Pentagon to cut US troop numbers to pre WWII numbers

General Gibberish Forums The nickyd News Room
1

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/pentagon-plan-to-slash-us-army-to-pre-wwii-levels/5281496

 

Plan to slash US army to pre-WWII levels to meet spending caps announced by Pentagon

Updated 1 hour 58 minutes ago

3882848-3x2-340x227.jpg

Plans to shrink the US army to pre-World War II levels, eliminate the popular A-10 aircraft and reduce military benefits in order to meet 2015 spending caps have been announced by the Pentagon.

US defence secretary Chuck Hagel, discussing the Pentagon's plan for meeting its new spending caps, advanced a number of ideas that have been attempted in the past but rejected by Congress or are seen as likely to be unpopular in a congressional election year.

Mr Hagel said the Pentagon plans to continue shifting its focus to the Asia-Pacific region and will no longer need a land Army of the size currently planned, as the United States winds down its war in Afghanistan.

The department plans to reduce the size of the army to between 440,000 and 450,000 soldiers, he said.

The army is currently about 520,000 soldiers and had been planning to draw down to about 490,000 in the coming year.

A reduction to 450,000 would be the army's smallest size since 1940 - before the United States entered World War II - when it had a troop strength of 267,767, according to Army figures.

The army's previous post-World War II low was 479,426 in 1999.

"This will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition DoD (the Department of Defence) is making after 13 years of war, the longest conflict in our nation's history," Mr Hagel said.

"We chose further reductions in troop strength and force structure in every military service - active and reserve - in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities," he said.

 

Mr Hagel said the Pentagon also planned to eliminate the Air Force's fleet of A-10 "Warthog" close air-support planes, which are much beloved by ground troops, in order to ensure continued funding of the new long-range bomber, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a new aerial refuelling tanker.

"This was a tough decision," he said. "But the A-10 is a 40-year-old, single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft."

In a reversal of an earlier decision, Mr Hagel said the Pentagon decided to retire the 50-year-old U-2 spy plane in favour of the unmanned Global Hawk system.

He said the decision to reverse course came about because the Pentagon had in recent years been able to reduce the Global Hawk's operating costs.

The Pentagon chief also announced a series of steps to try to reduce the defence department's military and civilian personnel costs, which now make up about half of its spending.

Mr Hagel said the department would slow the growth of tax-free housing allowances, reduce the annual subsidy for military commissaries and reform the TRICARE health insurance program for military family members and retirees.

The defence secretary added that the Pentagon had decided to build only 32 versions of the new Littoral Combat Ship, rather than the 52 envisioned.

 

 

Reuters

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/pentagon-plan-to-slash-us-army-to-pre-wwii-levels/5281496

2

For context… Late last year, the US Defence Secretary said the sky will fall in upon itself:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-17/pentagon-chief-sounds-alarm-over-us-budget-cuts/5097582

 

US defence secretary Chuck Hagel says budget cuts 'too steep, too deep'

Posted Sun 17 Nov 2013, 4:39pm AEDT

5097698-3x2-340x227.jpg
US defence secretary Chuck Hagel has warned that budget cuts are "gambling" with America's security and global military role.

The cuts to the department of defence amount to nearly $US1 trillion over 10 years.

Mr Hagel says the $US52 billion set to be automatically cut in the 2014 fiscal year represents 10 per cent of the Pentagon's budget.

"[The cuts are] too steep, too deep and too abrupt," Mr Hagel told a defence conference in California.

"This is an irresponsible way to govern and it forces the department into a very bad set of choices."

The US navy's global presence is already down 10 per cent since sequestration began in March, while the army has cancelled training rotations for 15 per cent of its forces and the air force 25 per cent of its training events.

"The effects will be felt for a long period of time to come. By continuing to cancel training for non-deploying personnel, we will create a backlog of training requirements that could take years to recover from," Mr Hagel said.

The defence chief was speaking at the Ronald Reagan Defence Forum, a one-day event hosted at the late US leader's presidential library north-west of Los Angeles.

The Pentagon has made clear to Congress and the White House "the growing difficulties we face in training, equipping and preparing our forces under a cloud of budget restraints and uncertainty".

"These challenges are often not visible, but they are very very real, and they will become more visible as they further jeopardize the security of our country as our readiness, capability and capacity continue to deteriorate," Mr Hagel said.

The budget crisis comes as the US military is drawing back after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11, 2011 attacks.

Cuts 'sending the wrong message', 'gambling' against conflict

But Mr Hagel warned if a deal is not reached to stave off the deepest cuts, US forces might not be ready if another major conflict erupts unexpectedly.

"If sequester-level cuts persist, we risk fielding a force that is unprepared," he said.

