via Marine Times....
The United Kingdom’s recent decision to drastically cut its military, including a decision not to purchase the jump-jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter [“Analysts: U.K. move to drop F-35B won’t raise costs,” Nov. 1], holds a lesson for our own similarly challenging economic times.
Britain’s fleet once policed the seas and now tries to keep afloat a token measure of their past maritime dominance. Their decisions make near-term fiscal sense, but cut at the quick of their national military capability. We are faced with many of these same, tempting cost-cutting decisions, and we’d be well-served to make our decisions aligned with long-term strategic interests, rather than current financials.
As Marines, we pride ourselves on being most ready when the nation is least, but no longer can that readiness be defined inexpensively by a full canteen, bandoleer and Army hand-me-downs. Nine years at war and casualties have changed that ultra low-cost “have gun, will travel” construct. Today, the nation requires the Corps to fill a band of military requirements short of the Army, but more robust than the exquisite skills of the U.S. Special Operations Command community. We prevent conflict with our forward-deployed presence and, if needed, we buy time for follow-on forces to arrive or negotiation to begin. To fill that middleweight-fighter requirement, the Corps must retain its essential character as an expeditionary air-ground general purpose force — a force with a fighting weight exceeding the sum of its pounds.
Beyond our bedrock requirement for amphibious shipping, we are not beholden to any single program, but our young Marines need the capabilities resident in certain platforms to safeguard lives and prevail in conflict. The short-take-off-and-vertical-landing JSF, MV-22 Osprey and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle are not inexpensive, but are a value when compared to the lives they will save and the operational flexibility they will provide. They are an investment in our children’s future, a hedge against the arc of history and the necessary premium of peace to prevent the terrible cost of war.
Col. Bryan Salas, director of public affairs
Headquarters Marine Corps
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewell 'me'...i totally disagree. your logic is flimsy. uk harriers have operated off USN LHDs.
ReplyDeleteyour logic is faulty, your analysis suspect and your motives obvious.
Defensiveness!
ReplyDeleteWhat- did someone catch you during your period? lol.
Couldn't disagree with him more.
ReplyDeleteThe billions spent on these gold plated programs would have been much better served buying existing, conventional platforms.
-Upgraded and refurbished helicopters could have been had for a mere fraction of the V-22.
-Standard issue F-18s already in use would have served Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq far better than a very few F-35B's. As they would have been plentiful and available to actually provide air support.
-The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle has seen billions spent on it with results, while thousands of Marines have died in sub standard vehicles fighting overseas.
If I was in any position of power I would fire Col. Bryan Salas for fighting domestic battles over budgets (for failed programs of dubious value), rather than paying attention to the real battles his Marines are facing in two theaters.