U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment

5 December Washington Post - U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment by Ann Scott Tyson.

Quote:

---

Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is lobbying hard for more money to repair what he calls the "holes" in his force, saying current war funding is inadequate to make the Army "well." Asked in a congressional hearing this past summer whether he was comfortable with the readiness levels of non-deployed Army units, Schoomaker replied: "No."

Lt. Col. Mike Johnson, a senior Army planner, said: "Before, if a unit was less than C-1," or fully ready, "someone would get fired." Now, he said, that is accepted as combat-zone rotations are sapping all units of gear and manpower. "It's a cost of continuous operations. You can't be ready all the time," he said...

---

This could be subtitled "How to un-make a world super power squandering equipment, soldiers, and national good will".

How about diverting some of the AF budget to cover refitting? The B-2 is a waste, and you don't want to know how much they'll waste in developing the B-3.

Never happen. The services always split the budget pretty much into thirds. Of course, the Army isn't shelving Future Combat Systems or Land Warrior to get tanks back into action, either.

One speculates that this may be an Army version of the old city hall trick: any time someone demands tax cuts, city council draws up a plan to downsize the police, fire fighters, ambulances, teachers and so forth. By showcasing how the current budget is inadequate to get our soldiers "the equipment they need" (more tanks?) perhaps some Army brass thinks that they'll get more cash out of the next budget supplemental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones_RE

Never happen. The services always split the budget pretty much into thirds. Of course, the Army isn't shelving Future Combat Systems or Land Warrior to get tanks back into action, either.

One speculates that this may be an Army version of the old city hall trick: any time someone demands tax cuts, city council draws up a plan to downsize the police, fire fighters, ambulances, teachers and so forth. By showcasing how the current budget is inadequate to get our soldiers "the equipment they need" (more tanks?) perhaps some Army brass thinks that they'll get more cash out of the next budget supplemental.

---

The goal has been to increase the baseline budget for the Army instead of having to rely on supplementals (which will go away at some point). Without increasing the baseline standard, you'll always be fighting for additional funds to keep your head above water.

This is why the Army was late in submitting its budget a few months back, and why it has been operating on "emergency status" since summer - to prove that it is underfunded to be able to execute the strategy that the administration is asking it to perform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones_RE

Never happen. The services always split the budget pretty much into thirds. Of course, the Army isn't shelving Future Combat Systems or Land Warrior to get tanks back into action, either.

One speculates that this may be an Army version of the old city hall trick: any time someone demands tax cuts, city council draws up a plan to downsize the police, fire fighters, ambulances, teachers and so forth. By showcasing how the current budget is inadequate to get our soldiers "the equipment they need" (more tanks?) perhaps some Army brass thinks that they'll get more cash out of the next budget supplemental.

---

Actually this isn't quite the case. There have been periods when the AF has gotten close to 50% of the defense budget.

That said, I do agree that this is most likely some supplemental "posturing" on the part of Army brass who have seen it work before (for their service and for others).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones_RE

Never happen. The services always split the budget pretty much into thirds. Of course, the Army isn't shelving Future Combat Systems or Land Warrior to get tanks back into action, either.

One speculates that this may be an Army version of the old city hall trick: any time someone demands tax cuts, city council draws up a plan to downsize the police, fire fighters, ambulances, teachers and so forth. By showcasing how the current budget is inadequate to get our soldiers "the equipment they need" (more tanks?) perhaps some Army brass thinks that they'll get more cash out of the next budget supplemental.

---

Say what you want about the Army's motives, but the reality is that the Air Force and Navy missions are fading into the background of the world's realities. Today's threats, and those of the forseeable future, do not require many fighters, bombers, or aircraft carriers.

Yes there is always the potential of a threat from China but we can't afford to maintain a Cold War Air Force and Navy on a year-to-year basis for a threat that has not materialized. We need to maintain a conventional capability but it doesn't need to be as large as it is today. In the end the Air Force and Navy, barring a significant threat in their domains, suffer from a reality first voiced by Mahan -- man is a land dwelling animal.

I would definitely expand our RO/RO capabilities, however