The Stagnation of Warfare Pt. 3

Hate to say I told you so but...from Strategypage:

The U.S. Secretary of Defense has ordered the service chiefs and
their subordinates to cut back on developing weapons and tactics for the next
war (wherever and whatever it might be), and concentrate on the current ones.
This directive is based on the assumption that the U.S. military can already
defeat any potential foe, and the near future appears to include more irregular
fighters and terrorists, than masses of tanks, modern aircraft and high tech
warships...

The Department of Defense wants the troops to become more
effective at dealing with irregulars and terrorists. The current war is giving
the ground troops invaluable combat experience, making American ground forces
the most capable on the planet. The idea is to capitalize on that, not new,
untried and very expensive technology.

I am convinced that it is not so much our high tech wonder weapons that has given the US its wave of victories in the post-Cold War era, but how it schools its troops in warfare (train as you would fight). Only this can explain our ability to fight 2 simultaneous conflicts since 2001, while keeping watch on China, North Korea, and Iran, despite suffering in the Clinton Era the largest defense cuts since after World War 2.

Therefore, I believe the US can safely endure a "weapons holiday" with a freeze on building Big Ships, while bolstering our littoral fleet to fight pirate insurgents. We could also hold off plans for reequipping the USAF with hi-tech fighters and concentrate on close air support planes, plus late model fighters like the F-16 or Super Hornet to keep numbers up. The Army already seems to be doing everything right. As mentioned in the article they are backing off some on the Future Combat System while beefing up its forces with off-the-shelf equipment like Strykers and armored cars, armor for the troops, and new build helicopters.

Military Suffers From 'Next-war-itis'

This from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who I think is determined to get lynched! Except he's right, from Military.com:

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called
Next-War-itis - the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in
favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.
But in a
world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a
military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and
militias waging irregular warfare.
If it means putting off more expensive
weapons for the future or adding to the stress on the Army - that is a risk
worth taking, he said.

And Gates points to specific high tech weaponry:

He also issued a warning to the military services, which have long
set their sights on pricey, sophisticated weapons systems that take decades to
develop and get onto the battlefield.
The Army has its $200 billion Future
Combat System, the Air Force has its F-22 jet fighter. Both programs have been
plagued by delays and escalating costs, as well as criticism from Congress.
Going forward, such weapons programs will have show they can be useful now
against terror groups and insurgents, he said.

Thanks Mr. Secretary, for echoing what we have been railing against on this blog. After each war in our history, including the Civil War, the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, the arms produced during these conflicts were often the backbone of our fighting forces. Most of the WW 2 warships didn't leave frontline service in the USN until the 1970's, and the Iowa class battleships famously soldiered on into the 1990s. As Gates contends:

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today.”

Yet, some of our military leaders want to discard still useful weaponry long before they have outlived their usefulness, like the A-10 attack plane and naval frigates. They whine about our military being "stretched thin" from fighting in the Middle East, as if they are allowed to choose the wars we fight, rather than making the best of a bad situation; in this case the sudden terror attacks on our homeland in 2001. Even of we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, we surely would have been at war somewhere at some point in time.

The generals and admirals always seem to want the weapons they don't need, and need the weapons they don't want. But its not really up to them to decide, is it?

The original speech is here.

Cutting Defense to Save It Part 2

We're still observing these articles by military writer and reformer William Lind. Today he focuses on weapons and strategy. Here are the weapons proposals:

In the U.S. Navy, keep the submarines. Submarines are today's
and tomorrow's capital ships, and geography dictates the United States must
remain a maritime power. Keep the big aircraft carriers, too, though there is
little need to build more of them. Carriers are big, empty boxes that can carry
many things besides aircraft. Mothball most of the cruisers and
destroyers.

Build lots of small, cheap ships useful for controlling
coastal and inland waters, and create strategically mobile and sustainable
"packages" of such ships. Being able to control waters around and within
stateless regions can be important in Fourth Generation war.

Fighter-bombers are largely useless in 4GW, where their main
role is to create collateral damage that benefits our enemies. Keep the air
transport squadrons and the A-10 Warthog close ground support aircraft, and move
them all to the Air National Guard, which flies and maintains aircraft as well
as or better than the regular U.S. Air Force at a fraction of the cost.Reduce
the regular U.S. Air Force to strategic nuclear forces and a training
base.

