McCain proposes $430 billion defense boost over next 5 years

[F-22Raptor]

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) on Monday released a plan to boost the national defense budget by $430 billion over five years in order to grow and modernize the U.S. military.

McCain, who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, released a 28-page white paper recommending a $640 billion base defense budget in fiscal year 2018, which would represent a $54 billion increase over the budget proposal put forth by outgoing President Barack Obama. The plan also calls for repealing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which placed caps on the federal budget for a decade and paved the way for roughly $1 trillion in cuts to defense spending.

If adopted, the plan would add $430 billion to defense spending over the next five years in order to modernize the joint force and regain the capacity of the armed forces that has been eroded as a result of budget constraints and force drawdowns.

The paper includes specific recommendations to grow and modernize the Army, Air Forces, Marine Corps, Navy, and special operations forces. It also calls for expanding U.S. missile defense, making investments in next-generation space capabilities, and boosting funding for cyber forces and cyber weapons systems.

In addition to an increase in funding for the military, the plan also calls for continued defense and acquisition reforms to ensure that the Pentagon is not wasting taxpayer dollars.

President-elect Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on Friday, has pledged to rebuild the military and end sequestration. McCain released the white paper just days after retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s choice for defense secretary, delivered testimony at his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee advocating for an end to sequestration and strengthening of the U.S. military.

“The President-elect has said he wants to ‘fully eliminate the defense sequester’ and ‘rebuild the military.’ I could not agree more,” McCain said in a statement on Monday. “This white paper details what I believe will be necessary to achieve these goals: repeal of the Budget Control Act, a $640 billion base defense budget in fiscal year 2018, innovation for the future, and an end to business as usual at the Pentagon.”

“Rebuilding our military will not be cheap—$430 billion above current defense plans over the next five years,” McCain said. “But the cost of inaction is worse: we will irreparably damage our military’s ability to deter aggression and conflict. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to chart a better course.”

The plan also recommends the incoming secretary of defense conduct a comprehensive review of the global force posture.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...efense-spending-modernization-of-joint-force/

 

[cloud4000]

Where will this $430 billion in additional spending come from? Republicans are keen on balanced budgets and no new taxes. The only viable option is to cut spending elsewhere to finance this increase. What a game of political football that's going to be.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Down the toilet goes the economy

 

[Penguin]

Where will this $430 billion in additional spending come from? Republicans are keen on balanced budgets and no new taxes. The only viable option is to cut spending elsewhere to finance this increase. What a game of political football that's going to be.

Mandatory spending will be hit. i.e. entitlement spending rather than discretionary spending. So, out goes Obama care, for starters.

ObamaCare’s cost is currently estimated at a net cost of $1.207 trillion dollars over 2016-2025.
http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/

That's 120.7 billion per year, average
Times 5 years makes $603 billion

Assume not all Obamaare goes (or, something else - cheaper - will come it its place), then that cuts some of that 'saving' and puts you pretty close to $430 billion.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Mandatory spending will be hit. i.e. entitlement spending rather than discretionary spending. So, out goes Obama care, for starters.

ObamaCare’s cost is currently estimated at a net cost of $1.207 trillion dollars over 2016-2025.
http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/

That's 120.7 billion per year, average
Times 5 years makes $603 billion

Assume not all Obamaare goes (or, something else - cheaper - will come it its place), then that cuts some of that 'saving' and puts you pretty close to $430 billion.

i thought trump said he may keep "some parts" obamacare?
and he's planning insurance for everybody
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

also he goes and says that some nato countries dont spend 2% of their gdp on defence and the usa has to pick up the slack. there's too many variables here. the eu is thinking of creating an eu army where it is less reliant in the US for defence. meaning the usa does not really need to spend as much as it does.

who knows but time will tell

 

[Penguin]

NAVY

From 274 actual (as opposed to 308 required) to 333 ships. While this is less of an increase than what the Chief of Naval Operations recently asked for (355 ships = +81), it is still 18 more than the currently planned increase in the currence (Obama) defence budget.

18 more (59 rather than 41) large navy ships, including 5 SSN, 5 AO, 3 DDG, 2 LPD/LHD, 2 T-ESB, 2 T-AGOS, 2 T-AGS, 2 Mk VI PB [the Navy's next generation Patrol Boat to become a part of the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command's (NECC)], 1 CVN and 1 SSC (beefed up LCS).

Heavy investment in unmanned and autonomous vehicles. Meaning future fleet and airwings would consist of larger numbers of smaller and relatively cheaper system that can operate in denied areas. Investment in undersea warfare and UUVs with supporting infrastructure. Doubling manned submarine production rate from 2/yr to 4/yr. UAV on carriers, for tanker role. Development of unmanned long range penetrator aircraft.

Restocking and investing in munitions and ordnance (AMRAAM, LRASM, SM6 etc. but also new hypersonic missiles, as well as in maintenance, readiness. More (cost- and time-)efficient training.

MARINES

USMS should grow by 3000 marines/year from 182K to 220K by 2022. More distributed formations, longer range power projection. This requires unmanned systems, long range fire power, EW systems and new amphibious assault vehicles. Investment in (aviation) maintenance and (overall) readiness. Accellerate producement of legacy aircraft replacements F-35B, CH-53K, KC-130J). In particular F-35B procurement to be increased by 20 aircraft over the next 5 years.

AIR FORCE

THE USAF has a requirement dating back to 2012 for 1200 combat-coded fighers. This requires maintaining an inventory of 2250 aircraft (1 to 1.875). UAF currently falls 100 combat-coded fighters short of this requirement (1 to 2.05). To counter emerging threat, the USAF main need more like 1500 combat-coded fighters i.e. an inventory of 2813 assuming the ccf to inventory ratio of the 2012 requirement. At the same time it has a geriatric bomber force in need of replacement. At current production rates, F35A procurement will reach 1764 by 2040. F35A production should be ramped up. This will take the industry to 2022. In the meantime as many F35A as possible should be acquired i.e. 73 more than planned through 2022.

The F-22 fleet is impressive but small. Rather than restarting F22 production to counter threats to US air superiority, UAF must develop new penetrating counter air and electronic attack capabilities. The B21 program must remain on track and within budget. Investment in new ordnance and munitions (not necessarily more). Critical investments in the legacy F-15/F-16 combo should be made to keep them relevant, including the capability to facilitate manned-unmanned teaming. In addition to sustaining the USAF's A-10s for CAS, and investment must be made in 300 low cost, light attack fighters for counter-terrorism, CAS and other mission in more permissive environments. Of these 200 by FY 2022.

Recapitalization and increased numbers of enablers including mobility forces, tankers aircraft, ISR platforms, airborne battle management, and electronic attack. Faster procurement of T-X. +20,000 personnel in 5 years.

ARMY

Modernization. Planned development of a new, multifunctional adaptable ground combat vehicle, using non-development components for rapid fielding at low cost. Investment in electronic warfare and unmanned ground (combat?) vehicles). Munitions modernization (ATACMS, GMLRS, PIM) and development of follow on programs delivering greater hitting power over greater range. Upgrades of Stinger and Patriot. Development of highly maneouvrable SHORADS. Planned but limited modernization of legacy ground combat systems (upgrading of latest Abrams, Bradleys, new Armored Multipurpose Vehicles, while outfitting them with APS. Adding 8000 soldiers per year for 5 years, growing active Army personnel strength by 40,000. Army reserve and National Guard may also increase to correspond to active army growth. This will also increase readiness and retain heavier force structure and build new heavy force structure. Primarily to increase forward presence in Europe.

More on Special Operations Forces, Nuclear forces, Missile Defence and Space, as well as Cyber

i thought trump said he may keep "some parts" obamacare?
and he's planning insurance for everybody
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html
And I accounted for that!

QUOTE="Blue Marlin, post: 9117348, member: 170203"]
also he goes and says that some nato countries dont spend 2% of their gdp on defence and the usa has to pick up the slack. there's too many variables here. the eu is thinking of creating an eu army where it is less reliant in the US for defence. meaning the usa does not really need to spend as much as it does.

who knows but time will tell[/QUOTE]

The trendline for non-US NATO spending is slightly flatter compared to thatr of NATO total, but not much. Non-US NATO spending is way more stable in time though than NATO total and fluctuations coincide with Korean War, Vietnam war build up an draw down, the Reagan years buildup and the post CCCP-collapse drawdown, and the aftermath of 9/11.

Which shows US spending jumps and drops eratically, when it is in the US interest.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/sky-view...g-its-weight-on-defence.460844/#ixzz4W3Xw1icE

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) on Monday released a plan to boost the national defense budget by $430 billion over five years in order to grow and modernize the U.S. military.

McCain, who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, released a 28-page white paper recommending a $640 billion base defense budget in fiscal year 2018, which would represent a $54 billion increase over the budget proposal put forth by outgoing President Barack Obama. The plan also calls for repealing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which placed caps on the federal budget for a decade and paved the way for roughly $1 trillion in cuts to defense spending.

If adopted, the plan would add $430 billion to defense spending over the next five years in order to modernize the joint force and regain the capacity of the armed forces that has been eroded as a result of budget constraints and force drawdowns.

The paper includes specific recommendations to grow and modernize the Army, Air Forces, Marine Corps, Navy, and special operations forces. It also calls for expanding U.S. missile defense, making investments in next-generation space capabilities, and boosting funding for cyber forces and cyber weapons systems.

In addition to an increase in funding for the military, the plan also calls for continued defense and acquisition reforms to ensure that the Pentagon is not wasting taxpayer dollars.

President-elect Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated on Friday, has pledged to rebuild the military and end sequestration. McCain released the white paper just days after retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s choice for defense secretary, delivered testimony at his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee advocating for an end to sequestration and strengthening of the U.S. military.

