Military considers cutting 25% of Army personnel, Marines to trim budget for sequester

[unhappycamper]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/31/198216/military-contemplates-how-to-trim.html



Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that the Pentagon may have to mothball up to three Navy aircraft carriers and order more sharp reductions in the size of the Army and Marine Corps if Congress does not act to avoid massive budget cuts beginning in 2014.

Military considers cutting 25% of Army personnel, Marines to trim budget for sequester
By Kate Irby | McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — The military faces one of two options in order to meet mandatory across-the-board budget cuts, says Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel: chopping the number of personnel or limiting its technological edge. That might mean reducing as much as 29 percent of soldiers, 18 percent of Marines and three Navy carriers through 2019.

~snip~

Currently, there are about 535,000 Army personnel, 182,000 Marines and 11 Navy carriers. The review suggests cutting that to as few as 380,000 Army personnel, 150,000 Marines and eight Navy carriers.

The other option, which Hagel described as a “decade-long modernization holiday,” would involve curtailing research and development funding, reducing special operations forces and slowing technological growth.

“I believe what we’re going to find is that we will edge slightly, probably, towards capability, because we have to keep our industrial base alive and we have to keep focusing on new technologies that will take care of us in the future,” Navy Adm. James Winnefeld said. “But we have to keep an eye on the capacity that might be required to fight a war today.”



Elsewhere:

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/31/hagel-outlines-bold-painful-pay-benefits-force-structure-cuts-to-meet-sequester/

Hagel Outlines Bold, Painful Cuts to Army, Carriers, Pay, Benefits To Cope With Sequester
By Colin Clark on July 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM

~snip~

Here are the options Hagel outlined for the Army. The least painful option would bring the Army down to 420,000 and 450,000 in the active component and between 490,000 and 530,000 in the reserves. The Air Force could cut up to five tactical aircraft squadrons “and cut the size of the C-130 fleet with minimal risk.”

~snip~

For those who think the Defense Secretary may be playing the game his predecessor Leon Panetta did, crying wolf and being left to look a bit foolish when the world did not end when sequestration came into effect, Hagel said during the press conference that he told his people they must not exaggerate, adding he didn’t want anyone coming back and saying the Pentagon had oversold the impact of sequestration.

But William Hartung, head of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy, didn’t buy that, saying Hagel’s actions “are too little, too late. Key questions like changes in military compensation — and even how to cut the $52 billion in FY 2014 — have yet again been kicked down the road.” Hartung accused Hagel of of understating DoD’s “ability to make sensible procurement cuts by protecting systems like the overpriced, under-performing F-35 combat aircraft.”

Hartung concluded that the SCMR and Hagel’s speech today “is that this is a more low key version of ‘the sky is falling’ rhetoric favored by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. A 10% cut over ten years will still leave us with over $5 trillion in spending over that time period, and a budget well above the Cold War average.”



unhappycamper comment:

[yourout]

1. 25% is a start.

[Sherman A1]

2. Precisely

It is indeed a start.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Here's an idea that Republicans will support. Why not buy a bunch of F-35s, very expensive

planes that don't work.

It seems U.S. fighter pilots have lost that loving feeling for their new F-35 stealth jets.

At least that’s the impression given in a scathing Pentagon report leaked this week that identifies a huge number of problems facing the U.S. military’s F-35 fleet — including fears that it can easily be shot down.

From radars that don’t work, to blurry vision from the aircraft’s sophisticated helmet, to an inability to fly through clouds, the report, which includes pilot comments, paints a picture of a jet nowhere near ready for real-life operations.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/f-35-design-problems-make-night-flying-impossible-increase-risk-of-being-shot-down-u-s-pilots-warn/

[Aristus]

4. Nevermind the sequester. We should be doing this anyway.

Our massive, globe-spanning, empire-building military needs to be taken down a few notches on the readiness scale. We're nowhere near at risk of having to fight a World War II-scale conflict, which is what our current readiness posture is based upon.

We should downsize the conventional military forces, and concentrate on small, high-quality, well-trained units specializing in counter-terrorism.

We pump clenched fists and beat our chests over having defeated the Soviets, and yet we're falling victim to the same thing that brought them down; massively expensive military hypervigilance at the detriment of building and maintaining a high quality standard of living at home.