US Military budget proposal - good or not?

[Partisan]

So Sec Gates has announced his headline budget plans, what are your thoughts?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14025147/2010-SecDef-Budget-Statement

It is a well crafted document - no surprise there! I think that it is a practical and common sense approach to meeting future needs with current demands. I think that he is brave to openly take on the defence contractors & industry as a whole; but the lobby groups will defeat him in this arena - bad luck.

I like the fact that he is continuing the manpower increase and making sure that units are fully manned, no "hollow". It is a shame about the FCS, but as some of the tech is unproven & the basic design seems flawed it makes sense, & it will be re-visited, but what happens in the interim? As we all know procurement is a slow & unwieldy process, so there needs to be an interim plan or money for mid life refurbishment of existing equipment.

On the whole I think this is good, but the devil is in the detail & I look forward to seeing what happens when this hits congress.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Great read! Thank you so much for posting this, Partisan!

Some thoughts of my own:



I'm a little disappointed in the hold of the CG-X destroyers, but his reasoning is sound. Our Navy is all-but untouchable already, and the 10 additional Aegis retrofits for missile defense will ensure fleet and CBG protection in the Middle Eastern Gulfs where we're threatened by land-based anti-ship defenses. With Iran and North Korea jerking our chain, we need to be prepared to have a presence in the Gulf of Oman.

I like that he specified traumatic brain injury in his medical treatment and research edict. I've talked to a lot of doctors and patients alike, and all agree that condition is not addressed with the severity it needs to be. By specifying it, the SecDef has allowed no ambiguity in this area.

Replacing the 11,000 contractors with government employees is DEFINITELY a step in the right direction. While the military will always rely on civilian labor, the securing and procurement of those contracts should be implemented and overseen by DOD personnel - those proven to have the best interests of the military at heart.

I was particularly impressed with his comments concerning the Army FCS. I have have had my reservations about the vehicle adjustments for some time, and as former Infantry that rode in the cans I am keenly aware of the need for armor. It is very difficult to wipe out my entire squad with one shot on the ground. But we are vulnerable in the tracks, and especially so to IED's.

I think it is important to remember that an enemy doesn't have to kill every member of the squad to effectively take that squad out of the fight. Diminishing our ability to fight, be it by removing our transportation to the frontal areas or by injuring enough of us to create holes we cannot fill, is sufficient to negatively affect the platoon's manpower. Losing an entire squad's field of fire is extremely detrimental to the platoon's mission, and will likely result in the death or incapacitation of other soldiers.

In this regard, lighter armor cannot mean lesser armor. I'm happy to see that upper-echelon brass is beginning to take note, as well.



Overall, I am impressed. The SecDef seems to have his act together with at least his proposals for the president. There will be the typical bickering and adding and cutting, I'm sure. But it's a good start.

 

[A Can of Man]

Yeah I heard a few bits and pieces and I have to say I think Gates knows what he's doing. He's not a big fan of fancy toys. That alone is going to save a lot of money for things that can use more attention.