NYT Opinion piece on DOD budget cutting

[Sinatra]

Everyone has an opinion..... whenever I read news about DOD budget cuts I wince. From this article, the Osprey and Virginia class recommendations are what really got me going. I don't think the author(s) really understand the missions of either one. Every time DOD spending goes up (yeah I know it has gone up a lot) somebody is always ready to ask why we can't so our jobs with "what we've had for the last 20+ years"......

Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21sun1.html

 

[snake020]

Total sea dominance eh? Ya, there's no piracy in the Gulf of Aden, and the Navy has only upsized since 1990, right? The LCS is just plain awesome, no fiasco there. Oh and those 688-class subs don't cost anything to maintain either right?

And obviously we can trim some fat out of the excess carrier battle groups as they don't support anything on the ground.

This guy's a joke.

 

[OUSOONER]

^----- I really don't know that much about the submarine forces of our foes (potential and actual), but the bit about keeping the submarine force in production just to avoid closing the 'yards seems rather short sighted.

Without going into specifics, aren't there quite a bit of 'unfriendly' submarines patrolling around out there? I mean I know even Iran has submarines...

Also the line [about not talking to Russia about Missile Defense], the writer apparently was on assignment at the North Pole without internet or cell phone during the whole Georgia thing a couple months back.

 

[scoolbubba]

Who is the author? My web knowledges are sucking right now. What is their background?

 

[squorch2]

It's an unsigned editorial, so it's the consensus of the editorial board.

 

[FlyinSpy]

Who is the author? My web knowledges are sucking right now. What is their background?

This is an editorial, so it represents the collective wisdom (!) of the NY Times Editorial Board. You can read about them here:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html

 

[Picaroon]

A focus on manpower and pragmatic development while spending less on things like the F-22 and Zumwalt are things that I've seen a lot of guys on this site suggesting...

Just sayin'

Second page seems to get a lot dumber though.

 

[scoolbubba]

Rog. It seems like they are talking out of their collective asses. I was trying to figure out if it was someone who might actually know something about defense spending, acquisitions, or defense companies. In reality, its a bunch of writers and editors doing what this forum does on a regular basis...with no way for the casual reader to establish any of their bona fides, yet published nationally. Brilliant!

 

[Flash]

Everyone has an opinion..... whenever I read news about DOD budget cuts I wince. From this article, the Osprey and Virginia class recommendations are what really got me going. I don't think the author(s) really understand the missions of either one. Every time DOD spending goes up (yeah I know it has gone up a lot) somebody is always ready to ask why we can't so our jobs with "what we've had for the last 20+ years"......

Many people, my self included, still wonder about the worth of the V-22. For what it does at its total cost, I certainly don't think so.

And what would happen if no one asked these questions? I think some of our priorities and procurement is out of whack, I still don't understand why we are trying to bus the LCS or missile defense toys. We can't have everything we want, and sooner or later, probably much sooner, the services will have to make some hard choices. We just can't afford the spending binge we have been on much longer.

Also the line about not talking to Russia about Missile Defense the writer apparently was on assignment at the North Pole without internet or cell phone during the whole Georgia thing a couple months back.

The MDA system poses little threat to Russia, especially when their ICBM/SLBM force outnumbers the total number of 100-110 interceptors by many times over. Details people........

 

[fusu]

well I guess I'll play devil's advocate for a bit and say my piece in defense of the strawmen being knocked down.

I won't comment on any of the specific weapons systems and/or the suggested cuts to them; I'm sure most everyone on this site has a more informed opinion re: the details than me.

That said, I can see the logic to the editorial's general point: the US does not have an infinite amount of funding to spend on the military and it should channel resources toward the type low level conflicts which will likely dominate the 21st century. It's not just a call to reduce spending but to redirect it.

Anyone who has ever slogged their way through Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers knows that there is a dangerous correlation between excessive deficit spending on the military and the lost of long-term political influence. Seems to me that we owe it to ourselves to make sure we don't give up political prosperity for short term mite.

v/r

 

[sickboy]

I thought the DDG-1000 was axed already?

 

[Flash]

I thought the DDG-1000 was axed already?

And that is noted in the editorial........they say axe the only two we do plan to buy, not a bad idea when you think about the cost.

 

[jollygreen07]

As a JO it's interesting to read OP-ED pieces like this. I've always viewed the NYT as a mouthpiece for a side of the American public that I've never been able to identify with: The liberal, leftist side.

My question for the ladies and gentlemen of the forum is this: How strong an indicator is this OP-ED of the attitude of the new administration? Can we younger and mid-grade officers expect to be RIF'd or find ourselves lacking (even more so than today) new weapons to fight new potential enemies (China, Russia, etc?)

 

[scoolbubba]

My question for the ladies and gentlemen of the forum is this: How strong an indicator is this OP-ED of the attitude of the new administration? Can we younger and mid-grade officers expect to be RIF'd or find ourselves lacking (even more so than today) new weapons to fight new potential enemies (China, Russia, etc?)

AFAIK, the only weapon system the Pres Elect has taken aim at was missile defense, and even he has stepped back from saying it needs to be axed outright.

Keeping SECDEF Gates on board was a wise decision, and the one that calmed my worrying mind the most.

There's still a month and 4 years after that for this administration to damage the military, but its coming off as more pragmatic and less ideological than its predecessor, which could be a good thing for how we do business.

 

[Bevo16]

We can't have everything we want, and sooner or later, probably much sooner, the services will have to make some hard choices. We just can't afford the spending binge we have been on much longer.

We could cut back on GS jobs and civilian contractors for a start.