-
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
Sequestration Impact on the Navy
- Thread starter OscarMyers
- Start date
I get that, and it makes sense, but it still doesn't excuse the defense contractor side making additions to a widget to help them out in foreign sales that results in hold-ups for domestic sales...for something that's 10 years over-due.
It's an imperfect system that is full of waste, abuse and cronyism - no doubt. Reform would be a good thing, but it's just a tough nut to crack.
His point was not cutting training to zero, he was saying that the Service Chiefs have three ways to cut spending. These three dials must be used like rheostats by taking more of an 'analog' approach to cost cutting. Each dial has a large range, it's not a digital 1/0 signal.
His quote: "As we shrink our force to pay the bill, we only have three ways that we can pay bills. One is in procurement, one is in personnel, and the other one is operations and maintenance. So you can dial those three dials in any combination, but there are three dials that we have."
Or listen to it; go to time 41:45 to hear him say it.
What he was trying to explain was that the dials can all be turned simultaneously to effect a cost savings.
If you cut manning, then you have gaps in the manpower pool that can not be repaired or replaced. (T-notch/Son of T-notch, etc)
If you cut acquisition funding you have two issues, first is sunk-cost of what you've put into it. The second is you may never get the program/capability back after you cut it.
Turning down these two 'dials' may look appealing to Congress today but there is a significant price to pay later on down the road. He was warning against robbing Peter (future manning/programs) to pay Paul (OPTEMPO).
If you cut OPTEMPO than you feel the impact immediately, BUT unlike the other two, this capability can be repaired/replaced. You can not replace a year group that never accesses or an aircraft/ship/sub/weapon systems that you do not buy. You can make up for missed/cancelled training in the future.
I don't think the Commandant was telling Congress that there is ZERO impact to cutting OPTEMPO. What he was doing was cautioning the lawmakers that there is no simple answer to cutting defense spending. How long do you want to feel the pain and where do you want that pain.
Not to put words into his mouth, but IMO he was suggesting a balanced cutting program is cutting some OPTEMPO (reducing the demand signal for military forces TODAY) with looking at savings in the future that will come from trimming back the size of the force while at the same time looking for savings in the acquisition process.
Good points. OPTEMPO also can be changed more quickly up or down. However, it doesn't give as big of a long term savings and it also doesn't address the structural problems in the military that cause long term overspending.
It's sort of like saying your household expenditures are too high, then reducing your ac and shower usage. That's a productive step, until you're covered in your own filth. Longer term, you need to think about why you need two hottubs and about the shitty insulation in your attic.
It's sort of like saying your household expenditures are too high, then reducing your ac and shower usage. That's a productive step, until you're covered in your own filth. Longer term, you need to think about why you need two hottubs and about the shitty insulation in your attic.
In other news, the sky is blue and people want to be paid more. If we're swinging at every pitch in this thread, might as well swing for the fences.
If your service is anything like my service we are woo folly unprepared for any war that doesnt involve chasing man dresses through the hills.
Im so glad that we went into Libya last year, not because of any sort of political change, but to remind people that there are still tanks to be targeted, IADS to be jammed and spoofed, and threats out there that dont revolve around old shit the Soviets made smuggled over a hillside on a mule. We've spent 10 years training to a permissive environment in the Army. Our equipment acquisitions process has revolved around how to better fight a COIN fight or conduct ISR. Nothing has been put into a real apposed threat environment. Hell the Radar side of my ASE equipment is in appalling condition and I doubt any of the line level maintainers would know where to start if I told them tomorrow it needed to work.
So Suddenly lowering the amount of money means that what little bit of time we do have to spend on that kind of training is gone so long as these "Overseas Contingency Operations" or whatever current doctrinal flavor of the month speak calls it continue. And we as a Nation will get to realize it when we start seeing casualties and losses on CNN the first night of a war where the Enemy shoots back and doesnt hide in caves burying bombs in the road.
Meanwhile, Navy air power (at least the CVW part of it) still focuses on MCO vs near peer threats as part of the workup cycle, and that's a good thing. While I was complaining when we were 8 years into the current fight that we weren't training enough on OEF, the key is to strike the proper balance, and that's always a moving target.
One advantage of P-3s is that we are very versatile in our mission sets. It may be a good at everything, great at nothing status but our bread and butter is ASW and we can adapt to what we need to and be great at it (or at least good enough). We still train for a multitude of missions and can flex at the drop of a hat. Like I said regarding the manning, we can do what we need to do, but our guys downstairs and even our center seats are getting overworked, and it's only home cycle.
Any time I read about reforming retirement benefits I get scared.
Supposedly...any future reform of retirement benefits will not affect those already serving when the reform goes into effect. However, with all the fighting and chicanery going on between congress, DOD, and the administration, I would feel quite uncomfortable also! When the checks start bouncing, ther'll be no guarantees for anyone.
BzB
We've gone round and round on the retirement thing in another thread. Not touching it here. I'll split it if it goes that way.
We have a force today that is almost 100% combat-seasoned. What that means varies by MOS, but that's a huge plus going forward, no matter who we fight.
Now, the specifics of how to fight may change dramatically in the future. We have Marines who are almost 10 years in who've never done a MEU, for example.
As we've discussed before, we are going to have to choose the type of military we have going forward, because we can't pretend that it's possible to be ready for everything. Jack of all trades, master of none.
We have a force today that is almost 100% combat-seasoned. What that means varies by MOS, but that's a huge plus going forward, no matter who we fight.
Now, the specifics of how to fight may change dramatically in the future. We have Marines who are almost 10 years in who've never done a MEU, for example.
As we've discussed before, we are going to have to choose the type of military we have going forward, because we can't pretend that it's possible to be ready for everything. Jack of all trades, master of none.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
My suggestion is to get out of our "iphone" syndrome.
Once upon a time, a phone that had internet capability was invented. The general public went "meh, what do I need internet on a phone for?" Then the iphone came out and made it "cool," followed soon after by android phones entering the market.
Today, many people will tell you that they couldn't possibly live without their smartphones, when ten years ago they would have told you that they couldn't imagine a use for them. But if I were in the hole in my monthly budgeting, I'm sure I could live without the $30/mo internet plan.
That's where our military is. We ramped up spending and the amount of assets we maintain immensily with the Cold War, and now we think the world will fall apart if we don't maintain a military capable of winning a war against the rest of the modernized world combined. Unfortunately, the U.S. public can't afford the military it wants -- we have over a $1 trillion/year budget deficit. So step one is to assess hard what capabilities we really need to maintain instead of which capabilities we want to maintain, and step two is to convince the public so the politicians with money follow along.
Your friendly neighborhood Prowler reps have never forgotten this.