Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....

[High_Gravity]

My girlfriend has a friend who lives in Florida, her husband is in the Air Force and he will deploying to Afghanistan for the 4th time in 6 years, the Air Force is so strapped for manpower right now they keep sending the same people over and over and over again, this is why reducing the force makes me worry about the men and women we currently have serving.

 

[Hugidwyn]

A diminished Navy can't meet its multiple global missions.

The Navy's fleet is already too small and its ships too old to perform its multiple missions. The fleet has shrunk by half in two decades and currently stands at 285. At the height of the Reagan Cold War buildup in 1987, the Navy had 568 carriers, destroyers, submarines and other ships.

Five years ago, the Navy pledged to get back to a floor of 313 ships sometime in the next decade. But even that shipbuilding plan was stingy in ambition and funding, favoring smaller, relatively inexpensive combat and supply ships. An update last year cut the number of ballistic missile submarines to 12 from 14. The Pentagon's latest budget plan makes it virtually impossible for the Navy to meet the 313 ship goal.

 

[High_Gravity]

A diminished Navy can't meet its multiple global missions.

The Navy's fleet is already too small and its ships too old to perform its multiple missions. The fleet has shrunk by half in two decades and currently stands at 285. At the height of the Reagan Cold War buildup in 1987, the Navy had 568 carriers, destroyers, submarines and other ships.

Five years ago, the Navy pledged to get back to a floor of 313 ships sometime in the next decade. But even that shipbuilding plan was stingy in ambition and funding, favoring smaller, relatively inexpensive combat and supply ships. An update last year cut the number of ballistic missile submarines to 12 from 14. The Pentagon's latest budget plan makes it virtually impossible for the Navy to meet the 313 ship goal.

I bet you are all happy about that, aren't you?

 

[dadsgm]

Yes, the number of troops we need depends upon the mission assigned to that service. However, Congress has never fully funded the Military at the levels requisite for the accomplishment of the stated National Strategy. Having served 27 years I know first hand who short the funding has been. From no replacement parts or long waits forn parts, from shortages of manpower, frm lack of training funds/ lack of fuel to support movement training, to shortages of ammunition resulting in modification of training standards. You saw the effects in Iraq and Afganistan - shortage of HUmvees, shortage of up-armor for the vehicles, shortage of personnel resulting in numerous tours of duty and a shortage of Medical facilities and personnel with the ability to treat the returning wounded both physically and mentally. All because the Congress funded the service for missions that were designed for in and out no more that 90 days not the 2 wars simultaneously they had for a natiional strategy; after that we were in trouble for personnel and equipment. Sure we did it in Desert Storm by using air, land and sea capaabilities with massed large forces whose mission was to close with and destroy the enemy up to the limits of its mission.. This time the leaders shunned the idea of a large force and relied upon the SECDEF to use smaller hit and run forces which as you now know didn't work to well.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yes, the number of troops we need depends upon the mission assigned to that service. However, Congress has never fully funded the Military at the levels requisite for the accomplishment of the stated National Strategy. Having served 27 years I know first hand who short the funding has been. From no replacement parts or long waits forn parts, from shortages of manpower, frm lack of training funds/ lack of fuel to support movement training, to shortages of ammunition resulting in modification of training standards. You saw the effects in Iraq and Afganistan - shortage of HUmvees, shortage of up-armor for the vehicles, shortage of personnel resulting in numerous tours of duty and a shortage of Medical facilities and personnel with the ability to treat the returning wounded both physically and mentally. All because the Congress funded the service for missions that were designed for in and out no more that 90 days not the 2 wars simultaneously they had for a natiional strategy; after that we were in trouble for personnel and equipment. Sure we did it in Desert Storm by using air, land and sea capaabilities with massed large forces whose mission was to close with and destroy the enemy up to the limits of its mission.. This time the leaders shunned the idea of a large force and relied upon the SECDEF to use smaller hit and run forces which as you now know didn't work to well.

Yes everything you are saying is true, I have seen all of this first hand myself on my 2 deployments to the Middle East. About a year after we invaded Iraq US Army Soldiers in Iraq used to scrap through garbage dumps to try and find metal to put on their humvees, true story.

 

[Hugidwyn]

I bet you are all happy about that, aren't you?

Just like you when the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

[High_Gravity]

I bet you are all happy about that, aren't you?

Just like you when the Soviet Union collapsed.

What makes you think the US is collapsing?

 

[Hugidwyn]

I bet you are all happy about that, aren't you?

Just like you when the Soviet Union collapsed.

What makes you think the US is collapsing?

According to Freud, you're talking about, what do you think for yourself. I is not saying.

 

[idb]

Are you guys still occupying Japan and Germany?

