Saving the Defense Budget

Cutting the defense budget is an easy matter. You just have to convince Congressmen and the Military Industrial Complex, for decades dependent on government handouts, as well as Pentagon officials resistant to reform of any kind. Simple right? And once you accomplish this, here are some suggested cuts:

1. Navy-Cancel the CVN-21, DDX destroyers, Virginia class subs, and San Antonio amphibious ships.
2. Air Force-Cancel the F/A-22 Raptor and scale back the Joint Strike Fighter purchases by half.
3. Army-Cancel the Future Combat System.
4. BMD-Drastically scale back Ballistic Missile Defense, except the Navy's Aegis program and the Airborne Laser.
5. Marines- Cancel the Expeditinary Fighting Vehicle and the V-22 Osprey.

There's good news: As Zell Miller might say-"U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?" Bear with me, Zell. Platforms should be built to fight wars, not wars planned around platforms. Any weapons built for the future should be considered expendable, such as robots and wheeled vehicles. Here is a more affordable budget, relevant to 21st Century warfare:

1. Navy-Procure up to 300 frigate and corvette types (such as LCS and Sea Fighter), and small carriers armed with vertol F-35B JSF. Continue to invest in alternatives to the nuclear sub, such as diesel/electric and robot submersibles.
2. Air Force-Purchase late model aircraft already in production, such as F-16s and F-15s until JSF is produced. Order additional C-17s and C-130 transports off the shelf.
3. Army- Transform into a easily transportable, all-wheeled force. Purchase additional Stryker vehicles and armored cars off the shelf.
4. Marines-Procure additional helicopters off the shelf and transform into a all vetical lift force. Marines can also transported on the small carriers.

The new Precision War has made 20th Century platforms, like the tank, fighter, and the aircraft carrier obsolete. Platforms are too vulnerable and slow to react to fast cruise missiles, and precision guided munitions.

Mission Accomplished!

In my heart I kept thinking that this terrible struggle may be over soon. Now here’s proof. With the Iraqi’s steeping up to defend their newly one democracy, it could only be a matter of time before there was a US troop pullout.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq's prime minister said Wednesday he wants U.S. troops "on their way out" as soon as his government can protect its new democracy. The top American general in the country said he hopes to begin significant withdrawal by next spring.
At the same time, in an unannounced visit, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Iraqi security forces should take on more tasks now performed by U.S. troops.
American military commanders have repeatedly expressed hopes in recent months that they could begin major troop reductions next year, depending on the intensity of the insurgency. Even so, Wednesday's remarks seemed to signal a new willingness to discuss specific ways American troops might exit an increasingly unpopular war in which nearly 2,000 have died.

There’s more good news: Not with our tail between our legs, as the defeatists would have it, but with the words of our President, written in blood: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Recruiting is Down-For the Taliban!

We think America has trouble! The Taliban is so strapped for new recruits, they've resorted to arming children for their dasterdly deeds. here's a report from the DOD:

Taliban members who face off against coalition forces or the Afghan National Army are facing heavy losses, so they've resorted to recruiting young teens to join the fight, the Joint Staff's operations director told Pentagon reporters today.
Marine Lt. Gen. James Conway spoke following a July 25 incident that involved heavy fighting in a small village west of Deh Rawod in Afghanistan's Oruzgan province. The incident, which left one U.S. soldier and an Afghan National Army soldier dead, took a considerable toll on the enemy, the general said. Some press reports claim as many as 50 insurgents were killed, he said.
"My observation, tracking this day in and day out, is that virtually every time the Taliban come up against our regular forces or those of the Afghan National Army, they are losing pretty badly," Conway told reporters.
These continual losses are likely to affect the way these enemy forces operate, he said.

There's more good news: In another recent article, the military says the insurgents of Iraq have lost over 50,ooo since fighting began in 2003. And they say we are in trouble! Not me.

