Welcome Back, Carter! Budget Cuts Threaten to Hollow Out the Military
We’re set to lose 80,000 in the Army:
The Army is planning to cut at least eight brigades and 80,000 troops as it trims its budgets, U.S. officials confirmed Wednesday.
The new brigade cuts, which will happen over several years, will reduce the number of Army troops to 490,000 from a high of 570,000. The cuts, first reported by The Associated Press, could reduce the number of brigades from 45 to as low as 32.
The Army’s force reduction has been expected by analysts, but the cuts are now getting finalized as part of the Pentagon’s 2013 budget, which is the first that will deal with a $487 billion reduction over the next decade.
Among other potential problems, that’s 80,000 more unemployed.
Meanwhile the Air Force is set to cancel a successful drone aircraft:
The U.S. Air Force will end the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned drone in favor of older U-2 planes, a defense analyst said Tuesday.
Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, told The Hill that the Northrop drone was one of the programs that would see the budget ax when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rolls out the first details of the Pentagon 2013 budget Thursday. The Global Hawk drone will be retired in the Air Force, though the Navy variant will remain, Thompson said.
Disclosure: A friend of mine helped design the Global Hawk. It’s a fantastic aircraft. The idea that the Air Force will scuttle them in favor of the U-2 doesn’t make a lot of sense. The GH can fly farther than the U-2 and doesn’t put its pilots at any risk, since it is piloted by remote even from a few countries away from where it may be operating.
Aircraft experts, help me out here. What’s the benefit of the U-2 over the Global Hawk drone? Aside from the fact that Bono likes them.
And please remember, RuPaul also wants to cut the defense budget.
RuPaul and Baracky… ideological brothers?
32 brigades. 8 divisions.
That’s less than the ground force involved in Desert Storm- for the entire United States Army.
I’m sure champagne corks are popping from Tehran to Caracas to Pyongyang.
And the commensurate cuts to social programs and foreign aid will happen when…(fill in you own blank but I’d suggest using geological time scales).
Well there is this to consider:
snip:
One source close to the Air Force said the sensors, data links and other equipment on the Global Hawk are less accurate, and provide less resolution, less range and less collection capability than other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, particularly the U-2.
“As for the Global Hawk system’s capabilities, it is good at long-endurance flight with its so-so sensors,” the source said. “They are currently and will continue to be well below par.”
The Global Hawk has never lived up to the Air Force’s original expectations, critics have said.
Even if additional resources were added to the program, “it will never live up to the hype the Military Channel, Aviation Week, etc., have been leading the public to believe,” the source said. “The technology advertised as currently on-board many UAVs is nothing short of science fiction, not mature and won’t be until billions are spent to make it happen.”
Additionally, the Global Hawk doesn’t have the U-2 Optical Bar Camera, which creates 6-foot-long wet-film images of the ground. Congress had barred the Air Force from retiring the U-2 until all of that aircraft’s capabilities are replaced.
The Global Hawk is also far less reliable than the Air Force had hoped, he said. The aircraft “spends most of its time hiding in its hangar broke.”
The fate of the Block 40 Global Hawk, which is equipped with the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) radar, is not clear. The MP-RTIP is a powerful ground surveillance radar designed to create photo-quality imagery of the Earth’s surface and overlay moving ground targets over those.
end snip…
Source: Air Force Times
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-af-to-delete-global-hawk-012512w/
Frank, I suspect that’s some ring-knocker pilot who doesn’t like aircraft that can be flown by an E-5 at Nellis. The obvious counter-argument here is that if the U-2′s sensors are that much better, why not just install them in a Global Hawk?
My guess would be the payload on the U-2 is significantly higher.
I would wager that several Global Hawks each with a different sensor package would be required to fulfill the mission of a single U-2 flight.
The U-2 has a payload capacity (fuel & sensors) of 26,000 lbs compared to 14,500 lbs on the global hawk.
The U-2 has a much larger instrument bay also. The most fancy stuff probably just won’t fit into the Global Hawk regardless of weight. That is what I take the “billions required to make it happen” means. They need to make everything smaller.