"In effect, we would be gambling that we will not face a major contingency operation against a capable adversary in the near-term."

The sequester was devised as a poison-pill austerity program in 2012, with mandatory cuts spread over 10 years aiming to force battling Republicans and Democrats to compromise on a long-term program to reduce the country's deficit.

But a deal never came and the White House was forced to lop $US85 billion from spending between March and the end of the fiscal year on September 30, with nearly half of that from defence programs.

Mr Hagel's predecessor Leon Panetta also made no bones about the crisis facing the US military, in a panel discussion shortly preceding the current Pentagon chief's closing speech.

Mr Panetta said the cuts would impact "almost in every area where we have been able to respond, whether it's military crisis, whether it's a need to go in and try to rescue people, whether it's the need to do a Bin Laden operation".

"The reality is, the cuts that are taking place are going to inhibit our ability to respond in every area. We are sending the world a message that the United States is going to be weaker," he said.

"That's the wrong message to send to this kind of world where we face the troubles we face today."

AFP

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-17/pentagon-chief-sounds-alarm-over-us-budget-cuts/5097582

3

Makes sense to reduce numbers. To keep a military large enough to fight a WW without the need for that is just ludicrous. It's just a ■■■■ measuring exercise. US would be much better off using those extra dollars, and those extra people, for more beneficial outcomes. Republicans will absolutely hate the concept though. Wagging your massive ■■■■■ at other countries is a sign of relevance and authority in their world.

4

Makes sense to reduce numbers. To keep a military large enough to fight a WW without the need for that is just ludicrous. It's just a ■■■■ measuring exercise. US would be much better off using those extra dollars, and those extra people, for more beneficial outcomes. Republicans will absolutely hate the concept though. Wagging your massive ■■■■■ at other countries is a sign of relevance and authority in their world.

seems pointless in comparison to the spending they have/do on defence contracts.

 

But then there's to much money and influence in that sector to save money were it would really help.

5

Reasonable call, all-told.  The USAs strongest military asset has always been its economic, industrial, and technological strength - right now, with the military swallowing a huge amount of the budget while the economy wallows, preserving/regenerating that strength has got to be priority one from a military as well as civilian point of view.  You can generate a strong military from a strong economy in reasonably short time, especially given the US advantage of not being on the same continent as any potential serious enemy.  But if you sacrifice the econolmy for the military then you end up where the USSR did.

 

On the other hand, some of the detail priorities are whacked.  Littoral Combat Ship, really?  Why the hell  is a new long range bomber needed?  What's wrong with the B2, or the B1-B, or B52, or drones, or even cruise missiles, anyway?  Not even sure there's a real role for a long-range bomber these days, it's not 1943 any more.  And the joint strike fighter just has disaster written all over it - it'll get airborne eventually and will probably be pretty good, but won't be remotely worth the huge dollars.  No idea why Aust decided to buy those things - lousy fit for our needs, marginal operating range, can't carry anything like the ground-attack payload we'd need it to without totaly borking its stealth capacity.  Would have been better sticking with F111s if they weren't slowly falling from the sky, and picking up Eurofighters or Sukhois or or even going full drone-swarm.

 

We could do a lot worse than pick up a hundred-odd surplus A-10s once the US retires them, though.  US seem to be living in a dreamworld where the JSF is going to do everything (once again, before they too are replaced by combat drones), but in our region, and against the type of enemy we're likely to be fighting, a Warthog is a pretty handy tool, with long loiter time, high resistance to small arms and shoulderfired SAMs from guerillas etc, and the capacity to operate off rough fields.  The line about 'cannot survive or operate effectively in an environment where there are more advanced aircraft' - well, duh!  That's been the case since the thing was designed!  Apparently the Air Force has been lobbying to sacrifice the A10 in order to keep as many JSFs as they could - the army love the A10 but the air force has always hated having to operate mudgrubbers and are very keen to get their new pretty expensive toys instead...

6

Not to worry, Republicans will get up next time, pick a fight then restore miltary spending to pre-2014 levels in order to defend 'Merica against this dreadful new enemy that wishes to do them harm.

7

Reasonable call, all-told.  The USAs strongest military asset has always been its economic, industrial, and technological strength - right now, with the military swallowing a huge amount of the budget while the economy wallows, preserving/regenerating that strength has got to be priority one from a military as well as civilian point of view.  You can generate a strong military from a strong economy in reasonably short time, especially given the US advantage of not being on the same continent as any potential serious enemy.  But if you sacrifice the econolmy for the military then you end up where the USSR did.

