• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
610
Reaction score
28
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/09/spending_on_defensehow_much_is_enough_110937.html

1991 2015 % increase

Social Security $272B $882B +324%
Medicare $123B $646B +525%
Medicaid $98B $545B +556%
Income assistance/welfare $53B $218B +411%
Disability compensation $48B $143B +298%
Food Stamps $17B $80B +470%
Defense $306B $582B +190%*
Disgusting isn't it? The safety of the country can go hang as long as the entitlements keep flowing.
Per the figures above defence spending increases 190 percent during this period, approx 2.5 times the rate of inflation during this period. Considering this period also featured the near total economic and military collapse of your main rival (USSR) and that US continues to spend far far more on defence than anyone else and have by far the most powerful military in the world your claim of the safety of your country being left to go hang has no rational basis re: the figures above.
If your disgusted at spending on the US social welfare system perhaps an actual political forum would be a better match for the discussion you want to have?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/09/spending_on_defensehow_much_is_enough_110937.html

1991 2015 % increase

Social Security $272B $882B +324%
Medicare $123B $646B +525%
Medicaid $98B $545B +556%
Income assistance/welfare $53B $218B +411%
Disability compensation $48B $143B +298%
Food Stamps $17B $80B +470%
Defense $306B $582B +190%*
Disgusting isn't it? The safety of the country can go hang as long as the entitlements keep flowing.
Per the figures above defence spending increases 190 percent during this period, approx 2.5 times the rate of inflation during this period. Considering this period also featured the near total economic and military collapse of your main rival (USSR) and that US continues to spend far far more on defence than anyone else and have by far the most powerful military in the world your claim of the safety of your country being left to go hang has no rational basis re: the figures above.
If your disgusted at spending on the US social welfare system perhaps an actual political forum would be a better match for the discussion you want to have?
According to a US Inflation calculation website cumulative inflation over this period is 78.9% (178.9 of 1991's value) making defense spending of $306B in 1991 equal to $547B today. So don't know where you got 2.5 times figure from?

That said and despite my full agreement with sferrin this is a news only thread.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2017/03/14/428104/5-ways-better-manage-u-s-defense-spending/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2446

Pentagon: $30B Budget Bump in 2017 Only a ‘Down Payment’
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
6
We really don't need another public policy debate given that the budget has really only increased by 3-4% over what Obama had in his FYDP. The problem with entitlement spending in the US has to do with its dramatic growth and how policy decisions have almost exclusively focused on the symptoms and not the underlying cause.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/preventing-defense-crisis-the-2018-national-defense-authorization-act-must-begin
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svSCCmOPrHA

Heritage Foundation Dakota Wood on DOD spending requirements.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.aei.org/publication/a-military-in-need/?utm_content=bufferfa947&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 

zaphd

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-lawmakers-reach-2017-budget-deal

Anyone find a link to the actual budget document?

Edit: found it, the Bill text division C pdf at https://rules.house.gov/bill/115/hr-244
Super-heavy reading with all the line items, but we can expect to see many news stories about it soon
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/05/08/eisenhowers-military-industrial-complex-shrinks-to-1-of-economy/#2e90dee0bed1
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://beta.usaspending.gov/#/

Not just military spending but an interesting site.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
Not a perfect spot for this but here you go.......

http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/us-military-power/

http://ims-2017.s3.amazonaws.com/2017_Index_of_Military_Strength_WEB.pdf
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
Day before yesterday, the Australian Government just announced an $Aus89 Billion naval ship building plan

The plan is to build "12 submarines, nine frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels for the Australian navy as well as 19 Pacific patrol boats to be given to neighbouring countries." The ships are to be built in Adelaide, South Australia and Perth, Western Australia.