"Stealth" is Hollywood Tech Paranoia

The latest techno-thriller from the Dream factory is Syealth. While I'm sure its full of slam bam action and the latrest in special effects, the whole premise is about Hollywoods fear of technology. Here is the review:

In this fast-paced thriller from extreme action director Rob Cohen (THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, XXX) a group of top-trained fighter pilots (Josh Lucas, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx) find themselves saddled with a terrifying mission. When a drone bomber with artificial intelligence is being tested, it turns rogue, and could start a war if the pilot team can't stop it.

Sound familiar? This idea has been played since the early days of film. Robots were supposed to kill us, computers were supposed to take over the world, now the new UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are going to run amock. Actually the new technology will save lives, by taking the pilots role in dangerous bombing and reconnaisance missions. Despite the constant fear mongering of the left wing, technology has made life easier, even in film and communication. Will they ever realise this?

Adm Clark's LCS Legacy

Admiral Vern Clark leaves a legacy of excellent as well as unconventional service, as this report states. What may be his most enduring gift to America's sea service is the littoral combat ship. When weapon systems generally take decades of planning and procurement before reaching the fleet, the LCS will go from blueprint to service in just a 5 years, as the article states:

The ship’s development has broken speed records for military procurement: Programs routinely take a decade or more to come to fruition. Clark unveiled the idea in 2002, the keel for the first ship in the series was laid this year, and that ship is to be delivered by early 2007.
LCS “is the model for the future,” Clark said – built quickly and simply and designed to accommodate frequent updates of its mission modules.
For Navy watchers, the speed with which LCS has emerged is even more impressive because it comes after decades when service leaders disdained such small and specialized vessels in favor of larger, multi-mission ships such as the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers.

There's more good news: The speed in LCS is being produced harkens to the great days of US shipbuilding, and may turn around the decline in fleet numbers, now at about 288 vessels.

Rethinking the Future Combat System

An article over at Strategypage has made me rethink my opposition to the Army's multi-billion dollar FCS program. The plan is to replace current combat vehicles, sensors, UAVs, ect. with a whole network of platforms over the next few years. Deciding it was just another expensive Army boondoggle, yet the writers at Strategypage make sense:

FCS gets a lot of media attention because it promises to incorporate all sorts of neat new technology, and cost over a hundred billion dollars. While that sounds like a lot, it’s not when you consider that the current Cold War era heavy weapons (armored vehicles, artillery) and other equipment (radios, and all sorts of electronics) are wearing out and will have to be replaced, even if the FCS project didn’t exist. Four thousand new tanks, at a cost of $5 million each (current cost of an M1) is $20 billion. But new generations of gear rarely cost the same as the stuff they replace. So you can see how FCS grew into a hundred billion dollar baby.

...So, when you see any coverage of FCS in the future, remember that the really important stuff is networking, software and combat robots. And don't forget that the army is taking advantage of all the fighting it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement FCS. The fighting causes equipment and weapons to be destroyed or worn out at a high rate. The new gear is often FCS class stuff. The army is also testing a lot of the FCS ideas in combat. This is nothing new, as wartime always creates a call for new ideas and equipment. The army had actually tested many of the basic FCS commo ideas before 911, or the Iraq invasion, so using the stuff in combat (like Blue Force Tracker and all the UAVs) simply allows the troops to perfect the ideas and gear. Thus FCS is more than the hundred billion dollar procurement contracts that Congress concentrates on. FCS is slowly evolving within the army right now.

There's good news: Since the Army is having to do most of the fighting in the post-Cold War world, it only makes since they should have the choice of the defense budget. It was the Air Force and Navy which kept the peace during the last struggle. Since they did their job so well, they get a break and the Army holds the line.

Navy Gets into the War

Strategypage says the Navy has had little to do in the War on Terror. They are hoping to change this by building a new classed of littoral warships, the LCS and the Sea Fighter. These ships cost much less than the DDX destroyer ($3 billion) or the CVF carrier ($11 billion and counting), and could potentially stop the decline in ship numbers, now down to 288.

