Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 170

Thread: The U.S. Military Is In Really Bad Shape

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    " No enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration.”
    –Hon. Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense

    Military Readiness Is Not a Bargaining Chip
    https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ss_112944.html
    Since 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA), also known as “sequestration,” has arbitrarily underfunded the U.S. military. At the same time, our nation asked the men and women of our Armed Forces to do more around the globe, including missions in areas ravished by flooding and fires. The cumulative effect of this reckless policy is a critically low readiness level that negatively impacts our ability to fight wherever and whenever needed.

    In simplified terms, military “readiness” measures our service members’ abilities to operate at levels sufficient to counteract our enemy with the least amount of risk to American lives.
    We do not choose when, where, who, or in which domain of battle we fight, so our military must be prepared to wage war against any enemy at any time.
    This kind of readiness requires diverse training that can’t occur during deployments to combat areas.
    Currently, military readiness is critically low. For example, an infantry unit in Afghanistan....

    The lack of funding for readiness has also caused tremendous reductions in critical personnel and assets. According to testimony, I have heard in House Armed Services Committee (HASC) hearings,
    the Army has been reduced by 90,000 soldiers,
    and the Navy has 41 fewer ships and 90,000 fewer sailors since September 11, 2001.
    Air Force has gone from 134 fighter squadrons in 1991 to 55 fighter squadrons today.
    With growing threats from adversaries like China, Russia, and North Korea, divesting in military manpower and equipment puts our national security in peril.

    To make matters worse, the military is struggling to maintain equipment currently in its arsenal. Nearly two-thirds of the Navy’s aging fleet of F/A-18 fighter jets were grounded last year following a spike in deadly crashes. The Navy was also forced to ground its primary trainer, the T-45 Goshawk, after pilots complained of oxygen system failures in the cockpit. It’s clear that Congress must take decisive action.
    Last edited by dukkha; 03-23-2018 at 08:50 PM.

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,893
    Thanks
    3,736
    Thanked 20,386 Times in 14,102 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Are you saying our global supply chain can only be sustained at the point of gun? That’s absurd. A strong military is essential to protecting our interests but there’s a word for dropping that kind of coin to support 800 military bases around the world. It’s called Colonialism and if you think that’s hyperbole most of those bases are located where former British Empire bases used to be.

    These Commanders in the military who are saying that we are dangerously underfunded to maintain preparedness should be fired. If they can’t get the job done on an annual budget of $600 billion they are obviously incompetent.

    Where the military is concerned that cup will never be full. Those who believe it are gullible rubes of the lowest order.
    I am saying a lot of our supply chains are enforced at the point of a gun. Look, I don't want to go to war. I also believe our military needs to do a much better job at spending the money it has. I feel like there is not as much accountability as there should be. I also believe other countries that rely on us for protection need to step up and contribute more. But look at what's happening in Asia. China would love to take over and completely dominate that region. Our military and its power keeps them at bay and we need that

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Why yes and there’s no way our military can possibly be strong enough when they only have more money to spend then the other top ten countries combined.

    I mean hell this the absolute worst case scenario for a career officer. Fucking peace has broken out. What a calamity! LOL LOL LOL
    Nobody here has traced what sequestration has done. That is the underlying cause.
    I just posted a couple more articles that talks in detail about readiness
    ++

    How about "da Russians"? I keep saying there is a cost to keep adding more and more force to NATO
    The Dems and hawks keep saying the Russians are " eying the Baltics " and such junk.
    So which is it? more force projection at Russia? China? or not?

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,929
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 24,837 Times in 17,268 Posts
    Groans
    5,349
    Groaned 4,601 Times in 4,278 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Yes, wage peace. Would work wonders in today's global society
    I agree, it would.

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I am saying a lot of our supply chains are enforced at the point of a gun. Look, I don't want to go to war. I also believe our military needs to do a much better job at spending the money it has. I feel like there is not as much accountability as there should be. I also believe other countries that rely on us for protection need to step up and contribute more. But look at what's happening in Asia. China would love to take over and completely dominate that region. Our military and its power keeps them at bay and we need that
    Wacko projecting US power is one thing but there are limits to that power. At some point you have to ask is it worth the escalating cost? Just look at the blood, treasure, political destabilization and ill will around the world we’ve earned protecting our interest in oil so we can have cheap gasoline only to ultimately find out we had all we needed at home. Was it worth it?

