Do we need another military branch?

kyleb said:
The question is: "What current or future need is not being met at this time?"

Unless someone can come up with a real justification for another military branch, there is less than zero reason to add another parallel bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

afd01305ca07a567c3868235914de802.png




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wanttaja said:
All were advised by a civilian SETA (Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance) contractor; an engineer experienced with space contracting and development who advised the O4s and O5s and stayed through the entire period of the program. I'm saying get rid of the pilots and hand the oak leaves to the SETA contractor.
Click to expand...

They’re never going to do that. They’ll just split up the existing Generals and staff officers as is, and then promote a bunch more Academy ring-knockers to fill out the new org chart.

And then start a new Academy somewhere ... and won’t THAT be a suck up fest by multiple States and multiple Senators. A veritable money Dyson of suction there. A true monument to Statism.

The Pentagon is not going to hand out Officer roles to civilian contractors who know what they’re doing in space. They’ll still be paying that guy to know WTF he’s doing.

The proposed new branch doesn’t fix the broken built in budget motivations, it only amplifies them.

Big new empty org chart. Need more money. Maybe we’ll get it right if you double what we spend on this stuff.

Give me a break. Screw that. Get some leaders with some sense of budget priority. If the existing space command needs dollars and China is a real threat, kill F-35.

Don’t come to the People looking all sad with turned out pockets ready to beg for another 100 billion or more a year on top of existing spend.

Again. (And again and again and again.)

It’d be the same people it is today but they’d be able to whine twice as loud that their new branch isn’t funded correctly.

Didn’t get real value out of creating DHS. Not going to get real value out of creating another military branch either.

Not to mention the the irony that the more debt we build the larger their ownership percentage of that debt becomes. Making this bigger is retarded.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp

You really think DC has the guts to cut off the investments so their percentage of ownership of both Treasuries and entire companies doesn’t climb?

Do we really want to increase debt spending and have China and Japan owning more than 10% of that debt and all the profits from issuing it? Utterly stupid. You can’t print hundreds of billions more without someone purchasing the interest and profits.

Not to mention the entire companies and land they’ve bought. How much more do we want to finance by selling them our debt?

And to pay for what? Financing a new defense system to protect us from those who want to own more of our debt? LOL.

Is there some major benefit to selling off more debt and all of our profits off to other countries that I’m missing here? Trying to cover the entitlement debts somehow perhaps?

AFAICT starting a new military branch is an exceedingly bad idea when it comes to economic strategy.
 
What you all are completely forgetting about...

The joint strike fighter is already extremely worthless and carries an exhorbitent pricetag, but it'll be worthless and expensive x 10 if "low earth orbit" is added to the list of capabilities. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
AFAICT starting a new military branch is an exceedingly bad idea when it comes to economic strategy.
Click to expand...

I am not aware anyone here or anywhere else has made the assertion that starting a new military branch -- or keeping any of the existing ones for that matter -- is an economic strategy at all.

This is a complex issue and that is why the debate has been going on for nearly forty years. There are compelling arguments both ways, but economic strategy is not one either side does, or should, make.
 
SPACE FORCE. I like it. It will most likely form out of NASA, which has been co-opted by the military anyway, not the air Force. I think it should be done,we are totally reliant on space devices today for communication (commerce) and navigation. We need to be able to repeatedly and reliably get up there to fix and defend stuff. To the infinity and beyond!
 
Why out of NASA? NASA doesn't know how to fight a war. We already have space commands in the Navy and the Air Force. Most likely the thing will be calved out of the AF Space Command, just as the AF was borne out of the Army Air Corps. That is, if this inane idea even gets off the ground.
 
Van Johnston said:
I am not aware anyone here or anywhere else has made the assertion that starting a new military branch -- or keeping any of the existing ones for that matter -- is an economic strategy at all.

