Aircraft Carrier vs Cruise Missile 2

Contrary to what you may hear, the core of the fleet is no longer the aircraft carrier, with her scores of jets and helicopters, but the cruise missile firing warship. Whether fired from surface or submarines, the US Navy has become one vast missile magazine since the 1980’s. The aircraft carrier, in contrast has taken a subservient role to one of support of ground troops, just as the battleship became in WW 2. During a crisis the President now asks “where are the Tomahawk launchers”, which since the 1st Gulf War have been the first to respond. The 100 or so cruise missile capable ships in commission are less vulnerable and cheaper than the massive $5 billion aircraft carriers.
The cruise missile does have its limitations, such as not being able to provide close air support for troops, which the carriers do superbly. The Marines get around this by carrying their aircraft with them. The V/STOL fighters these troops possess could be spread around the fleet, increasing their survivability in the cruise missile age.

Warfare Off the Shelf

Weapons purchased Off the Shelf are becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to the current crop of high priced weaponry, and may eventually sound the death knell of the “military industrial complex”. Equipment such as the Stryker Combat vehicle, based on a Canadian LAV design, has been ordered and deployed in just a few years. This is in stark contrast to the decade’s long gestation period of the F/A-22 Raptor, and other Cold War era weapons.
Most recently the Army decided to cancel the gold plated Comanche helicopter, designed to fight the Warsaw Pact. In its place older model choppers will be bought or updated to fight the War on Terror. The Navy has seen what private industry can do with its Swift class catamarans utilized in Operation Iraqi Freedom. These were originally high speed ferries built by the Australian firm Austal. At $50 million each they are far cheaper than an Aegis destroyer or a nuclear carrier, and far more relevant in the new littoral environment which the Navy is fighting. The Air Force contingency plan in case it loses the Raptor is to purchase 100 F-15 fighters off the shelf.
The best thing about purchasing off the shelf is that it saves billions in procurement and is often much cheaper than purpose built weaponry. It may also work as well or better than the equipment it replaces.

Aircraft Carrier vs Cruise Missile

If you were to do an online search for “aircraft carriers”on GoogleNews, you will come across recent references to the 1996 Taiwan Straits crisis from Asian news sources. That year President Bill Clinton sent a carrier battle group into the waters between Taiwan and the mainland to deter a Chinese invasion. Almost forgotten in the West, it made a lasting impression on the Chinese who are determined to sink an American aircraft carrier.
Despite their great size and power, carriers are vulnerable to modern weapons, and you don’t have to sink her to disable her air group. During the Cold War, US submarines literally ran rings around the carriers during war games. In his biography Admiral Sandy Woodward, British commander of the Falkland Island task force, told of piercing a carrier’s defensive screen while he was in command of a cruise missile destroyer.
Throughout the Cold War, Russia spent much effort on sinking a US carrier. She developed an awesome array of supersonic missiles, which make the American Tomahawk look like a “spitball”. Both America and Russia have developed supercavitating underwater rockets, some of which reportedly reaches supersonic speed.
Such weaponry is rapidly falling into the hands of potential enemies, such as Iran, China, and North Korea. In this new age of precision warfare, its obvious America must rethink the type of warships it needs, and how they are built.

Three Great Captains

Many soldiers aspire to the ranks of a Napoleon, Alexander, or Ceasar. Three Americans have arisen in the Post-Cold War era who are some of the greatest in our history.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was the first to rise from the doldrums of the Vietnam War, giving America its greatest victory since World War 2. His “Hail Mary” play in the Iraqi desert was a masterstroke of the likes of Rommel or Patton. His leadership of a diverse coalition of nations would have made Dwight Eisenhower proud.
Gen. Wesley Clark is arguably the least of the three, who must be counted for his understanding of the new precision warfare first seen in the Gulf. The NATO victory of Kosovo in 1999 was the first war won by airpower alone, and paved the way for future victories ahead.
Gen. Tommy Franks is probably the greatest of the trio, and the true heir of the Great Captains mentioned above. Like Alexander, Franks utilized much smaller forces to overcome larger armies. As Napoleon, he maneuvered his troops, always keeping the enemy guessing.
Likely to join these ranks of legendary warriors is Gen. John Abizaid, the present US commander in Iraq. As Caesar withstood swarms of barbarians during the Gallic War, Americans are holding their own against the new barbarians of the Age of Terror.

More Bang for the Buck?

Next year America will spend $500 billion on defense, and currently posses the worlds most powerful and battle experienced military. One often wonders if we are getting our moneys worth, when our military seems over-extended, and weapons are quickly wearing out without replacement. Compared to our own forces, here is what the armed forces of other countries would look like if they each had a $500 billion dollar budget.

