix]

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.

This.

[Trollgaard]

The A-10s shouldn't be retired until the F-35s actually arrive, and even then they should be kept in reserve in case of emergency; kinda like what the Navy does with its Mothball Fleet.

And if anything the Navy should continue to grow, to keep the gap as wide as possible between our Navy and China's rapidly expanding force. Japan, Taiwan, and other southeast Asian countries should also expand their Navies, if at all possible for them.

[Trollgaard]

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.

Exactly. At the very least keep the A-10s in Mothball until the F-35 proves itself.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Heck yeah, slash that shit.

But...but how will I pay for college?

There is nothing wrong with going to college as a non-trad student.
Taking out loans is hell (I know, I use them) but if you are 100% sure that you can pay them back do it. It is not a sign of weakness.
Apply for EVERY scholarship and grant that you qualify for. Take two hours a day to fill out scholarships.
Apply for the FAFSA on time.
Pinch your pennies like the most beautiful nipple.

[Neutraligon]

Not so sure I like the idea of cutting or changing healthcare for the armed forces.

But...but how will I pay for college?

There is nothing wrong with going to college as a non-trad student.
Taking out loans is hell (I know, I use them) but if you are 100% sure that you can pay them back do it. It is not a sign of weakness.
Apply for EVERY scholarship and grant that you qualify for. Take two hours a day to fill out scholarships.
Apply for the FAFSA on time.
Pinch your pennies like the most beautiful nipple.

I'll second the scholarship thing, there are so many scholarships that either 1 person applies for or no one applies for.

[Blasveck]

If the transition is slow and military workers are allowed time to transition instead of being let off the hook immediately, I don't see any issue.

[The Nihilistic view]

As long as they cut support staff and some of the more wasteful capital spending programs rather than combat troops I don't see much problem. It's not such an issue because the US has around 550,000 national guard and reservists on top of it's regular Army.

I'm more worried about my army for example as we are cutting a higher % or troops and we don't have a large National Guard or reserve to pick up the slack if we are suddenly in a small war like another Falklands. The US ratio is about 1-1 Professional to reservists whilst in the UK we have currently 6-1. And whilst they plan to have more reservists its not going to plan and even if it does it's still only 2.5-1. Though we do have the regular reserve which contains soldiers who have left the army. But they would only be called up for serious national emergencies.

I do think fat could be chopped from the US defence budget without the need to reduce manpower however. You can have all the toys you like but without Infantry you can't hold ground. It's faster with the US defence industry set up to order more equipment than it is to train a new proffesional solider if one get's into a war in the future. Gutting trained professionals instead of halting some expencive programmes is the wrong way to go about it. $250bn a year is spent on Procurement, research and construction. I am sure most of the cut could be found within here. With perhaps giving less generous benefit's and tax breaks given to enlisted men as opposed to reducing the number.

To compare currently the UK defence budget is about $60 or around 8-9% the US budget but the UK for that money has around 50% more manpower per $ spent. This dispite the US benefiting from increased economies of scale over the UK military. Now in some areas the British military is equipment poor namely the surface fleet stands out as one currently. Though after a decade of UK investment in equipment because of the wars there is much less a gap between equipment levels than there was in 2002-03. The German military is another example of getting more manpower per $ than the US as is France. Now these are all well equipped well trained militaries, they just seem to get better value for money out of their overall defence budget at current levels. I think rather than just cutting troop number the US defence department should first look at where this £250bn (about 40%) portion of the current budget is going. I think better management of this could result in few if any cuts to personnel numbers.

For reference the current spend on manpower is about $150bn whilst operations and maintenance is at about $270bn. Operations and maintenance will naturally reduce as the war in Afghan ends and the operations end.

[Vareiln]

I like this plan.

[Oaledonia]

Exactly. At the very least keep the A-10s in Mothball until the F-35 proves itself.

That's the plan, though. The US keeps all of it's scrapped planes mothballed for a while, then scraps them.

[Geilinor]

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

We should keep the military budget larger than it needs to be just so we can include everyone who wants to serve their country? Many people get rejected by the military every year for not meeting their standards, even if they want to serve their country, and if anything, this will result in more competition.

[-Palaven-]

So....can anyone explain why they need to slash the military budget?

[Geilinor]

So....can anyone explain why they need to slash the military budget?

We're taking troops out of Afghanistan.

[Blasveck]

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

Hah.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So....can anyone explain why they need to slash the military budget?

Eases funding for other, more important things as the days when we needed to fear a knockdown drag-out conflict with a roughly equivalent rival are 23 years behind us now.

Could also incentivize more efficient expenditure of those dollars that are spent.

[-Palaven-]

So....can anyone explain why they need to slash the military budget?

Eases funding for other, more important things as the days when we needed to fear a knockdown drag-out conflict with a roughly equivalent rival are 23 years behind us now.

Could also incentivize more efficient expenditure of those dollars that are spent.

How large is it anyways?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Eases funding for other, more important things as the days when we needed to fear a knockdown drag-out conflict with a roughly equivalent rival are 23 years behind us now.

Could also incentivize more efficient expenditure of those dollars that are spent.

How large is it anyways?

$522,000,000,000

[-Palaven-]

How large is it anyways?

$522,000,000,000

Large number, how big is that compared to everyone else?

[Occupied Deutschland]

$522,000,000,000

Large number, how big is that compared to everyone else?

Very large (Note: This uses the 2012 expenditure)

[The Nihilistic view]

How large is it anyways?

$522,000,000,000

Actually it's more like $640bn last year and about $620 this year. Though that does not include veterans spending, foreign military aid or economic aid that is about $150bn, $15bn and $40bn respectively. Out of the combined $55bn in aid about $15bn goes to Iraq and Afghan which is a direct result of the wars. So the true cost of the US military and what it has been asked to do is larger than the defence budget. Where as the UK for example veteran and also military aid spending I believe comes from the defence budget.