The U.S. Navy officially took possession of the first of a new class of ships; a Littoral Surface Craft (LSC) called “Sea Fighter” (FSF-1). This ship was originally intended as an experimental ship, to test out a number of new technologies. But the sea trials were so successful, that pressure is building to put this class into mass production. That won’t be hard to do. Sea Fighter took only twenty months to build, and cost only $50 million. Ships like this are meant for a new force, the "brown water (coastal) navy." The “brown water sailors,” who are agitating for more emphasis on small ships, and operations in coastal waters, are no longer considered a fringe group. This is mainly because a larger brown water force would get the navy more involved with the war on terror. The navy has largely been left out of the war on terror, because of their emphasis on carriers and nuclear subs. Despite the usefulness of carrier aviation in Afghanistan, the navy hasn’t had a lot to do since September 11, 2001. The army is getting most of the work, and a growing proportion of the defense budget. With the cost of traditional warships skyrocketing, the LCS (3,000 ton, $250 million Littoral Combat Ship) and the LSC look a lot more attractive. New destroyers will cost $2.5 billion each. That gets you ten LCSs, or fifty LSCs. New carriers cost over $8 billion each, which could build a fleet of brown water ships.

The outgoing CNO Admiral Vern Clark still wants the DDX, as he stated recently, despite the gigantic cost and little mission. It seems despite being touted as a “littoral warship”, DDX is meant to be apart of the US ABM Shield.

Citizens versus DDX

Citizens Against Government Waste has sent a letter to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee concerning the Navy’s new DDX destroyer. This is a platform which I have argued against for years as overweight, overbudget, and obsolete. Called a “destroyer”, the vessels id actually a new century battleship, and hardly compares to the glorious greyhounds which helped win 2 world wars, and the Cold War. Here’s what CAGW had to say:

On behalf of the more than one million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, I urge you to fully examine the future of the Navy’s DD(X) Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship program in your hearings this week. The DD(X) program has already consumed $3.59 billion in research and development. Projected costs have risen 417 percent, while the total number of ships to be procured has fallen from 24 to 12.

Despite the substantial investment by taxpayers, the feasibility of certain key technologies has been questioned in a series of reports by the Government Accountability Office. The DD(X) program has already missed a major deadline (Milestone B) due to disagreement between the Navy and the Cost Analysis Improvement Group over estimated DD(X) procurement costs. The DD(X) was also highlighted in CAGW’s 2005 Congressional Pig Book, which stated, “at least three of the Navy’s big-ticket shipbuilding programs face major affordability concerns that could force the department to cut costs by dropping or changing requirements, Inside the Navy reports.”

There’s good news: The navy has recently laid the keel of its new littoral combat ship (LCS) which in size, function, and cost ($250 million each) is the true destroyer for the 21st Century. We can only hope the Navy will realize this before they have a fleet consisting of only a couple DDX battleships.

Staying Power & Troop Strength

Those who criticize America’s strategy in Iraq fail to understand the nature of guerilla warfare. For any war of attrition staying power and political will is of equal importance to troop strength. In recent decades America has been justifiably critiqued for lacking the will to sustain casualties, which began in Vietnam, and later in Lebanon, when over 400 Marines were slaughtered by a car bomb in 1983. More recently during the Clinton administration an embarrassing “cut and run” occurred after 16 US Rangers were killed by Somali warlords in 1993. It was with good reasons the Al Qaeda terrorists felt America would draw back from the Middle East after the destruction of the Twin Towers September 11, 2001. One thing the bombers failed to consider was though America could be frightened, she could also be inspired. We were inspired by firemen in New York plunging back into the fires to their doom, as the World’s Trade center burned. We were inspired by Secretary Rumsfeld leaving the safety of his command center and assisting victims of the Pentagon attack, and of President Bush proclaiming atop the rubble that our enemies “will hear from us all soon". We were stirred by Private Jessica Lynch declaring through her pain “I am a soldier too!” When Iraqi citizens defied the suicide bombers and voted in their first elections ever, we were all Iraqi’s that day. More recently on July 7, 2005, we stood with Londoners as they carried on despite the worst attack on British soil since World War 2.

