Tuesday, January 01, 2013

Defense and the budget.

I haven't blogged much on defense lately...I've been focusing on the gun ban bill soon to hit.

Luckily CDR Salamander is thinking about it and things look grim.  Check out his entire article at his house but this tidbit has me worried...
The "deal" that everyone is talking about from last night will do nothing. The problem is spending, and all the class warfare perpetual campaign taxing will do nothing to either grow the economy of fix the budget problem.  A promise to cut spending some insignificant amount at a later date is just an advertisement of the dismal state of leadership, vision, and courage we are in.
The Republicans only control the House, so there is only so much they can do even if they had a different Speaker than Boehner. Senator Reid's Senate has not passed a budget (in violation of the Constitution) in years. The President has neither the background or the inclination to be a national leader or to govern, he is a revolutionary. He is doing exactly what he wants to do, that is to create wholesale change in this nation more in line with his ideology.  We elected him to do so, and he is doing it.  Agree or disagree, but what do you expect him to do?
So, as we talk about "payloads and platforms," Pacific Pivot, the LCS makeitwork patch of the month, and all that good stuff, remember this - it is no more important than Napoleon in 1812 deciding on the best winter gear for his infantry. Important in an isolated sense, but not critical to the macro decisions happening in the background.
All this has been known for years - Professor Lieberman warned us about it in the late 80s as I sat in his classroom in quasi disbelief that we would ever let this happen.  Well, we did, and here we are.
As I outlined in an email to some folks last night, our plans for a future fleet right now is vapor-locked, and unless a major global war or significant regional maritime war breaks out in the next decade, there is a better than even chance that on the Surface side of the house at least, we will be in stasis until we leave the 2020s. 
The big challenge for the next 15-years will be force level preservation in a military fiscal environment not unlike the the time period of 1920-1933 - without the innovation that we saw in the same period in carrier and cruiser development.  
Yeah.

Sobering.

And if you break it down to the Marine Corps what does it mean?  Probably that we will have to "play with what we have in hand" for a generation.

I don't follow the Commandant or the SgtMajor of the Marine Corps because quite frankly I don't like them (though I've never met them), don't trust them, have zero respect for them and think that they lack courage.  Not physical courage but moral courage...of course that can be laid at the feet of 99% of our leaders today so that just makes them ordinary.

The bad news is that this is a time when extraordinary leadership was called for and the people sitting in the big chairs are all lacking.  But I digress.  I don't follow him closely but in reading some news stories I came across him warning of tough cutbacks.

What does that mean?

Probably pain all over the place.

Keep your eyes on the Marine Personnel Carrier...the JLTV...the GCV...CH-53K and perhaps even the F-35.

Can you feel it?  Something tells me 2013 is gonna suck. 

5 comments :

  1. Well,does the US Army really need a GCV?An 80 tons monster that loses the ATGM cap.of the Bradley and does nothing to fix its main flaws?The main gun is the same ,its still not amphibious and forget it being deploiable...
    wouldnt it be better to build an upgraded version of the Bradley?
    As for the replacement of the M-113...nothing out the is airborne or amphibious like the M-113.Its cheap ,easy to upgrade and even Israel loves using it in the worst places of the world.
    The JLTV does not seen to do anything that an upgraded HMMWV proposed by BAE does not do.
    Im eaven going to ask?Does the USMC really need the MPC?Upgraded M-113s could fill the role...put all the fochus on the ACV.Should go whit BAEs proposal of a very upgraded AAV-7 design...
    Does the Army need a new Individual Carbine?The M-4 A1 is allready the favorite weapon of almost all the western Special Forces...
    A lot of money is being speend in things that the US armed forces dont need.Maybe the budget cuts will have a good side.Armed forces and industry will have to work better to produce weapons the we really need...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well i look at defense spending in a couple of different lights. first for the US its one of the few areas where we still have a strong manufacturing sector. next i look at defense as being a gateway to new tech which has applications across the spectrum...having said that i'm no fool. i realize that their is tons of waste and bloat. first thing i would aim at is the General Officer Corps..but notice that no one is talking about cutting the number of Generals in even the supposedly stingy Marine Corps. what gives?

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Solomon,but these projects that i listed are not new technologies.
      Do we see the russians or the chinese investing in such things?AND they have new amphibious and airbone vehicles that the 82nd or the USMC need.None of the enemy Vehicles is heavier of more protected than the M-113.BAE has proposed modular armour,new board systems and a diesel/electric engine for it.There are dozens of turrets and RWS for it...So ,what are we wathing for?
      I agree with you that new tech is important,but i think you are talking about rail guns,lasers,VLO,nanotech,missile defense genetics and stuff like that...
      Your rifles and carbines are some of the best in the world so why replace it?Why not whait until LSAT tech becomes mature?The JLTV is a HUMMWV on steroids...an 200$ RPG can take it out just like any other vehicle like that...
      The MPC is a wheeled APC and not a true replacement for the LAV-25.Why not a tracked M-113?
      I am surprised that bouth the Army and Marine Corps arent looking more into compound helicopters like the S-97(X-2 tech).Now thats something that our foes dont have...
      Its not only the US Armed Forces that have that problem with GOC.All of NATO is rotten with that.But Belgium found a way:they reform their Armed Forces from top to down.They merged their branches into one component.You can read it on WIKIPEDIA.One branch only ,less stupid jobs for fat officers and lazzy civilians.

      Delete
    3. well i don't think that will work for the US. think about our military before and during WW2. we basically had two services. the Army and Navy. after the war the Marines and Air Force broke off but it was because our forces became more specialized.

      it could be that we've reached a point where it no longer matters anymore but i don't think four small piles combined into one huge pile will bring efficiencies for the US.

      besides the US has world wide responsibilities whether we like it or not. Belguim can always fall back on NATO or Germany or France. the US doesn't have that luxury. other nations fall back on us.

      i don't know the answer but to refurb a 1960 era vehicle to make it work today as replacement for a MPC or Bradley or GCV just seems like a step backwards. the modern infantryman carries too much gear, the vehicle is too small and except for certain applications (airborne assault) it just wouldn't do.

      the answer? i don't know but i don't think the M113 is it.

      Delete
  2. Yeah...you are probably right on the M-113.I just hope that the Army and the Marine Corps get these vehicle programs right...i should stop reading Mike Sparks :).
    On the Armed forces branches i wouldnt go as far as putting all in one branch but i was suggesting an house cleaning like Belgium did.Just clean the dust...cut wath you dont need.
    P.S-But you cant convince me that James Bond isnt real...LOL

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.