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.
Good luck getting those amphibious landing craft into Afghanistan.
The Marine Corps that I knew were able to deploy anywhere in the world within 24 hours, and you cannot do that by vessel. Obviously that is no longer the case.
It's still the case. I wasn't clear. The majority of our transport is still done by LHA/LHD. But that's why we have forward deployed forces, so we can meet that expectation. Much like why the Navy has FDNF ships.
because they ASKED us to
because the status of forces agreement mandtates it
and 3/4 of the bases in germany have been closed starting in the 90's....I was stationed in germany for 8 of my 27 years in the military
we spend less today on the military than we did 20 years ago
We spend more, I thought I already pointed this out. Your response was flawed in that when you tabulated 1990 spending you included supplemental spending bills for the war as part of the 1990 budget, but have not included supplemental spending bills for our current wars as part of the 2010 budget.
It's still the case. I wasn't clear. The majority of our transport is still done by LHA/LHD. But that's why we have forward deployed forces, so we can meet that expectation. Much like why the Navy has FDNF ships.
Obviously that is no longer the case if the Marine Corps requires the USAF to deliver their M1 tanks. The whole purpose of having the Marine Corps was to have a rapid deployable force able to engage in combat within 24 hours. This is suppose to be why the Marine Corps has its own Air Mobility Command.
If the Marine Corps has to rely on another branch of the military to deliver the equipment they need for combat, then it no longer can be considered "a rapid deployable force."
Obviously that is no longer the case if the Marine Corps requires the USAF to deliver their M1 tanks. The whole purpose of having the Marine Corps was to have a rapid deployable force able to engage in combat within 24 hours. This is suppose to be why the Marine Corps has its own Air Mobility Command.
If the Marine Corps has to rely on another branch of the military to deliver the equipment they need for combat, then it no longer can be considered "a rapid deployable force."
Yes, that must be part of our "jointness". Of course, they just got rid of JFCOM so I wonder how that's going to work in the future. I can't speak to specific instances of using USAF assets to get to the battlefield because I don't have specific experience in that. We've already relied upon ourselves or the Navy for transport, as far as I knew. But hey, I could be wrong.
Yes, that must be part of our "jointness". Of course, they just got rid of JFCOM so I wonder how that's going to work in the future. I can't speak to specific instances of using USAF assets to get to the battlefield because I don't have specific experience in that. We've already relied upon ourselves or the Navy for transport, as far as I knew. But hey, I could be wrong.
I was referring specifically to the use of the M1 main battle tank by the Marine Corps. The Marines had used the M60 main battle tank specifically because it could fit in a C-130, and C-130s were capable of short take-offs and landings. Perfect for the Marine Corps' needs.
However, after they switched to the M1 main battle tank in 1997 they can no longer use C-130s. The tank is too wide and too heavy.
As far as I am aware, only the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemasters are capable of taking off and landing with an M1 tank on board, and only the Air Force has those planes. In the case of the C-5, the tank can be deployed for combat immediately. However, in the case of the C-17, the tank must be configured for transport. Which means that it is not able to enter combat immediately upon arrival.
I was referring specifically to the use of the M1 main battle tank by the Marine Corps. The Marines had used the M60 main battle tank specifically because it could fit in a C-130, and C-130s were capable of short take-offs and landings. Perfect for the Marine Corps' needs.
However, after they switched to the M1 main battle tank in 1997 they can no longer use C-130s. The tank is too wide and too heavy.
As far as I am aware, only the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemasters are capable of taking off and landing with an M1 tank on board, and only the Air Force has those planes. In the case of the C-5, the tank can be deployed for combat immediately. However, in the case of the C-17, the tank must be configured for transport. Which means that it is not able to enter combat immediately upon arrival.
Yes, in the past, we always brought our own assets to the battlefield. Personally, I don't think this is the best idea for the Marine Corps to rely upon the USAF. But I don't think that relying upon the USAF for deploying the Marine Corps tanks to the battlefield is justification for eliminating the Marine Corps.
How much would we save if we eliminated 3 carrier battle groups?
Whole battlegroups or just carriers? For just carriers, if you add personnel, modwins, HM&E, aircraft, fuel, etc - you're looking at around 500 million per year, conservatively. That's per carrier. If you are looking at the battlegroups, then you can increase that amount.
How much would we save if we eliminated 3 carrier battle groups?
If we reduced defense spending to the average percentage of GDP it has been over the last 50 years, it would cut $108 billion off the current defense budget.
We are currently spending 4.65% of our GDP on defense. That should be reduced to 3.675% of our GDP to be in line with what we have historically spent on defense over the last 50 years.
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.
