Welcome to the Decade of Concern • Hacker News Board

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#51

Post by dragontamer » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #50

dragontamer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If China attacks Taiwan with its newly minted aircraft carriers and large fleets of smaller ships, who will defend them? Now, I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. China is far closer and therefore has more nearby support: in particular, air support and cruise missiles. In a neutral fight, keeping our fleets outside of…

> I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-... https://www.busine…

> The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight".

Taiwan is China's backyard. USA defending Taiwan requires significantly more resources than other locations.

China has absolutely no capability to attack say... California, outside of nuclear weapons (at which point, the wargame is simple. We retaliate with our superior strategic weapons and MAD).

A "Fair Fight" would be a hypothetical Antartica fight: far away from both countries, where the two navies meet on neutral grounds. China only has 2 carriers right now, and they're smaller 70,000 ton carriers. USA has multiple Gerald Ford super-carriers over 110,000 tons.

As far as projecting a shield or area-denial, those carriers are superior to what China can do. Its only within the "radar + missile area" where the USA loses.

---------

China has additional carriers on the way, but I'm not convinced that the carrier, nor the aircraft they're loading them with, can perform like a Gerald Ford Supercarrier or its loadout of aircraft.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#52

Post by torstenvl » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #41

torstenvl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is objectively and obviously false. Why would you say something you know (assuming you read the OP) to be untrue? Military spending has gone from 4.89% of GDP in the first year of the Obama Administration to ~3.3-3.4% of GDP in recent years. That's a huge decrease. There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multi…

It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. I'm not questioning anyone's morale or dedication, but I AM questioning competence at the top levels when it comes to spending all that money wisely. You can blame 'political footballs' for some of that but there are plenty of failures where the military and their contractors have straight…

> It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'.

Something costing a constant or decreasing percentage of GDP, but going up in dollar terms, is indicative of inflation.

    Year   Budg $bn   Budg/GDP   YOY Infl   Budg $bn ('21)
    ----   --------   --------   --------   --------------
    2009     705.9      4.89%      --           865.4
    2010     738.0      4.92%      1.6%         890.2
    2011     752.3      4.84%      3.2%         879.6
    2012     725.2      4.48%      2.1%         830.8
    2013     679.2      4.05%      1.5%         766.8
    2014     647.8      3.70%      1.6%         719.7
    2015     633.8      3.48%      0.1%         703.3
    2016     639.9      3.42%      1.3%         701.2
    2017     646.8      3.31%      2.1%         694.0
    2018     682.5      3.32%      2.4%         714.9
    2019     731.8      3.41%      1.8%         752.9

Within a decade, the budget varied so greatly that there was a 22% difference between the high and the low in real terms. When you have drastic budget cuts, you have to cut projects. Those projects can't just be picked up again where you left off when you get more money - contractors will have moved on, and in most cases the new contracts need to be re-competed.

These are structural disadvantages we as Americans place on our own military, and from which the PLA does not suffer.

Data from:

- https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/mili...

- https://www.statista.com/statistics/191077/inflation-rate-in...

- https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#53

Post by refenestrator » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #52

refenestrator wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. I'm not questioning anyone's morale or dedication, but I AM questioning competence at the top levels when it comes to spending all that money wisely. You can blame 'political footballs' for some of that but there are plenty of failures where the military and their contractors have straight…

> It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. Something costing a constant or decreasing percentage of GDP, but going up in dollar terms, is indicative of inflation. Year Budg $bn Budg/GDP YOY Infl Budg $bn ('21) ---- -------- -------- -------- -------------- 2009 705.9 4.89% -- 865.4 2010 738.0 4.92% 1.6% 890.2 2011 752.3 4.84% 3.2…

I appreciate the data, especially the real $ pulled forward from 2009.

My impression was the drop-off from 2009-2013 was all about reducing investment in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cancelling super promising projects. Do you have an example of a great project that was cancelled? I know we reduced our order of F-22s but that was concurrent with a way bigger, splashier investment in F-35s so I'd call that 'bad priorities' rather than 'lack of resources'.

I'd say that the PLA's big advantage was not invading Iraq. I almost added something about a lot of our defense spending being glorified jobs programs but I'm pretty sure that's also true over there too, just with a differently-shaped politics driving it.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#54

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #51

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-... https://www.busine…

> The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". Taiwan is China's backyard. USA defending Taiwan requires significantly more resources than other locations. China has absolutely no capability to attack say... California, outside of nuclear weapons (at which point, th…

Well, I would say that China knows exactly what they're gunning for, and it's not California or some hypothetical midpoint; it's what they regard as their own backyard.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#55

Post by torstenvl » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #53

torstenvl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. Something costing a constant or decreasing percentage of GDP, but going up in dollar terms, is indicative of inflation. Year Budg $bn Budg/GDP YOY Infl Budg $bn ('21) ---- -------- -------- -------- -------------- 2009 705.9 4.89% -- 865.4 2010 738.0 4.92% 1.6% 890.2 2011 752.3 4.84% 3.2…

I appreciate the data, especially the real $ pulled forward from 2009. My impression was the drop-off from 2009-2013 was all about reducing investment in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cancelling super promising projects. Do you have an example of a great project that was cancelled? I know we reduced our order of F-22s but that was concurrent with a way bigger, splashier investment in F-35s so I'd call that 'bad pr…

The EFV was supposed to replace the AAV but ended up canceled in the 2011-2013 crunch. $3bn reset. However, this can't be blamed entirely on the budget crunch - there were reliability issues with the platform, which, given the budget crunch, the Marine Corps did not feel it could adequately address. The threshold for when you stop throwing good money after bad depends in part on how much margin of error you have in your budget of good money.

