Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My post on the first page explains my position a bit more.
I don't disagree at all with the Pearl Harbor summary and we were indeed lucky on that one.
While I largely agree with your position of the second paragraph of your earlier post (#7, on the first page).
The first paragraph leaves me wondering how, without any "forward" bases we could find safe harbor for damaged ships, or resupply them in the event of a crisis?
That naval base also needs air cover (air force) and ground protection (army and or marines) nearby for support as well. A port of call contract in such a time of crisis could leave us without a place to dock for repairs, and resupply when the host country decides it is not in their best interest to allow us access. If we come in anyway, we face the possibility of internment for the duration under international neutrality laws, assuming the vessel is too damaged to put back to sea safely, no?
This was a problem for the powers that lost wars in the 20th century. Battle of River Plate as an example comes to mind. Certainly time has progressed, and it's hard to envision a situation like this in modern warfare. But then "modern warfare" always seems to take on a personality that nobody ever expected.
The best military needs to be prepared for any contingency(s) that may arise. Lack of forward bases severely limits those efforts.
That being said, I'm quite certain there is a lot of waste that could, and should be trimmed from the military budget.
When it comes to protecting the "folks at home", too much is better than not enough, and having it and not needing it, is better than the opposite.(IMHO, of course)
But isn't it the DoD that makes threat assessments their budget requests are based on?
Yes and no. The military operates under the use it or lose it reality. If they don't use up not only their material budget but also their operating budget, next years will be neutral or decreased. This is especially true at the base and under level. As a 'whole', it operates as many believe. However the smaller units are often left scrimping every year so they overstate based off expected use for the next year.
The DoD brass try to allocate based off the ombudsman projections but it's a disparate cobbling of budgets, and balancing. Plus the military units don't dictate policy so operationally they often operate at a loss.
Real life example? Sure. Back when I first got in (92), my guard unit got the newest c130s in the fleet. What does that mean? We flew TONS of missions the regular Air Force couldn't. That means we weren't under 'presidential' orders. So that money wasn't budget (my commander wanted to make general). Skip forward a few years and the new commander started saying no so people could make rank, get paid, keep retention, etc... what happened? We lost 4 planes.
So while units are good at managing (many), brass isn't because they don't say no to civilian leadership as that who approves general and up promotions.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
Yes and no. The military operates under the use it or lose it reality. If they don't use up not only their material budget but also their operating budget, next years will be neutral or decreased. This is especially true at the base and under level. As a 'whole', it operates as many believe. However the smaller units are often left scrimping every year so they overstate based off expected use for the next year.
I've read that! There were a coupla books written by a Vietnam helicopter pilot who returned home, was busted trying to smuggle a bunch of cannabis into the country on a sailboat, and wound up doing time at a club Fed in FLA. He said he'd seen brand new jet engines being buried in the ground because they had to disappear or they'd lose the $$$ to buy more.
What a wonderful reality! Makes me wanna Email my Rep And Senators and insist we give the DoD MORE! MORE! MORE!
Yes, our Naval assets are indeed dwindled from former days. With what has been spent on the JSF 35 alone we could have done a LOT with the Navy. The Navy seems to get dumped on in favor of the Air Force a lot. A holdover from the Cold war when strategic bombers were still king. Our sub tech is still good, but aging, as are most of our surface vessels and the Navy is pretty much doing all their aviation work with the F 18. A good airframe, but much modified and reworked since its inception.
Our carriers are still number one. Nobody can touch them. We just don't have the operational groups we used to, and that we need. Covering things here at home means having projection globally. We can't just do coastal stuff. Things need to be rethink as far as our military goes.
It was proven over 70 years ago that the premier naval weapon is an aircraft carrier. That is not even open to debate.......
The world changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
