Army to cut more Brigade Combat Teams, reorganization coming as it loses another 40K

#127
#127
McDad said:
Bromance is over. Friends with benefits still alive.

Reformed....depends on your definition, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Don't fall for it GV. He is only interested in those things that "benefit" him. McDad is a selfish lover.






From what I have been told
 
#128
#128
Grand Vol said:
Coming from someone who hasn't served a day in his life, you wouldn't know WTF a bloated military is.
Click to expand...

You dont have to serve in the military in order to critique it or the military budget, no more than I have to be a teacher to critique the Dept. of Education. Get off your high horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#130
#130
Grand Vol said:
The military cannot tolerate more draw downs and still be effective.
Click to expand...

"and still be effective"

Wouldn't a pacifist (your words/description of him) reduce your responsibiities? Maybe we need a far different foreign policy to reflect the fiscal realities that this country is facing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#132
#132
Grand Vol said:
Just shut up Mercy :p

I understand you saying we do spend more than everyone else. A great deal more. Which I have always said (and likely will continue to) the defense budget needs to be reformed. It is and is not always about the amount we spend. The problem comes from the way the money is spent. The first thing on the chopping block is always personnel. Not "we don't need more tanks because they happen to be in this particular Congressional District" but rather cut the troops needed to maintain said equipment. And yes, I partially agree with your sentiments that the days of Team America need to slip into the history books. But I also know we need to back up our friends and allies around the world when they need it. And have the military advantage to be able to back up those friendships and treaties.

And yes, I am uniquely qualified to make the assertion that cutting troops is the last thing you want to do. 20 years in the service. 9 overseas deployments. Prior to 9/11, from 1993-2001, I spent maybe a year of that in eight hour shifts at home station. I spent nine months of my year in Iceland in a 4 on, 2 off 12 hour shift schedule. And that's before 9/11. So yes, I've seen firsthand how troop cuts can affect readiness, morale and our national security as a whole. You want weary? Work a few months of that kind of schedule. And from what I hear from those still in, it's getting far worse at this point than I ever thought I had it.

We have a huge technological edge over our likely adversaries, but contrary to belief, F-22s and M-1A2 SEPs aren't being used in the battles we likely will face in the future. Especially when you have to cut end strength to fund said toys. It's an exercise in numbers really and something I've seen and experienced.

ETA: Anyone who's served since 1992 can tell you the same thing I just said. I'm not the only one uniquely qualified to say that.
Click to expand...

The time has too far gone for us to be looking after and bailing out our alleged friends around the globe. We need to circle the wagons and concern ourselves with our own issues. Western Europe will be fine on their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#134
#134
n_huffhines said:
I'd say our current spending puts us at risk. I think we can bring our troops home, protect our borders, and we'll be much safer on the net in the long run. Stop policing the world.

We're not winning the war on terror. Bankruptcy is more of a certain threat to national security than any bogeyman we can come up with.
Click to expand...

Plus, bringing the troops home to defend the border should pacify people like Grand_Vol who is worried about the wives and burger flippers here at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#135
#135
Grand Vol said:
No seriously dude. I can see the forest for the trees. I was part of the damn forest.

And no, you shouldn't feel safe saying anything about it just because of numbers on a paper.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? The numbers are the entire reason for the cuts and the subject of the thread. And again, we spend more than anybody else on the planet combined...

Get a grip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#137
#137
Rasputin_Vol said:
WTF are you talking about? The numbers are the entire reason for the cuts and the subject of the thread. And again, we spend more than anybody else on the planet combined...

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

You know I despise you. Stop replying to my posts like I give a damn about your opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#139
#139
McDad said:
Bromance is over. Friends with benefits still alive.

Reformed....depends on your definition, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Reformed...

I'd start with the acquisition system which is completely and utterly broken. First off, we buy crap we don't need. Yet, we also turn our noses up at things we do need. Take the Army and buying tanks they didn't want or need (that's more on Congress than the Army) or the metric crapton of MRAPs (using that term generically for the whole family of vehicles) that were purchased that suddenly are "surplus." Or the F-35 program. Or the Littoral Combat Ship. Significant waste in all those programs.

On the other hand you have the USAF and the LA/AR program that sputtered and stopped and started and stopped and is back yet again. It's an aircraft that was/is needed now yet since it doesn't go mach 3 with all sorts of bells and whistles, it goes onto the backburner. Or an A-10 replacement that would probably come in at a fraction of the cost of an F-35.

Secondly with the acquisition process is the crazy way companies can whine and get procurement stopped. The KC-X program is a prime example of that. The Air Force needed a new tanker fifteen years ago and it's still not quite into production. Between scandals, Boeing whining about EADS winning the competition and slow work on the system, it's taking far too long to field effective systems.

So acquisition would be my first place to trim the fat.

Next up would be the ridiculous way that positions in the military are eliminated, yet civilianized the very next day. And trying to get one of those civilians fired once they reach tenure? Good luck getting the tides to stop coming in. I'd eliminate each and every rule that prohibits someone from getting fired in government service. You screw up? Gone. No more of this appeal and process and union complaints and such BS. You don't do your job? Fired. Get rid of people filling a desk seat at twice the pay of a military member.

And I'd dare the unions to cross me...

Next I'd remove significant forces from certain overseas bases. Namely South Korea, Turkey, Qatar, JTF-HOA (actually Africom as a whole would be lumped back into Centcom) and Japan. I'm not omitting all the contingency bases or the likes at the moment. Anyway, rebase them in the States, yet keep the treaty standards in place. Put contingency bases in place that equipment can be moved to rapidly if the need arises.

Just a few things off the top of my head that would reduce the budgetary needs without removing manpower.
 
