How to Reduce Military Spending While Keeping Power?

The US is ordering 8% per year military budget cuts for the next five years. How can these cuts be made without reducing military power? There is insane levels of waste that do not improve military power. One of the main things is the US has a very high combat support ratio. This is like 9 non-combat people for 1 combat person. This should be 1 combat to 4-5 non-combat. There are some major militaries (Israel) with 1 combat to 2 non-combat. The offer has been made for China, Russia and the USA to cut military budgets in half. All three have bad economies and would benefit from this stand down in spending.

IT modernization could slash 388,000 to 1 million admin, support, and non-combat roles.

Given the mix of combat and civilians (~1.04-1.17 million active-duty, 614,000-695,000 reserve, 778,000-867,000 civilian in non-combat roles). There is a weighted average cost of $90,000 per person for non-combat personnel.

For 388,000 to 1 million roles to be cut then this would save

Low-End (388,000): 388,000 × $90,000 = $35 billion per year.
High-End (1 million): 1,000,000 × $90,000 = $90 billion per year.

$100 billion per year in procurement reductions. Like stopping the aircraft carrier modernization. The US has 11 large aircraft carriers and 9 smaller aircraft carrier that can carry about 620-688 planes versus 4 aircraft carriers for China able to deploy 93-103 planes. Why stop aircraft carrier modernization? There are US air bases on land all over the world. The advanced drones and automated unmanned fighter jets and new missiles make the carriers sitting ducks in a real big war.

China’s Total Fighter-Capable Ships: 4 (3 carriers operational or near-operational, 1 assault ship in development).
Fighter Planes Deployable:

Liaoning: ~24 J-15s
Shandong: ~24 J-15s
Fujian: ~35-40 J-15s/J-35s (projected)
Sichuan: ~10-15 fighters (speculative, possibly drones or J-35s)
Total: Roughly 93-103 fighters across all platforms, assuming Fujian and Sichuan hit projected capacities. This is a high-end estimate; real-world numbers may be lower due to training and logistical limits.

Aircraft Carriers: 11
Nimitz-class (10): These 100,000-ton nuclear-powered carriers each carry 60-70 aircraft, including 40-44 fighters (typically F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, with F-35Cs phasing in). Examples include USS Nimitz, USS Ronald Reagan, and USS Abraham Lincoln.
Ford-class (1): USS Gerald R. Ford, commissioned in 2017, uses electromagnetic catapults (EMALS). It can deploy 60-75 aircraft, including 40-44 fighters, with potential for more as air wings evolve (e.g., F-35C and future NGAD). Later Ford-class ships (like USS John F. Kennedy, nearing completion) will follow suit.

Amphibious Assault Ships (Jet-Capable): 9
Wasp-class (7 in service): These 40,000-ton ships can operate as light carriers with 20 F-35B Lightning II (STOVL) fighters in “sea control” mode, though they typically mix 6-10 F-35Bs or AV-8B Harriers with helicopters (up to 30 aircraft total).

America-class (2 in service, 1 building): Larger and aviation-focused, these can carry 20-22 F-35Bs in a fighter-heavy configuration, or a mix of 10-15 F-35Bs and helicopters (up to 30 aircraft total). USS America and USS Tripoli are operational; USS Bougainville is nearing completion.

Total Fighter-Capable Ships: 20 (11 carriers + 9 assault ships).

Fighter Planes Deployable:
Nimitz-class (10): 40-44 fighters each × 10 = 400-440
Ford-class (1): 40-44 fighters = 40-44
Wasp-class (7): 20 F-35Bs each (max) × 7 = 140
America-class (2): 20-22 F-35Bs each × 2 = 40-44
Total: 620-668 fighters at maximum capacity.
Real-world deployment often ranges 50-75% of this (e.g., 310-500 fighters), depending on mission, maintenance, and mix with support aircraft.

Cutting staff and easy procurement cuts would give back $125-$190 billion, leaving a gap of $225-$288 billion/year.

