Eliminatus said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

Holy *****...I have died or this is some weird parallel dimension or something. I agree with a Logos take here.

China is going all out in every category that is military related or adjacent. Cutting our fat makes absolute sense and I am all for it, but blanket cuts can be very, very dangerous. This is one area we need more of a scalpel than a chainsaw IMO. It'll be slower but there is far less margin to play with here. Mistakes can take years to recover from. Years we may not have.

This one will be a critical one to keep an eye on.

---

Yep, the thing that scares me about China is they can build things quickly and in mass.. Granted on a 1 on 1 basis their stuff is not as effective as their us counterparts. But recall history, a German panther tank was more than a match for a Sherman. Problem was for every Panther Germany built the US cranked out 5 Shermans. 1 Panther was no match for 5 Shermans. Quantity can have a quality in its own right.

This is especially spooky regarding building ships, especially cargo vessels. We build very few these days.

Trump needs to reshore critical defense manufacturing.

I just hired a former radar tech from the navy. Smart fella and is signed up for our journeyman apprenticeship program. Anyways he was telling me how we need to up our ship count asap. Seems China is on break neck speed to build ships? Was an interesting conversation on his first few days

Maybe on the Fremm, but Salamander has been pretty apoplectic about it. I have no idea. Maybe it's just my cynicism kicking in.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Fixed price contacts...

Some of these cost+ 20 year boondoggles NEED to go bankrupt.

---

IDIQ contracts will not go away...

Because they really can't.

Decrease military budget drastically while allowing Russia to expand further. Bold move cotton!


Military budget probably needs some trimming. But like I've been saying in the Fed threads, do it smartly?

Will they get rid of carve outs for minority and women owned businesses in contracts?

ttu_85 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

Holy *****...I have died or this is some weird parallel dimension or something. I agree with a Logos take here.

China is going all out in every category that is military related or adjacent. Cutting our fat makes absolute sense and I am all for it, but blanket cuts can be very, very dangerous. This is one area we need more of a scalpel than a chainsaw IMO. It'll be slower but there is far less margin to play with here. Mistakes can take years to recover from. Years we may not have.

This one will be a critical one to keep an eye on.

---

Yep, the thing that scares me about China is they can build things quickly and in mass.. Granted on a 1 on 1 basis their stuff is not as effective as their us counterparts. But recall history, a German panther tank was more than a match for a Sherman. Problem was for every Panther Germany built the US cranked out 5 Shermans. 1 Panther was no match for 5 Shermans. Quantity can have a quality in its own right.

This is especially spooky regarding building ships, especially cargo vessels. We build very few these days.

Trump needs to reshore critical defense manufacturing.

---

Another thing scary about China is their military is dedicated to preservation of the party, not the nation. They may well obey apparently self-destructive invasion orders if they are given without much push back.

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

On the other hand, what i learned from that war is that Russian offensive capabilities are a joke and shouldn't be feared. Maybe their defensive capabilities should be but I don't see us trying to invade Russia.

The point being, all those years of building up Europe to defend against a potential Russian incursion was one big psyop, allowing the military industrial complex to take our money.

We're not going to get into any major ground war with China and I can't see any possible scenario where China takes control of Taiwan intact. I would rather not enter into another arms race without there be a clear and present danger.

Now, finally, our entire geopolitical strategy has been outdated since the cold war ended. It's way past time to step back and seriously modernize that such that military spending can focus on the priorities of this new strategy.

Ag with kids said:

---

This better not be like that "Peace Dividend" bull**** we got after the USSR shut down in 1989.

It's kind of nuts that the last Reagan Defense budget and the first GWB defense budget were approximately the same dollar amount. That's not adjusted for inflation or in Real Dollars.

The military was gutted during that period.

The run up in defense spending in the wake of 9/11 was the wake up call that we'd cut WAY too deep.

---

Oh, it will be. We've learned and relearned this lesson many times.
After WWI we drew down the military to prewar levels and basically ignored it until the mid 30's. Oddly enough, in 1922, two naval communications technicians figured out you could use radio access to detect ships, which had already been demonstrated but not widely circulated, and wrote a paper on it requesting funds to further explore the concept. Cutting costs, the Navy wasn't interested. Over 10 years later those same guys and some others developed the first pulsed radar. Had the Navy been more serious, we could have had radar on ships much earlier and had it much more widely equipped in the Navy. It also would have been much more sophisticated and possibly prevented Pearl Harbor.

