Nincompoop

I had been focused on writing about the future of the Air Force but feel I neglected my favorite nincompoop, Secretary Hagel.  How can one announce a force reduction not seen since before WWII and then state, "American dominance in the seas, sky and space can no longer be taken for granted"(Daily Mail).  You have just confirmed publicly what China and Russia has suspected for sometime…the United States is no longer a threat.

Look at this little graphic that was in the Daily Mail article:

Russia and China have always assumed what they lacked in technology, they more than made up for in sheer numbers.  Now with the technology gap also decreasing, what exactly can be done if say Moscow decides to invade Ukraine?  Or if China and Japan decide to revisit long existing hostilities?

Hagel slugs on even though his cuts means he knows the US military will become a paper tiger, he states the Department of Defense Strategy "is focused on defending the homeland against all strategic threats, building security globally by projecting U.S. influence and deterring aggression, and remaining prepared to win decisively against any adversary, should deterrents fail".  The most obvious criticism of this asinine statement "defending the homeland".

According to the Department of Homeland Security website, "The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards." Looks like the SecDef is allowing his department into mission creep and spending money unnecessarily on defending the homeland.

The next criticism is when he says "...building security globally by projecting U.S. influence".  Well Mr. Secretary there is no way to do that when you are closing bases overseas and cutting your force structure.  You can't deter aggression if you aren't there!  Cuts to aircraft and a lack of reinvestment in surface ships guarantees the US military will be unable to deliver on the Sec Def's assurance of "remaining prepared to win decisively against any advisory".  Unless of course he means nuclear forces will now be used.  Of course that can't be since Mr. Obama wants to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.

But wait, there is more from this nitwit that makes no sense:

Hagel confirmed that the Pentagon would soon 'shift its operational focus and forces to the Asia-Pacific [region]' while it continue to aggressively pursue global terrorist networks.'--Daily Mail

And how pray tell are troops supposed to get there?  Is DHS supposed to be dealing with the terrorists? And most importantly, how are you going to sustain prolonged operations without the troops and equipment for the long haul?  The nuclear option keeps coming to mind but of course, we aren't heading that way…except why then all of the fuss about cheating scandals in the nuclear forces?

Many will point to how the small troop strength prior to both world wars heavily contributed to those wars occurring.  What many fail to point out is how long those wars actually went on BECAUSE of the lack of troops and equipment.  Let's look at just one example from World War II.

When the United States entered WWII, it's primary air-to-air fighter was the P-39 Airacobra.  It lacked sufficient speed and performance at high altitude (above 18,000 feet) to be effective against the German and Japanese fighters.  The years between 1917 and 1941 saw a decided lack of investment in aviation technology.  The result was it would be almost 5 years before the US could field the premier fighter of World War II, the P-51 Mustang.

Yes, we are plowing ahead with the F-35 despite some serious design problems and huge price tag but the supporting systems are no where to be found.  The A-10 was almost completely eliminated but saved at the last minute.  C-17s are ending their production run.  The KC-46 is being given the go ahead but there won't be enough made so at least 200 legacy KC-135s will be maintained.  The B-52s are now being flown by the grandsons of the pilots who first flew them nearly 60 years ago.

We can't spend widely on the military but what is so ridiculous about the current Sec Def is how ineffective he has been at organizing his department.  Rather then cut spending and making the US more lethal, he has cut spending and made us a hell of a lot more vulnerable.

The Ragged Ede

Air Force is flying "at the ragged edge." The Marine Corps is not equipped to handle a contingency if it were to arise in the Pacific theater. And, the Army doesn't even have enough resources to fulfill some of its "most basic needs," warned Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), House Armed Services Committee chairman.

Yet a newly formed committee has until Thanksgiving to come up with $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in savings or an automatic cut will kick in that will decimate the US military, said McKeon. "Fifty percent of the mandatory cuts associated with the [automatic] trigger are from the Defense Department. Fifty percent. That's a deeply unbalanced number with defense accounting for less than 20 percent of federal spending,"

While I admire the Congressman's frankness, he doesn't list some big ticket programs that could be a huge step in reducing DoD spending.  The F-35 is the most expensive acquisition program in the history of the U.S. armed forces.  According to the Daily Tech, the program is pegged at somewhere in the $380 billion range and the costs keep moving upward.  

The tanker replacement program to find a new air refueler will cost at least $25 billion just in the first phase.  There has already been on very costly scandal involved in finding a replacement tanker.  I have no reason to believe this version won't have cost overruns as well.