Pretty much in agreement with all of the above, especially expanding the submarine fleet. Give almost any third rate country a decent sub and suddenly it becomes a world power. It is also the perfect stealth warship, unlike this. I also support a freeze on carrier production until we rebuild fleet numbers because no one else has so many or can do the things ours can do. Not even close.

We have to get serious about littoral warfare and new battleships aren't the answer. We need ships, as I often contend, that can chase pirates into their shallow water haunts. Galrahn has changed my mind on the littoral combat ship, though even it is better than using cruisers and destroyers for this role. Gunboats are the answer today for the unchallenged supremacy of the US Navy, just as they were during the Victorian Era when the British Royal Navy was all powerful.

Certainly we need cheap but good aircraft which can perform close air support, not just suddenly realize the importance of the A-10 with each new war, as if it was some novel thing. I wouldn't as yet discount the importance of the air superiority role, despite the fact that the West has been mostly unchallenged in the air since the Second World War. I do think that the new crop of super fighters, like Raptor, JSF, and Typhoon are over-hyped in their capabilities.

The real revolution is not stealth or supercruise, but the constant advancement of micro-electronics which can be fitted into guided missiles, making them astonishingly accurate. A late model F-16, F-15, F/A- 18 Super Hornet, or Swedish Gripens (plus unmanned aerial vehicles as they improve in capabilities) with their low cost and proven performance could likely hold their own against the new fighters when armed with such weaponry.

Cutting Defense to Save It

This is an idea that isn't very popular these days, even with liberals, and which I've mentioned before. Here's William Lind's proposal:

A tanking economy and world credit markets tighter than
Scrooge's fist will require large cuts in federal spending. That will include
the U.S. Department of Defense. If a new administration were to turn to the
military reformers and ask us how to cut defense spending while still securing
the country, what would we advise?Here is what I would propose:

First, adopt a defensive rather than an offensive grand
strategy. The United States followed a defensive grand strategy through most of
her history. We only went to war if someone attacked us. That defensive grand
strategy kept defense costs down and allowed our economy to prosper. We do not
have to be party to every quarrel in the world.Second, scrap virtually all the
big-ticket weapons programs such as new fighter-bombers, more high-tech
Aegis-class ships for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army's enormously expensive
Rube Goldbergian Future Combat System. They are irrelevant to where war is
going.

Shocking to think of cutting our defenses during wartime, right? It can and should be done however. I believe the high tech military is hurting rather than helping us. So enamored are we by some future exchange with wonder weapons against an undisclosed peer enemy, we can't see the wars which we need to fight today. President Bush has rightly dragged the West kicking and screaming into the Middle East cauldron, though this is a wound that's been festering for decades.

We should also get over the need for a "Triad" for each service which is incredibly expensive to maintain, with weapon systems that often duplicate each other's missions. Fighter bombers for the Air Force, submarines for the Navy, helicopters for the army, what more is needed?

Here is my favorite quote from the article: ""So long as the money flow continues, nothing will change."

Less Bang for the Buck

The cost of the high tech military is crippling America's defenses. From the Center for Defense Information:

It is now conventional wisdom to say that the Pentagon budget is
higher in “real” dollars than at any point since the end of World War II.
The $635 billion appropriated in fiscal year 2007 is $31 billion, or 5 percent
above the previous high water mark, which was 1952 at $604 billion. 2008
will be higher still at about $670 billion, and 2009 will likely be more
again.

What is not conventional wisdom - but should be - is that at
today’s historic high level of spending, our military forces are smaller than
they have ever been since the end of World War II; equipment is – on average –
older than it ever has been before; and key elements of our most important
fighting forces are not fully prepared for combat.

This is a frightening trend with no end seemingly in sight. Still, there may be hope if we replace our legacy industrial age weaponry like planes, tanks, and large surface warships with new robot weapons now entering service, plus cheaper manned platforms bought off the shelf. First, though, we have to change the mindset of our politicians and military leaders still fighting the Cold War.