After WWII, we had a significant draw down and force reduction. That's fine, but when Korea kicked off the first troops we sent were woefully unprepared. Poor communications and training were compounded by old equipment and expired munitions. Their antitank round literally bounced off the North Korean tanks they were shot at.

Then there was the aforementioned 90's. How can we forget, "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like"?

Now we're going to make a bunch of cuts, we'll probably be in a conflict in 10 years, and a lot of people will die from being underprepared.

nortex97 said:

---

No idea, but some big programs will necessarily get significant cuts if this happens. Multi-year tranche buys are a 'thing' that protect some programs like the F-35, but other 'developmental' projects might get gutted. I have some favorites I hope survive such as the V280 (Blackhawk replacement) but some others that seem ripe for cancellation (Fremm frigate, hybrid-electric Abrams tank, NGAD).

---

Hybrid electric Abrams? Seriously.

How much you wanna bet we also start seeing renewed pressure, ok it's already happening, for Europe and others to pay a greater role in their own defense. Worried about Russia? That needs to first be an Eastern Europe problem, then a Western Europe problem and a Canada problem. US can be the backstop, but we shouldn't be footing the bill to defend a dozen sovereign nations.

Seriously. It's insane. Oh, and AI.

Quote:

---

The new design also calls for the use of AI in the operation of the vehicle, which has won more than a small number of sceptics in the Pentagon and the expense of the re-design is substantial.

"It's going to be hard for the tank community to get resources to do a major upgrade," said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who spoke to the Washington Post about the program in October 2022.

---

Ludicrous on steroids:

Quote:

---

The shift to the M1E3 aligns with the broader US Army's modernization initiatives, advancing hybrid and electric vehicles to enhance mobility and energy efficiency. Current projects include the Bradley Hybrid Electric Vehicle (BHEV) and the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), both of which incorporate hybrid propulsion systems to improve operational range and onboard power generation. The Tactical Hybrid Electric Vehicle (THEV) program evaluates hybrid technology in standard tactical vehicles, enabling silent operation and energy management for modern battlefield requirements. Industry contributions include Allison Transmission's eGen Force hybrid propulsion system for the XM30 Combat Vehicle and BAE Systems' Hybrid Electric Drive system integration into the Bradley Fighting Vehicle under a $32 million Army contract.

The Army's Climate Strategy outlines a timeline to fully electrify non-tactical vehicles by 2035 and tactical vehicles by 2050, with hybrid solutions as an interim step. Industry developments include GM Defense's electric Hummer prototype for military applications, Oshkosh Defense's hybrid-electric Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) with a 30-minute battery range and 115 kW power export capability, and the SilentHawk hybrid-electric motorcycle designed for Special Operations. These projects aim to test and operationalize hybrid and electric technologies, aligning with long-term energy goals and evolving mission requirements.

---

titan said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

riverrataggie said:

---

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

This is true. But China has a considerable edge on us in manufacturing capacity when it comes to aircraft and ships. We can't do it alone and need our international allies to step up their game.

---

Can't wait until America's like, "Come on everybody!" and everybody else is like, "Hey, remember that whole, 'America First' thing? Well, how about, 'After you?'"

---

Does Europe not need the semiconductor elements as much as we do? How much is our planned defense of Taiwan for Europe's benefit rather than ours. That raises that question. Japan may choose to even if we don't. Its going to depend on how much time passes for them to build up again.

---

Sure they do, but why get involved if we're already committed to defending Taiwan? And even if China takes Taiwan, they can always just expand their own production or buy from the CCP. Why risk their militaries on something that's an us problem and leave themselves exposed to a Russia that we have no interest in helping them with?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Fixed price contacts...

Some of these cost+ 20 year boondoggles NEED to go bankrupt.

---

Everyone loves a fixed price contract until their first change order

nortex97 said:

---

Seriously. It's insane. Oh, and AI.

Quote:

---

The new design also calls for the use of AI in the operation of the vehicle, which has won more than a small number of sceptics in the Pentagon and the expense of the re-design is substantial.

"It's going to be hard for the tank community to get resources to do a major upgrade," said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who spoke to the Washington Post about the program in October 2022.

