The maintenance reduction is going to bite us in the ass, isn't it? And is the reduction in proposed weapons procurement temporary, or will it be maintained until inflation destroys out stocks?
The main reason we were a global power is we understood the importance of logistical infrastructure from a global perspective. You can't project air without airfields that can support your aircraft, otherwise they land and become expensive static displays. You can't project your maritime forces without suitable logistics and (at times) repair facilities to support maritime movement and sustain operations beyond their internal fuel and munitions. That infrastructure requires its own support structure to make it possible. No one else could do it the way we could.
Sadly, we have seen a major degradation in our front line capabilities as aircraft and ship availability decline due to shrinking numbers, poor maintenance and supply issues (which impact training and operations). Force projection capability has also significantly declined as the all important global infrastructure has degraded due to lack of funding and expertise aging out.
The one thing that doesn't seem in short supply is our delusional mindset that we are as capable as we were twenty years ago. Hubris may not be the right word, but it will have to do for now.
I got a feeling much of the Army procurement is replacement for Ukraine shipments. Question I’m pondering: will the Army build up also provide some benefits for a Naval build up?
Maybe I'm not reading the NDAA tea leaves correctly; i.e., I might be wrong in my interpretation of page 2888 and the pages surrounding page 2888. It appears to me that the US Army is preparing to fight a serious land war in Europe including going so far as to launch air-to-ground hypersonic missiles from its own aircraft.
CDR Salamander has provided us with an invaluable service with his analysis.
The budget is ground truth. It is almost a solemn moment in DC when the SECDEF, CJCS and Comptroller appear before the SASC.
As we can see the budget is a mixed bag and many here have pointed out its various shortcomings.
My concern is the underlying thinking behind the budget.
We do not have the necessary industrial base or financial resources necessary to fulfill our commitments if a lot bad things happened simultaneously around the world.
Our leadership - which does not fill me with confidence - would have to start making hard choices between guns and butter as Lyndon Johnson was forced to do.
A reduction in Navy maintenance funds at a time when Navy maintenance is already years behind is a crime. New ships and planes are great, if you can maintain them, but it is very obvious that we are not doing so and if we cannot maintain the current fleet how do we maintain a bigger one?
Faster! Higher! Deeper! Longer! And make it all run on electricity! Except, we won't smack down a bunch of Houthi pirates, we allow Iran to cause all kinds of trouble, at sea, on land, and in the air, and we patrol the world's oceans to ensure an endless flow of Chinese-made products.
"Facing A Navy-Wide Sailor Shortage, USS Ford Sheds 500-600 Crew"
"In the face of a massive shortage of Navy sailors, America’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has downsized, cutting the crew aboard by hundreds of sailors."
How many more sailors can the Ford afford to lose...say, in an attack...before she (if you don't like the use of that term...bite me) can no longer be "Recoverable"
Why it matters when you don't have enough carriers to begin with...
So, were cutting naval weapon procurement by hundreds of millions, Air Force Aircraft procurement by hundreds of millions and Navy and Marine Operations and Maintenance by hundreds of millions to pay for vehicles and weapons going to Ukraine...why shouldn't we be upset about this again? Don't we need more LRASMs, aircraft and maintenance capability in a shooting war with China over Taiwan or the Philippines?!?
The maintenance reduction is going to bite us in the ass, isn't it? And is the reduction in proposed weapons procurement temporary, or will it be maintained until inflation destroys out stocks?
The main reason we were a global power is we understood the importance of logistical infrastructure from a global perspective. You can't project air without airfields that can support your aircraft, otherwise they land and become expensive static displays. You can't project your maritime forces without suitable logistics and (at times) repair facilities to support maritime movement and sustain operations beyond their internal fuel and munitions. That infrastructure requires its own support structure to make it possible. No one else could do it the way we could.
Sadly, we have seen a major degradation in our front line capabilities as aircraft and ship availability decline due to shrinking numbers, poor maintenance and supply issues (which impact training and operations). Force projection capability has also significantly declined as the all important global infrastructure has degraded due to lack of funding and expertise aging out.
The one thing that doesn't seem in short supply is our delusional mindset that we are as capable as we were twenty years ago. Hubris may not be the right word, but it will have to do for now.
I got a feeling much of the Army procurement is replacement for Ukraine shipments. Question I’m pondering: will the Army build up also provide some benefits for a Naval build up?
Maybe I'm not reading the NDAA tea leaves correctly; i.e., I might be wrong in my interpretation of page 2888 and the pages surrounding page 2888. It appears to me that the US Army is preparing to fight a serious land war in Europe including going so far as to launch air-to-ground hypersonic missiles from its own aircraft.
CDR Salamander has provided us with an invaluable service with his analysis.
The budget is ground truth. It is almost a solemn moment in DC when the SECDEF, CJCS and Comptroller appear before the SASC.
As we can see the budget is a mixed bag and many here have pointed out its various shortcomings.
My concern is the underlying thinking behind the budget.
We do not have the necessary industrial base or financial resources necessary to fulfill our commitments if a lot bad things happened simultaneously around the world.
Our leadership - which does not fill me with confidence - would have to start making hard choices between guns and butter as Lyndon Johnson was forced to do.
A reduction in Navy maintenance funds at a time when Navy maintenance is already years behind is a crime. New ships and planes are great, if you can maintain them, but it is very obvious that we are not doing so and if we cannot maintain the current fleet how do we maintain a bigger one?
Faster! Higher! Deeper! Longer! And make it all run on electricity! Except, we won't smack down a bunch of Houthi pirates, we allow Iran to cause all kinds of trouble, at sea, on land, and in the air, and we patrol the world's oceans to ensure an endless flow of Chinese-made products.
All the King's Horses, Men (People, Folks, Indeterminants ...), or Money....
None of it seems to be solving this problem... Not even some great drag shows are moving the needle.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2023/12/12/facing-a-navy-wide-sailor-shortage-uss-ford-sheds-500-600-crew/?sh=f92b8cd51c0f
"Facing A Navy-Wide Sailor Shortage, USS Ford Sheds 500-600 Crew"
"In the face of a massive shortage of Navy sailors, America’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has downsized, cutting the crew aboard by hundreds of sailors."
How many more sailors can the Ford afford to lose...say, in an attack...before she (if you don't like the use of that term...bite me) can no longer be "Recoverable"
Why it matters when you don't have enough carriers to begin with...
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/CV5-Coral.html
Slogan for the USN of 2023...
We Cannot Afford To Fight!
Contrast...
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Videos/videoid/848529/
And compare...
https://youtu.be/0fTp4GzPWuE?si=5RVHZUF3TeaERHLt
Which Navy is more on the ball about a potential conflict in 2030?
So, were cutting naval weapon procurement by hundreds of millions, Air Force Aircraft procurement by hundreds of millions and Navy and Marine Operations and Maintenance by hundreds of millions to pay for vehicles and weapons going to Ukraine...why shouldn't we be upset about this again? Don't we need more LRASMs, aircraft and maintenance capability in a shooting war with China over Taiwan or the Philippines?!?