Combat Power, Conflict Resolution, and US Economy

[AmericanPride]

USN Strength and Budget


Here is a quick look at USN strength. I think the glance at the USA, USAF, and USN trends suggests that the post-Cold War cuts did in fact significantly hollow out America's military power. Problems in cost growth, combined with the start of the GWoT, has had an upward pressure on the budget without producing any notable increase in military power. In other words, over time the US is purchasing less military power per dollar. Additionally, the capacity for the US to actually sustain its military forces in combat operations is also shrinking.

I don't think we need to go into detail of the decline of the US manufacturing sector, since this is probably generally accepted. Given increasing US reliance on advanced technologies for much of its military inventory, there is a question of how much and quickly the relevant parts of the economy can be converted for war-time production. Is there enough capacity to replace attrition and increase inventory in a conflict? Can that be accomplished before the termination of a conflict?

The next graph I produce will compare the growth of US GDP with the growth of the defense budget. Also, on a side note, I would be interested in seeing data comparing US, Chinese, Russian, Indian, and UK military flight hours and accident rates for this time period (1973 - 2009). So, if anyone has that data or knows where to find it, please let me know.

I'll never get why Americans are so much focused on national military power while being allied or befriended with the majority of foreign military power.

There is no guarantee that allied military power will be available for any conflict in the future, for whatever reason allies decide not to participate. There is also the problem that US military power is decreasing relative to the amount of money needed to sustain it.

[Fuchs]

There is no guarantee

The other stuff was superfluous. Understand this quote and you'll probably get my view on military spending.

I think the glance at the USA, USAF, and USN trends suggests that the post-Cold War cuts did in fact significantly hollow out America's military power.

Entirely wrong metric. Watch the difference between "to hollow out" and "to shrink".

For a change, I will refer not to my blog but to another useful one, "Ink Spots":
http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.de/2011...-and-isnt.html

A "hollow force" is a force that supposes to be more than it is. It's not a small force. Insufficient training and repair budgets lead to a hollow force, a budget cut does not need to do the same at all.
A hollow force is a failure of high-level leadership to adjust properly to a budget, it's about "not all is gold that shines" problem.

[AmericanPride]

US Yearly GDP and TOA to Services Growth


This is a comparison between US GDP growth and growth of TOA appropriations to each military service by year. US GDP growth has averaged about 3% since 1973, while the growth of the budget has averaged about 1%. So, what this tells me is that the US economy is actually expanding its capacity to support military power over time. But it is important to note that this only remains true to the extent that US per dollar purchasing power remains fixed relative to the combat power purchased. If one US dollar purchased X amount of combat power in 1973, what difference from X does one US dollar in 2012 purchase?

As discussed in a previous post, in the case of the F-35 replacement of the F-16, this problem is evident. The F-35 is 11 - 13 times more expensive than the F-16 but does not provide 11 - 13 times more combat capability; the US intends to purchase far less than the approximately 1,600 F-35s necessary to replace the combat capabilities of the F-16 inventory. In this situation, one US dollar is purchasing a smaller rate of combat capability. When aggregated for the whole defense establishment, if this reduction in purchasing power is greater than 3%, then US economic capacity to purchase military power is shrinking. If the reduction is greater than 1%, then the ability of the defense budget to sustain US military power is also shrinking.

Watch the difference between "to hollow out" and "to shrink".

See above to see why both are occurring.

[Ken White]

As discussed in a previous post, in the case of the F-35 replacement of the F-16, this problem is evident. The F-35 is 11 - 13 times more expensive than the F-16 but does not provide 11 - 13 times more combat capability...

You're comparing two aircraft of vastly different age, production status, capabilities and design parameters and for the older one you're using the cost of a stripped variant after years of production.

A far more apt comparison would of the the F-16IN recently offered to India (but beat out thus far by the Dassault Rafale). That variant of the F-16 is perhaps the most capable and it still won't quite match the F-35 in many respects. Flyaway costs run about $111M for the F-16IN versus $197M for the F35A. That's a factor of only 1:1.7 -- call it two times more cost and then ask the question on combat capability...