---

Ludicrous on steroids:

Quote:

---

The shift to the M1E3 aligns with the broader US Army's modernization initiatives, advancing hybrid and electric vehicles to enhance mobility and energy efficiency. Current projects include the Bradley Hybrid Electric Vehicle (BHEV) and the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), both of which incorporate hybrid propulsion systems to improve operational range and onboard power generation. The Tactical Hybrid Electric Vehicle (THEV) program evaluates hybrid technology in standard tactical vehicles, enabling silent operation and energy management for modern battlefield requirements. Industry contributions include Allison Transmission's eGen Force hybrid propulsion system for the XM30 Combat Vehicle and BAE Systems' Hybrid Electric Drive system integration into the Bradley Fighting Vehicle under a $32 million Army contract.

The Army's Climate Strategy outlines a timeline to fully electrify non-tactical vehicles by 2035 and tactical vehicles by 2050, with hybrid solutions as an interim step. Industry developments include GM Defense's electric Hummer prototype for military applications, Oshkosh Defense's hybrid-electric Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) with a 30-minute battery range and 115 kW power export capability, and the SilentHawk hybrid-electric motorcycle designed for Special Operations. These projects aim to test and operationalize hybrid and electric technologies, aligning with long-term energy goals and evolving mission requirements.

---

---

WTF. I can't believe what I just read. If were really doing that we almost deserve to be slaves to the chinese.

ETFan said:

---

Decrease military budget drastically while allowing Russia to expand further. Bold move cotton!


Military budget probably needs some trimming. But like I've been saying in the Fed threads, do it smartly?

---

Russia really can't.

CHINA, now, CAN.

So, don't do it stupidly...

ntxVol said:

---

javajaws said:

---

If the Ukraine war has shown us anything its that large expensive objects cannot be replaced easily or done fast enough to win any prolonged war. Our defense and military procurement needs to keep that in mind.

---

On the other hand, what i learned from that war is that Russian offensive capabilities are a joke and shouldn't be feared. Maybe their defensive capabilities should be but I don't see us trying to invade Russia.

The point being, all those years of building up Europe to defend against a potential Russian incursion was one big psyop, allowing the military industrial complex to take our money.

We're not going to get into any major ground war with China and I can't see any possible scenario where China takes control of Taiwan intact. I would rather not enter into another arms race without there be a clear and present danger.

Now, finally, our entire geopolitical strategy has been outdated since the cold war ended. It's way past time to step back and seriously modernize that such that military spending can focus on the priorities of this new strategy.

---

Nah.

We really did think that Russia wasn't a paper tiger.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

This better not be like that "Peace Dividend" bull**** we got after the USSR shut down in 1989.

It's kind of nuts that the last Reagan Defense budget and the first GWB defense budget were approximately the same dollar amount. That's not adjusted for inflation or in Real Dollars.

The military was gutted during that period.

The run up in defense spending in the wake of 9/11 was the wake up call that we'd cut WAY too deep.

---

Oh, it will be. We've learned and relearned this lesson many times.
After WWI we drew down the military to prewar levels and basically ignored it until the mid 30's. Oddly enough, in 1922, two naval communications technicians figured out you could use radio access to detect ships, which had already been demonstrated but not widely circulated, and wrote a paper on it requesting funds to further explore the concept. Cutting costs, the Navy wasn't interested. Over 10 years later those same guys and some others developed the first pulsed radar. Had the Navy been more serious, we could have had radar on ships much earlier and had it much more widely equipped in the Navy. It also would have been much more sophisticated and possibly prevented Pearl Harbor.

After WWII, we had a significant draw down and force reduction. That's fine, but when Korea kicked off the first troops we sent were woefully unprepared. Poor communications and training were compounded by old equipment and expired munitions. Their antitank round literally bounced off the North Korean tanks they were shot at.

Then there was the aforementioned 90's. How can we forget, "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like"?

Now we're going to make a bunch of cuts, we'll probably be in a conflict in 10 years, and a lot of people will die from being underprepared.

---

This is what scares me about this...

I worked on a lot of DOD projects for the first 30 years of my career. I was there for the "peace dividend".

And I saw how badly it impacted our warfighters...

I don't want that to be what we do now.

