• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

US cutting $100Bn in defence budget

wikiphile

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12130628

Gates cutting Pentagon budget by $78bn over five years
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has announced a $78bn (£50.3bn) military budget cut, to be achieved in part by scrapping a $14bn amphibious vehicle.

The cuts over the next five years come in addition to $100bn in internal savings already announced.

Those savings will be redirected to other defence programmes, but the new cuts slow growth in the overall budget.

But cuts to weapons programmes are certain to encounter fierce opposition from members of Congress.

Much of the roughly $178bn in defence cuts will come through reduced administrative costs, new organisational efficiencies, and slashed personnel costs, which the defence department called a "vigorous scrub of bureaucratic structures".

The Pentagon's budget is expected to be $553bn in 2012, reflecting roughly 3% growth. After that, growth would slow and would be essentially flat in 2015 and 2016, the Pentagon said.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis

Nick Childs,

BBC defence and security correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the latest Pentagon acknowledgement that it can't be exempt from the need to make savings to cut the US government deficit.

American defence spending has ballooned with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the details of the proposed savings are sure to prove controversial - with some bound to argue they don't go far enough, while others will say they are too deep.

Even with these planned cuts, the US Army and Marine Corps will still be larger than when Mr Gates became defence secretary four years ago.

And the US will continue to spend a significantly bigger proportion of its national income on defence than any of its major allies.

The reduction in commitments in Iraq and the anticipated ones in Afghanistan in the next few years will help ease the strain.

But there will still be major upheavals for the US armed forces after the years of massive spending increases, and they come at a time when Washington feels its relative military strength is being challenged by emerging powers like China.
Mr Gates said much of the savings would be achieved by eliminating more than 100 general and flag officer positions, more than 200 top civilian defence positions, by cancelling redundant programmes and through reduced administrative costs.

As much as $100bn in savings would not be sliced from the overall budget, Mr Gates said, but would be reinvested in shipbuilding, missile defence, intelligence, reconnaissance, healthcare for wounded soldiers, and other programmes.

Among the major weapons systems set for the scrap heap is the amphibious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), made by General Dynamics Corporation. In addition, the Pentagon will end an Army surface-to-air missile programme.

Mr Gates has been sceptical about whether large military vehicles, like tanks and EFVs, will continue to be crucial military instruments as engagement in modern warfare changes.

He has previously said the enemy has developed sophisticated weapons capable of attacking ships waiting close to shore.

Other cost-cutting measures announced by Mr Gates include plans to cut orders for the F-35 joint strike fighter over the next three to five years to compensate for repeated delays in development and testing.

Continue reading the main story
Programmes marked for new investment
Repair and refurbishment of Marine Corps equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan
New unmanned aircraft
New ships, including a destroyer, a littoral combat ship and an ocean surveillance ship
Updating the Army's tank fleet
He said he wanted to end the post-9/11 Pentagon's "culture of endless money where cost was rarely a consideration".

The major weapons programmes cuts are likely to encounter opposition from US congressmen and senators in whose constituencies the arms are manufactured.

"I'm not happy," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon told reporters. He said the cuts were greater than defence companies had been expecting.
 

boundThunter

Alfrescian
Loyal
increase-2000-2009.png



us-taxes-2009.png



us-spending-2001-2011.png



Make up your own mind. It's their poor getting screwed and the absolute knowledge that the RMB have a better purchasing power is still not knocking in.
The US at most will be able to keep up with the Joneses are 20 years and their decline will be a flashback to the USSR in the 80's. Worse, those Slavs were built to withstand starvations and whatever the world at large throw at them, so of course they survived but them US's fat asses will start a riot from a MacDonald's withdrawal symptom and starting killing their neighbours over missing remote controls.

Their worst conundrum was their early 30's after the financial failure but the WW2 actually worked out so well that they ended up owning the world and speaking American. Would they start a perceived WW3 to wag the dog or would they shrink back to their Wilsonion's isolation which was good for them at that time because they were busy collecting brainpowers and excercising their tai chis ?

Empirefallsbookcover.jpg
Deja Vu...
 

longbow

Alfrescian
Loyal
1) US can not longer afford to spend crazy amounts on military.
2) Cost to provide medical care for Iraq/Afghan veterans will reach the trillions
3) Chinese military expenditures are likely larger than official figures.
4) US Sec Def going on trip to China. Given Sec Def's speech on cost cuts, would not be surprised if they did a deal with China. Who knows - US promise to stat away from Taiwan Straits in exchange for assurance on NK and South China Sea and Japan
 

congo9

Alfrescian
Loyal
Don need to spend so much , maintain will do . No need new programmes ! So easy ... China if they spend another 10 more years also cannot outfight American. Chinese bascially don like to fight.
 

sleaguepunter

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
surprise they give up the EFV which is a much much better vehicle than what marine corp currently have. It have much better speed in sea, can be launch over the horizen and have much better armour and weapons on board.
But i admit the EFV had taken a very long time to develop, i remember seeing it in internet ard 2004, saw it prototype in Future Weapon on the discovery channel ard 2006. Till now still not operational. i wonder why need to test so long.:confused:
 

longbow

Alfrescian
Loyal
China will never be able to out fight US for the next 30 years. But military always look 30 years ahead. That is the problem.

However with reduced budget, US may lose that ability to bring the fight to the Chinese or rather any large country. After the point is to maintain militray superiority and that cost $$$. Army always want 3 to 1 superiority in forces to win a battle. Simplistically that measn 3 to 1 expenditure for military.

So if China spends US$100B, US must spend US$300B to maintain this edge. But wait US has heavy military expenses in terms of veterans benefits (all the troops that fought in Iraq and Afghan get free lifetime medical care!!

Since large chunk of budget goes for medical cost amount alotted for weapons and training is less. as such the ratio must be even more (this does not take into account the ongoing wars and numerous military bases around the world).

If we take a 1 to 5 ratio, US must spend $500B for every $100B that China spends. I think the Chinese are already at that level and increasing.




I see US trying to get China to play ball rather than to embark on some arms race. Hot button issues for China is Taiwan, Tibet and those disputed islands with Japan.

If US will support these issues, China may give up on NK or pressure them even more, and amicably solve Spratlys

Don need to spend so much , maintain will do . No need new programmes ! So easy ... China if they spend another 10 more years also cannot outfight American. Chinese bascially don like to fight.
 
Top