Defense Spending Without Purpose

Robert Scheer in the San Francisco Chronicle, comments on the recent GAO report, critiquing the continued US dependence on Cold War weapons to fight a 21st century foe:

That's the huge scandal the media and politicians from both parties
have studiously avoided. But as the GAO's authoritative audit details, the costs
are astronomical. The explosion of spending on expensive weaponry after 9/11 had
nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of that day. The high-tech planes and
ships commissioned for trillions of dollars to defeat an enemy with no navy, air
force or army, and using $3 knives as its weapons arsenal, was a gift to the
military-industrial complex that will go on giving for decades to come.

The unabashed spending by Congress and the military on such systems amounts simply to corporate welfare, keeping aged defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed in business, which realistically would collapse without Pentagon dollars. Building really useful weapons like patrol ships and late model F-16s would serve the same purpose, without wrecking the already over-stretched budget.

Two Views of the Defense Budget

Here's Elizabeth Dole writing in the Washington Times:

What nation's Air Force is flying aircraft more than 50 years old?
What nation's Navy has the smallest fleet since before World War II? And what
nation's military transports are banned from the airspace of a South American
country because they are notoriously unreliable? Most Americans would be shocked
to learn the answer is none other than the United States.

While Philip Carter plus Fred Kaplan think they know How to fix the US military:

...the Air Force's No. 1 priority today is to build as many F-22 fighter planes as it can, at a cost of
hundreds of billions of dollars—even though they would play no role in any
foreseeable war over the next two decades. One way to wean them off such weapons
is to build up (and put more money into) other Air Force missions—for example,
cargo-transport planes (to carry ground forces and their gear),
close-air-support planes (to fire shells or drop bombs in support of troops on
the ground), or to provide security for bases (many Air Force personnel have
been reassigned to do just that). The defense secretary could announce that the
service's continued share of the budget depends on boosting the importance of
those missions.

Liberals often enjoy cutting the military's budget with little thought of its effect on our National Security. Likewise do conservatives call for more defense dollars, with little regard whether the money is spent wisely. This is Mrs. Dole's attitude with her call for up to 4% of our GNP spent on the defense budget. Yet we see too often with the rising cost of new weapons, however much money we throw at this burgeoning colossus, we seem to get fewer weapons for our money, in other words, far less bang for our bucks!

Congress Reading New Wars???

Here is what I've been saying for years on the need to give the Army a greater percentage of the Defense Budget, since they seem be the only service which "get's it" in the post 9/11 warfare:

Since the Army is carrying most of the load in the War on Terror,
and thus is more susceptible to reform than the other two, they should get the
lions share of the annual funds, say a 50%-25%-and 25% ratio. Then perhaps their
more hi-tech siblings would become less interested in fighting some future war
that never occurs and be more useful in wars we already have.

And here is what the Christian Science Monitor reveals, that some in the legislature are finally coming around:

A bipartisan House panel is nudging the Pentagon to begin a
conversation on how to reform itself in many ways. But at the Pentagon, talk of
change usually has a budgetary impact...The fiscal 2009 budget request released
this month, for example, shows the Army requesting a 27 percent share, the Air
Force asking for a 28 percent share, and the Navy, which includes the Marine
Corps, wanting a 29 percent share of the proposed $515 billion budget.
Cooper's seven-member panel is expected to release a study this week on each
of the branches' "roles and missions" that may threaten services that are seen
to perform more conventional warfare...

"There should be vociferous support from inside the services,
since the military has been left carrying the burden of the failures of our
national security institutions," reads a draft of the report, to be released
Thursday. "Instead, our military has resisted change just as they have past
efforts at reform. The Air Force and Navy are reemphasizing more traditional
threats and downplaying the unexpected threats we face today."

The Army has its own Navy and air force, and the Marines also emphasize air support for troops rather than Cold War era first strike and air superiority strategies. If the other services won't face reality, their funds should be passed on to those who know how to use them.

Concerning the hi tech military: I just don't see how we can continue to build weapons that take decades to design and field, are so costly we can only afford a handful, that must remain in service for decades still for some future uncertain conflict. Meanwhile, the weapons we use in the wars we actually do fight, such as helicopters, ground attack planes, transports, and tankers, are older than the pilots that fly them or the generals who command them!

