Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Military And Intelligence News Briefs -- September 30, 2014

A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in Syria, in this U.S. Air Force handout photo taken early in the morning of September 23, 2014. (Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Matthew)

Cost Of U.S. Campaign Against The Islamic State Likely Closing In On $1 Billion -- Washington Post

The United States has likely spent between $780 million and $930 million in its military campaign against the Islamic State militant group so far, and it will likely cost between $200 million and $320 million per month going forward if conducted with about 2,000 U.S. service members on the ground, according to a new report published Monday.

Those costs would grow to between $350 million and $570 million per month if the pace of the airstrikes increases and 5,000 U.S. troops are deployed, according to the report, released by the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. On an annual basis, lower-intensity air operations could cost $2.4 billion to $3.8 billion per year, the report said. The annual cost would jump to between $4.2 billion and $6.8 billion if the pace of airstrikes increases and is sustained.

Read more ....

Military And Intelligence News Briefs -- September 30, 2014

Analysts: Airstrike Costs Creep Toward $1 Billion -- DoD Buzz

Nearly $1bn already spent on US military campaign against ISIS -- RT

F-22 Continuing Operations in Syria -- Defense News

Official: In Air War in Iraq and Syria, 4,100 U.S. Flights -- Naharnet

Air Force general: ISIS adjusting to strikes -- The Hill

Military Action Not Enough to Defeat IS: Syrian Opposition Leader -- RIA Novosti

New U.S. crisis response force gets ready to deploy to Middle East -- Stars and Stripes

New US Marine Corps Crisis Unit To Be Based in Kuwait -- Defense News

Russia “actively developing an unmanned sixth generation aircraft”, said former Air Force commander -- Ground Report

Troubled Russian Aircraft Carrier Kuznetsov Returns to Sea -- Moscow Times

Russia, France May Sign Transfer Act for Mistral Warship This Fall: Official -- RIA Novosti

China's warships perfect fit for Russian navy, says magazine -- Want China Times

Danish defence secrets obtained by foreign spies -- The Local

China accused of spying on Danish defence industry -- Copenhagen Post

Chinese ambassador 'spy case' would not be first, warns state-run newspaper -- The Guardian

Japan’s Largest Warship Since World War II Takes To Sea -- USNI

Exclusive: Lockheed to buy European satellite for South Korea in F-35 deal -- Reuters

Canadians will likely have to pay millions of dollars to upgrade CF-18 fighter jets — again: secret documents -- National Post

Canada to funnel money into upgrades to keep CF-18 fighter jets flying -- Globe and Mail

EXPOSED: How arms dealer Thales bankrolled Zuma -- Times Live

US resumes supply of Hellfire missiles to Israel -- Times of Israel

A look inside Iranian submarines -- Press TV

Iran 'to militarily assist' Lebanon's army -- Al Jazeera

Watchkeeper fully operational in Afghanistan, UK reveals -- Flight Global

Poland Says French-Russian Warship Deal Raises Issues for Missile Shield -- Defense News/AFP

Emotional toll taxes military drone operators, too -- AP

Boeing plans 2,000 cuts in defense work -- Stars and Stripes/Seattle Times

Secret Service chief faces grilling over how far intruder got inside White House -- Washington Times

Homeland Security Chair requests review of Secret Service -- The Hill

Obama official defends Secret Service -- Washington Post

Retired FBI Spy Hunter Confesses Guilt to Afghani Troop Supply Fraud -- RIA Novosti

Column: A Threat The F-22 Can't Eliminate -- John T. Bennett, Defense News

The Obama-Military Divide -- Seth Cropsey, Wall Street Journal

The World is on Fire: Where is the U.S. Army? -- Douglas Macgregor and Young Kim, Small Wars Journal

6 comments:

  1. Already begging for money. Money that will not be spent on the military, but siphoned off for domestic purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm assuming they get thier money back somehow?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A billion here .... a billion there .... who will spot the difference. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Which domestic program would get the extra money?

    The payroll is what it is except for the extra cost of danger pay. but with 2,000 troops receiving that is probably a blip.

    The ordinance should be restocked, so that cost is higher. This did not happen under Clinton.

    The maintenance tempo is higher, so increased costs there.

    There would be increased fuel costs maybe. The Navy for example is always steaming, but there might be more flight hours logged. You could cut some training to keep up your flight hours, because you get a lot of combat flying time. That would not get rid of stuff like periodic flight quals.

    A good COMPTROLLER should be able to tell us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aizino,
    The Dems have been counting on money taken from the military for domestic political pay offs, er programs. They did not foresee this situation coming where the military has to spend money on ...military things. Also it's a political strategy of theirs to go for more money everytime there is a crisis any crisis, makes it very hard for the Rep. House to say no, sort of a variation of the "they want to shut down the government gambit".

    ReplyDelete
  6. James,
    Keeping bases open when the military wants to close them because they are someone's district?

    Ordering hardware the military didn't request because it is manufactured in a congressman's district.

    I know of a small training school moved 5 states away to a blue dog democrat's state. It has since been moved to a large training base, but at the time we did not mind. It had been located in ____hole of a town that was dangerous and the congressman was a strong and very long time supporter of the military.

    "Also it's a political strategy of theirs to go for more money everytime there is a crisis any crisis ..."

    Totally agree.

    It is questionable about which of the green energy projects that the military would sign onto if there was no political pressure. they might do some for sure, but what of the others?

    ReplyDelete