Peace...Through Strength. That needs to be our lodestar.

deddog said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

The amount of waste in defense is astounding.

Simple anecdote:
Have a friend who works for a defense contractor won't say which one.
They got specs from the government to build a system that required a subsytem. So they spend about 6 months reviewing the requirements of the subsystem, sometimes 30 folks in a room at a time, all billable per hour to the government.
Execs visit DC multiple times. After 6 months they realized they had an option to build the sub-system, OR use the governments existing cloud infrastructure. Which is what they went with. So the company charged millions just to say, yes, we will use what you already have.

---

I have seen similar things in the FAA. Contractors everywhere are designing & building crap that dont work, then go in a different direction. Travel expenses are through the roof. Just wait till someone figures out the fraud and waste by the ATC union.

Ag with kids said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Decrease military budget drastically while allowing Russia to expand further. Bold move cotton!


Military budget probably needs some trimming. But like I've been saying in the Fed threads, do it smartly?

---

Russia really can't.

CHINA, now, CAN.

So, don't do it stupidly...

---

That's why we replaced the Chinese spy with the Russian spy
I keeed, I keeed

And yes, I agree.
China has been the biggest thread for more than a decade. Russia is weak, enough money spent there. Instead of backing Ukraine, may prepare for Chyna. Their military progress has been extremely impressive. Yes, they are still no match for the US. but they are unquestioningly the world's 2nd biggest power.

nortex97 said:

---

Maybe on the Fremm, but Salamander has been pretty apoplectic about it. I have no idea. Maybe it's just my cynicism kicking in.

---

Yes. Salamander is MUCH more knowledgeable, and eloquent on just about any naval topic than me. As I read his comments of frigates, I agree with his rationale for needing them, and with his pointing out the cluster**** the navy has turned FREMMs into. Leave it to a bunch of admirals, and contract management types to overthink things and triple the cost of things. (and delivery times etc...)

Quote:

---

United States
In 2025, the US is expected to spend $916 billion on its defense.

China
In 2025, China is expected to spend $296 billion on its defense.

Russia
In 2025, Russia is expected to spend $109 billion on its defense.

India
In 2025, India is expected to spend $83.6 billion on its defense.

---

1.) We could cut our budget in half and we would still have by far the number 1 defense budget in the world.

2.) We have the bombs. No country is ever going to want to go toe to toe with our nuclear arsenal. Ever. It would be suicide.

3.) As far as our proxy war state crafting bull ****, drones are ten times more effective for a fraction of the cost.

4.) A significant amount of the budget could we cut if we focus on waste and fraud alone.


I swear some of you are stuck in the 80's. It's completely insane how much money we still spend of defense. We should have cut this back long ago.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

United States
In 2025, the US is expected to spend $916 billion on its defense.

China
In 2025, China is expected to spend $296 billion on its defense.

Russia
In 2025, Russia is expected to spend $109 billion on its defense.

India
In 2025, India is expected to spend $83.6 billion on its defense.

---

1.) We could cut our budget in half and we would still have by far the number 1 defense budget in the world.

2.) We have the bombs. No country is ever going to want to go toe to toe with our nuclear arsenal. Ever. It would be suicide.

3.) As far as our proxy war state crafting bull ****, drones are ten times more effective for a fraction of the cost.

4.) A significant amount of the budget could we cut if we focus on waste and fraud alone.


I swear some of you are stuck in the 80's. It's completely insane how much money we still spend of defense. We should have cut this back long ago.

---

We did after the USSR fell.

Then when 9/11 happened we were woefully unprepared.

As to your bullet point 3), could you give us your expertise on drones?

aggiehawg said:

---

VDH talked about this on Sunday. His assessment was cutting the procurement process, negating overages for the largest military contractors and make them wait for their money by adding documenting necessities before disbursements. Similar to billable hours by attorneys. One hour of engineer's time is one thousand, not inflated to three thousand, etc.

---

Fixing procurement and, on the other end, effectively dispositioning property out of service instead of maintaining it and storing it forever will absolutely cut this. DOD literally has a couple hundred thousand civilian employees who deal with the finance and acquisition juggernaut.

Unprepared for what? Defending ourselves against plane hijackers? What a total non sequitor.

