UK Politics

[Walsingham]

Defence spending should always be looked at in terms of GDP, though. US defence spending sounds like they're planning to take over the galaxy, until you notice the percentage is comparable with most places.

 

To develop this further, I think the value for money of the US military has been almost incalaculably great, since you've managed to avoid a direct confrontation with almost everybody for decades. This isn't to deny that this has forced most of your enemies to try to hit you in unconventional ways, and often with some success, but the alternative might have been genuine shooting wars. In an era of genuine shooting wars conducted at increasingly long range and at increasing velocity I'd call that a massive WIN.

 

Steve, good to have you weigh in. I agree with your division of possible spending, but challenge all of us to produce some figures on the nature of that spending. I also challenge us to produce some metrics on the performance of those bodies. Because quite apart from Afghan, the MoD is ALWAYS working to provide a deterrent effect, protecting trade and other interests. Not just pretending to provide a service like the FSA.

 

 

EDIT: I neglected to clarify my central point which is this: Having a military machine, or even a single military system that is three times better than any opponent may sound extravagant, but if it obviates the necessity of any actual shooting because any opponent would be stupid to try then it is exactly what you want.

 

~~

 

Monte, I see your point about light armour, but there's no way you can get armour without weight and overall operational lack of manoeuvreability. If you want light, operationally agile forces then they don't get big plates of steel or aluminium composite, and they don't get to turtle along cautiously. They get drop kicked into bad situations, and trust to luck/firepower.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Walsingham

[SteveThaiBinh]

Wals, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the current state of defence procurement in the UK. I've been reading the blog of Conservative MP Douglas Carswell recently, and he's pretty damning about how our money is spent.

[Gfted1]

The question is why would we waste money on something we rarely use? You could probably get away shutting down production of M1's (which grossly out classes anything that it's come up against, to the point where iraqui tanks couldn't even get in range of american tanks before they were blown to shreds). And I can understand the need to project power and so on, but they recently just laid down hulls for a pair (I believe) of new aircraft carriers (One of which is named the Ronald Regan).

 

But is it a waste? We were that capable precisely because of the R&D we did 40 years ago. You dont just pull the next generation platform out of thin are, it takes years of work. I hope we wont need the F-22 in 20 years.

 

The US is currently 48% of ALL military spending in the world (well in 2008). One would think that we could chop that down to... I don't know... the spending of the entire combined armed forces of Europe (particularly when enemies in that territory generally are a couple days drive while the US might as well be the 20 year old in a preschool)?

 

We dont have to arm for another war in Europe. The next big showdown will be with China.

 

EDIT: I neglected to clarify my central point which is this: Having a military machine, or even a single military system that is three times better than any opponent may sound extravagant, but if it obviates the necessity of any actual shooting because any opponent would be stupid to try then it is exactly what you want.

 

Great point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

but the best planes most of our enemies field... are on a tech level as the F-15, we're working to obsolete the F-22 which REPLACED the F-15.

The Russians claim their new plane is better than the F-22, and at the least it's a lot cheaper.

 

3) The "military industial complex" brings billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to civilians.

Not really, it's all tax money, if it was left in the private economy, it would go to improve the standard of living. The only economic benefit is the R&D they do may prove useful for other things. Not that I'm against defense spending, but economic benefits are not a justification.

 

So you can be a top-flight military power and still get the procurement basics wrong. The US can deliver iced-soda and pizza hut in theatre in 48 hours, it can drop tonnes of ordnance on a precise area from a mile above the earth and it can ship an armoured bridge anywhere on earth completely independently by sea... but it can't provide adequate light armour protection. I'm not even being facetious, merely pointing out an interesting contradiction.

The military was build to fight the Soviet Union, the Humvees were never meant to be on the front lines, the problem is with counter insurgency everything is a front line. Since the early years of the Iraq wars, getting all vehicles armored has been a top priority, and by now the situation is much improved. Humvee itself is being replaced by an explosion resistant vehicle (this is all at great cost of course).

 

And yes, you still need tanks, even in urban warfare. M1 is the only vehicle we have that's nearly impervious to most RPG's insurgents are likely to have. To see what happens when you don't use tanks properly, one only has to look at the last Israel-Hezbollah war, and that certainly wasn't any kind of a super power conflict.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

The question is why would we waste money on something we rarely use? You could probably get away shutting down production of M1's (which grossly out classes anything that it's come up against, to the point where iraqui tanks couldn't even get in range of american tanks before they were blown to shreds). And I can understand the need to project power and so on, but they recently just laid down hulls for a pair (I believe) of new aircraft carriers (One of which is named the Ronald Regan).

