Is the U.S. Military Affordable

[gute]

I would not combine the branches of the U.S. military - we don't need group think.

Placing a certains number of A-10 squadrons under U.S. Army command seems reasonable.

The USAF would be our primary transport, space, bomber and fighter service.

The USMC would downsize (this hurts!) to three active MEBs which are organized more like 3 Commando Brigade and the quality training of those U.S. Marines would be more like the Royal Marines. The 4th MEB would the reserve brigade (rein) with three infantry regiments instead of one in the active brigades. The USMC would get rid of its tanks and attach Army armor if needed. I have not decided if the USMC should retain its air assets. If it does then a MAG per active MEB is reasonable. With USMC helos aging, assigning an Army CAB with UH60, CH47, AH64 aircraft to the MAG (under USMC command) might be the way to go.

I have a lot of ideas and will get to the other services later.

[William F. Owen]

Placing a certains number of A-10 squadrons under U.S. Army command seems reasonable.

That's purely an operational decision. Who's budget do they come out of and who buys the replacement? Army or Air Force?

The USMC would downsize (this hurts!) to three active MEBs which are organized more like 3 Commando Brigade and the quality training of those U.S. Marines would be more like the Royal Marines.

So a barely viable light infantry brigade, which is under constant threat of being cut and only survives because it's on the Navy's budget?

[gute]

That's purely an operational decision. Who's budget do they come out of and who buys the replacement? Army or Air Force?


So a barely viable light infantry brigade, which is under constant threat of being cut and only survives because it's on the Navy's budget?

How does 3 Commando survive?

Three regiments, not one.

[gute]

How does 3 Commando survive?

Three regiments, not one.

Three brigades not one. My apology.

[Kiwigrunt]

It appears the issues are largely the way in which budgets are divided and controlled versus the actual command and control of the assets.

Our Navy SeaSprites are Navy ‘owned’ (?) and flown by Navy pilots, yet run and serviced by RNZAF. So there are air force crews on the frigates. Given the fact that we only have 5 or 6 of them, that seems to make sense and it seems to work.

The Dutch Apaches are an air force asset yet they are assigned (C&C) to 11 Airlanding Brigade (if they are still called that). I don’t know how well that is working.

I have often wondered about the sensibility of giving ‘fixed’ budgets to individual services as opposed to controlling the overall budged at the top. It always reminds me of how for instance councils use up their budgets (like roadworks) by the end of taxyear to make sure they get the same next year. Doesn’t come across as very efficient to me.

[gute]

The USAF would shift more birds to the reserve and I would consolidate USAF reserve and air guard into the reserve. F-22 and F-15E would remain active while 15C and F-16C/D aircraft go to the reserve. Now, I have not mentioned numbers so if the numbers work out to be too few realistically, then keep an appropriate number of F-15C and F-16C/D aircraft on active duty. The B-2 remians in an active status while all B-52 are in the reserve on a rotational alert status. A-10 squadrons are split 1-2 active/reserve. C-17, C-27, and C-130J transports are active - C-5, C-141, and older C-130 aircraft are reserve (many are already). USAF Spec Ops would remain at the same level and the same distribution between active/reserve. Basically, older air frames go to the reserves.

I think the F-35 program should be terminated and more F-22's purchased along with an advanced F-15 (I believe McDonnell Douglas has talked to the zoomies about this aircraft). I understand the reasoning behind the F-35 and one plane for three services, but the cost overruns are ridiculus.

Navy coming next.

[William F. Owen]

Basically, older air frames go to the reserves.

OK, but what does this achieve? How does it help?