Getting A New Boss, Fed.Guv Style

[HankB]

A major shooting war with nations having capabilities that pose a serious threat to our carrier fleet (Russia, China) is likely to escalate very quickly, with bad consequences for everyone involved.

With good leadership and command, it's going to be a while before other nations have the capability of seriously threatening our carriers in open battle. (Barring command complacency or insane ROEs, it would take a lucky shot, a sneak attack by an assumed non-belligerent, or a really good enemy sub skipper to seriously damage or sink a carrier.)

In the meantime, carriers are very useful for hammering various dictators, jihadis, and other turd-world troublemakers.

[Cromlech]

That's true, you cannot overlook the importance of force projection. China hasn't got the force projection it needs to put masses of troops anywhere but the Asian continent. The U.S and even little old U.K can put troops anywhere.

[Leatherneck]

Just to nudge the thread back toward its original intent--you know, Politics--Whether weapon systems work as intended is exactly the judgment Dr. Gilmore will make on a daily basis.

TC

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I did the numbers, using this site for reference.

The combined tonnage of the American Navy's carriers is 1,113,500 tonnes. They carry a low-end number of 920 aircraft between them (that's assuming 70 aircraft on the Enterprise and 85 each on the Nimitzes, which is what is listed as the commonly-carried number).

The rest of the world's carriers mass 261,700 tons between them. They carry 277 aircraft (using high-end numbers for aircraft rather than low-end as above).

For additional fun, any given US carrier outmasses and outguns the entire carrier complement of any other given nation.

Yeah, "aircraft carrier" means something different for the rest of the world.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Just to nudge the thread back toward its original intent--you know, Politics--Whether weapon systems work as intended is exactly the judgment Dr. Gilmore will make on a daily basis.

TC

I'm a bit sketchy on this, but hasn't there been some debate recently about whether our military forces and equipment should continue to focus on being exceptional in quality compared to the rest of the world?  I remember hearing something about how we should instead start to focus on "adequate" quality and upping the quantity.

I'd be curious what Dr. Gilmore has to say on this issue.  And since you're in charge of formulating all of his responses, feel free to answer for him.

[Leatherneck]

As in all things, one has to strike a balance. Our current modern weapon systems are stunningly capable in many cases, but at the price oc complexity (read: failures) and of course, costs that are staggering. At some point, increasing cost (complexity and capabilities) reach a point of diminishing returns. i.e., if you can only afford a single do-everything aircraft or ship, what good is it?

The art lies in deciding where the tipping point is. In some recent cases (VH-71 comes to mind) we're clearly trying to reach a bridge too far and need to back off on the requirements. I mean, can we truly afford a bill of $10B to $13 B for a couple dozen unique helicopters to carry the President around?

TC

PS: I'm in no way speaking for anybody but myself.

[RevDisk]

As in all things, one has to strike a balance. Our current modern weapon systems are stunningly capable in many cases, but at the price oc complexity (read: failures) and of course, costs that are staggering. At some point, increasing cost (complexity and capabilities) reach a point of diminishing returns. i.e., if you can only afford a single do-everything aircraft or ship, what good is it?

The art lies in deciding where the tipping point is. In some recent cases (VH-71 comes to mind) we're clearly trying to reach a bridge too far and need to back off on the requirements. I mean, can we truly afford a bill of $10B to $13 B for a couple dozen unique helicopters to carry the President around?

TC

PS: I'm in no way speaking for anybody but myself.

I'm also in agreement.  We can afford, at the moment, all the shiney toys we want.  $13b for helicopters that individually cost more than Air Force One.   Trillion dollar bailouts.  They come at a price.  They accelerate the day when we will NOT be able to afford all of the shiney toys we want.  As it currently stands, every 50 cents on the dollar that our government spends on any project is borrowed.  It must be repaid, and it must be repaid with interest. 

I'd prefer to have more than enough "good enough" equipment than just a handful of "really good" equipment.  While it's nice to have the super dooper toys around, how about dumping some money into the basics?   Training, ammo, etc. 


Disclaimer:  I only speak for myself in a personal manner.  This does not reflect the opinion or position of my current or any former employers. 

[Jamisjockey]

That's true, you cannot overlook the importance of force projection. China hasn't got the force projection it needs to put masses of troops anywhere but the Asian continent. The U.S and even little old U.K can put troops anywhere.

I would expect the chinese have a plan for dealing with our force projection.

[Leatherneck]

They accelerate the day when we will NOT be able to afford all of the shiney toys we want.  As it currently stands, every 50 cents on the dollar that our government spends on any project is borrowed.  It must be repaid, and it must be repaid with interest.

Chilling thoughts, my friend. But I agree.

I would expect the Chinese have a plan for dealing with our force projection.

Yep. They've had centuries of thinking like Sun Tzu.

I'd prefer to have more than enough "good enough" equipment than just a handful of "really good" equipment.  While it's nice to have the super dooper toys around, how about dumping some money into the basics?   Training, ammo, etc.

Me too. I enjoy reporting the eye-watering capabilities of modern weapon systems, along with the problems that have to get fixed. But I have been frustrated a bit by having no say in what we aim for.

As a Pentagon curmudgeon-in-residence with some respect, I'm starting to speak out to acquisition bigwigs about what we get for the stunning money we're spending.

Today I spent a couple of hours doing so on the latest potential Problem Child, the CH-53K program, who are reporting $1B (or maybe more) extra cost and 1-1-1/2 years delay.

TC

[RevDisk]

As a Pentagon curmudgeon-in-residence with some respect, I'm starting to speak out to acquisition bigwigs about what we get for the stunning money we're spending.

Today I spent a couple of hours doing so on the latest potential Problem Child, the CH-53K program, who are reporting $1B (or maybe more) extra cost and 1-1-1/2 years delay.

TC

Ouch.  I thought the 53K was more or less on schedule?   

[Leatherneck]

That's what we thought too, so we were allowing the PMA some benign ignorance. New PM came in a couple of months ago and started the wheels turning in the Pentagon for a full-fledged program review with an eye toward restructuring the program with a delay and new (bigger) budget. We're also going to scrub the operational requirements with an eye toward delaying some bells and whistles in order to bring the program back on track.

In the meantime, Dr. Gilmore's confirmation hearing starts at 0900 this morning. Off to Capitol Hill we are...

TC

[buzz_knox]

I would expect the chinese have a plan for dealing with our force projection.

I believe that their plan is to require us to post the Pacific Fleet as collateral to secure the massive amounts of debt we are asking them to finance for us.

[Jamisjockey]

I believe that their plan is to require us to post the Pacific Fleet as collateral to secure the massive amounts of debt we are asking them to finance for us.

No better motivation to keep us in check than monetary.  Won't be long and they can have Taiwan, and all we'll be able to do is sit and sign our repayment checks....

[K Frame]

This stopped being about politics quite some time ago.