My take from this is that it would probably be cheaper to build a larger drone than to shrink the sensors. We know how to make really big things that fly. Making complex technology smaller is much harder.
Of course a new procurement program in this climate is not going to happen. Hence still flying the U-2.
Earl.
If memory serves, another reason the U-2 is still flying is that it’s significantly cheaper to operate than the fancy-dancy SR-71.
They knew how to build planes to last back when they made the U-2.
Comparing the fuel loads between the U-2 and Global Hawk is misleading. The Global Hawk has an endurance on station of over 24 hours which is far longer than the U-2. Being a manned aircraft, the U-2 is limited by pilot endurance as much as fuel. The U-2 is also a notoriously difficult aircraft to fly (especially to land) and they’re getting pretty old.
The biggest limiting factor with putting U-2 sensors in a Global Hawk is likely the size of the equipment bay and perhaps electrical capacity. However, sensor technology has evolved a great deal over the years. Consider this statement from earlier in the thread:
Additionally, the Global Hawk doesn’t have the U-2 Optical Bar Camera, which creates 6-foot-long wet-film images of the ground. Congress had barred the Air Force from retiring the U-2 until all of that aircraft’s capabilities are replaced.
The problem with wet film images is that you don’t get anything until after the aircraft has landed and the film has been developed. The Global Hawk (and other UAVs) send their imagery and other sensor data in near real time via satellite links. The intelligence analysts are seeing the data within a second or so instead of having to wait for hours. Satellite communications bandwidth is a finite resource and will always limit how much of an area you can image at high resolution.
If memory serves, another reason the U-2 is still flying is that it’s significantly cheaper to operate than the fancy-dancy SR-71.
There’re a couple more fundamental reasons why they quit flying the wonderful Blackbird. As reconnaissance satellites evolved from film-return canisters to near real-time digital downlinks, the Blackbird wasn’t so responsive anymore. With film canisters, you only got to analyze the intelligence collection once the canister had been deorbited (sometimes a matter of weeks), recovered and the film processed. A Blackbird could fly over an area and return with the collection in a matter of hours. With the digital downlinks, the imagery is available almost immediately.
Another reason why the U-2 stayed in service while the Blackbird was retired was persistence. A U-2 can stay on location for hours if need be to observe what happens. A Blackbird flew over the target area at more than 2000 MPH and was gone. It was great to get a snapshot in time but couldn’t stay in the area to see what happens. That’s why UAVs are so popular. The big ones can stay in the area for hours (over 24 hours in the case of the Global Hawk) and use satellite comm links to relay the data.
First off, USAF E-5s don’t pilot anything. It is and has been policy for over 50 years that officers fly planes (including UAVs).
Secondly, I’ve worked with both the U-2 and RQ-4. U-2 imagery is better, much better.
Fact is, the U-2 is a mature weapons system and the RQ-4 is still in development. Fiscally, the U-2 is the best call.
The U-2 sensors and capabilities have been updated many times over the decades. According to the Air Force Fact Sheet, it has satellite transmission capability for every sensor except the wet-film camera that offers the highest resolution. For most current collections, having the near real-time data relay is more important than getting the highest possible resolution. If you’re trying to hit time-sensitive targets, it doesn’t do much good if you have to wait hours after the collection to get the data.
A U-2′s endurance will always be limited by pilot fatique. The plane demands a very good pilot at the controls and doesn’t suffer fools gladly. If you don’t mind a great deal of profanity, there’s a funny video on YouTube about learning to land a U-2. The song in the background repeats, “She f**king hates me! She f**king hates me!”
“First off, USAF E-5s don’t pilot anything. It is and has been policy for over 50 years that officers fly planes (including UAVs).”
However, the Army does, in fact, have enlisted personnel flying drones engaging in combat operations.
Carter increased the defense budget and funded programs like the F-16, F-15 and the Abrams tank. The headline isn’t fair to Carter.
Pray explain this archived document from the Heritage Foundation, then.