China Alarmists

History is repeating itself and a new land power is seeking its “rightful” place on the world’s oceans. China is rapidly expanding its Navy to match its booming economy, and causing alarm in western naval circles. Naturally America and Britain should be ever vigilant to any threat to their naval mastery, but also ignore alarmists and hysterics. The transformation of the Army should continue and acquisition of UAVs should be accelerated. The Navy shouldn’t neglect plans for a new “Brown Water” fleet, or the renewed emphasis on anti-submarine warfare in littoral regions. Expeditionary forces should be maintained, but in smaller numbers, as the Army becomes more airmobile with the purchase of light armored vehicles (LAVs), and the Air Force adds precision guided munitions to its fleet of long-range bombers. The Tomahawk missiles have displaced aircraft carriers for long distance attack, but not for close air support. The Navy can cheaply and effectively ensure its sea dominance by maintaining and improving its cruise missile ships, of which there are now more than 100.

Small Aircraft Carriers

Continuing my thoughts on the military’s obsession with platforms. Here I discuss the ultimate platform, the giant aircraft carriers still being built despite many reaching outrageous cost. Since the 1982 Falklands War, Britain has proved that small aircraft carriers with Harrier V/STOL aircraft can hold their own against fixed wing jet fighters. Likewise these planes have proved ideal for launching from the US Marine’s big assault ships during Operation Iraqi Freedom where they were dubbed “Harrier Carriers”. Yet America and Britain continue to produce the huge and increasingly vulnerable heavy carriers, and are depleting their surface fleet in order to accommodate these expensive dinosaurs. Here’s what the Pentagon’s ex-Transformation Chief had to say about Small Carriers:

Arthur Cebrowski, the retired three-star admiral who leads the Pentagon’s transformation office, defied convention last week by suggesting the Navy, long wedded to its fleet of massive aircraft carriers, should convert high-speed vessels into “very, very small” aircraft carriers.
He briefly sketched out a concept for distributed, seabased, tactical aviation that would use large numbers of minicarriers, each carrying a handful of short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing Joint Strike Fighters armed with very small, precise weapons. It was one of several ideas he discussed Aug. 4 during remarks at a Navy research and development conference in Washington, DC.
…The minicarrier … is depicted carrying five tactical aircraft and other items, including a couple of helicopters and some amphibious assault craft. These vessels would be network-centric and could contribute to seabasing, according to Cebrowski’s briefing. Under the heading “assured access,” the briefing argues the minicarrier would “correct tactical instability” and complicate enemy intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The minicarrier would be more survivable against certain threats and less susceptible and vulnerable, according to the briefing. The idea would also allow the Navy to reduce manpower and costs, the briefing argues.
There’s good news: The Navy may be forced to retire some of its carriers because of the cost of its new Brown Water fleet plans.

Full Steam for the FCS

The Army's Future Combat System (FCS) is well under development, according to this article. Its very expensive at $145 billion dollars to create a family of vehicles to replace the tank. Sounds like another bloated government program, but thanks to its success in the War on Terror, the Army is going full steam ahead. From the article:

The Army plans to buy 15 brigades’ worth of the systems, about 700 vehicles per brigade, over 20 years. The program recently has come under fire as lawmakers and others consider the staggering cost – an estimated $145 billion.
The Government Accountability Office also has called FCS into question. GAO reports in March and June said the program is “at significant risk” of not delivering within budget, and that much of the technology it depends on is unproven.But Boeing officials said Monday that two years in, the program is on budget and on schedule.

There is good news: The army is getting feedback from soldiers currently fighting in Iraq, and is using the Stryker as an interim FCS to experiment future applications for the new system. My problem with FCS, besides the cost, is the military's continued infatuation with platforms to the detrimentment of new self guided weapons, sensors, and UAV's. They should learn from the experience with Stryker and the B-52 bomber: that cheap, off the shelf platforms can perform the jobs of the future and not bankrupt the Defense budget in the process.