 

But is it a waste? We were that capable precisely because of the R&D we did 40 years ago. You dont just pull the next generation platform out of thin are, it takes years of work. I hope we wont need the F-22 in 20 years.

I hope we don't either, but some of the stuff they're doing just seems... unnecessary. Like a grenade launcher/shotgun that fires microgrenades that will go off after a preprogrammed time or when it hits something. Also there are debacles like the XM8 to look at.

 

Also, my point about the new carrier is that we don't need a new one. Currently we are one of only 9 countries that even HAVE the suckers, and we outnumber the rest of the countries combined in terms of carriers used. The newer generation of carriers (Gerald R. Ford class) will probably cost about 12 billion to develop, and 12 billion to produce each particular ship, not counting aircraft. In fact, if ya look here (which is bias via interservice rivalry, I admit) it's suggested that the navy should drop below 11 carriers in general because they cost so much to maintain. Also, the suggestion is that by building new carriers constantly (1 every 4 years) the navy will not have enough money to update everything else.

The US is currently 48% of ALL military spending in the world (well in 2008). One would think that we could chop that down to... I don't know... the spending of the entire combined armed forces of Europe (particularly when enemies in that territory generally are a couple days drive while the US might as well be the 20 year old in a preschool)?

 

We dont have to arm for another war in Europe. The next big showdown will be with China.

I wasn't saying the next fight would be in Europe. I was saying that Europe (who according to the chart I posted spend 1-3% of their gdp on military) was spending significantly less on the military than America (who are at 3-5%). And Europe's enemies are next door while the closest America has to a military opponent on its borders are massively outgunned.

EDIT: I neglected to clarify my central point which is this: Having a military machine, or even a single military system that is three times better than any opponent may sound extravagant, but if it obviates the necessity of any actual shooting because any opponent would be stupid to try then it is exactly what you want.

Great point.

True, but you don't want the cost of a single bullet to cost so much that you bankrupt three families by firing a solitary clip.

[Walsingham]

Calax, I think I talked about the XM8 a long while back. If the rifle saves one squaddie then it's worth the 12k it costs. My other point however, was that the same 12k can pay for a school or a simple clinic which means no-one shoots at the squaddie in the first place. It depends on context.

 

I certainly hope we don't have to fight China because an awful lot of good people (and some bad ones) would die. Probably to not much avail in either direction. Although I've read a lot recently about a new generation of bullish Chinese military officers who are forming cliques a la Japan in the 30s.

 

~~

 

Steve, I think a big problem with procurement in this country is largely down to two factors. Firstly, the government refuses to accept that a portion of GDP is always going to go on defence, and that money is quite well spent on defence. This causes problems of uncertainty and dissipation in big projects because people keep expecting them to be abandoned. Secondly there's an absence of personal identification with big projects. "I'm Steve, and this is my tank." Which is why you get things like FRES (stupid fething name for a simple idea) taking ten years to move. What's needed is some bigwig to chair the process and simply and quickly adjudicate on decision like "will it go by air?"

 

For my money I think it comes down to a Peter Pan mentality on the part of the electorate. Everyone's full of praise for the troops, but there's neither interest in or support for the complex business of provisioning them. everyone wants body armour because they can understand it. But what about Forces education courses? What about a new lorry? What about a new inventory system? Or expenses claims? They all shape the end result in different ways. Getting an awareness of these issues is the sole reason I've ever agreed with for National Service.

[Monte Carlo]

So you can be a top-flight military power and still get the procurement basics wrong. The US can deliver iced-soda and pizza hut in theatre in 48 hours, it can drop tonnes of ordnance on a precise area from a mile above the earth and it can ship an armoured bridge anywhere on earth completely independently by sea... but it can't provide adequate light armour protection. I'm not even being facetious, merely pointing out an interesting contradiction.

The military was build to fight the Soviet Union, the Humvees were never meant to be on the front lines, the problem is with counter insurgency everything is a front line.

 

The Cold War ended in 1989 when everyone was seriously digging Francis Fukuyama.

 

2003 was a long, long way off. No excuses there, I'm afraid. When did Stryker come online, and your Marine corps has had LAVs since the 80's IIRC. And they still got it wrong. Let me get my position clear: I supported the Iraq war until I discovered the absolutely shabby, arrogance-laden lack of planning by the Bush administration.