“The President-elect has said he wants to ‘fully eliminate the defense sequester’ and ‘rebuild the military.’ I could not agree more,” McCain said in a statement on Monday. “This white paper details what I believe will be necessary to achieve these goals: repeal of the Budget Control Act, a $640 billion base defense budget in fiscal year 2018, innovation for the future, and an end to business as usual at the Pentagon.”

“Rebuilding our military will not be cheap—$430 billion above current defense plans over the next five years,” McCain said. “But the cost of inaction is worse: we will irreparably damage our military’s ability to deter aggression and conflict. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to chart a better course.”

The plan also recommends the incoming secretary of defense conduct a comprehensive review of the global force posture.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...efense-spending-modernization-of-joint-force/

The Military wants more money? And they say that free-college and single-payer is ridiculous. Smh

Please fire this man.

 

[ziaulislam]

Mandatory spending will be hit. i.e. entitlement spending rather than discretionary spending. So, out goes Obama care, for starters.

ObamaCare’s cost is currently estimated at a net cost of $1.207 trillion dollars over 2016-2025.
http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/

That's 120.7 billion per year, average
Times 5 years makes $603 billion

Assume not all Obamaare goes (or, something else - cheaper - will come it its place), then that cuts some of that 'saving' and puts you pretty close to $430 billion.

and replace it with what??

what people dont know is that if you take away insurance the cost of health goes up, because the same people will now go to hospital without insurance and default on their payments, hospitals get strained, costs go up and insurance in return go up

remember no one can deny treatment in USA

 

[Penguin]

and replace it with what??

what people dont know is that if you take away insurance the cost of health goes up, because the same people will now go to hospital without insurance and default on their payments, hospitals get strained, costs go up and insurance in return go up

remember no one can deny treatment in USA

Ask Trump. Realistically, they can't fully roll back Obamacare (and take away coverage for 20 million people) and not put something else in place. Besides, Trump has promised to replace it 'with something far better'.

Relying on the 'cannot be denied treatment' deletes preventive medicin, which nips problems in the bud and avaoids more costly medical procedures later on. Also, it means people end up in emergency care, which is far more expensive than e.g. your local physician. So, that's a situation to be avoided.

 

[gambit]

It is the responsibility and duty of the government to secure the country, so like it or not, military spending is a necessity while free college is not.

Why is it that people always find ways to justify increasing defense spending in dictatorships but criticize US for the same ?

 

[Penguin]

It is the responsibility and duty of the government to secure the country, so like it or not, military spending is a necessity while free college is not.

Why is it that people always find ways to justify increasing defense spending in dictatorships but criticize US for the same ?

... although free college may be in a society's interest as well, especially in a economically developing nation. Having said that, there is a point where private returns on (higher) education start (grealy) outweighing public returns, and the case for public funding of (higher) education becomes weak. Difficult as it may be to fully identify and adequately quantify those returns.

 

[Penguin]

Friday 20 January 2017: Trump signs presidential decree to dismantle and replace Obama-care.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/4406265/trump-tekent-presidentieel-decreet-obamacare.html

Told you so

Trump signed a number of decrees earlier in the day. Thus, the new president will include developing a modern defense system to protect the United States against potential threats from countries like Iran and North Korea. He also wants to renage on climate policy, which was passed under President Obama's Climate Action Plan and other initiatives, and he wants to proclaim January 20 'National day of Patriotism'.

 

[LeGenD]

Down the toilet goes the economy

American economy is way too big than this figure.

Of-course, some amendments in spending will be in order. And growth projections are also there.

 

[khansaheeb]

All this planned for multi-theatre warfare. US has realised it is now facing a united and stiff opposition from re-aligned coalition of nations which have overturned the new world order;these countries are too well armed for conventional warfare , which they have at the moment. The demand for the smaller nukes are to meet the requirements to demolish these enemy states that are too big swallow but could be nuked into submission without suffering Iraq like casualties. Likely candidates are North Korea, Iran, Pakistan , Turkey etc. Neocons aren't happy and are showing their teeth.

 

[LeGenD]

All this planned for multi-theatre warfare. US has realised it is now facing a united and stiff opposition from re-aligned coalition of nations which have overturned the new world order;these countries are too well armed for conventional warfare , which they have at the moment. The demand for the smaller nukes are to meet the requirements to demolish these enemy states that are too big swallow but could be nuked into submission without suffering Iraq like casualties. Likely candidates are North Korea, Iran, Pakistan , Turkey etc. Neocons aren't happy and are showing their teeth.

None of the countries you mentioned are too well armed for conventional warfare; not even Russia.

Pakistan and North Korea developed nuclear weapons as a safeguard against invasion from a conventionally stronger adversary. Iran wasn't so lucky because US and Israel actively sought to sabotage its nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, regional nuclear powers such as Pakistan and North Korea do not stand a chance against the US in a war.