From Blue to Brown Navy

Navy Times is reporting the impending launch of a Brown Water riverene force in the US Navy. This is long overdue and welcome. As the military turns from a blue water fleet to one geared for the littorals, such a force is the answer for terrorist smugglers in the Gulf and elsewhere. A memo sent by CNO Vern Clark call for:

• An active component riverine warfare force by 2006 and two reserve component riverine units by 2007.
• A Navy Expeditionary Combat Battalion by 2007. How such a unit would differ from U.S. Marines is unclear.
• A provisional civil affairs battalion attached to Seabees in 2006 and a reserve civil affairs battalion by 2007.
• An active/reserve integrated structure for two Helo Combat Support Special Squadrons, HCS 4 (Red Wolves) and HCS 5 (Firehawks).
• A unit that will be able to “data-mine” information culled from the National Maritime Intelligence Center, which tracks information on global ship traffic.
• A team to exploit intelligence gathered from maritime interdictions.
• A community of Foreign Area Officers who are experts in specific regions of the world, similar to Army and Marine Corps FAOs.

Strategypage is also reporting this and says the fleet could lose an aircraft carrier to pay for it.

The Myth of the "Stretched-Thin" Military

The great battles of the War of Terror are being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, with roughly a third to half the military that existed during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. This has led pundits to claim American forces are stretched to the breaking point, with too many missions for its 21st Century role as the world's lone superpower. Those who make such wild accusations lack an understanding of the advances in warfare since the first Gulf War, which has transformed the US from a superpower to a "Hyperpower". Here are 5 reasons the critics are wrong:

1. During the first Gulf War, 10% of US aircraft carried precision weapons, compared to 100% today. This gives the military at least 10 times the firepower of Desert Storm.

2. Throughout the Cold War America's 15 aircraft carriers were scattered around the globe to keep the Soviet Navy in check. Today, the Navy can surge up to 8 carrier groups to a world hotspot on short notice.

3. Iraq and Afghan military forces are daily increasing in strength and confidence, decreasing the need for US and British troops in the future.

4. The Army is raising the number of combat brigades for 33 to 48 by 2007, without a major increase in troop strength.

5. Though the total US warships have halved since Operation Desert Storm, the Navy has added nearly 100 cruise missile firing warships, turning it into a "vast missile magazine".

There's more good news: So why all the criticism? Here's what President Bush said on the subject today: "The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve. This will not happen on my watch!"

England Under the Blitz

What was Al Queda thinking, attacking London in the midst of the G8 Summit, and following the wildly popular Live 8 concert. Just as one of histories great powers were pushing for greater concern for the worlds poor, they have been attacked by the New Barbarians. A brilliant operation on the part of the followers of Usama and his radical cult, yet like the German attack on London in the fall of 1940, it will prove a colossal strategic mistake. Here's what Winston Churchill had to say of our enemies before a Joint Session of Congress a year later:

What kind of a people do they think we are? Is it possible they do not realise that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?

The good news is: With the great powers of the world behind him at the G8 Summit yesterday Prime Minister Tony Blair echoed Churchill by saying:

"When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated, when they seek to change our country, our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed.
"When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm.
"We will show by our spirit and dignity and by a quiet and true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs.
"The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorize people and we will not be terrorised.

We Are All British Today

Our steadfast friends in the War on Terror have been attacked today. There’s little comparison in the number of casualties to Sept 11, but there’s an old saying “to attack one of us, is to attack us all”. I suppose to call myself British would make men like Patrick Henry role over in his grave, but I bear to title proudly and I think he would agree were he alive today. Concerning the fight against terrorism, I think Henry’s words ring relevant today as they did in 1775 at St John’s church in Richmond, on the eve of our great struggle for freedom.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The good news is: It could have been worse. At bad as it was, with 50 dead, it was no comparison to 9/11 in the US, or even the Madrid bombings in Spain. Could it be that Al Quedi is far weaker than before? One can only pray so.

What Terrorists Think

We hear alot about how much trouble the US is in with the War on Terror, I was wondering how the terrorists are feeling this moment. Aside from the occasional glee when they read our liberal newspapers that their winning, it could be they are increasingly depressed over their plight. With US forces constantly on the offensive, and the Iraqi military daily increasing in strength, they may sound something like Joseph Goebells, Hitlers propaganda minister in December 1942.

"Wherever we look we see mountains of problems. Everywhere the path ascends at a steep and dangerous angle and nowhere is there a shady spot where we may stay and rest. "

This was written after multiple disasters for Germany occurred, including Stalingrad, El Alamein, and the American landing in North Africa.