I read that you're about to send a force to straighten out Australia as well.
There goes the neighbourhood!!!

 

[High_Gravity]

Are you guys still occupying Japan and Germany?

I read that you're about to send a force to straighten out Australia as well.
There goes the neighbourhood!!!

We are not "occupying" Japan or Germany, our troops are there at the request of those various governments.

 

[idb]

Are you guys still occupying Japan and Germany?

I read that you're about to send a force to straighten out Australia as well.
There goes the neighbourhood!!!

We are not "occupying" Japan or Germany, our troops are there at the request of those various governments.

Ooohhh...riiiiiiight!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Draw down the force structure means we will draw down our overseas deployments.

That's a good thing overall.

To rebuild our NG and reserve units to optimum strength and morale will take at least a decade.

If anyone believes overseas imperialism a la neo-conservatism is a good thing, the last ten years give the lie to it.

 

[Trajan]

Airpower alone is not the answer, never has been, never will be.

Drones are not the answer, either just as electronic intelligence was never the answer opposed to having people actually out there on the ground coordinating and collecting intel, Iraq and the

Like it or not IF, IF they reduced the number of army brigades and Marines, BUT kept a strong navy ( modern aircraft and carriers) and air force then found ourselves in a conventional ground war, we could survive long enough, like it or not the rifleman, artilleryman and tanker is trained more quickly and cheaply than an airman or carrier air grp. sailor.

BUT; the airforce is not going to get the planes and the navy aircraft or carriers it needs and the number of carrier air grps at 11 ( soon to be 10) is not enough.


Its not looking good and I won’t even go into Missile defense.

My question is; now that the military/defense is being pared back, when does the social prgms get pared back? That was supposed to be the deal, was it not?

Not likely.

 

[Wiseacre]

Aren't they still talking like they can make those cuts and still fight 2 wars? They're lying if they're saying that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The paring back means the USA will not be able to fight two major land wars at once.

Trajan's concern reflects some realities; however, our air power and air craft carrier groups will be enough for the next ten to fifteen years. No studies exist to contradict such a position.

The real threats are terrorist attacks in the home land and cyber warfare on our communications systems.

 

[High_Gravity]

Are you guys still occupying Japan and Germany?

I read that you're about to send a force to straighten out Australia as well.
There goes the neighbourhood!!!

We are not "occupying" Japan or Germany, our troops are there at the request of those various governments.

Ooohhh...riiiiiiight!

What the fuck does that mean? US Troops are not "occupying" Japan or Germany idiot.

 

[The Gadfly]

I'll co-sign on the nation building. It hasn't worked, and it's a misuse of our military force.We can reduce forward deployments without much, if any, damage to our strategic interests. With that said, reality is that we will have to maintain some foreign bases for logistical purposes. Then there's the overuse of our Guard/Reserve components to fill out active units; we've already stressed these to the max with our current force structure. Let this economy improve, and the damage to morale/retention in these components will be even more apparent than it is now.

In addition, trying to project future threats is always something of a guessing game. So far, we have been lucky; there is no guarantee that luck will continue. There ARE consequences to not being able to fight two major conventional conflicts at once. Those of you who look at this as some kind of "war preventative" are being short-sighted; the main result is to reduce our conventional options, and potentially put us in a position where a situation could force us into a heavier response than is desirable; do you really want the choice to be between doing nothing, and turning something into glass?

 

[High_Gravity]

I'll co-sign on the nation building. It hasn't worked, and it's a misuse of our military force.We can reduce forward deployments without much, if any, damage to our strategic interests. With that said, reality is that we will have to maintain some foreign bases for logistical purposes. Then there's the overuse of our Guard/Reserve components to fill out active units; we've already stressed these to the max with our current force structure. Let this economy improve, and the damage to morale/retention in these components will be even more apparent than it is now.

In addition, trying to project future threats is always something of a guessing game. So far, we have been lucky; there is no guarantee that luck will continue. There ARE consequences to not being able to fight two major conventional conflicts at once. Those of you who look at this as some kind of "war preventative" are being short-sighted; the main result is to reduce our conventional options, and potentially put us in a position where a situation could force us into a heavier response than is desirable; do you really want the choice to be between doing nothing, and turning something into glass?

I'd rather have the large force and not have to use it, instead of some shit poppin off and we are stuck here with our dicks in our hands because we lack the resources and means to do anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Major land war is not the issue of the future.

"The real threats are terrorist attacks in the home land and cyber warfare on our communications systems."

 

[High_Gravity]

Major land war is not the issue of the future.

"The real threats are terrorist attacks in the home land and cyber warfare on our communications systems."

How can you guarantee me there won't be a major ground war in the future?