Unfortunately, I agree with you both. I've recently spent some time getting ready for deployment to Afghanistan. It is a bit eye opening to listen to some of the junior Army enlisted. They believe we need to finish the job, but they have little confidence in their leadership.
Some folks present modernizing our forces and supporting our troops (with numbers and equipment) as either/or. I don't understand why we are fighting a war in two countries at a time we knew (for 20 years) would be a time of recapitalization, and trying to do both on the cheap.
The USAF is cutting 40,000 military and 25% of contractors. We have zero money for upgrading legacy platforms, the Guard is overstretched, and we're sending a lot of folks in to supplement the Army on the ground. WHY!?!
It isn't because the American people aren't willing to spend some money on the military. It is because DoD, under direction of the President, refuses to ask.
And that is a REPUBLICAN shame.
well said, zoomie
This is the bottom line. Well said.
The reason why we are not spending a bunch on legacy platforms is as follows.
1. Each update program has a overhead fixed cost, per update program. A new platform has the same overhead cost as each little update, and you get a lot more out of it.
2. The current legacy systems are completely capable of fighting little wars against third and 4th tier opponents. updates are not needed for that task.
3. The current legacy systems are not capable, with any package of updates you can name, against a first tier opponent. The new Air Force and Navy systems will be effective. (I don't have personal expertise on the current crop of new Army or Marine programs, and so withold judgement.)
Hope that clears it up.