However, this will still not avoid the "valley of death" in the Australian ship building industry, with the job losses which accompany the end of one project and the start of another, several months later. Also it means foreign workers will still be employed to build these ships. The present Australian Government and it's predecessors are too much wedded to the "stop-start" idea of ship projects rather than one of continuous building.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-expect-fy-2018-defense-budget
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/leaked-nuclear-weapons-munition-focus-in-dod-budget-request

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/armys-2018-budget-request-stockpiles-munitions-modernizes-armored-brigades
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-defense-budget-poised-to-meet-lower-expectations
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
31
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Kadija_Man said:
However, this will still not avoid the "valley of death" in the Australian ship building industry, with the job losses which accompany the end of one project and the start of another, several months later. Also it means foreign workers will still be employed to build these ships. The present Australian Government and it's predecessors are too much wedded to the "stop-start" idea of ship projects rather than one of continuous building.
If the Australian shipbuilding industry wants to avoid a 'valley of death' they should stop relying on the RAN as their primary (if not only) customer and focus on exporting. The Australia aerospace industry has had to do this for years.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,980
Reaction score
178
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/at-the-pentagon-overpriced-fuel-sparks-allegations--and-denials--of-a-slush-fund/2017/05/20/c5ff4bf4-31b2-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html

As if the Green Fleet fiasco wasn't bad enough...
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
GTX said:
Kadija_Man said:
However, this will still not avoid the "valley of death" in the Australian ship building industry, with the job losses which accompany the end of one project and the start of another, several months later. Also it means foreign workers will still be employed to build these ships. The present Australian Government and it's predecessors are too much wedded to the "stop-start" idea of ship projects rather than one of continuous building.
If the Australian shipbuilding industry wants to avoid a 'valley of death' they should stop relying on the RAN as their primary (if not only) customer and focus on exporting. The Australia aerospace industry has had to do this for years.
What a great idea! I wonder why they haven't tried that, Greg? Could it be because the competition is a bit better at designing and marketing their ideas? Could it be that the competition has a lower price? Could it be because the competition has a longer tradition and a higher quality? No idea.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
MDA budget document

https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/budgetfy18.pdf
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
Trump Proposes $574 Billion in Military Spending

​—Wilson Brissett

President Donald Trump is requesting $574 billion in base funding for the Department of Defense and $65 billion in overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding for fiscal year 2018. The base budget requests a three percent increase over the Obama administration’s final 2018 projection. The modest spending growth represents “the second step in a three-step process to rebuild the armed forces,” the department said in a press release. The focus of that second step is “restoring a balanced defense program.”

Members of Congress who had hoped Trump would lead a major rebuilding of the military immediately criticized the request. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement Tuesday saying the proposal “fails to provide the necessary resources to restore military readiness” and is likely to be “dead on arrival in Congress.” Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, “the administration’s budget proposal for defense is not enough to do what the President said he wants to do.”

Both McCain and Thornberry have supported a DOD budget that begins with a $640 billion topline and adds OCO funding on top of that.

Acting DOD comptroller John Roth defended the proposal while briefing reporters Tuesday.

“We’re asking for an increase,” he said, noting the administration’s topline is $52 billion above the legal caps set in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011. “$52 billion, I would argue, is not chump change. That’s a pretty significant increase in the defense budget.”

Roth said the DOD had aimed at producing a budget that was “politically palatable” given the climate in Washington, D.C. Even so, he warned, “it’s going to take a lot in Congress, in both the House and Senate,” to pass the budget as proposed. He also told reporters that further spending increases would be proposed for FY19 “once we have the new defense strategy,” which is currently being developed by the department.

“We’re not going to solve the readiness problem in one year,” he cautioned. “We’re not going to modernize overnight.”

What the Budget Does

Roth said the President’s Budget addresses the military’s direst needs. To begin rebuilding readiness levels, the proposal would add nearly 6,000 Active Duty military personnel. The Air Force would receive the bulk of these increases and grow to an end strength of 325,100 in order “to address pilot and maintainer shortfalls.” All Active Duty military personnel would also receive a 2.1 percent pay raise.