    But that’s really another topic. My point is that the militaries demands for ever more resources is a bottomless pit. No military commander ever has said “No thanks. We have enough money.”. The MIE claims of lacking resources has to be met with a large degree of skepticism as they cry wolf far to many times. Our military was never intended to be a jobs program.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    Nobody here has traced what sequestration has done. That is the underlying cause.
    I just posted a couple more articles that talks in detail about readiness
    ++

    How about "da Russians"? I keep saying there is a cost to keep adding more and more force to NATO
    The Dems and hawks keep saying the Russians are " eying the Baltics " and such junk.
    So which is it? more force projection at Russia? China? or not?
    Thats complete nonsense and utterly false dichotomies. If our military leaders are not prepared given the massive expenditures it would be far more effective to fire their incompetent asses. Only a moron of staggering proportions would not have a healthy degree of skepticism about such wildly unsubstantiated claims.

    Our national defense isn’t intended as a jobs program or a profit center for the MIC.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Thats complete nonsense and utterly false dichotomies. If our military leaders are not prepared given the massive expenditures it would be far more effective to fire their incompetent asses. Only a moron of staggering proportions would not have a healthy degree of skepticism about such wildly unsubstantiated claims.

    Our national defense isn’t intended as a jobs program or a profit center for the MIC.
    Force readiness is a function of MONEY -dedicated or general budgetary allocations. Are you saying the brass just sits around and doesn't try to meet mission demands? They have gone so far as to scrap museum pieces and parts from the Boneyard. That's one helluva procurement process!

    I've given specific examples of what sequestration has done, and then you start talking nonsense about jobs programs.

    Air Force Pilots are LITERALLY Going to Museums for Spare Parts
    https://www.speaker.gov/general/air-...ms-spare-parts
    The readiness crisis in our military has gotten so bad that Marines and Air Force pilots are literally going to museums to pull spare parts off old ships and airplanes.

    As a recent news report explains, “Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground. ‘We also pulled it off of six other museum jets throughout the U.S.,’ Lytton said."

  8. The Following User Groans At dukkha For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (03-23-2018)

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Maybe they should cut some of their programs and stop spreading themselves so thin. They are the largest organization in the entire world in terms of funding. Try harder.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to FUCK THE POLICE For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (03-24-2018)

  11. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 282 Times in 188 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    I love how conservatives tell liberals all the time that throwing money at a problem isn't a solution. So they throw so much money at the Pentagon that they cannot even audit their own books.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to smb For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (03-24-2018)

  13. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julius Malema View Post
    Maybe they should cut some of their programs and stop spreading themselves so thin. They are the largest organization in the entire world in terms of funding. Try harder.
    F-35 development funding is separate from maintenance and operational funds. Trying to solve the heads up helmet display (i.e.) for the F-35 doesn't mean money is taken from operations.

    Blame the overall mission requirements if you want to, but POTUS/Congress sets the tasking/funding

    I Wore a $400,000 F-35 Helmet and It Blew My Mind
    https://gizmodo.com/i-wore-a-400-000...ind-1779125567

  14. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,893
    Thanks
    3,736
    Thanked 20,386 Times in 14,102 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Wacko projecting US power is one thing but there are limits to that power. At some point you have to ask is it worth the escalating cost? Just look at the blood, treasure, political destabilization and ill will around the world we’ve earned protecting our interest in oil so we can have cheap gasoline only to ultimately find out we had all we needed at home. Was it worth it?

    But that’s really another topic. My point is that the militaries demands for ever more resources is a bottomless pit. No military commander ever has said “No thanks. We have enough money.”. The MIE claims of lacking resources has to be met with a large degree of skepticism as they cry wolf far to many times. Our military was never intended to be a jobs program.
    Did I not just write that our military needs more accountability in how it spends its money? I said nothing about needing a larger budget. Nor did I say we should go to war with China. But it is 100% true that our ability to protect our trade routes is a huge part of our economy

  15. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    The Following User Groans At noise For This Awful Post:
    wtf?
    groaning the fact the AF is scavenging museum parts??

  16. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22,675
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 12,388 Times in 7,999 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 809 Times in 761 Posts

    Default

    Someone is going to have to remind me of the time when military leaders didn't say that their readiness was low and that they needed more money.