This is a complex issue and that is why the debate has been going on for nearly forty years. There are compelling arguments both ways, but economic strategy is not one either side does, or should, make.
Click to expand...

Sure, why not. Just ignore the actual costs because you say “nobody should talk about that”.

Because that’s worked out so well for us all so far.

Did you hear everyone? No discussion of what you’ll owe and lose in purchasing power because @Van Johnston on the Internet says you’re not supposed to mention that part. Everyone clear?
 
Seems like an easy solution would be to make the Space Force a subset of the Air Force much like the Marines and the Navy.
 
jim.nelson said:
Seems like an easy solution would be to make the Space Force a subset of the Air Force much like the Marines and the Navy.
Click to expand...
That was, basically, tried with the Army Air Corps (became the Army Air Forces in 1942) but that only lasted five years.

Also, the Marine mission is tied closely with that of the Navy. The Marines rely on the Navy for transport (MARINE: My A** Rides on Navy Equipment), and the Marines are the security forces for naval vessels and bases. There's no similar congruence with space ops and traditional Air Force operations.

Finally, note how the Marines, like Air Force Space Ops, tends to get the short shrift when it comes down to budgets. The Marines are still using front-line hardware (Huey Cobra) that dates from the Vietnam era. The Marines are legendary for getting the most out of old hardware and budget restrictions. That sort of thing doesn't do so well in space operations.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
That was, basically, tried with the Army Air Corps (became the Army Air Forces in 1942) but that only lasted five years.

Also, the Marine mission is tied closely with that of the Navy. The Marines rely on the Navy for transport (MARINE: My A** Rides on Navy Equipment), and the Marines are the security forces for naval vessels and bases. There's no similar congruence with space ops and traditional Air Force operations.

Finally, note how the Marines, like Air Force Space Ops, tends to get the short shrift when it comes down to budgets. The Marines are still using front-line hardware (Huey Cobra) that dates from the Vietnam era. The Marines are legendary for getting the most out of old hardware and budget restrictions. That sort of thing doesn't do so well in space operations.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

While the Marine’s AH-1Ws are based on a Vietnam era design, they were completely redesigned and rolled off the line in the 80s. They’ll also be replaced by the Viper by 2020.

I agree though, the Marines do take the “do more with less” mantra to further extremes than other branches.
 
Nasa was taken under the arm of the pentagon a long time ago, most of the launches now are military based cargo. Countering threats in space are nothing like countering threats on the ground. I don't see marauding hordes traveling through space, I see more of a strategic offensive and defensive force consisting of mechanized craft designed to destroy threats in space which will probably come from other mechanized craft.
 
PaulS said:
Nasa was taken under the arm of the pentagon a long time ago, most of the launches now are military based cargo.
Click to expand...
NASA's not in the launch business, and hasn't been in it for decades (other than the Shuttle). They rent the ground facilities out to military and business users, and get involved for Range Safety. The military now contracts launches directly with ULA, SpaceX, etc, and so do the civilian users.

Ron Wanttaja
 
jim.nelson said:
Seems like an easy solution would be to make the Space Force a subset of the Air Force much like the Marines and the Navy.
Click to expand...

The Air Force (and the Navy) both already have a space command within them.
 
wanttaja said:
Finally, note how the Marines, like Air Force Space Ops, tends to get the short shrift when it comes down to budgets. The Marines are still using front-line hardware (Huey Cobra) that dates from the Vietnam era. The Marines are legendary for getting the most out of old hardware and budget restrictions. That sort of thing doesn't do so well in space operations.
Click to expand...

Well, and the Osprey which is just super economical to operate. And numerous drone programs. And Blackhawks. And... LOL.

Here, let me bust out the world’s smallest violin for them all. They’re so broke.

Give us a break. Seriously.

Name something Space Operations “needs” and we’ll consider buying it for them.

How many assets do they have on orbit successfully again? Hmmm. They won’t say.

Must need more money to fix it.
 
flyingron said:
And the Marines are working on their own Space Operations Group.

With all this we should be able to have the inter-Academy Quiddich match up and running in a few years.
Click to expand...

It’s real and has Chief Operating Officers and stuff

 
Last edited:
Technically this new branch does nothing but add beauracracy. There already is a space force in Sunnyvale CA.

But I see this more as a SDI move like Reagan did to cripple and intimidate the Russians. Brilliant IMHO.cept it’s aimed at the Chinese.

Also the AF space guys don’t get the recognition that the pilots get...so this may be the presiage they deserve.
 
denverpilot said:
Name something Space Operations “needs” and we’ll consider buying it for them.
Click to expand...
Imaging satellites whose optics suffer less degradation when exposed to high-energy lasers.

Imaging satellites which can still operate in the presence of laser interference close to their targets.

ELINT/COMINT/SIGINT satellites with improved rejection of adjacent jamming signals.

LEO satellites (imagers, ELINT, communications, everything) with autonomous ability to detect ASAT attacks and autonomous maneuvering capacity to avoid them.

GEO satellites with expanded maneuvering capability.

GEO satellites with solar arrays hardened against physical attack.

GEO-based defensive satellites that can be placed on station and rapidly react to GEO threats.

Improved space tracking and monitoring of suspicious space vehicles (a couple of years back, a "spent" Russian booster came to life and started maneuvering).

Hardened, redundant ground stations with improved security (currently, a couple of small squads with RPGs can take out a major portion of our capabilities).

Stored replacement satellites that can support rapid replenishment of orbital constellations. And the rapid launch systems that can support them.

A fallback/doomsday communications satellite system that can be rapidly deployed to restore critical C3 capability.

The ability to destroy/cripple adversary space assets (not as important, IMHO, as no one else is as reliant on space as we are).

And a whole lot more that fall into the classified world.

denverpilot said:
How many assets do they have on orbit successfully again? Hmmm. They won’t say.
Click to expand...
Most of the constellation types and specific satellites have been publicly identified, whether officially or by unofficial sites.

The thing to remember is that space is a very hostile environment, and we have no capability to refurbish, refuel, or fix assets on orbit. Propellants run out, solar arrays degrade, bearings roughen, mirrors craze, optics fog. The US is relying on satellites that are, in some cases, still in operation at twice or even three times their design lives. One system I was a lead on was designed to operate for eighteen months; one satellite was in use ten years later.

It's not just good design engineering, it's some very smart, very knowledgeable operators. One system I worked on had a thruster jam on. A fellow officer designed a software upgrade that toggled through satellite modes to permit continued attitude control without excess propellant use. The guy's name was Knight, it was (literally) the "Fly By Knight control system."

The other thing to consider is that these older, still-somewhat-functioning satellites are usually put into an on-orbit storage mode when they're finally replaced by newer satellites. They establish attitude profiles that ensure they can still maintain power, and retain an operational command receiver to enable controllers to re-activate the vehicle is needed. So these somewhat cloud any attempt to figure out how many "active" satellites are out there.

In my 40-year career, I developed or operated about 17 different satellites. The public only knew about two of them, though several others were subsequently declassified.

denverpilot said:
Must need more money to fix it.
Click to expand...
The needs are not being met now...so obviously, it'll take more money. Having an co-equal service secretary or chief of staff will make it easier to fight for a larger portion of the defense budget. As it is now, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff push for funding aircraft programs instead of filling space needs.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I liked Jimmy Fallon's comment the other night:

"They have established the chain of command for Space Force. It runs ET, Yoda, then Groot....."

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Imaging satellites whose optics suffer less degradation when exposed to high-energy lasers.

Imaging satellites which can still operate in the presence of laser interference close to their targets.

ELINT/COMINT/SIGINT satellites with improved rejection of adjacent jamming signals.

LEO satellites (imagers, ELINT, communications, everything) with autonomous ability to detect ASAT attacks and autonomous maneuvering capacity to avoid them.

GEO satellites with expanded maneuvering capability.

GEO satellites with solar arrays hardened against physical attack.

GEO-based defensive satellites that can be placed on station and rapidly react to GEO threats.

Improved space tracking and monitoring of suspicious space vehicles (a couple of years back, a "spent" Russian booster came to life and started maneuvering).

Hardened, redundant ground stations with improved security (currently, a couple of small squads with RPGs can take out a major portion of our capabilities).

Stored replacement satellites that can support rapid replenishment of orbital constellations. And the rapid launch systems that can support them.

A fallback/doomsday communications satellite system that can be rapidly deployed to restore critical C3 capability.

The ability to destroy/cripple adversary space assets (not as important, IMHO, as no one else is as reliant on space as we are).

And a whole lot more that fall into the classified world.


Most of the constellation types and specific satellites have been publicly identified, whether officially or by unofficial sites.

The thing to remember is that space is a very hostile environment, and we have no capability to refurbish, refuel, or fix assets on orbit. Propellants run out, solar arrays degrade, bearings roughen, mirrors craze, optics fog. The US is relying on satellites that are, in some cases, still in operation at twice or even three times their design lives. One system I was a lead on was designed to operate for eighteen months; one satellite was in use ten years later.

It's not just good design engineering, it's some very smart, very knowledgeable operators. One system I worked on had a thruster jam on. A fellow officer designed a software upgrade that toggled through satellite modes to permit continued attitude control without excess propellant use. The guy's name was Knight, it was (literally) the "Fly By Knight control system."

The other thing to consider is that these older, still-somewhat-functioning satellites are usually put into an on-orbit storage mode when they're finally replaced by newer satellites. They establish attitude profiles that ensure they can still maintain power, and retain an operational command receiver to enable controllers to re-activate the vehicle is needed. So these somewhat cloud any attempt to figure out how many "active" satellites are out there.

In my 40-year career, I developed or operated about 17 different satellites. The public only knew about two of them, though several others were subsequently declassified.


The needs are not being met now...so obviously, it'll take more money. Having an co-equal service secretary or chief of staff will make it easier to fight for a larger portion of the defense budget. As it is now, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff push for funding aircraft programs instead of filling space needs.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Nice toys. Calling any of that a “need” is a bit much. Just another Cold War and this time, we cant afford it.

The satellites you cared for made up much of blowing our economic wad already.

I’m tapped. If you know anyone who has another double their salary to pay for this stupidity, see if they’re interested.

I see no reason to fund any of that for the never ending games and weenie waving of oligarchs.

Not with trillions more debt. That’s utterly stupid.

Sounds like a great conversation starter on how to change national “fake war” policy, however. Decide what to sell off, or decide what you can not do (F-35) if you need more satellites.

Can’t just say something is a “need” in a vacuum. Pun intended. It’s not a need. It’s a want. Needs. Seriously. Give us a break. The piggy bank for weenie waving at the world is empty.
 
Tomahawks aren't nuclear capable anymore. We stopped paying to wave that weenie.
 
denverpilot said:
Nice toys. Calling any of that a “need” is a bit much.
Click to expand...

Consider the front door of your house. You can keep the door closed with a $2 hook and eye, or upgrade the door with a massive, expensive lock system.

The first approach is FAR more cost-effective...unless someone actually tries to break in.

denverpilot said:
Just another Cold War and this time, we cant afford it.
Click to expand...

THAT'S something we agree on. I know it's not reasonable for me to expect that all these systems be funded. All I'm saying let space-knowledgeable commanders have an equal say in budget decisions. Right now, space system funding is buried in the Air Force budget, and the Air Force will prioritize aircraft needs. "The Mission of the Air Force is to Fly and Fight"...and space operations do neither.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
maybe we just need to know what our Space force does....and doesn't do....and what we are at risk of losing if they aren't supported.
Click to expand...
Our armed services are desperately dependent upon space-based communications, intelligence, and navigation. Take out the satellite communications, and you've lost contact with your carrier task groups and overseas air bases. They can't tell you what the "bad guy" is doing, and you can't give them permission to act against them. Do our ROEs authorize an O-6 to start WWIII?

Ironically, the SSBN ELF comm links would *probably* survive. But as far as I know, they're not used by anyone but the subs, it's only one-way, and the data rate is extremely low (can't pass a lot of information).

Park truck-mounted lasers by key assets, and you can hide activity from US imaging satellites. Deploy your aircraft, sortie your submarines, without the US knowing about it.

Do similar things with ELINT/COMING/SIGINT satellites. Or just go to Emissions Control mode and deny them the information. Since this US capability is well known, our potential adversaries practice this all the time.

Smuggle RPGs in via diplomatic pouches, and hire teams to destroy the main US satellite stations. Or just crash into the domes with light aircraft...they're not protected like nuclear plants are.

Launch ASATs as convenient, when key LEO intelligence or communications satellites pass. Launch stacks of ASATS into GEO, have them deploy to take out as many US assets as they can. Put a satellite into counter-GEO (opposite travel to the normal GEO orbit direction) and have it dump out buckets of sand at the right time to impact US satellites. Sure, there's a lot of collateral damage to other satellites. Even better. Our adversaries aren't as reliant on satellite comm as we are. And their activities are more likely to occur at their own front door, reducing the need for reliable long-range communication.

So, we're at risk of losing:
1. Knowledge of enemy actions.
2. Ability for forces in the field to warn the C&C elements in the CONUS
3. Ability for the CONUS to direct the actions of forces in the field

But, of course, if you DON'T THINK ANYONE IS GOING TO ATTACK, it makes no sense to spend money to protect yourself. It the threat real? It is, according to a National Intelligence Estimate.

It's December 6th, 1941. The battlewagons a moored neatly, two-by-two, in Pearl Harbor. The P-40s are tied down, wingtip to wingtip, on the ramp at Hickam Field. Two actions that make supreme sense, and are cost-effective...as long as the Japanese don't show up.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
THAT'S something we agree on. I know it's not reasonable for me to expect that all these systems be funded. All I'm saying let space-knowledgeable commanders have an equal say in budget decisions. Right now, space system funding is buried in the Air Force budget, and the Air Force will prioritize aircraft needs. "The Mission of the Air Force is to Fly and Fight"...and space operations do neither.
Click to expand...

And like I said about that before, screw the commanders who can’t pull their heads out of the ass of their pet projects at those levels.

Fire people if they can’t do their entire mission correctly. Don’t reward them with their own separate command away from the space geeks unless the plan is to utterly decimate the aviation command’s budget as punishment for not learning and knowing their entire job.

It’s been done before. Not that many in Congress have the cojones to do it very often.

If they can split the commands for the same price maybe. That’s still massive debt spending.

The entire federal budget needs about an 80% haircut due to debt and that isn’t just the military.

They’re not going to get what they want by actually paying for it, but they’ll probably get it by devaluing the currency some more and demanding a larger percentage of an entire life’s worth of work of everyone who pays net taxes. As usual.
 
mscard88 said:
Space Command, what ya thinking? Seems the Air Force is handling it ok, but the Pres and others want another military branch. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I want a Space Force, and for no really good reason. I just think it sounds cool, and I want the US to be the first to have it, cost and practicality be dammed.
 
wanttaja said:
Our armed services are desperately dependent upon space-based communications, intelligence, and navigation.

...

Our adversaries aren't as reliant on satellite comm as we are.

...

It the threat real? It is, according to a National Intelligence Estimate.

It's December 6th, 1941. The battlewagons a moored neatly, two-by-two, in Pearl Harbor. The P-40s are tied down, wingtip to wingtip, on the ramp at Hickam Field. Two actions that make supreme sense, and are cost-effective...as long as the Japanese don't show up.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

What a crock of crap, Ron. Seriously.

Pearl Harbor? Really? Maybe the Chinese will take out Kwajalein. Lord knows we’ve nuked it enough times.

A) Not having a reliable backup to satellite is another failure of command worthy of dismissal.

Not a reason to build the idiots a new one.

I highlighted the root cause problem for you in your own words above. Fire someone.

It’s not like the military didn’t once know how to train radio operators.

HF radios from China are cheap. Think they can manufacture them to Mil-Spec? Maybe use some nice Russian tubes to rad-harden them?

LOL LOL LOL.

B) The National Intelligence Estimate?! Puh-lease. Who writes that and how do they get paid again? Oh yeah. Debt money.

Nice pensions the rest of the private sector can’t afford anymore, since they’ve spent it all. Hmmm. Nice Dacha on the Black Sea? Oh wait, wrong country, same kind of people. Tovarish.

That threat level drops dramatically if we stop screwing around overseas in places that have absolutely nothing to do with our “defense”.

How many foreign bases do we need again? How’s that working out for us again?

So we should militarize space, too. The ultimate foreign base.

Because there shouldn’t be any place on the globe or off of it that the US military shouldn’t have a presence. No matter what it costs. (Rolls eyes.)

Let us all know when you think China will be invading CONUS. What, are they coming to take back all the businesses they already own? Seize Cirrus’ assets with guns? LOL.

Hey I know. Let’s dump some more money into Pine Gap and all those places. We’re already making enough Aussies rich with their ten weeks of paid vacation and better salaries, healthcare, and schooling provided by Uncle Sam than our own Citizens. Why not?

Sounds like a great plan to help out the Citizens who are broke here at home with none of that. Superb plan. That’ll work out well when the public hangings of politicians start.

We mess with everyone and then wonder why we have to watch our backs and be paranoid constantly. “We” being a bunch of twits in DC waving their peckers and the flag, that is.

So how much more should we spend on the credit card? Ten trillion? Twenty?

Tell the Brits to go do it. They’re overdue for anew round of world imperialism aren’t they? Oh right. They’re broke. BREXIT and all.

The rest of the world watched and learned as we outspent the Soviets to bankrupt them.

Guess what their strategy is to get us to do now? Spend. Spend spend spend spend.

So tell me, how did that Cold War thing turn out in the end? Hey look at that... you’ve got Putin. A former KGB guy turned dictator.

Lovely outcome. Super job. Gosh we should do THAT again!

Any peace in the Balkans yet? Afghanistan all cozy as a nice resort for the cruise ships to visit now? Egypt happy? Turkey? Libya? LOL.

Ohh. We are doing just great. Let’s do it again!

Same **** different decade. Repeat the same mistakes and wonder why the outcome is always the same.

Tell me, which of our long term allies is actually going to show up and assist us even IF something were to happen on CONUS?

Not a damned one of them, that’s how many.

So why are we the ones with bases in their countries, constantly ticking off their neighbors, and flying cover for them in the sky and in space?

Not to mention our direct meddling with elections and various dictators via our spooks. Oh yeah that’s worked out just spiffy every time we’ve tried that.

China isn’t coming to blow up Cirrus or anything else it owns. It’s quite happy to suck away all the profits and have a nice country of wage slaves working to buy the stuff their wage slaves back home, make. They’re quite comfortable with that model. That’s what Communists do.

I mean sooner or later they’re going to shoot at Taiwan but that’s inevitable. They have a score to settle there to save face.

We have our own politicians running for the top office in the land trying to hide their emails from their own regulators and the public, just as ONE example... and you’re worried about protecting our government from China? LOL. How about protecting us from them?

Pretty sure China nuking DC might be doing us all a favor. It’s the only thing that might kill that many leeches at once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top