I served in the military during the Carter Administration. It was awful. A great deal of our equipement was worn out following the Viet Nam war, spare parts were non-existant, and we had back-to-back pay raises that were 10% under the rate of inflation (effectively pay cuts) in 1979 and 1980.
I was stationed in Germany from 1978-80 and the spare parts situation was so bad that 20% of our fighters were down for maintenace at any time. In the event of war, the plan was to strip another 20% of the planes for parts to try to keep the rest flying. This was at a time when our planes were outnumbered 3 to 1. The Navy was so short on ammo (including missiles) that is was reported that incoming ships would offload their weapons so an outgoing ship would have a full load. The problem with that is that if something came up, your ships in port were unarmed and useless.
The Carter Administration did boost development of cruise missiles (but canceled the B-1) and stealth technology. Still, it was a lousy time to be in uniform.
Jimmy Carter also presided over “the hollow Army” (as described by then Army Chief of Staff Meyer). Ironically, we had more battalions, brigades and divisions then. I believe our end strength in the Carter era was about 750K active duty. I’ve always considered his defense policy, as relates to funding, bad but not terrible. Nixon and Ford started the post Vietnam draw down so I think they have more responsibility for the hollow Army than Carter.
Probably the worst problem was that funding for operations and maintenance was stagnant during the late 1970s. With inflation rearing its ugly head a dollar of 1976 defense cost upwards of $1.25 by 1979. And fuel was worse than that.
What we will wind up with is what I call (in a nod to Gen Meyer) “the brittle Army”. You can’t maintain adequate active duty combat forces on half a million soldiers. Unless your strategy is to cede the strategic advantage to the bad actors and hide behind the oceans guarded by the Navy and Air Force.
The comparison with Carter is apt. Obama is just another, albeit extreme, garden variety liberal. Cut defense. Increase social dependence and the size of government. Pay for it with increased taxes and debt. He talks about new ideas and calls conservatives the failed policies of the past. Yawn.
Egypt stops US Transport Secretary’s son, three others, from leaving country
Travel ban affects members of pro-democracy group
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46144773/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
“What’s the benefit of the U-2 over the Global Hawk drone?”
There is none. In fact, putting a pilot at risk in a U-2 when you don’t have to is a crime. Just shows you how stupid people get when they want to “save” money. In fact, those U-2s must be getting real old by now. Global Hawk would not only be more modern, but it could also be a test aircraft for a bigger and better global drone attack aircraft. But, heck, Obama doesn’t care. He’s got unions to pay back with more “stimulus” jobs.
If by ‘hollow out’ you mean they will receive more money next year than the previous than yeah sure.
Very astute. Cutting defense spending is not only necessary, it is the smart thing to do. Knee jerk reactions to government cuts is bad regardless of the program. I hope nobody on here decides to go kuckoo when we start discussing cutting Social Security and Medicare.
TedJ
How about we abolish the DOE, Department of Education, Homeland Security,EPA, Department of Transportation first. Then we reform the procurement process at Defense and laying off the paper pushers while retaining the combat arm of the military.To reform Medicare, we give 30 and below the option to not join Medicare, same with Social Security. For those under fifty but over 30, they have a choice to either stay in these programs or withdraw their money and select their own retirement and medical program where they have control. Government sponsored social programs have no place in the free world.
Sorta depends on what you have to defend against whom, don’t it? Is the world getting safer or more dangerous? Can you keep individual SM’s deployed indefinitely? Replace equipment already worn out?
Defense spending is what it is. You’re either maintaining the force at adequate levels or you’re not. We haven’t been since Clinton got his peace dividend; there isn’t another one in the budget.
Not being privy to the corridors of power, and so relying on public info on this topic, it seems that simply updating the U-2, as has been done, is a better, cost efficient way of doing the job. I would like to know more on this subject, as my only hands-on experience is with learning to fly with ultralights.
As a general rule, just because a new design comes out that is slicker and ‘newer’ doesn’t necessarily mean that the old version is totally outclassed or should be junked. Examples abound. The M2 .50 machine gun is substantially the same now as it was 50+ years ago.
Good. We spend too damn much on the military.