China: Tanks-99,000 Aircraft-33,300 Ships-1566
France: Tanks-11,759 Aircraft-6347 Ships-550
UK: Tanks-8960 Aircraft-8032 Ships-816

We currently spend 9 times more on defense than China, 11 times that of France, and 16 times the UK. The US has 289 warships, 14,000 tanks, and 10,000 aircraft

Wars Won & Lost

America lost every major battle of the Cold War, except the one that mattered, the last. The Korean War ended in a draw, and the Vietnam War became a total lost. The Persian Gulf War, fought as the Soviet Union crumbled, pitted the tactics of a land war in Europe against Russian weapons and strategy. America, taking the lessons of Vietnam to heart, won hands down.
Diplomatically the US excelled during the 40 year stand-off, especially when backed by military power. Without firing a shot, the Air Force ended the Berlin blockade in 1948. Likewise the Navy thwarted Russian plans in Cuba by blockade in 1962. Finally, with Pershing and Cruise Missiles in Europe, President Reagan was able to obtain a real arms agreement from Gorbachev in 1987.

Politically Naive

Americans have always been naïve when it comes to foreign policy. This goes back to our very beginnings when we had little desire for “foreign entanglements”, as if the world would leave us alone. When the country did become involved in overseas wars, it was with a desire to win quickly and return to our “blessings of liberty” at home.
The British, on the other hand, have fought wars with the next one in mind. This was how their Empire survived for centuries. Even as it faltered during World War 2, Churchill possessed the foresight to see the looming communist threat, while Roosevelt preferred to hope for the best from “Uncle Joe” Stalin. We all know how that turned out.

Reaching Down to Liberals

There’s an old story about a married couple out for a drive. The wife was lamenting from the passenger side “We’re not as close as we used to be! Remember when we were dating? I sat close beside you as we drove along, and you had your arm around me.” The husband looked across from the driver’s side and replied “Well, I’m haven’t moved!”.
Now that the elections are over, there’s been calls from many on the left for President Bush to reach out to Democrats and our overseas allies. These are people who blame America for most of the world’s ills. The liberals have much to answer for the animosity against Bush at home and abroad. After a brief burst of patriotism following the murderous attacks on our citizens on September 11, 2001, they have averted to their old ways. When the going got tough in Iraq, these fair-weather patriots scattered, along with many of our allies, bought off by Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food Program.
For the President to reach out to those who disagree with his policies, he would have to reach down into the hole they have dug themselves. Better for him to stand tall with honor and freedom, and hope those who’ve fallen may pick themselves up.
The left has much to answer for its resistance to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They will most likely be called accountable later at the voting booth.

George Rex

Every 100 years America has produced men who defined their generation and beyond. At the close of the 18th century George Washington set the nation on a solid foundation to future greatness. A century later Theodore Roosevelt, a distant cousin of George Bush, guided the country into the 20th Century and established her a world power. The first President of the 21st Century, in a few short years has defined America’s mission in the world. Spurred on by the terrorist attacks of 2001, George Bush is transforming the military, spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, and forming new relations with the free states of the former Soviet Union.
Concerning the military, the President has turned it from its weapons heavy, Cold War task, to a new-age, mobile force capable of surgical strikes anywhere on earth. Before his term is over, the US military will be departing from oversea bases design to thwart Soviet expansion, to guarding our vital interests in the Gulf.
Democracy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is now with us, and will continue to spread, as long as we stay the course set by our commander in chief, George W. Bush.

Burying the Powell Doctrine

There’s been much lament in the media lately of the death of the Powell Doctrine, as if it has always been official US policy when going to war. If it ever was, it was laid to rest on September 11, 2001. The Powell Doctrine, or the use of overwhelming military force, ended almost as soon as it was established. In 1993 Defense Secretary Les Aspin ignored it when troops requested more armored vehicles in Somalia, which later led to our pullout from that beleaguered nation. Consistently through the 1990’s Bill Clinton refused to use land forces in the Balkans, preferring to employ surgical air strikes and cruise missile diplomacy. Even the so called shock and awe, an overwhelming bombing strategy in Iraq never occurred. The Air Force strikes on Baghdad in 2003 were so accurate the lights in most places stayed on.
What is better than overwhelming force is concentration of force, or using the force you have in a more effective way. The Thebans did it in 371 BC at Leuctra, Frederick the Great did so at Leuthen in 1757, and Tommy Franks defeated Saddam Hussein this way in 2003.

Invading Iran

The idea that the USA is contemplating an invasion if Iran (as reported by the New Yorker), while it is preoccupied by the upcoming Iraqi elections is ludicrous. It is another example of the decline of traditional reporting, as well as continued liberal attempts to discredit the Bush Administration. It would be laughable, if it weren't possible we may actually have CIA operatives in the country, which will now be put at risk by this careless reporng. This is hardly a scoop, since Iran does share a common border with Iraq, it is possible enemy insurgents have been slipping in and out of the country as they have with Syria.
The article's use of anonymous sources sounds more like something from the National Enquirer, which isn't really a shock, since mainstream media has been going increasingly tabloid lately. As in the recent "Memogate" scandal, the attitude is, if you don't have the truth, just make it up and worry about the facts later. The press never lets the truth get in the way of a good story, especially if it hurts American esteem.