Are you actually contesting that drones aren't dramatically cheaper and more effective then manned vehicles? Have you been paying attention to any military conflict over the last two decades? Is this a serious question?

Ag with kids said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

United States
In 2025, the US is expected to spend $916 billion on its defense.

China
In 2025, China is expected to spend $296 billion on its defense.

Russia
In 2025, Russia is expected to spend $109 billion on its defense.

India
In 2025, India is expected to spend $83.6 billion on its defense.

---

1.) We could cut our budget in half and we would still have by far the number 1 defense budget in the world.

2.) We have the bombs. No country is ever going to want to go toe to toe with our nuclear arsenal. Ever. It would be suicide.

3.) As far as our proxy war state crafting bull ****, drones are ten times more effective for a fraction of the cost.

4.) A significant amount of the budget could we cut if we focus on waste and fraud alone.


I swear some of you are stuck in the 80's. It's completely insane how much money we still spend of defense. We should have cut this back long ago.

---

We did after the USSR fell.

Then when 9/11 happened we were woefully unprepared.

As to your bullet point 3), could you give us your expertise on drones?

---

This actually is not that good a comparison. The danger and warning of a "draw down" that you are talking about is absolutely real, but 9/11 was more a failure of sufficiently aggressive and blunt covert intelligence operations. AQ leadership should have been wiped out regardless of where or international law. Its not that we need very big military expense to stop Bin Laden before 9/11 if had been that way.

ETFan said:

---

Decrease military budget drastically while allowing Russia to expand further. Bold move cotton!


Military budget probably needs some trimming. But like I've been saying in the Fed threads, do it smartly?

---

Russia isn't exactly steam rolling Ukraine, which is basically like Russia fighting Texas. China, sure I can see that being a concern, and a real threat.

But I have one question, given the gaslighting we've seen in the last decade, is it possible that the "threat" of China and their capabilities is exaggerated to an extent. The government that that says what a threat China is, also was conducting GOF research in a Chinese lab at the same time. That line of thinking would be the same as a prison guard asking a super max prisoner to hold his gun, handcuffs and baton while he runs back to his car to grab his chapstick.

You are thinking out of the box. That is insightful. There is some point to what you say. And its true that the rhetoric chosen hasn't been the kind designed to lessen tensions. So that is in common too. The GOF lab actually supports a more "globalists" against the world view than a China one, and one that makes many governments its pawns. Or it was a case of the China compromised elements of DC (we know some of the names commonly from Calif. ) were working with the Chinese to impact the election. But that still doesn't explain the lab being there well before Trump so you are possibly correct.

Another thing about 911 that often gets ignored is if we hadn't been meddling in state crafting for decades Bin Laden would never have existed in the first place.

Ag with kids said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Fixed price contacts...

Some of these cost+ 20 year boondoggles NEED to go bankrupt.

---

IDIQ contracts will not go away...

Because they really can't.

---

IDIQ can be used with fixed price task orders. DoD does it all the time with environmental remediation contracts. They give 4-6 contractors a seat on an IDIQ contract and then they bid on the task orders that come out under the contract. The IDIQ contract just narrows the bidder list for the task order. You can still make the task order fixed price and performance based. But you have to be careful to manage the level of risk assigned to the contractor in fixed price contracts, because if the risk is too open ended, they are forced to carry too much contingency and you end up paying more than you would on a cost-plus basis.

JB99 said:

---

Will they get rid of carve outs for minority and women owned businesses in contracts?

---

The way I read Trump's EO, they kind of have to. Remains to be seen how DoD goes about implementing it since so many of their contracts are small/disadvantaged business set asides. In reality, that just means the same group of large businesses "team" with a small business and the small business skims a few percent for acting as the beard for the large business.

China is a threat around/about themselves, but they really don't have a 'deployable' army. They may just take Taiwan some day but that is something we can't really do much to prevent them from trying. Erik Prince has argued the Taiwanese really need to build up a 'home guard' of Everyman/woman getting a rifle etc. Not sure that's a great plan or not.

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll add this...lots of folks know much more about our spend and capability than I do, but China is a huge threat. They are building up their military big time from what I read.

We must maintain superiority over China.

---

We are. Can't say more than that. But we are.

I'm good with this if they're cutting waste and fraud. I don't want them damaging our capabilities to be the best fighting force in the world.