The budget includes money for 70 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and 15 KC-46 tankers. The Army would also buy 64 new Apache helicopters, 48 Black Hawks, and 2,775 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. The Navy would get 14 F/A-18 fighter aircraft, two Virginia class submarines, two destroyers, a Littoral Combat Ship, and a carrier.

The nation’s aging nuclear infrastructure would also get a boost.

“One of the highest priorities is to recapitalize and modernize the nuclear enterprise across the entire nuclear triad,” Roth told reporters. As such, the President is asking for $216 million to recapitalize the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and $451 million for a new Long-Range StandOff weapon.


Roth also said the budget seeks to prioritize “key investments in cyber and space capabilities” by continuing efforts to “elevate the Cyber Command” and funding three new competitive launches in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. The budget also funds two more vehicles in the Space Based Infrared System, and gives $100 million more to GPS III system development.

DOD is also interested in saving money through another round of Base Realignment and Closure. While BRAC would not begin until 2021, the President’s FY18 budget includes funding and authorization to begin a “detailed analysis” of excess capacity, Roth said. He estimated that DOD could ultimately “save about $2 billion per year” through an additional round of BRAC.

The War Account

Of the $65 billion in war funding, $28.9 billion goes to the Army, while only $17.5 billion goes to the Air Force, even though USAF has conducted 70 percent of all coalition airstrikes (roughly 70 combat sorties a day) in Iraq and Syria and dropped 56,000 munitions against ISIS since 2014, according to the service.

The requested OCO funds seek to maintain deployed troops at or near current levels, though Roth said troop levels in Afghanistan are currently under review, which could lead to a revised OCO request.

Also under OCO, the department is requesting a $1.4 billion increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative, which was launched in 2014 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Those funds will be used to support “increased US military presence in Europe,” including $150 million to train and equip Ukrainian forces, according to the Department’s budget overview.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Long Neglect, Munitions See Funding Surge

​​—John A. Tirpak

The Air Force’s munitions stocks get a substantial increase in its Fiscal 2018 budget request. The “max rate” surge—meaning USAF is buying weapons literally as fast as the US bomb-makers can produce them—is necessary because stocks have drawn down so steeply during the war against ISIS.

Rules of engagement demand near-zero collateral damage and civilian casualties—compelling USAF to use its most precise weapons—and the furious pace of attacks has emptied weapons “igloos” at Air Force bases worldwide.

Maj. Gen. Jim Martin, USAF deputy assistant secretary for Budget, noted in a service press briefing Tuesday that the Air Force has released “over 70 percent of all munitions” dropped on ISIS, and flies some 70 weapons-dropping sorties per day.

Clearly, the preferred weapon in the fight is the Small Diameter Bomb, which is very precise but carries a small warhead, inflicting limited damage. The Air Force wants to increase its SDB I and II purchases from some 4,500 munitions in the enacted Fiscal 2017 budget to about 8,000 munitions in Fiscal 2018, combining both “base budget” buys and Overseas Contingency Operations money. The base budget is supposed to pay for long-term capabilities while the OCO money is supposed to replace materials used up in the war.

The Joint Direct Attack Munition—very precise, but large, by Operation Inherent Resolve standards—would be bought in numbers somewhat lower than Fiscal 2017 levels. In the enacted current budget, USAF is buying some 30,600 JDAMs, but in 2018 it would buy about 27,200 JDAMs. The AGM-114 Hellfire missile, which is typically used from USAF remotely piloted aircraft such as the Predator and Reaper, was bought in quantities of about 1,500 in Fiscal 2017, while the FY18 budget calls for about 3,600, Base and OCO funding combined.