Why am I picking on the USAF?  Because the F-35 and KC-46 programs are a legacy from the days when manned aircraft were how we fought air wars.  The 21st Century has shown us the efficiencies of unmanned aerial vehicles.  They cost less to operate than manned aircraft, they can remain on station for much longer periods of time, they don't risk the lives of pilots, they can operate from the most austere locations, and they don't require air refueling.

Instead of looking to cut manned aircraft programs (while increasing drones), Secretary of Defense Panetta wants to restructure military retirements.

In contrast to what both the Secretary Clinton and Panetta have said about China, Rep McKeon said the Pentagon's recent report to Congress on China's growing military was "face whitening."  The report "outlined a country that is emboldened with a new-found military might and drunk with economic power," said Rep. Buck McKeon, "For the first time in history, Beijing believes that they can achieve military parity with the United States." 

China has the production capacity to far out produce the US military industrial complex.    Trying to match their capacity is a game we will lose.  Ah but we have the technological advantage some may argue.

In our pursuit of reducing costs, we have outsourced much of technology to overseas companies.  The risks of this practice are only now being realized by cyber analysts who point out malicious hardware and codes could be built into our cellphones and other electronic equipment.  Our imagined technological advantaged could be zeroed out by the push of a button.

The US has been at war for ten years and both the troops and the civilians are growing tired.  China on the other hand hasn't had to devout serious amounts of resources to a war since World War II.  

The Obama Administration needs to realize the rest of the world is not impressed with us.  We have lost whatever competitive edge we enjoyed.   The drop in the S&P bond rating and squabbling over the budget have show just how tenuous our economy is to the rest of the world.

If the military gets hacked down to pre-9/11 levels, we won't have the time to ramp back up if we are attacked.  Reducing the budgets needs to include a plan that recognizes that our next conflict could be the last.

Gates: North Korea will pose direct threat to US

First Iran and now North Korea, the United States seems unable to determine which threat it wants to stare down. Furthermore, Sec Def Gates record for correctly assessing the capability of our potential adversaries seems woefully lacking. The Chinese are fielding the J-20 prototype a full decade ahead of his predictions. The Chinese have also built an anti-shipping missile that seems capable of knocking the snot out of a carrier battle group. Now his assessment is that North Korea is a direct threat due to long range missiles. Well North Korea did not just go out and get that technology.

To be fair, the Secretary is not making these assessments by rather a whole staff of advisors who are presumably pulling intelligence from throughout the Department of Defense. I have the feeling that intelligence that was not consistent with the Sec Def's strategic vision were either filtered or ignored. I suspect Gates' vision is one of a stable world situation that would allow a drawn down of the forces that have grown over the last 10 years. Such a view is one driven more be the economics of waging a two front war than of the reality of the world. North Korea really is undergoing only its second change of leadership since its founding. Iran is rediscovering its Persian Empire roots at a time when the US superpower is waning. China and Russia have just completed an oil pipeline that will give both the needed resources to continue to be major players on the world front.

The US has relied on coalition forces to wage military operations in the last two decades. Support has come primarily from European nations but those nations now face a failing Euro. The United Kingdom is getting rid of its aircraft carriers and is talking with France about forming a joint self-defense force. It is unlikely that should the US find itself in a shooting war with Iran or North Korea (or worse, both at the same time) that it will be able to turn to a coalition of European forces for help.

The US only has Japan and South Korea as military allies in the Pacific. Neither country has a power projection capability. A war on the Korean Peninsula will almost assuredly guarantee and attack by North Korea on Japan. The casualties on the peninsula will be unimaginable, even if it doesn't go nuclear, since there is a huge population densely packed on a small land mass.

Perhaps Gates will prove to be again be wrong, only this time it means we won't be facing a threat.

Article Here

Pentagon to cut spending by $78 billion, reduce troop strength

President Obama increased troop strength by 30,000 in 2009 making current levels over 90,000. According to iCasualties.org, US casualties were 155 in 2008, 317 in 2009 (the year of the increase), and 499 in 2010. Given these numbers, Secretary Gates comment that "what had been a culture of endless money . . . will become a culture of savings and restraint" is especially offensive. The "endless money" is for the conduct of the war in which American service men and women are dying.

On top of that, China has unveiled a stealth fighter prototype and a anti-ship missile capable of knocking out a carrier battle group. The US military has been at war since 2001 (something that escapes many people thanks to both the Bush and now Obama administrations reluctance to ask Americans to make sacrifices). The OPSTEMPO has cause the lifecycle of many weapon systems to shrink geometrically in relationship to OPERATION IRAQI and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. Now President Obama and Secretary Gates want to cut the budget to prove a point? If they truly want to save money, why not truly bring the troops home (something the President promised during his campaign) and save the taxpayers billions of dollars.

Link Here