Actually, the United States spends damn too much on social programs. I checked the 2008 Federal budget and guess what, social programs consume 52% of the Federal budget while the Defense budget plus the war on terror and I include the whole off budget discretionary spending and it added up to 32.8% of the Federal budget. Sorry Pal, you are wrong.
By social programs you are including social security and medicare right? If you are talking about discretionary spending, spending for services that we haven’t PROMISED to American citizens, then the military budget makes up somewhere around 57% of the discretionary appropriations. If you don’t want to raise taxes, you gotta either cut social security, medicare or the defense budget. i vote defense budget.
Markus
Yes, those Social programs and more. I hate to break this to you, but those social programs cost more, waste more, spend more than the Defense budget. Medicare is nearly bankrupt,so does Medicaid and Social Security and we are not even getting into Federal pensions and Welfare. Let’s play this game, let us abolish the whole United States armed forces and keep the social programs fed. Guess what, it won’t change a single thing, it will only delay the inevitable for about ten years.
Look at Greece, Italy, Great Britain, Spain and Ireland. Their budget is eschewed towards social programs and they are damn broke. Look at Great Britain, their navy is rapidly becoming a coastal force, their soldiers and marines are half the size ten years ago and rapidly dwindling and so does their air force and the politicians are still raiding the defense budget to feed the relentless hunger of social programs. Look at Greece, they never went to join the war on terror and their military is just basically a defense force and guess what, they are broke due to social programs that devoured their country’s budget like there is no tomorrow.
The problem with the Defense budget is the procurement process which is ridiculously expensive due to politics. Reform the the military procurement process, the Defense budget will be more realistic than what we have now without getting rid of 80,000 battle hardened troops and still have state of the art weaponry.
I agree. Social spending is out of control too, just like military spending.
There is absolutely no reason for our government to maintain 14 or 15 aircraft carriers.
There is absolutely no reason for our government to maintain 14 or 15 aircraft carriers.
They don’t. The number of carriers in the US Navy is 11. When the USS Enterprise is retired later this year, it’ll drop to 10 until a new carrier currently under construction is finished.
Carriers are extremely complex ships and they require a lot of maintenance. From what I’ve read, there are a few carriers actively at sea at any given time. There are others getting ready to go to sea and others undergoing overhaul. If you want to have the ability to have 4 carriers at sea at any given time, you need at least 11 of them in the inventory.
Actually the only valid numbers are based on percentage of Taxpayer receipts.
The federal budget is so far out of whack any numbers based on the gross is nonsense. Any percentage of spending should be calculated as portion of actual taxpayer receipts. When this is done an accurate picture be available.
additionally until 2010 defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan were categorized as emergency appropriations and not listed as defense spending. When correctly categorized, defense spending skyrockets, which is what occurred in 2010 when the budgets were properly reported.
The total in FY 2011 is 929 Billion for federal defense spending, or an increase of 81% from 2001 to 2010.
Them Be the raw numbers and why defense spending must be cut back, its out of control.
There is one problem with your post. We have no Federal budget for the last 3 years. We don’t know how much of the taxpayer’s receipts were budgeted to Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and what have you. Do not forget the various stimulus programs that Obama inflicted to the tax paying public for the past three years. If we compare the cost of the social programs and the total cost of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011, the total cost of the war will end up cheaper.
According to Aviation Week, this article somewhat overstates the case on the Global Hawk. It looks like the DoD is stopping the Block 30 development but is planning on buying 11 of the Block 40 aircraft.
Though the U.S. will reduce the number of boots on the ground in Europe, cooperative efforts are still alive. The NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) program, based on a Global Hawk UAS, will continue with a contract expected for Northrop in May. The Air Force’s Block 40 Global Hawk, similarly designed for ground surveillance, also will move forward; the service has planned to buy 11 of those aircraft.
The Navy will continue its work in purchasing the Global Hawk-based Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance System (BAMS). It is unclear whether the Air Force’s decision to pull out of the Block 30 version will trigger a Nunn-McCurdy breach owing to a spike in the per-unit cost.