The Air Force would continue to buy AGM-158 JASSM-ER long-range stealth ground-attack missiles at a rate of 360 per year in ’18. In the dogfight missile category, there would be an uptick in AIM-9X Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles from 287 in ’17 to 310 in ’18. The longer-range radar-guided AMRAAM would see a dip, however, from 256 in ’17 to 205 in ’18.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF 2018 Budget Looks to Recover Readiness, Fill Capability Gaps

​​—Amy McCullough

The Air Force’s Fiscal 2018 budget, released on Tuesday, requests $132.4 billion in the baseline “blue budget” and $13.9 billion for overseas contingency operations.

Maj. Gen. Jim Martin, USAF deputy assistant secretary for budget, told reporters the FY18 budget request “continues our emphasis on our readiness recovery, fills critical [capability] gaps, and improves lethality,” by investing “heavily in airmen, readiness, nuclear deterrence operations, space and cyber capabilities, Combat Air Forces, and infrastructure.”

It increases the overall end strength to 502,000—up 4,100 Active Duty members and 1,700 Air Guard and Reserve—with a focus on growing the number of pilots, maintainers, cyber operators, and remotely piloted aircraft operators. The budget funds a 2.1 percent pay raise for uniformed military members and 1.9 percent increase for civilian personnel.

It also funds an additional two training squadrons at Holloman AFB, N.M., as well as additional incentives for pilots in an effort to address the growing pilot shortage.

The budget includes $6.2 billion for 1.2 million flight hours, up slightly from the 1,165,203 requested in Fiscal 2017, though that’s still only 92 percent of what’s required. Martin said increasing flight hours is a “key element to readiness recovery,” noting the number will continue to improve each year as the service brings on more maintainers. “We continue to fund flying hours and weapon system sustainment to what we can execute,” he said.

The Air Force budget sustains F-35A production by procuring 46 aircraft in Fiscal 2018, continues the tanker recapitalization by procuring 15 KC-46A tankers, and funds “bomber fleet modernization to extend the life of the B-52, B-1, and B-2,” according to budget documents. It also maximizes munitions production, investing heavily in preferred munitions, such as the Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bomb I.

It increases the number of cyber teams from 30 to 39 and invests in both offensive and defensive cyber initiatives that are “needed to defend the nation,” said Martin.

The budget also sustains 60 RPA combat lines and continues the service’s RPA “get-well plan.”

FY18 PB Rollout Brief_Page_09.jpg

The Fiscal 2018 request contains $2 billion for military construction—slightly less than the Fiscal 2017 request. That includes funding for new mission beddowns for the F-35, KC-46, and Presidential Airlift Recap. It also supports combatant commander top priorities.

The budget funds range recapitalization including an “updated, properly sized Utah Test and Training Range Consolidated Mission Control Center at Hill AFB, Utah, and an addition to the Red Flag facility at Nellis AFB, Nev, that will enable the Air Force to effectively train to employ the full range of capabilities available within our fifth-generation fighter flight,” according to budget documents.

Martin said rebuilding readiness is a long-term effort and he repeatedly emphasized that “in order to be successful” sequestration must be repealed and "stable, predictable funding" provided.

“FY18 is a pivotal year because the Budget Control Act remains in place and sequestration remains the law,” said Martin. That forces USAF to choose “between being ready and capable now, or ready and capable in the future,” he added, saying, “That’s a false choice because we need both to be successful.”
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/mattis-intervened-to-increase-munition-buy-in-fy18-budget-request

According to Pentagon documents, the preferred munition list includes:

7,664 Hellfire missiles, worth $713.9 million for Lockheed Martin
34,529 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), worth $874.3 million for Boeing
6,000 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS), worth $889.5 million for Lockheed Martin
7,312 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), worth $504.1 million to Boeing and Raytheon
100 Tomahawk Missiles, worth $381.6 million for Raytheon
An unlisted number of Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems (APKWS), worth $200 million

