Biden as POTUS: Military rollback?

T

txfwindian

Parent of USNA C/O 2025
5-Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
1,187
If JB wins, what's the word in military circle if there is going to any rollbacks? I just dont mean manpower but all other areas.
 
Like withdrawing from Afghanistan unilaterally?
Like threatening to withdraw from NATO?
Like abandoning Kurdish allies in Syria & Iraq, with no consultation with anybody but just through a tweet?
Like ordering half of US troops from Germany after a petty spat with that country's chancellor?
Like declaring ISIS "totally" defeated, only to see them arise from the ashes & begin reconstructing?

If there is to be a decrease in the US defense budget it would have to originate in Congress. If both the Senate & the House have Democratic majorities, this could well be the case. But not in any significant manner. The US has been on a war footing since 1950, with only modest decreases in spending after Vietnam in the 1970s & after the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s. Any seriously substantial decrease in military spending, like to the level of our European allies, would be too politically unpopular with the US voting electorate & would be political suicide.

Short answer to your question is "No."
 
I think we can safely assume either way that in 6 months "Space Farce" won't be a thing.
 
There are some stark realities facing the US DoD budget in the mid to long term with very uncomfortable choices that will have to be made.
How we got here is a mix of issues, including funding ongoing wars/limited actions which overused current assets while also soaking up funding that could/should have gone to new starts/replacements.

On the "need" side, the biggest uncomfortable truth is the extreme age of our nuclear triad. The Ohio Class SSBNs are rapidly aging out and the bill for the Columbia Class will take a big whack out of the shipbuilding budget (more about that later). By the way, the missiles that will go onto Columbia are the Trident II's that are on the existing Ohio Class. As a comment on the age of those, I'll just say that my son's Trident Sub's missiles are older than he is. Actually, I was one of the program managers for the guidance system of that missile and that was years before he was born. The Air Force is starting to talk about replacing the Minuteman ICBMs and the cost estimates are pretty large. The Tridents will cost a similar sum and they are not being talked about yet. Of course, there are also the B-52's which are pushing SEVENTY years of age and really do need to be sunsetted once there is a viable replacement. The actual warheads themselves are also very old and there are programs to start to refresh them. In the push to save money a couple of decades ago, the actual industrial capacity to build/restore them was killed off and will need to be restarted or the whole enterprise comes to an eventual halt. All of these together say that the hard choice is whether or not to even have a nuclear deterrent and considering the array of powers who DO have nuclear deterrents, it is a sobering choice without easy answers.

And that's just the Strategic Force headlines. Some other pressing issues are

Navy has approx 280 or so ships and the stated need is 355. Current build rates (and budgets) do not support 280 much less 355. The Columbia Class (mentioned above) is going to eat up a substantial piece of the shipbuilding budget. Even keeping our current low numbers will take more money than currently being budgeted. Additionally, current ships have not been properly maintained due to funding and other issues - even keeping what we have will take more money AND for the near term, we probably need to deploy fewer to allow time for repair/reconstitution.

Air Force has some heavily dated assets with replacements slow to come on the scene. New Bomber will help but funding for that has to come from somewhere along with continued funding for refueling aircraft and a real and effective replacement for the A-10 and for that matter AWACS and JSTARS. Left unfilled is the Air Force's need for Electronic Warfare which was walked away from a couple of decades ago with the result being that the only significant airborne EW is with the Navy. By the way, the Army is also in need to reconstituting their EW which was also done away with but they are further down the road.

The Army also has some significant needs in the mid to long term but much of their stuff is less long term capital intensive than a ship or nuclear tipped missile but some needs include a future replacement for the Abrams tank, even if we want to keep the current design, the machines themselves are old and in need of replacement. The Industrial base for them is extremely shaky and will take time to even be capable of producing more than onesie-twosies. The Bradley AFV is also in need of replacement and as for the Humvee, the replacement (JLTV) is expensive and thus not being procured in sufficient numbers.

Those are just a few highlights on the Needs side.

On the funding side, Even at the best possible scenario (from a defense standpoint), the funding (top-line) is flat and covering the needs I outlined above would be extremely difficult. Realistically speaking, considering the hole that COVID punched into the overall federal budget, I would guess that a 3% to 5% or so decrease in topline would be the BEST scenario we can expect going forward. There are voices in Congress who want the decrease to be much greater and there are people who are listening.

My best guess is a single digit decrease in the topline starting probably FY23. The aforementioned strategic programs will happen but stretched out which makes them more expensive in the long run. We will continue to operate ships and aircraft (and tanks) beyond their useful life because we can't afford to bring in replacements fast enough.
 
Torero_dad said:
I think we can safely assume either way that in 6 months "Space Farce" won't be a thing.
Click to expand...
That really doesn't DO anything. All of the ASSETS of Space Force already existed and were signed over from their previous service. Very few people actually understand what Space Force is and what they do. Hint: its not an expansion of what we've been doing for many years.
 
OldRetSWO said:
There are some stark realities facing the US DoD budget in the mid to long term with very uncomfortable choices that will have to be made.
How we got here is a mix of issues, including funding ongoing wars/limited actions which overused current assets while also soaking up funding that could/should have gone to new starts/replacements.

On the "need" side, the biggest uncomfortable truth is the extreme age of our nuclear triad. The Ohio Class SSBNs are rapidly aging out and the bill for the Columbia Class will take a big whack out of the shipbuilding budget (more about that later). By the way, the missiles that will go onto Columbia are the Trident II's that are on the existing Ohio Class. As a comment on the age of those, I'll just say that my son's Trident Sub's missiles are older than he is. Actually, I was one of the program managers for the guidance system of that missile and that was years before he was born. The Air Force is starting to talk about replacing the Minuteman ICBMs and the cost estimates are pretty large. The Tridents will cost a similar sum and they are not being talked about yet. Of course, there are also the B-52's which are pushing SEVENTY years of age and really do need to be sunsetted once there is a viable replacement. The actual warheads themselves are also very old and there are programs to start to refresh them. In the push to save money a couple of decades ago, the actual industrial capacity to build/restore them was killed off and will need to be restarted or the whole enterprise comes to an eventual halt. All of these together say that the hard choice is whether or not to even have a nuclear deterrent and considering the array of powers who DO have nuclear deterrents, it is a sobering choice without easy answers.

And that's just the Strategic Force headlines. Some other pressing issues are

Navy has approx 280 or so ships and the stated need is 355. Current build rates (and budgets) do not support 280 much less 355. The Columbia Class (mentioned above) is going to eat up a substantial piece of the shipbuilding budget. Even keeping our current low numbers will take more money than currently being budgeted. Additionally, current ships have not been properly maintained due to funding and other issues - even keeping what we have will take more money AND for the near term, we probably need to deploy fewer to allow time for repair/reconstitution.

Air Force has some heavily dated assets with replacements slow to come on the scene. New Bomber will help but funding for that has to come from somewhere along with continued funding for refueling aircraft and a real and effective replacement for the A-10 and for that matter AWACS and JSTARS. Left unfilled is the Air Force's need for Electronic Warfare which was walked away from a couple of decades ago with the result being that the only significant airborne EW is with the Navy. By the way, the Army is also in need to reconstituting their EW which was also done away with but they are further down the road.

The Army also has some significant needs in the mid to long term but much of their stuff is less long term capital intensive than a ship or nuclear tipped missile but some needs include a future replacement for the Abrams tank, even if we want to keep the current design, the machines themselves are old and in need of replacement. The Industrial base for them is extremely shaky and will take time to even be capable of producing more than onesie-twosies. The Bradley AFV is also in need of replacement and as for the Humvee, the replacement (JLTV) is expensive and thus not being procured in sufficient numbers.

Those are just a few highlights on the Needs side.

On the funding side, Even at the best possible scenario (from a defense standpoint), the funding (top-line) is flat and covering the needs I outlined above would be extremely difficult. Realistically speaking, considering the hole that COVID punched into the overall federal budget, I would guess that a 3% to 5% or so decrease in topline would be the BEST scenario we can expect going forward. There are voices in Congress who want the decrease to be much greater and there are people who are listening.

My best guess is a single digit decrease in the topline starting probably FY23. The aforementioned strategic programs will happen but stretched out which makes them more expensive in the long run. We will continue to operate ships and aircraft (and tanks) beyond their useful life because we can't afford to bring in replacements fast enough.
Click to expand...

A decrease of 5% in defense spending would mean instead of the current $730 billion per year the US would only spend $694 billion. Hardly the stuff of demobilizing. The US spends more on its military then the next 20 or so largest militaries in the world - and will continue to do so. Financial considerations have never stopped the US Congress (regardless of which party has control) from spending money it didn't have.
 
Day-Tripper said:
A decrease of 5% in defense spending would mean instead of the current $730 billion per year the US would only spend $694 billion. Hardly the stuff of demobilizing. The US spends more on its military then the next 20 or so largest militaries in the world - and will continue to do so. Financial considerations have never stopped the US Congress (regardless of which party has control) from spending money it didn't have.
Click to expand...
It is very easy to sneer at the decrease level but when you look at what the impact would end up being, I doubt you'd be as cheerful.
Yes, the US spends more and that comes from a multitude of factors. First of all, we do not conscript our forces and actually pay them a reasonable amount for what they do. Unlike most of the others, the US military has worldwide responsibilities. Just think about YOUR question about threatening to withdraw form NATO. Multiply that by many other areas where the US operates for a variety of reasons, I don't agree with all of them but the overall rationale of minimizing conflicts, supporting our friends and when there are battles, keep them away from our shores is not a bad thing. However, operating far from our bases does cost money. Additionally, the "American Way of War" has morphed from minimize casualties to eliminate them altogether. Not a bad thing but very costly equipment wise. Take a look at the cost of the MRAP program in the 00's vs the HUMVEE that it replaced. The cost to outfit one basic infantry soldier in the 00's was well over $20K against a few hundred $'s during Vietnam. Things like Night Vision Devices, Body Armor and personal comm devices don't come cheaply and are part of that heavy bill.

By the way, to your assertion that at a 5 percent decrease would hardly be the stuff of demobilizing, I'll respond that because of the "Needs" that I outlined in my (too long) post above, a 5% decrease in TOA will force a significant reduction of people or force structure. The replacement bill is just that large.
 
Last edited:
When you are actively serving in the military budget cuts always trickle down to the guy with boots on the ground. Things like miniscule cost of living adjustments, pay freezes, slower promotions, RIFs, postponed or cancelled training, etc. Pilots don't get qualifying hours, platforms (planes, helicopters, vehicles, ships) are run into the ground AND parts are pulled from other assets to "build" a working unit. The impact on readiness and personnel is profound.

For those that were there - think back to the Carter years.

That is not to say that spending shouldn't be challenged and strategically applied. It is just that too often, the easy fix is to reduce the budget where it is felt most.
 
OldRetSWO said:
That really doesn't DO anything. All of the ASSETS of Space Force already existed and were signed over from their previous service. Very few people actually understand what Space Force is and what they do. Hint: its not an expansion of what we've been doing for many years.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why it will wither away in either electoral outcome... the friction and overhead of an additional branch in support of a photo opp will cause it to go way of the so many other things we’ve seen in recent years.
 
OldRetSWO said:
It is very easy to sneer at the decrease level but when you look at what the impact would end up being, I doubt you'd be as cheerful.
Yes, the US spends more and that comes from a multitude of factors. First of all, we do not conscript our forces and actually pay them a reasonable amount for what they do. Unlike most of the others, the US military has worldwide responsibilities. Just think about YOUR question about threatening to withdraw form NATO. Multiply that by many other areas where the US operates for a variety of reasons, I don't agree with all of them but the overall rationale of minimizing conflicts, supporting our friends and when there are battles, keep them away from our shores is not a bad thing. However, operating far from our bases does cost money. Additionally, the "American Way of War" has morphed from minimize casualties to eliminate them altogether. Not a bad thing but very costly equipment wise. Take a look at the cost of the MRAP program in the 00's vs the HUMVEE that it replaced. The cost to outfit one basic infantry soldier in the 00's was well over $20K against a few hundred $'s during Vietnam. Things like Night Vision Devices, Body Armor and personal comm devices don't come cheaply and are part of that heavy bill.

By the way, to your assertion that at a 5 percent decrease would hardly be the stuff of demobilizing, I'll respond that because of the "Needs" that I outlined in my (too long) post above, a 5% decrease in TOA will force a significant reduction of people or force structure. The replacement bill is just that large.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I don't see any appetite amongst either of the two major political parties in the US for larger defense spending, particularly in rough economic times. In fact, for the first time in probably a century I see increased support for the US to withdraw from overseas military involvement, whether it be direct conflict, stationing of troops, committing to defend heretofore allies, etc.

Pax Americana may not be over yet, but it may be entering the twilight years of its existence. And it doesn't seem to be on the radar of most Americans in terms of importance.

Not good news for our East Asian, European & Middle Eastern friends & allies or supporters of a robust US military presence to protect the post-1945 (or post-1991) world order, but there you have it.
 
I recall being a young 2LT (O-1) during the Clinton administration and not having money in the budget for training. Fewer days at the range and in the field. Plenty of days in the motor pool cleaning up after leaky vehicles with a limited budget to make repairs.

A 5% cut for those not in uniform seems acceptable, but if you are preparing to have one of your children serve our country you will soon learn that the budget is extremely important.

My parents who are both very conservative (Republicans) fought the Bush administration tooth and nail over increasing the number of armored vehicles while I was in Iraq in 2004.

Bottom line is that this is not a party issue. Nobody wants to see the government buy $400 toilet seats! We do want to have the best trained and financed military in the world. If it means 20x more than our adversaries then so be it. I would much rather see technology assist in battle over sheer numbers of personnel. What is the price tag you put on the life of one of our service members?
 
sanman said:
Well seeing what is happening to the dollar with the prospect of Biden as president it would seem sure we are going to be in for tough economic times.
Click to expand...
I think this whole discussion about military spending is very interesting and thoughtful and I don't mean to sidetrack it. I would be very careful about attaching strength or weakness in the $US to a particular event or to particular personalities. It may be more useful to look at broad trends and detach them from preconceived notions about the occupant of the White House. There too many variables affecting the value of the dollar to list.

Case in point would be its performance through the last three administrations. If the mods can tell me how to display a PDF, I will do so.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
If history is an adequate measure, there will be cutbacks.

Stark contrast in resources from when I went through airborne school and my son did in 2016. Shocking that jumps were routinely rescheduled due to aircraft maintenance issues, leaving the cadre scrambling to find planes. In one instance a National Guard or Reserve crew was found that was willing to fly a plane across the country from the state of Washington to complete the final jump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top