[Zoraptor]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/a...f-1225843035413

Defence receives apology after scathing report

[Wrath of Dagon]

So you can be a top-flight military power and still get the procurement basics wrong. The US can deliver iced-soda and pizza hut in theatre in 48 hours, it can drop tonnes of ordnance on a precise area from a mile above the earth and it can ship an armoured bridge anywhere on earth completely independently by sea... but it can't provide adequate light armour protection. I'm not even being facetious, merely pointing out an interesting contradiction.

The military was build to fight the Soviet Union, the Humvees were never meant to be on the front lines, the problem is with counter insurgency everything is a front line.

 

The Cold War ended in 1989 when everyone was seriously digging Francis Fukuyama.

 

2003 was a long, long way off. No excuses there, I'm afraid. When did Stryker come online, and your Marine corps has had LAVs since the 80's IIRC. And they still got it wrong. Let me get my position clear: I supported the Iraq war until I discovered the absolutely shabby, arrogance-laden lack of planning by the Bush administration.

No one expected 9/11 though, so there was no clear idea what the next war would look like. Unarmored Humvees weren't a problem during the first Iraq war.

[ShadySands]

I saw this article and immediately thought of you guys

 

Gates details $100 billion in defense cuts

Edited September 15, 2010 by ShadySands

[Walsingham]

I saw this article and immediately thought of you guys

 

Gates details $100 billion in defense cuts

 

I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who thought the DoD couldn't run themselves more efficiently.

[Calax]

If Gates plan sticks, it'll be fantastic. If it doesn't it just goes back to "same old same old".

[Gfted1]

Pfft, 100 billion is nothing. Thats what, one years operating cost for our necessary () UHC?

[Humodour]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/a...f-1225843035413

Defence receives apology after scathing report

 

Thanks for that, very insightful!

 

Pfft, 100 billion is nothing. Thats what, one years operating cost for our necessary () UHC?

 

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Pfft, 100 billion is nothing. Thats what, one years operating cost for our necessary () UHC?

 

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

 

I'd rather pay a trillion for defense than for social programs and other such bull****.

[Calax]

Pfft, 100 billion is nothing. Thats what, one years operating cost for our necessary () UHC?

 

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

 

I'd rather pay a trillion for defense than for social programs and other such bull****.

So... basically, you'd rather have grunts shooting weapons who can turn things into mush, than an intelligent and stable population. Gotcha, have a military to defend an idiocracy.

[Humodour]

Pfft, 100 billion is nothing. Thats what, one years operating cost for our necessary () UHC?

 

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

 

I'd rather pay a trillion for defense than for social programs and other such bull****.

 

I'm sure you would rather waste money on inefficiency in government beaurocracy (because whether you have sufficient reading comprehension skills to notice or not, that's what this thread is about) than spend it funding schools, the police force, healthcare, roads, and other such unneccessary "bull****".

 

Your fellow citizens have to honestly thank whatever deity they believe in that a fool like you won't be the one making these decisions... at least till another war monger president like George Bush gets into power.

[Monte Carlo]

So you can be a top-flight military power and still get the procurement basics wrong. The US can deliver iced-soda and pizza hut in theatre in 48 hours, it can drop tonnes of ordnance on a precise area from a mile above the earth and it can ship an armoured bridge anywhere on earth completely independently by sea... but it can't provide adequate light armour protection. I'm not even being facetious, merely pointing out an interesting contradiction.

The military was build to fight the Soviet Union, the Humvees were never meant to be on the front lines, the problem is with counter insurgency everything is a front line.

 

The Cold War ended in 1989 when everyone was seriously digging Francis Fukuyama.

 

2003 was a long, long way off. No excuses there, I'm afraid. When did Stryker come online, and your Marine corps has had LAVs since the 80's IIRC. And they still got it wrong. Let me get my position clear: I supported the Iraq war until I discovered the absolutely shabby, arrogance-laden lack of planning by the Bush administration.

No one expected 9/11 though, so there was no clear idea what the next war would look like. Unarmored Humvees weren't a problem during the first Iraq war.

 

I'd have thought that after the Somalian debacle in the early 1990's some propeller-head at the Pentagon would have done some environmental scanning and worked it out. Apparently not.

[Walsingham]

Pfft, 100 billion is nothing. Thats what, one years operating cost for our necessary () UHC?

 

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

 

I'd rather pay a trillion for defense than for social programs and other such bull****.