It won't continue to work, this hi tech military. Something has to give.

The Pentagon's Lame Defense Hike

Its not nearly enough. From the Associated Press:

The Pentagon is seeking more than $20 billion in its 2009 budget to
increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps as the military struggles to
fight wars on two fronts, according to documents obtained by The Associated
Press.
The proposed budget, which will be unveiled Monday, will call for
$15.5 billion to boost the size of the Army by 7,000 soldiers, to a total of
532,400. And it will propose spending $5 billion to add 5,000 Marines to the
Corps, for a total of 194,000.
Separately, the budget will call for nearly
$11 billion to cover the costs of training, recruiting and retention.

A disproportionate amount of funds is then lavished on the defense industry:

Spending on aircraft, weapons, and research and development
defense-wide would total close to $184 billion, an increase of less than 5
percent over the current year. The Army alone is requesting $24.6 billion for
weapons and aircraft programs, an increase of $2 billion over its current
spending level.

I previously supported former presidential candidate Fred Thompson's call for a "million-man army" and marine corps, which I think is the bare minimum for the insurgency type warfare the West continues to find itself embroiled in. Great Power Conflict, the kind we generally prepare for with our massive and expensive fleets of fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers, and armored devisions, have been obsolete beginning with Korea 1950, with the end coming after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The military is reaching a point of desperation, especially the USAF as their fleets of fighters built in the Reagan Era, helicopters from the Vietnam War, plus bombers, transports and air tankers designed in the Korean Conflict are falling from the skies and dieing of old age. The Navy as well is unable or unwilling to restore even Cold War era ship numbers when they increasingly plan for a shrunken fleet as threats multiply.

Their is hope, however, to salvage America's fallen military fortunes, if we act now. My version of the defense budget would entail:

• A rush order of some 500 late model F-16s, bought off the shelf to replace older aircraft from the 1980's. If necessary, take over orders currently under contract for our allies. The need is that urgent
• A freeze on all large ships for the navy including aircraft carriers, stealth destroyers, and amphibious ships. Purchase large numbers of littoral type warships like fast catamarans, corvettes, and patrol ships, to restore vital numbers to the fleet.
• Cancel outright the bloated and hi-tech Future Combat System. Replacing it with wheeled vehicles like Strykers, MRAPs, and armored Humvees boought off the shelf. FCS technology could be added to these later if the technology proves viable.

All of the above is deemed vital to build up the ground forces, which have proved indispensable in dealing with Al Qaeda insurgents, who have proved so adept at countering our hi-tech and equipment heavy combat forces.

A Defense Budget for the Long Haul

It is ironic that the nation with the world's largest defense budget, more than all the world combined, can be suffering with antiquated equipment such as warplanes literally falling from the skies. It is true that the budget it stretched thin with many fingers in the pie, as this from the Weekly Standard reveals:

First, we now have an all-volunteer force that costs a lot more
when it comes to personnel, insurance, housing, and retirement benefits than our
previous draft-heavy force. Unless Americans and their representatives in
Washington want to return to conscription, which no one except Rep. Charles
Rangel seems ready to do, fielding a force is just going to be a lot more
costly. Second, the weapons and platforms we buy are fewer in number, and partly
as a result we ask them to do more. That in turn drives costs up. Third, one
reason we spend more than others is that with the major exception of China
virtually everyone else cut spending at the end of the Cold War and has kept
cutting. Fourth, unless we want a whole different global security order, the
burden of keeping the peace in the world remains largely in America's hands, as
manifest in the fact that we have gone to war multiple times since the fall of
the Berlin Wall. And, finally, yes, we do spend a lot, but we are also fighting
two wars.

Lets focus on the second problem, which I think is something we can do fix now, specifically the high cost of modern weaponry. With our current method of procurement, the present expenditure on the military of about $500 million, or 3.5% of the GDP would have to grow to $1 trillion, or 7% of our economy and maybe more to rebuild our forces. This is taking into account that we continue to purchase $200 million jet fighters, $8 billion aircraft carriers, and $10 million battle tanks.