Click here for the Petagon Rebuttle:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050117-1987.html

My Defense Cuts

The Defense Budget is planned to be cut by $10 billion next year. I think we could cut a little bit deeper, maybe by about half. I can hear the coronaries as I write:

1). The Navy: Cancellation of all new construction programs, especially CVN-21 carrier, DDX destroyer, and the VIRGINIA class submarines. Changeover from a carrier based force to one armed with cruise missiles. Build arsenal ships and swift and inexpensive catamarans like HSV SWIFT, and diesel submarines.

2). Air Force: Cancel F-22 Raptor, and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter save for the V/STOL version for close air-support. Gradual reduction of tactical aircraft until JSF arrives, with greater emphasis on precision weapons and Unmanned Vehicles (UAVs). Retire ancient B-52s and bring the B-1 bomber force up to strength. Plan for a new bomber replacement by 2030.

3). Army: Continue reforms instituted By General Schoomaker, including force increase to 48 brigades. Complete pullout from Cold War era bases including Europe, Japan, and South Korea. Transformation from an armored track force to a wheeled, light forces, mainly by utilizing Stryker combat vehicle in all its variants. Cancel expensive Future Combat System.

4). Marines: Transform from a heavy combat to a light intervention force, and manpower would be halved, with only one active division. Cancel V-22 Osprey and replace with off the shelf helicopters like Blackhawk. Retire all amphibious ships except forAssault Carriers. These would eventually be replaced with smaller ships without docking facilities.

5). Missile Defense: Cancel all Theater Ballistic Missile programs on land or at sea. Keep and improve Patriot PAC III missile, and the Airborne Laser, which is the future of air and missile defense.

Summing up, I would like to see the transformation of a force built around 20th Century era fighters, aircraft carriers, and tanks, to a smaller, more lethal one centers on UAVs, littoral ships, and LAVs.

A Hi or Lo Navy

Throughout the Cold War , to keep adequate numbers of ships available, the US Navy established a hi-lo mix in the quality of its warships. There were giant supercarriers, escorted by large cruisers and nuclear attack submarines, along with hundreds of cheaper and less capable destroyers and frigates. During the 1980’s, the frigates proved quite useful escorting merchant vessels during the Persian Gulf Wars.
Amazingly, after the fall of Soviet Union, with no foreseeable threat against the expensive carriers, cruisers, and submarines, the US began discarding wholesale its lo-end warships, which was just what was needed in the new littoral warfare as practiced in the Gulf. Billion dollar Aegis ships and $5 billion aircraft carriers are still being purchased, even as the Navy sinks to less than 300 ships.
When Al Quedi struck the twin towers in 2001, what vessel was called on to protect our ports and intercept vessels carrying WMDs? It was the venerable frigates the Navy considered useless in modern warfare.

America Can Take It

The 1991 Gulf War was the most remarkable feat of arms in recent times. The so called “Powell Doctrine” now suggested only when we have enough troops and weapons, along with public support, could America fight and win. And as long as there were little or no casualties we could count on that public support. The murder of US Rangers in Somalia 2 years later seemed to prove America would not accept casualties of any kind. Later, the war in Kosovo became strictly an air war.
The mass slaughter of US citizens on US soil in 2001 changed all this. Along with a determined President, Americans at home have steeled themselves to any sacrifice to avenge the attacks of 9/11. While the deaths of 1000+ soldiers in Iraq are regrettable, our troops there seem to think it justified. I have personally spoken to these brave young men and women, who seem eager to fight and die for freedom as others have done in the past. They seem more concerned about what people at home are saying about their mission than the hazards of that mission. Whether faced with loss of life or limb this new “Greatest Generation” is determined to win, and return hopefully to a better world.

D-Day in Iraq

Americans are currently undergoing a BAPTISM OF FIRE in Iraq. The insurgency has sorely tried the Coalition since the fall of Saddam in 2003, but with the impending success of elections later this month, their downfall is certain. Just as D-DAY 1944 in Europe marked the beginning of the end of Hitler's empire, so will a stable and legitimate government in Iraq greatly lessen terrorist opposition. It will not end it, and there may still be dramatic and deadly attacks on US forces and the new regime. These however, will mainly be of interest to the press and the naysayers, who like the rebels, will continue their resistance of change until the end.

Soldiers Equipping Themselves

There has been much controversy about US troops in Iraq having to purchase their own body armor, scavenge for armor for vehicles and so on. Too bad the press has little understanding of history (before 1960) as they would easily discover this isn’t unheard of in warfare. The ancient Greek hoplite was required to bring his own armor, shield, and weapons when called for battle, likewise the armored knight of medieval times. Remember the Minutemen? What state would our country be in today if they thought the government must arm them before they would fight for our freedom? Before WW2 George Patton had to purchase fuel for his tanks from his own substantial fortune to keep them rolling during maneuvers. In his new book American Soldier, Tommy Franks explained how he had to buy CB radios for his men from his own funds. Secretary Rumsfeld rightly stated “You go to war with the army you have”. I’m glad we still have soldiers who can take initiative in defense of our country.