  17. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,178
    Thanks
    741
    Thanked 1,448 Times in 965 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 45 Times in 42 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    Last week on Capitol Hill, several top U.S. military leaders from across the armed services presented a sobering case to Congress: U.S. military readiness is the lowest it has been in decades, leaving it unprepared to defend America’s interests at home and abroad.

    In testimony before the Senate and House Armed Services committees, the vice chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force articulated pressing concerns about the state of their branchs’ readiness to respond to conflicts overseas or attacks on the homeland.

    The hearing highlighted substantial readiness and capacity issues within each of the services:

    - Army: Of 58 total brigade combat teams (the Army’s main combat building block), only three are considered ready for combat.

    -Navy: The Navy’s fleet is the smallest it has been in nearly 100 years. This makes ship repairs harder to complete, as those vessels are needed on the waterways.

    -Marine Corps: Eighty percent of Marine aviation units do not have even the minimum number of aircraft they need for training and basic operations.

    -Air Force: The Air Force is the smallest and, in terms of many of its aircraft, oldest it has ever been. The service had 8,600 aircraft in 1991 while today it only has 5,500, and those aircraft are an average of 27 years old. Worse, fewer than half of those aircraft are prepared to take on and defeat our adversaries.

    These troubling findings by the services echo those laid out by The Heritage Foundation in its 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength, which rated the Army as “Weak” and the other three branches as “Marginal” in terms of their ability to fight and win major conflicts.

    What was noteworthy about the vice chiefs’ testimony beyond these startling numbers, however, was their brutal honesty.

    For eight years under the Obama administration, top defense officials were largely silenced and prevented from articulating their concerns about budget cuts and decreased readiness to policymakers with the ability to reverse undeniable decline.

    What this hearing and other recent public statements are showing, however, is that defense leaders believe they can now begin to speak openly about the challenges they face, and that Congress and the administration can address these negative trends—especially those caused by diminishing resources.

    Make no mistake—budget cuts, especially sequestration cuts implemented indiscriminately across the board beginning more than five years ago, have been devastating to the U.S. military.

    Look at flying hours, for example.

    Navy, Marine, and Air Force pilots have all seen their flying hours substantially reduced because there simply is not enough money to fly sorties. This has led to pilots being unable to maintain cockpit skills, which like everything else, will atrophy without constant tuning and training.

    Worse, this inability to maintain proficiency has led to lethal accidents and loss of aircraft, which may have been preventable—to say nothing of the danger of thrusting our service men and women into combat without giving them the opportunity to train and maximize their readiness.

    John Venable, a Heritage senior research fellow for defense policy and retired F-16 pilot with more than 4,400 hours in the cockpit, has written that the 2015 Air Force average of 150 flight hours per year per pilot (just under three a week) means
    And this is 20 to 30 years later, in a world where our enemies have become stronger, more advanced, and more aggressive.

    Even if the budget for flight hours existed, however, in many cases it simply would not matter, because the majority of the services’ aircraft are not even considered flyable.

    According to multiple reports just this week, about two-thirds of the Navy’s fighter/attack aircraft and more than half of the Marine Corps’ total aircraft fleet are unable to even get off the ground.

    These problems are merely the tip of the iceberg. The American people can expect to hear more accounts like these in the coming months as we learn more about the declining state of U.S. military readiness.

    However, hope is not lost. Congress and the Trump administration can act to begin reversing this trend. Eliminating sequestration cuts implemented by the Budget Control Act is a necessary first step.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...e-19446?page=2
    What have they been using that grossly bloated budget for then?

  18. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    Someone is going to have to remind me of the time when military leaders didn't say that their readiness was low and that they needed more money.
    you should look for yourself instead of parroting some stupid meme. Or better look where NATO spending could be cut by ending the European Reassurance Initiative.. Then talking to Putin..and looking for areas to deconflict with Xi..

    Spending can be reduced with less mission tasking, but that won't happen against "da Russians"

Similar Threads

  1. She really is in good shape
    By Darth Omar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 07-14-2017, 05:44 PM
  2. We shape the future
    By Canceled.LTroll.8 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-26-2010, 06:57 AM
  3. What will be the shape of recovery?
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:30 PM
  4. Which Shape Describes You?
    By DamnYankee in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
  5. Getting into shape...
    By Cancel10 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 02:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •