Posted on Dec 19, 2018
The military could save hundreds of billions — by capping pay, scrapping aircraft, slashing...
2.08K
26
22
5
5
0
Respected defense writer Leo Shane discusses proposed military budget cuts proposed by Congressional Budget Office and administration. Big impact on planes, ships and disabled veterans pay. We will be visting Lockheed Martin on Friday one of the defense contractors that would be effected. Are measures like this an acceptable way to reduce growing Federal bgt deficit?
The military could save hundreds of billions — by capping pay, scrapping aircraft, slashing...
Posted from trib.al
Congress
Civilian Supporter
Soldiers
Sailors
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
Short-term gains for long-term losses.
Many of the seed ideas in here are reasonable, however they are looking at the military through a business perspective. Unfortunately, servicemembers cannot just quit when you "alter the deal." They can only "pray you do not alter it further."
The reason we can operate with as small of a fleet as we do is because of the Carrier Group concept. That means we have to build carriers and related ships to replace them as they age. The same concept applies to our troops, it takes 20+ years to build a Colonel or a SgtMaj. If you invest poorly when they are Lieutenants and Privates, they will not be there after 4 years. They will find somewhere else to go.
That's what all these suggestions do. They look to remove investment in long-term sustainability.
Many of the seed ideas in here are reasonable, however they are looking at the military through a business perspective. Unfortunately, servicemembers cannot just quit when you "alter the deal." They can only "pray you do not alter it further."
The reason we can operate with as small of a fleet as we do is because of the Carrier Group concept. That means we have to build carriers and related ships to replace them as they age. The same concept applies to our troops, it takes 20+ years to build a Colonel or a SgtMaj. If you invest poorly when they are Lieutenants and Privates, they will not be there after 4 years. They will find somewhere else to go.
That's what all these suggestions do. They look to remove investment in long-term sustainability.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I only disagree with the notion that we live by the over-strength model, if the military was worried about keeping people they would have been incentivizing them to stay in for a long time which as we know they don't, that's why so few make it to retirement. It's cheaper to keep a middle of the ground experienced force than a well seasoned force, England learned this in WWI after they lost almost all of their seasoned force in one fell swoop. We also are able to massively ramp our numbers up as War breaks out (whether or not its declared) we usually keep a quarter of the size force standing than what is required for full scale war, the only exception to that rule has been the entire GWOT effort. My dad was on food stamps when we were stationed in Germany making e5 pay with 8 years of service, ever since my Dad ETS'd military pay has been gradually increasing, my point is the military has never had any obligation or a need to keep a large seasoned force but rather just enough to train the new soldiers over and over, the military will always have a high turn-over rate just due to the nature of our lives and work. I apologize if I have misunderstood or missed any of your points. It's a good conversation
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG (Join to see) - The reason so few make it to retirement is because we use an attrition model at the lowest ranks (entry level). This is a product of physical need in addition to everything else. Young troops are infinitely more valuable than old troops from a quantitative standpoint. About 40% of the force is on their first term, and the average age of the entire force is about 25-28 depending on service (having over 1/3 being 18-22 makes the number skew WAY down).
We do however incentivize people to stay in to retirement, because we don't vest them until 20 years. Generally speaking, retention isn't the real issue. We use bonuses to make that happen, however, there are numerous studies showing that these only affect people who were going to stay in anyways. There's an old saying "people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses." Within the military this equates to people not disliking their technical field or contribution but instead disliking the ecology.
The article makes suggestions which would add additional stress to an already affected ecosystem. That is my point.
We do however incentivize people to stay in to retirement, because we don't vest them until 20 years. Generally speaking, retention isn't the real issue. We use bonuses to make that happen, however, there are numerous studies showing that these only affect people who were going to stay in anyways. There's an old saying "people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses." Within the military this equates to people not disliking their technical field or contribution but instead disliking the ecology.
The article makes suggestions which would add additional stress to an already affected ecosystem. That is my point.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
Let’s see, all our existential threats are passing us up in combat capabilities and some senior officials claim a full out world war would be lost. Why can North Korea, China and Russia pass us up with a fraction of the cost? A question was asked of at&t, when they planned a 50% staff cut, was would this be effective. The industry experts answer, “Depends on where the 50% cuts come from.” This is the problem here, first stop humanitarian efforts that belong in the UN, stop our interventionalist policies (global police force), pull out of many countries that really don’t want us on their soil, no grants or expenditures on non lethal activities. More? Our national security is foremost for our survival and global peace. That means human assets with the technology to succeed against any opposing force. Oh, did I forget cutting the fat at the top levels of the military and “supporting” sandcrabs? Rant over.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
A lot of issues you mention are complicated and nuanced I don't think there is an easy straight-forward choice that would have benefits out weigh the costs, EX. pulling out of Afghanistan would be akin to when we pulled out of Southern Vietnam and out of the conflict, who would answer for giving up the struggle that many Americans had laid their lives down for? North Korea isn't a threat their military is equivalent to a 1950's military force and their people go unfed, China and Russia on the other hand compete with our military in one or two categories but not in every category (Field artillery and total strength numbers) they keep costs low by using mostly the same Vietnam era equipment and wages of soldiers quite low, with that being said their average infantryman would not be able to operate on the same level as a competent US infantryman, we get a lot more training and equipment refreshes which are all specialty items made only for the military which equals big $$$. It was fun to analyze your comment thanks!
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SSG (Join to see) understand, pulling out of Vietnam worked out badly. Hmmm, how is our relationship today subsequent to the loss of over 58,000 of our finest? Where are we today with the long war policy, although Afghanistan wasn’t necessarily on my list, I would be amenable to adding it. If you do not see a military/ global threat from NOKO, a country with nuclear weapons and delivery system led by a nut, your analytical skills are suspect. But, there is this from a clueless General.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-general-fears-war-with-china-and-russia-at-the-same-time
https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-general-fears-war-with-china-and-russia-at-the-same-time
Top General Fears War With China and Russia at the Same Time
An exclusive interview with Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, just-retired commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, who warns that war with China is likely in the next 15 years.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MCPO Roger Collins - No need to flare your temperament I was just adding a little insight from my perspective. The last five years of our work in Afghanistan has been building up their government and military strength to fight their own problems; that's a paraphrased version of what we were trying to accomplish in Vietnam as public opinion got more and more negative on our involvement in the war. We pulled out before the South Vietnamese government was ready and well established and they were crushed upon our quick removal from the area. Look what happened in Iraq with ISIS when we pulled out hastily. I had looked up the research and written a military analysis paper on North Korea back in 2016, there isn't much threat they would be able to pose to us since we have the capabilities of bombing their facilities without facing retaliation, not to mention they have a incredibly weak navy compared to ours. I just wanted to spark some conversation, it was not my intention to anger anyone.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google