Everyone is talking about the upcoming budget crunch that the US is facing in the defense sphere and reacting as if its the end of the world.
I beg to differ. While the wars have been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've seen a number of projects and initiatives started that don't fit our needs and should be done away with today.
1. JLTV. This vehicle started out as a HUMVEE replacement and then turned into a more modern M-ATV. Its too heavy, costs too much and if we need protection against IED's then its time to pull MRAPs out of storage. A number of manufacturers have developed upgrades for HUMVEEs that we should buy. The JLTV is just not needed.
2. GCV. The ground combat vehicle. Wow. Where do I start. First the Bradley in its ultimate form is already a world class vehicle. Second we have excess Bradley's and if the US Army needs a M-113 replacement, a better option would be to modify those excess Bradley's by removing the turrets, adding a RWS and installing ballistic seats and spall liners. Improvements in its suspension and power train along with additional armor in required areas should hold be sufficient for Army use.
3. Observation Helicopter Replacement. The US Army might as well face it. Its going to fly Kiowas till 2030. Just get on with it and upgrade the helicopters it has and buy new ones instead of developing a brand new supply chain and training centers. The AA-72X might be impressive. The OH-6 too and the AH-64 lite or whatever they're calling it but common sense and urgency require that the foolishness stop and reality accepted.
4. NGB. The next generation bomber is a pipe dream. Penetration of enemy defenses by large bombers is not going to happen. Money better spent would be to develop ultra high speed cruise missiles. Fixing existing bombers might help too. I find it hard to believe that the B-1 can't be re-engined to fill this role.
Of course there are a number of other programs that can go on this list ranging from small arms to nuclear weapons. The point is quite simply this. We can afford to make cuts in some of our defense programs without jeopardizing our safety and the safety of our allies. Even with as big as a one quarter cut in the defense budget and we still should be fine. Even in the face of a rising China.
Now if we could only make some cuts that would really help...you know, like getting rid of a whole ton of flag officers! That would make my day!
Disclaimer:
The Flag Officer remark is not aimed at Admiral Venelet. I simply believe that we have too many. Generals are in positions once commanded by Colonels. Etc...
I beg to differ. While the wars have been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've seen a number of projects and initiatives started that don't fit our needs and should be done away with today.
Of course there are a number of other programs that can go on this list ranging from small arms to nuclear weapons. The point is quite simply this. We can afford to make cuts in some of our defense programs without jeopardizing our safety and the safety of our allies. Even with as big as a one quarter cut in the defense budget and we still should be fine. Even in the face of a rising China.
Now if we could only make some cuts that would really help...you know, like getting rid of a whole ton of flag officers! That would make my day!
Disclaimer:
The Flag Officer remark is not aimed at Admiral Venelet. I simply believe that we have too many. Generals are in positions once commanded by Colonels. Etc...
The NGB is the only one I really disagree with. The rest provide incremental upgrades to existing capabilities. Some others (like the OH replacement) might be needed just because air frames will eventually wear out.
ReplyDeleteThe NGB (if built in numbers), provides flexible, long-range, Day 1, Raid 1 strike capabilities against sophisticated IADS. We only have a silver bullet version of this in the B-2. (which we should've bought a hundred of when we had the chance, IMHO)
We need this capability, perhaps more than we need the JSF, IMHO.
I'd add the LCS to this list and remove nuclear weapons from the list. Axing nukes (and the ability to design and build them) in today's world would border on insanity IMO.
ReplyDeleteI've got to disagree with you about about 2 and 4. Yet the GCV is being turned into a mess by the Army so maybe you're right. Why can't we get a new AFV right these days?!
ReplyDelete1 and 3 are something that should happen but they need to be pushed back and revised. JLTV became something it shouldn't have and Kiowa upgrades will have to do until we can get something like the S-97 Raider.
The LCS should be replaced in production by a decent frigate, but that is only part of what the LCS was supposed to do. It was supposed to replace minesweepers and other ships doing forgotten, but vital, roles like that.
Don't scrap the LCSs we have built or somewhat underway in construction either. I'm sure they can be put to some good use.
What is this AA-72 you're talking about?
The GCV has to be a significant improvement over the Bradley. Otherwise it's not worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteThe main improvement of the GCV is that is carries 9 dismounts vs the 6 in a Bradley which enables mechanized forces to significantly increase the number of riflemen which the real world has finally proven to the US Army they do require. It's an even larger need given each heavy brigade only has 1 mechanized battalion and at full TO&E 216 dismounts. That's 200 dismounts for an entire brigade.
ReplyDeleteLCS should be the first thing cut. It's a ridiculous concept that also hides the actual cost of the ship by separating out the mission modules none of which actually work at this time. Moreover, the entire notion of spending $600+ billion on a 3,0000 ton 40 knot mine warfare ship is just staggering. It's also worth noting the main mission of LCS being surface warfare is seriously undermined by it's lack of systems. The original NLOS missile was too short ranged and also could not be made to work. So the USN in it's wisdom is now trying to get an even shorter ranged system working. A 40 knot 500 ton patrol boat would be far most cost effective and if required could mount actual anti ship missiles.
Further to this the last report on the ASW module by the USN stated the module did not add any capability to the mission.