Trying to cut Half of the US Military Budget

Personnel Costs: ~$232-285 billion (combat + non-combat).
Procurement: ~$180 billion (weapons, equipment).
Operations & Maintenance (O&M): ~$300 billion (bases, fuel, training).
R&D: $145.4 billion (2025 request).
Other: ~$40 billion (miscellaneous).

Procurement Beyond $100 billion:

Slash another $50-100 billion by:
Standardizing platforms (e.g., fewer aircraft variants).
Bulk-buying drones (cheaper than manned systems).
New Total: $150-$200 billion/year savings.

Cutting Bases and Getting More Efficient

Cut $100-150 billion by:
Closing 20-30% of overseas bases (e.g., $10-15 billion/year).
AI-driven energy efficiency (e.g., 10% fuel savings, ~$10 billion).
Drone-based maintenance (less manpower).

R&D Refocus:

Trim $20-30 billion, redirecting to drones/AI, maintaining innovation.

Automation of Administrative Functions

Administrative roles—handling personnel records, payroll, budgeting, procurement, and legal documentation—currently involve an estimated 200,000 to 347,000 active-duty and civilian personnel. Modern IT solutions could transform these areas:

AI-Powered Systems: Tools like natural language processing (NLP) and robotic process automation (RPA) can manage paperwork, process forms, and update records. For example, an AI could automatically track promotions, pay adjustments, or compliance documents, reducing manual input.

Integrated Databases: A unified, cloud-based HR and financial system (e.g., replacing legacy systems like the Defense Finance and Accounting Service’s outdated platforms) could cut redundancies across branches. The DoD’s stalled transition to modern ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems could, if completed, eliminate duplicate data entry.

Self-Service Portals: Allowing troops to handle their own leave requests, benefits, or training certifications online could shrink the need for dedicated clerks.

Potential Reduction: Studies on corporate automation suggest 20-30% of administrative tasks can be fully automated. For the DoD, this could mean cutting 40,000 to 100,000 admin positions, depending on adoption speed and complexity.

Streamlining Support and Logistics
Support roles—logistics, transportation, IT, maintenance, and medical—employ roughly 700,000 to 1.42 million personnel (active-duty, reserve, and civilian combined). Efficiency gains here could be massive:

Predictive Logistics: Machine learning models can forecast equipment failures (e.g., using sensor data from vehicles or aircraft), reducing the need for large maintenance crews. The Army’s Predictive Logistics initiative aims to halve downtime, potentially shrinking staff by 10-20% in maintenance roles (e.g., 50,000-100,000 fewer mechanics).

Autonomous Supply Chains: Drones and self-driving vehicles could deliver supplies with minimal human oversight. The DoD’s experiments with autonomous resupply (e.g., DARPA’s Gremlins program) suggest a future where logistics teams drop from dozens to a handful per operation.

Centralized IT: Consolidating cybersecurity, network management, and software support into AI-driven platforms could reduce the 50,000-100,000 IT personnel currently spread across bases. A single AI system monitoring threats could replace hundreds of analysts.

Telemedicine: Remote diagnostics and robotic surgery could cut medical staffing by 20-30% (e.g., 30,000-50,000 personnel), especially for routine care, freeing medics for combat zones.

Potential Reduction: Logistics and support could see a 15-25% staff cut, or 105,000 to 355,000 fewer personnel, as automation and optimization take hold.

Enhancing Non-Combat Efficiency
Non-combat roles like intelligence analysis, training, and planning (part of the broader ~2.43-2.73 million non-combat total) could also shrink:

AI in Intelligence: AI can sift through satellite imagery, signals, and social media faster than humans. The DoD’s Project Maven already uses AI for drone footage analysis, potentially reducing analysts from 50,000-70,000 to a fraction of that—say, 10,000-20,000.
Virtual Training: VR/AR simulators could replace physical training staff and facilities, cutting instructors (e.g., 10,000-20,000 roles) while maintaining readiness.
Decision Support Systems: AI-driven war-gaming and strategy tools could reduce planning staff by 5-10%, or 10,000-25,000 personnel, by automating scenario analysis.