Things like building aircraft carriers and training 100s of thousands of people in a non-flat leadership structure aren't processes that can turn on a dime. The joint chiefs testimony on the effects of budget predictability on readiness is certain to be more articulate than anything I can say. Brief overview here: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/945964/...

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#56

Post by refenestrator » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #55

refenestrator wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the data, especially the real $ pulled forward from 2009. My impression was the drop-off from 2009-2013 was all about reducing investment in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cancelling super promising projects. Do you have an example of a great project that was cancelled? I know we reduced our order of F-22s but that was concurrent with a way bigger, splashier investment in F-35s so I'd call that 'bad pr…

The EFV was supposed to replace the AAV but ended up canceled in the 2011-2013 crunch. $3bn reset. However, this can't be blamed entirely on the budget crunch - there were reliability issues with the platform, which, given the budget crunch , the Marine Corps did not feel it could adequately address. The threshold for when you stop throwing good money after bad depends in part on how much margin of error you have in…

I see that you're a Marine on your bio, so I guess we are just not going to see eye to eye on how important/relevant amphibious landing capabilities are :) I actually remember hearing about that EFV and thinking 'what a waste of money' at the time.

Respect for acknowledging the reliability issues.

I think another elephant in the room is the bifurcated (or trifurcated) nature of things the armed forces are expected to do. Occupying countries with large goat-herding sectors is totally different from sci-fi peer military conflict planning.

Meanwhile, most of the brass just wants to re-enact WWII, which serves neither mission. Everyone loves the idea of carriers or a d-day landing, when "large # of cheap, expendable drones and missiles" completely obliterates both of those strategies.

Did you ever read about Millenium Challenge 2002? Marine general plays red team, sinks entire US fleet with the realization that if you launch a lot of missiles at once at a carrier group, the anti-missile batteries can't stop them all. They decide on a do-over with a new rule that he can't do that anymore, and run the exercise to the predetermined conclusion that validates their doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#57

Post by remarkEon » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

dirtyid wrote: post #7

jseliger wrote: post #2

Meta comment: Scholar's Stage is the most interesting blog I've encountered in years and its RSS feed is worth subscribing to. One hopes China doesn't invade Taiwan, as one hopes a pandemic doesn't happen; if China does, a lot of the general audience, accessible material about what is likely to occur will have been published at Scholar's Stage.

Greer writes well on variety of topics and well worth sub/reading. But I would not rely on him for current developments for US/TW/CN topics. He was one of the last holdouts along with Ian Easton of TW can triumph alone crowd, changing his position only recently, years after general consensus from credible thinktanks suggested otherwise. I think he lives in TW and has blinders on - having held his positions so far pas…

So you’re saying that, after living in Taiwan and “sobering up” on his defense views, he changed his mind and reconsidered his position?

To me this is evidence to take what he says more seriously.

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#58

Post by zambon12 » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #35

refenestrator wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Lack of political will to shovel money through the DoD' doesn't seem to be an issue in the US.

That is objectively and obviously false. Why would you say something you know (assuming you read the OP) to be untrue? Military spending has gone from 4.89% of GDP in the first year of the Obama Administration to ~3.3-3.4% of GDP in recent years. That's a huge decrease. There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multi…

While opionated Christian Brose's 'The Kill Chain' was an enlightening read for me. Interested if you have read it?

Re: Welcome to the Decade of Concern

#59

Post by dirtyid » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #57

dirtyid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greer writes well on variety of topics and well worth sub/reading. But I would not rely on him for current developments for US/TW/CN topics. He was one of the last holdouts along with Ian Easton of TW can triumph alone crowd, changing his position only recently, years after general consensus from credible thinktanks suggested otherwise. I think he lives in TW and has blinders on - having held his positions so far pas…

So you’re saying that, after living in Taiwan and “sobering up” on his defense views, he changed his mind and reconsidered his position? To me this is evidence to take what he says more seriously.

With respect to TW, he changed when his position became far past untenable. It's like someone flipping from being climate denialist in 2020 instead of 2010. Being proximate to TW should make their poor military preparedness more, not less apparent for those that follow the subject matter. The response shouldn't be, what a serious mind, but what took so long?

Overall he's well worth reading, keeps up to date with literature, does good summaries. But his analysis on TW has been more outlier than consensus. And up until recently, stubbornly so.