#142
#142
Grand Vol said:
Reformed...

I'd start with the acquisition system which is completely and utterly broken. First off, we buy crap we don't need. Yet, we also turn our noses up at things we do need. Take the Army and buying tanks they didn't want or need (that's more on Congress than the Army) or the metric crapton of MRAPs (using that term generically for the whole family of vehicles) that were purchased that suddenly are "surplus." Or the F-35 program. Or the Littoral Combat Ship. Significant waste in all those programs.

On the other hand you have the USAF and the LA/AR program that sputtered and stopped and started and stopped and is back yet again. It's an aircraft that was/is needed now yet since it doesn't go mach 3 with all sorts of bells and whistles, it goes onto the backburner. Or an A-10 replacement that would probably come in at a fraction of the cost of an F-35.

Secondly with the acquisition process is the crazy way companies can whine and get procurement stopped. The KC-X program is a prime example of that. The Air Force needed a new tanker fifteen years ago and it's still not quite into production. Between scandals, Boeing whining about EADS winning the competition and slow work on the system, it's taking far too long to field effective systems.

So acquisition would be my first place to trim the fat.

Next up would be the ridiculous way that positions in the military are eliminated, yet civilianized the very next day. And trying to get one of those civilians fired once they reach tenure? Good luck getting the tides to stop coming in. I'd eliminate each and every rule that prohibits someone from getting fired in government service. You screw up? Gone. No more of this appeal and process and union complaints and such BS. You don't do your job? Fired. Get rid of people filling a desk seat at twice the pay of a military member.

And I'd dare the unions to cross me...

Next I'd remove significant forces from certain overseas bases. Namely South Korea, Turkey, Qatar, JTF-HOA (actually Africom as a whole would be lumped back into Centcom) and Japan. I'm not omitting all the contingency bases or the likes at the moment. Anyway, rebase them in the States, yet keep the treaty standards in place. Put contingency bases in place that equipment can be moved to rapidly if the need arises.

Just a few things off the top of my head that would reduce the budgetary needs without removing manpower.
Click to expand...


The complete cluster **** is way above the "acquisition system" and above ASA(ALT). The programs you mentioned were and are being pushed by members of Congress who just so happen to benefit greatly from the production of those weapons in their districts.
 
#143
#143
BearCat204 said:
Not at all what he was saying
Click to expand...

Of course not. But it's Ras who takes everything I say out of context.

It gets a bit unnerving him stalking me across VN. He hangs on every word I say and has to put in his two cents to practically ever post of mine. And even knowing I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

I'd use the term infatuated, but it's a bit creepy.
 
#145
#145
Grand Vol said:
Of course not. But it's Ras who takes everything I say out of context.

It gets a bit unnerving him stalking me across VN. He hangs on every word I say and has to put in his two cents to practically ever post of mine. And even knowing I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

I'd use the term infatuated, but it's a bit creepy.
Click to expand...

Just say you hate women and you guys will be friends
 
#146
#146
BearCat204 said:
The complete cluster **** is way above the "acquisition system" and above ASA(ALT). The programs you mentioned were and are being pushed by members of Congress who just so happen to benefit greatly from the production of those weapons in their districts.
Click to expand...

Just a few programs that came to mind immediately.

I would say the F-35 is the most outstanding program along those lines (not being hard pushed by Congress as much as the military)
 
#147
#147
Grand Vol said:
Reformed...

I'd start with the acquisition system which is completely and utterly broken. First off, we buy crap we don't need. Yet, we also turn our noses up at things we do need. Take the Army and buying tanks they didn't want or need (that's more on Congress than the Army) or the metric crapton of MRAPs (using that term generically for the whole family of vehicles) that were purchased that suddenly are "surplus." Or the F-35 program. Or the Littoral Combat Ship. Significant waste in all those programs.

On the other hand you have the USAF and the LA/AR program that sputtered and stopped and started and stopped and is back yet again. It's an aircraft that was/is needed now yet since it doesn't go mach 3 with all sorts of bells and whistles, it goes onto the backburner. Or an A-10 replacement that would probably come in at a fraction of the cost of an F-35.

Secondly with the acquisition process is the crazy way companies can whine and get procurement stopped. The KC-X program is a prime example of that. The Air Force needed a new tanker fifteen years ago and it's still not quite into production. Between scandals, Boeing whining about EADS winning the competition and slow work on the system, it's taking far too long to field effective systems.

So acquisition would be my first place to trim the fat.

Next up would be the ridiculous way that positions in the military are eliminated, yet civilianized the very next day. And trying to get one of those civilians fired once they reach tenure? Good luck getting the tides to stop coming in. I'd eliminate each and every rule that prohibits someone from getting fired in government service. You screw up? Gone. No more of this appeal and process and union complaints and such BS. You don't do your job? Fired. Get rid of people filling a desk seat at twice the pay of a military member.

And I'd dare the unions to cross me...

Next I'd remove significant forces from certain overseas bases. Namely South Korea, Turkey, Qatar, JTF-HOA (actually Africom as a whole would be lumped back into Centcom) and Japan. I'm not omitting all the contingency bases or the likes at the moment. Anyway, rebase them in the States, yet keep the treaty standards in place. Put contingency bases in place that equipment can be moved to rapidly if the need arises.

Just a few things off the top of my head that would reduce the budgetary needs without removing manpower.
Click to expand...

All of that sounds like a good start. Too bad you have no power to implement change on a Grand scale.
 
#149
#149
Rasputin_Vol said:
WTF are you talking about? The numbers are the entire reason for the cuts and the subject of the thread. And again, we spend more than anybody else on the planet combined...

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

That's good. Because we may have to fight all of them at once.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top