Potential Reduction: A 10-20% drop here could mean 243,000 to 546,000 fewer non-combat roles overall.

Key Enablers

Investment: The DoD’s 2025 budget includes $145.4 billion for R&D and modernization, with IT upgrades like the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) system critical to this shift.
Cybersecurity: Robust defenses are needed to protect automated systems, possibly requiring a small, skilled cadre (e.g., 5,000-10,000) to offset some savings.
Cultural Shift: Resistance from entrenched bureaucracies and unions could slow adoption, requiring retraining rather than immediate cuts.

US government spending and IT upgrades have generally be underwhelming and disappointing. The transformation of IT systems at Twitter into X show where massive gains are possible. Tesla and SpaceX have realtime enterprise systems. This is the kind of low cost and more effective IT that is possible for modern world class systems.

Combat Support Ratio

The combat-to-support ratio in a military context refers to the proportion of personnel directly engaged in combat roles versus those in administrative, logistical, or other non-combat support roles. A lower ratio (e.g., 1:9) means more support personnel per combatant, while a higher ratio (e.g., 1:1) indicates a leaner, more combat-focused force. The current U.S. ratio of 1:9 reflects a large support structure, typical of a global superpower with extensive logistical needs.

United States: Baseline (1:9)

Combat Personnel: 10-20% of active-duty forces (130,000-260,000 of 1.3 million).
Support/Non-Combat: 80-90% (1.04-1.17 million, plus reserves and civilians).
Ratio: Approximately 1 combatant to 9 support personnel (based on historical norms and modern analyses). This reflects the U.S.’s global reach, requiring vast logistics, bases, and administration.

Israel: Efficiency Benchmark
Israel’s military, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), is often cited for its efficiency due to constant threat exposure, mandatory conscription, and a flat hierarchy—factors reducing bureaucratic bloat.

Total Personnel: ~169,500 active-duty, ~465,000 reservists.
Combat Personnel: Exact figures are classified, but Israel’s combat focus is high due to its security environment. Estimates suggest 30-40% of active-duty forces are combat-ready (~50,000-68,000), given frontline roles in infantry, armor, and air force units.
Support/Non-Combat: The remainder (~101,500-119,500 active, plus reservists) includes logistics, intelligence, and admin, with reservists often doubling as support when not mobilized.
Ratio: Likely 1:2 to 1:3 (1 combatant to 2-3 support). This is derived from Israel’s small size, reliance on technology (e.g., Iron Dome, drones), and a culture where even support roles (e.g., intelligence) directly enhance combat. Reservists blur the line, but the active force’s leanness suggests a ratio far better than the U.S.’s 1:9.

Singapore: Compact and Tech-Driven
Singapore’s military is small but highly efficient, leveraging technology and mandatory service like Israel.

Total Personnel: ~72,000 active, ~312,000 reservists (2025 estimates).
Combat Personnel: ~25,000-30,000 (35-40%), given its focus on deterrence with advanced fighters, tanks, and navy.
Support/Non-Combat: ~42,000-47,000, streamlined by automation and outsourcing (e.g., civilian contractors).
Ratio: ~1:1.5 to 1:2. Singapore’s compact geography and heavy investment in AI, drones, and cyber reduce support needs.
Efficiency: No bloated processes—conscription ensures broad skill bases, and tech (e.g., unmanned systems) cuts manpower overhead.

South Korea: Conscription and Readiness
South Korea faces North Korea, driving a combat-heavy structure.

Total Personnel: ~500,000 active, ~3 million reservists.
Combat Personnel: ~200,000-250,000 (40-50%), reflecting border defenses and artillery focus.
Support/Non-Combat: ~250,000-300,000, aided by conscription efficiency.
Ratio: ~1:1 to 1:1.5. Mandatory service and a lean command structure minimize bloat.
Efficiency: Practical training and proximity to threats streamline operations, though some legacy systems add minor overhead.

Israel (1:2 to 1:3): Best balance of combat readiness and support, enhanced by tech and culture. Likely the gold standard for efficiency without bloat.