 

You do realise that the military are drawn from, and fight for, social factors? So even if you only cared about the military you'd still want to fund social programs?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'd have thought that after the Somalian debacle in the early 1990's some propeller-head at the Pentagon would have done some environmental scanning and worked it out. Apparently not.

The Somalian debacle was actually because they weren't allowed to have heavy weapons. Also the whole thing was run by UN. In any case, the issues in Somalia have almost nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, it was sold as a humanitarian mission, not a counter-terror or threat to US mission.

[Calax]

I'd have thought that after the Somalian debacle in the early 1990's some propeller-head at the Pentagon would have done some environmental scanning and worked it out. Apparently not.

The Somalian debacle was actually because they weren't allowed to have heavy weapons. Also the whole thing was run by UN. In any case, the issues in Somalia have almost nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, it was sold as a humanitarian mission, not a counter-terror or threat to US mission.

Well A) Afganistan was taken under the UN aegis (technically) and B) certain members of the media tried to sell us the Iraq war as a humanitarian mission as well as a "proactive defense".

[Monte Carlo]

In any case, the issues in Somalia have almost nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, it was sold as a humanitarian mission, not a counter-terror or threat to US mission.

 

Hmmm, if you don't mind me saying so Wrath, that's a bit of a lawyer's answer. It matters not what the mission is sold as, the brains should be saying... "look we are gonna be doing a lot of fighting in failed states. Our light armour solutions are sub-optimal because peace-keeping RoEs forbid us sending in an armoured cavalry regiment. So we need up-armoured light vehicles."

 

This isn't armchair general stuff, serving friends agree with my basic argument and the UK has made the same mistakes.

 

Of course, up until the mid 2000s even the US army sees itself as a war-fighting leviathan, not a girly peace-keeping force following COIN doctrine, happily that has changed to the point where the US Army is pre-eminent in the field. Lots of people died getting there, though, and many of them were in crap soft-skinned vehicles even when the writing was on the wall in the mid 1990s.

[Gfted1]

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

 

I would use the picardfacepalm.jpg but Ive retired its use in honor of Hades passing. That same trillion dollar savings is going right back out the door, most likely x3, for UHC over a decade. Wheres the savings? That same 100 billion per year could buy us 9 new aircraft carriers PER YEAR, which would at least produce something tangible instead of creating a money hole. Not to worry though, "the rich" will be taxed into paying for it all.

[Calax]

1 trillion dollars less government debt every decade is "nothing"? How economically responsible of you.

 

I would use the picardfacepalm.jpg but Ive retired its use in honor of Hades passing. That same trillion dollar savings is going right back out the door, most likely x3, for UHC over a decade. Wheres the savings? That same 100 billion per year could buy us 9 new aircraft carriers PER YEAR, which would at least produce something tangible instead of creating a money hole. Not to worry though, "the rich" will be taxed into paying for it all.

 

That work instead?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well A) Afganistan was taken under the UN aegis (technically) and B) certain members of the media tried to sell us the Iraq war as a humanitarian mission as well as a "proactive defense".

Iraq wasn't even in the same ballpark as Somalia. Afghanistan is under NATO, not UN, although that's not terribly relevant here.

 

In any case, the issues in Somalia have almost nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, it was sold as a humanitarian mission, not a counter-terror or threat to US mission.

 

Hmmm, if you don't mind me saying so Wrath, that's a bit of a lawyer's answer. It matters not what the mission is sold as, the brains should be saying... "look we are gonna be doing a lot of fighting in failed states. Our light armour solutions are sub-optimal because peace-keeping RoEs forbid us sending in an armoured cavalry regiment. So we need up-armoured light vehicles."

 

This isn't armchair general stuff, serving friends agree with my basic argument and the UK has made the same mistakes.

No, no one was saying that after Somalia. Before mission creep, it started out as a humanitarian mission. After, everyone was saying "never again". It took 9/11 to change everyone's mind, and only if it was clear our vital interests were at stake. And if peacekeeping ROEs forbid armored cav, we shouldn't be in that mission in the first place.

 

Of course, up until the mid 2000s even the US army sees itself as a war-fighting leviathan, not a girly peace-keeping force following COIN doctrine, happily that has changed to the point where the US Army is pre-eminent in the field. Lots of people died getting there, though, and many of them were in crap soft-skinned vehicles even when the writing was on the wall in the mid 1990s.

Well, that's as good explanation as any, except perhaps not everyone in the military was the tactical genius to see that writing in the 1990s.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon