Effects of Increase in Defense Spending In The Next Presidential Administration

Day-Tripper

Day-Tripper

10-Year Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
897
Greetings!

President-elect Trump proposes some significant increases in military spending once his term in office begins.

Given that his political party will control both houses of congress, this will likely happen.

Some of these proposes budget increases are substantial, i.e. 10% rise in Army, Navy & Marine Corps (but, curiously, not Air Force) personnel.

This would mean roughly 100,000 more GIs, 30,000 more sailors & 15,00 more Marines. As well as swelling ranks in National Guard & Reserves.

This would, concurrently, mean thousands more commissioned officers. From what source? OCS/OTS could churn out these numbers somewhat quickly, as they've done in other big increases like 1966-1969, 1981-1986 & 2002-2008. But would service academies & ROTC (more expensive sources) see similar boots in numbers?
 
Well, the defense authorization that has just passed the house doesn't have numbers anywhere near these (see Military Times)... so it's probably a year before they can do any significant ramp up. There are many ways they could do it and much will depend on how fast they want to ramp up, and I wouldn't think it would be too fast myself, but then I'm an idiot. Further I personally don't believe any numbers until I see dollars behind them. In any case, the academies and ROTC have seen increases in the past.
 
I have been reading a lot of "bigger is not necessarily better." Many learned military scholars and leaders think those funds could be more effectively used for maintenance and training that have suffered in the past decade or so.
 
It would take years for that ramp up if it was approved. Ranks just don't swell overnight. How an increase in funding could be used best for the services differs among many, but hopefully if this becomes a reality, it is used where it could have a significant impact.
 
Sledge said:
I have been reading a lot of "bigger is not necessarily better." Many learned military scholars and leaders think those funds could be more effectively used for maintenance and training that have suffered in the past decade or so.
Click to expand...

Or I would say back to the past. We have a tendency to plan for threat capabilities that might exist and ignore the reality. Not an aviation expert, but will China or Russia produce AND operate something better than F-18/F-15/F-16? I am sure they could. However, I think it is naïve to think that somehow China or Russia could overcome all their challenges to produce AND operate advance fighters.

As for Navy's Zumwalt class destroyer, someone needs to explain to me what threat capabilities it is supposed to counter. Or there is no better way to insert SEALs than using a multi billion dollar submarine as taxi?

As for Army, perhaps they learned their lesson with Crusader, Comanche , and Future Combat System. Knowing the current defense establishment, the Army would want a new main battle tank if there is an increase in their budget.
 
A Navy increase means a vessel increase which means steel, electronics, munitions, shipyards, -- employment. A simple man power increase does not have the same "pr"--putting people back to work media show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top