Over at Information Dissemination they may have inadvertently stumbled on a more economical way without draining our national treasure dry: common hulls. Here's Galrahn:

As shipbuilding costs have continued to rise, several suggestions
have been made to help bring down the costs in shipbuilding. Among the many
suggestions, one that continues to rise to the top is for the Navy to use common
hull strategies for ships, similar to how the Spruance class destroyer hull and
Ticonderoga class cruiser used the same hull.

This works for me, except I would go a further step and require the entire military to to place in production a common weapons program, to bring some sanity and affordability to procurement. Back in 2006, I described what such a 21st Century US military would be like:

• Army: Consisting of mainly Stryker type armored vehicles and up armored Humvees for rapid air transport. Increase use of troop-carrying helicopters as an “anti-IED” vehicle. Manpower increased to produce a “Million Man” Active Army, lessening dependence on the Reserves and National Guard.
• Navy: 200 Common Naval Platforms, built to mercantile specifications, with removable mission modules for use as a vertol aircraft carrier, missile launcher, troop transport, or cargo/replenishment ships. 100 conventional fueled littoral submarines, or new unmanned submersibles as they are available. 400 littoral combat ships and patrol craft forward deployed against terrorist pirates and enemy diesel subs.
• Air Force: 2000 Common Air Platforms based on a commercial derivative (Airbus or Boeing), for use as bomber, maritime patrol, transport, or tanker. 2000 light fighters based on late model production aircraft such as the F-16 or British Hawk trainer.
• Marine Corps: Converted back to its traditional naval infantry and light interventionist role, for service on Navy’s littoral ships. Retire expensive and vulnerable amphibious fleet.

These ideas aren't set in stone; the point being is to provide a continuous manufacturing supply of weapons available at all times for the military, whenever a plane, warship, or armored vehicle reaches the end of its usefulness due to age. The new Digital Age technology would be the key to make such a strategy work, as the type of platform is no longer as important as the weapon it carries. This is why you have 7th Century-minded Al Qaeda terrorists running around in pajamas, brandishing cell phones as IED detonators, computers as recruiting tools, and ordinary airliners as weapons of mass destruction. They make our hi-tech and expensive fleets of stealth bombers and supercarriers appear ridiculously nonessential in such a lo-tech conflict.

The key is still our technology, especially robot planes, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and communications equipment. The JDAMS, UAVs and Tomahawks, are the real revolution in warfare, not the stealth bombers, or Abrams Battle Tanks, or super stealth destroyers, which can only be afforded in small numbers, with decades-long construction cycles, often making the platform obsolete before they are deployed. Concerning the JDAM, Strategypage reveals the revolution such arms have brought to warfare:

JDAM (GPS satellite guided bombs) were developed in the 1990s,
shortly after the GPS network went live. These weapons entered service in time
for the 1999 Kosovo campaign, and have been so successful, that their use has
actually sharply reduced the number of bombs dropped, and the number of sorties
required by bombers. The air force generals are still trying to figure out where
this is all going.

I'm thinking this new technology is bringing down the cost of the warfare, though the Admirals, Generals, and Politicians have yet to realise this fact.

For further thoughts, read my earlier post titled Not More, But Smarter Defense Spending.

The Military Year in Review

Martin Sieff, over at the UPI has a good analysis. I'll pick the article apart starting with:

The feckless defense cuts of the Clinton administration while extending U.S. military commitments around the world had been followed by seven "fat" years of booming defense budgets under Republican President George W. Bush that soared to record levels after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001...

"Fat years", as he continues, which have been basically wasted as we've seen basic services neglected and weapons wearing out because of the Pentagons continued purchasing of hi-tech weaponry. Such arms are so expensive that wars come and go before they are in service, with our troops forced to soldier on with out-of-date equipment.

The year ended with 450 F-15 Eagle interceptors grounded for an indefinite period after one had crashed in Missouri, revealing serious structural wear to its fuselage's metal skeleton. There was nothing wrong with the design of one of the most successful U.S. combat aircraft of modern times, but the F-15 has been a Mach 2 super-fighter and fighter-bomber for more than three decades, and that kind of wear and tear takes its toll on even the most wonderfully designed and superlatively maintained aircraft...