Roth later repeated that these numbers represent the maximum production capabilities for the companies that produce them. That breaks down to rough production totals of 638 Hellfires, 2,877 JDAMs, 500 GMLRS, 609 SDBs and 8 Tomahawks capable of being produced every month.
They should do a 'surge' test for different munitions every six months with discretionary funds and say "OK now produce 100k JDAMs this year anyway it takes"
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://aviationweek.com/defense/defense-sector-faces-crosswinds-headwinds-and-tailwinds?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20170607_AW-19_986&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&elqTrack=true
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/07/russias_defense_spending_spree_111545.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,980
Reaction score
178
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-usa-idUSKBN18T2BQ

Sigh.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://news.vice.com/story/canada-announces-more-than-60-billion-in-new-defence-spending-and-it-includes-armed-drones
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
31
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Kadija_Man said:
Could it be because the competition is a bit better at designing and marketing their ideas? Could it be that the competition has a lower price? Could it be because the competition has a longer tradition and a higher quality? No idea.
If they are only good at offering a second rate solution then why should Australia support them for our needs?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-secretarys-focus-on-innovation-could-open-path-for-greater-r-d-investments
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/23/thornberry_640_billion_defense_topline_still_up_for_negotiation_111651.html
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2018-Defense-Budget-Defers-Buildup-for-Austerity.pdf
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://defense360.csis.org/open-letter-brac/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/house-appropriators-give-secdef-blank-check-for-28-6b/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/putting-defense-spending-context-simple-comparisons-are-inadequate
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6293_%28FY_2018_Budget_Overview_1%29v4.pdf
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdifisrbqnQ

Video presentation of prior post's documents
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/02/document-pentagon-plan-split-research-development-acquisition
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
https://www.c-span.org/video/?434082-3/washington-journal-leo-shane-discusses-future-us-defense-programs
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
http://www.defensenews.com/congress/2017/09/18/us-senate-passes-budget-busting-700-billion-ndaa/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,658
Reaction score
105
Dunford Says Lack of Budget Harming US Ability to Project Power

9/26/2017

—Wilson Brissett​

The top US military officer told Congress Tuesday that repeated continuing resolutions to fund the federal government are limiting the nation’s ability to project power, reassure allies, and prevent conflict around the globe. As recently as 2000, the US had “a significant competitive advantage in our ability to project power when and where needed to advance our national interests,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Tuesday. “I can’t say that today. We are challenged in our ability to project power both to Europe and the Pacific.”

In the near-term, Dunford said, the US military will require funding “somewhere between three and seven percent” of GDP “for us to build the capabilities we need.” He said his projections emerged from “a long journey of analytic rigor.” A central part of that study, Dunford said, was using “Russia and China to benchmark our capabilities.”

The funding levels Dunford recommends are necessary to maintain a “competitive advantage” over those near-peer nations, he insisted. Without military spending of three to seven percent of GDP, Dunford said the consequences could be drastic. “I wouldn’t assume access to space,” he said, “I wouldn’t assume our ability to protect our networks” from cyberattack. “I wouldn’t assume our ability to deal with the growing electronic warfare threat,” and “I wouldn’t assume our ability to deal with the growing ballistic missile and cruise missile threat.”

The impact is already being felt in US military units, Dunford said. Training hours are being cut short, including flight hours for pilots. “While we may have trained to standard in the past when we had sufficient time and resources,” Dunford said, “now we’re training to time.”

Committee chairman, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), suggested the training deficit had led to increased accidents. “Our non-combat casualties and fatalities are now higher than operations in combat,” he said. Dunford agreed.

On the broadest scale, a failure to return to regular, and higher, funding would impact the way the US fights wars. “We will have to fundamentally reorder the strategy, if we are unable to build the capabilities and capacities to deal with those peer competitors,” Dunford said.

Dunford believes this would lead to more war. “One of the things that deters others today from a conventional conflict is their knowledge that we do have a competitive, conventional advantage over any adversary today,” Dunford said. If the US loses that advantage, Dunford said, “There would be an increased possibility of conflict.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven percent of GDP would equate to $1,345 trillion. I think that's excessive would settle for 6.99%
 
Top