 

On the other hand, some of the detail priorities are whacked.  Littoral Combat Ship, really?  Why the hell  is a new long range bomber needed?  What's wrong with the B2, or the B1-B, or B52, or drones, or even cruise missiles, anyway?  Not even sure there's a real role for a long-range bomber these days, it's not 1943 any more.  And the joint strike fighter just has disaster written all over it - it'll get airborne eventually and will probably be pretty good, but won't be remotely worth the huge dollars.  No idea why Aust decided to buy those things - lousy fit for our needs, marginal operating range, can't carry anything like the ground-attack payload we'd need it to without totaly borking its stealth capacity.  Would have been better sticking with F111s if they weren't slowly falling from the sky, and picking up Eurofighters or Sukhois or or even going full drone-swarm.

 

We could do a lot worse than pick up a hundred-odd surplus A-10s once the US retires them, though.  US seem to be living in a dreamworld where the JSF is going to do everything (once again, before they too are replaced by combat drones), but in our region, and against the type of enemy we're likely to be fighting, a Warthog is a pretty handy tool, with long loiter time, high resistance to small arms and shoulderfired SAMs from guerillas etc, and the capacity to operate off rough fields.  The line about 'cannot survive or operate effectively in an environment where there are more advanced aircraft' - well, duh!  That's been the case since the thing was designed!  Apparently the Air Force has been lobbying to sacrifice the A10 in order to keep as many JSFs as they could - the army love the A10 but the air force has always hated having to operate mudgrubbers and are very keen to get their new pretty expensive toys instead...

I can vouch for the effectiveness of the A-10.  Not sure it would suit our needs (or the current budget), but it will be shame to see it go.

 

One of the interesting things about the US reducing troop numbers is the the fact that the military is used as a defacto social welfare system for lots of Americans. No job, can't afford healthcare, can't pay for education? Join the military and get these things covered for you.  They get paid dirt at the low level, but for many people it's the best option to get out of poverty, broken homes, gang violence, etc.  Having worked with them firsthand I can assure you many of them don't have many prospects outside the military.

8

We still need one for the front of our new home base. An A-10 would be very nice.

 

a10-thunderbolt-ii_50290dcb04a3c_w1500.p
a10-thunderbolt-ii_50290dcb04a3c_w1500.png1500×1051

9


Reasonable call, all-told. The USAs strongest military asset has always been its economic, industrial, and technological strength - right now, with the military swallowing a huge amount of the budget while the economy wallows, preserving/regenerating that strength has got to be priority one from a military as well as civilian point of view. You can generate a strong military from a strong economy in reasonably short time, especially given the US advantage of not being on the same continent as any potential serious enemy. But if you sacrifice the econolmy for the military then you end up where the USSR did.
On the other hand, some of the detail priorities are whacked. Littoral Combat Ship, really? Why the hell is a new long range bomber needed? What's wrong with the B2, or the B1-B, or B52, or drones, or even cruise missiles, anyway? Not even sure there's a real role for a long-range bomber these days, it's not 1943 any more. And the joint strike fighter just has disaster written all over it - it'll get airborne eventually and will probably be pretty good, but won't be remotely worth the huge dollars. No idea why Aust decided to buy those things - lousy fit for our needs, marginal operating range, can't carry anything like the ground-attack payload we'd need it to without totaly borking its stealth capacity. Would have been better sticking with F111s if they weren't slowly falling from the sky, and picking up Eurofighters or Sukhois or or even going full drone-swarm.
We could do a lot worse than pick up a hundred-odd surplus A-10s once the US retires them, though. US seem to be living in a dreamworld where the JSF is going to do everything (once again, before they too are replaced by combat drones), but in our region, and against the type of enemy we're likely to be fighting, a Warthog is a pretty handy tool, with long loiter time, high resistance to small arms and shoulderfired SAMs from guerillas etc, and the capacity to operate off rough fields. The line about 'cannot survive or operate effectively in an environment where there are more advanced aircraft' - well, duh! That's been the case since the thing was designed! Apparently the Air Force has been lobbying to sacrifice the A10 in order to keep as many JSFs as they could - the army love the A10 but the air force has always hated having to operate mudgrubbers and are very keen to get their new pretty expensive toys instead...

I can vouch for the effectiveness of the A-10. Not sure it would suit our needs (or the current budget), but it will be shame to see it go.
One of the interesting things about the US reducing troop numbers is the the fact that the military is used as a defacto social welfare system for lots of Americans. No job, can't afford healthcare, can't pay for education? Join the military and get these things covered for you. They get paid dirt at the low level, but for many people it's the best option to get out of poverty, broken homes, gang violence, etc. Having worked with them firsthand I can assure you many of them don't have many prospects outside the military.
Operation cannon fodder
10

This doesn't come as a real surprise, it was just a matter of time before they realized they could not keep spending $10 m / hour on the war in Afghanistan. Good move America.