I'd dearly love to see such still useful planes, if they must remain in service for decades, to be replaced with an updated model of the same aircraft (often still in production for our allies long after the US completes its orders), say, every 5 years, much as the average American will buy a new car. It is criminal, or should be, when our forces are driving planes and tanks which their grandfathers likely took to war decades earlier.

The Bush administration continued as its predecessors had done to accept the ingrained way the U.S. armed forces' senior officers chose their weapons systems. The emphasis remained on quality rather than quantity, on trusting cutting-edge technologies and superlative space-based reconnaissance and communications systems, rather than seeking to increase the scale of production runs and keep weapons simpler, and more affordable and easier to produce.

This might have been adequate for the brief, "Six Day War" strategy which the Army embraced after Vietnam, but hardly the right scenario for a conflict which might last us for decades. Some easier, and cheaper way of producing rugged, and affordable weaponry must be devised to give our troops the dominance it will need in the new Century. I mentioned earlier how desperately the Navy needed a General Petraeus to give it some sense of direction and relevance in the new century, but the whole DOD procurement process needs a major overhaul, with some late 20th Century purchasing ideas being scrapped altogether. Rather than an "Outstanding and Sparse" military, we could use some "Good and Plenty" of everything!

Walmarting Defense

Here's is Walmart founder and American entrepreneur Sam Walton on his revolutionary company's mission:

"The secret of successful retailing is to give your customers what they want. And really, if you think about it from your point of view as a customer, you want everything: a wide assortment of good-quality merchandise; the lowest possible prices; guaranteed satisfaction with what you buy;"

Walmart has been the death of many companies mired in the old, pre-globalization way of marketing consumer goods. One of these has been the fix-it and repair shop. Remember when you could see such local owned stores on almost every street corner? Instead of buying costly new merchandise, you could take your black and white TV, or radio, or toaster oven and have it fixed in jiffy by a friendly repairman. These days, cheap consumer goods are available at your local Walmart store, often for less than an old appliance can be fixed.

Meanwhile, the US Defense industry is still mired in the Medieval way of providing goods for the military's need. It is a far cry from its 1940 forbears who were able to mass produce cheap but effective arms for not just US forces, but the Allied powers as well. In contrast, modern weapons platforms, like planes, tanks, and ships are like works of art, individually so costly and technically complicated that we dare not consider losing even one in combat.

But weapons were meant to be lost, destroyed, cast aside when useless and a new one procured ASAP. This is not how our modern military works, who are consistently sent to war with arms built in another era. These includes planes from the Eisenhower administration, helicopters from the Vietnam War, and tanks from the 1980's Reagan buildup. This article on the backlog of MRAP vehicles desperately needed in Iraq is revealing:

The Pentagon's $23 billion program to rush thousands of lifesaving vehicles to Iraq is bogged down by production delays and the demands of the military services, members of Congress said Thursday...
Even though the 15,274 MRAPs to be built are needed to protect U.S. troops from the common threat of roadside bombs, each branch of the armed services has its own unique gear it wants installed, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

In World War 2, chief of the Army General George Marshall gave US Industry orders to produce basic weapons which could be provided quickly to the troops already in the field. Often this caused problems, as Axis tanks were often better armed and armored than the American M-4 Sherman, and British tactics were especially wasteful to armored vehicles. Yet, for each Sherman destroyed several more could easily take its place, often just a few months fresh from the factory. The US built over 50,000 M-4s in the war.

A way to end wasteful spending and procurement delays in the defense industry is for the services to order basic platforms in planes, ships, and armored vehicles. These would be no-frills, cheap as possible weapons that could later be provided with armament suitable to its functions, whether precision bombs, cruise missiles, or advance air-to-air missiles. We can then trust in American high training standards, and the benefits from computer technology to defeat our enemies, rather than spending precious funds on hot-fighters and stealth bombers.

Taking Sam Walton's philosophy to heart, we could then provide our boots on the ground with effective weapons when they need them, not decades later when technology and new ideas have long moved on.