CSBA Strategic Choices Exercise Outbrief Video Part 2: AEI's Thomas Donnelly from CSBA on Vimeo.
Please take the time to listen to Donelly's brief on his suggestions for the military if sequester continues as is.
Its stunning. Eye opening and worrying.
The briefing slides are below and I recommend you open the video in Vimeo and then follow along with his slides. The highlights...
*USN is reduced in size and modernized. Cuts proposed are to get rid of 2 carriers, all cruisers etc...the F-35C amazingly is retained! Additionally he recommends keeping the LCS!
*USMC is reduced in size and modernized. End strength would fall to 135,000! Let me say that again. Instead of 202,000 Marines, he proposes to cut it to 135,000. Additionally he recommends SPEEDING UP F-35 procurement. I'm shaking my head in amazement and wondering if he's a consultant for Lockheed Martin.
*US Army retains its current size but IS NOT modernized. You like those Strykers and Bradleys? I hope so cause they're gonna be your ride for the next 20 years.
*SOCOM gets raped in this plan. MARSOC is disbanded under all scenarios. Special Forces is cut by 1/3. Navy SEALs lose a team. The manhunt mission is ended and training of foreign forces emphasized. Additionally he cuts Predator orbits by 2/3rds.
But wait for it. You won't believe this shit.
*USAF. Enlarged. Modernized. F-35 production is speeded up. Allies airplanes are sped up in production and I'm not sure and I'll correct this if I'm wrong but I got the impression that we would give/subsidize the buy. Again I'm not sure but the Air Force makes out like a bandit.
Additionally the world is divided.
The USAF and US Army would get the Middle East. The USN and US Marines would get the Pacific. One caveat. No carriers would be assigned to patrols in the Arabian Gulf. Check out the slides below and listen to his presentation.
Sidenote: Robert Work's presentation was surprisingly bland. He is obviously a Rumsfeld acolyte and believes that a small, high tech force will be able to win against numerically superior NEAR PEER adversaries. Go listen to his speech for yourself but I remain unconvinced and a non-believer. The HOPE that push button warfare has arrived is a pipe dream in my opinion and I expected more from him. One thing that I did like is that his proposal was to NOT cut the active Marine Corps at all. No loss of amphibious ships, and the Marine Corps would revert to its traditional role of a force in readiness.
Note 1: Four Think Tanks participated in this exercise. Members are coming out with a joint statement on Monday in which agreed upon recommendations are forwarded to Congress. I'll be looking for it. The executive summary should be thrilling.
Please take the time to listen to Donelly's brief on his suggestions for the military if sequester continues as is.
Its stunning. Eye opening and worrying.
The briefing slides are below and I recommend you open the video in Vimeo and then follow along with his slides. The highlights...
*USN is reduced in size and modernized. Cuts proposed are to get rid of 2 carriers, all cruisers etc...the F-35C amazingly is retained! Additionally he recommends keeping the LCS!
*USMC is reduced in size and modernized. End strength would fall to 135,000! Let me say that again. Instead of 202,000 Marines, he proposes to cut it to 135,000. Additionally he recommends SPEEDING UP F-35 procurement. I'm shaking my head in amazement and wondering if he's a consultant for Lockheed Martin.
*US Army retains its current size but IS NOT modernized. You like those Strykers and Bradleys? I hope so cause they're gonna be your ride for the next 20 years.
*SOCOM gets raped in this plan. MARSOC is disbanded under all scenarios. Special Forces is cut by 1/3. Navy SEALs lose a team. The manhunt mission is ended and training of foreign forces emphasized. Additionally he cuts Predator orbits by 2/3rds.
But wait for it. You won't believe this shit.
*USAF. Enlarged. Modernized. F-35 production is speeded up. Allies airplanes are sped up in production and I'm not sure and I'll correct this if I'm wrong but I got the impression that we would give/subsidize the buy. Again I'm not sure but the Air Force makes out like a bandit.
Additionally the world is divided.
The USAF and US Army would get the Middle East. The USN and US Marines would get the Pacific. One caveat. No carriers would be assigned to patrols in the Arabian Gulf. Check out the slides below and listen to his presentation.
Sidenote: Robert Work's presentation was surprisingly bland. He is obviously a Rumsfeld acolyte and believes that a small, high tech force will be able to win against numerically superior NEAR PEER adversaries. Go listen to his speech for yourself but I remain unconvinced and a non-believer. The HOPE that push button warfare has arrived is a pipe dream in my opinion and I expected more from him. One thing that I did like is that his proposal was to NOT cut the active Marine Corps at all. No loss of amphibious ships, and the Marine Corps would revert to its traditional role of a force in readiness.
Note 1: Four Think Tanks participated in this exercise. Members are coming out with a joint statement on Monday in which agreed upon recommendations are forwarded to Congress. I'll be looking for it. The executive summary should be thrilling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat minds brother! cause we definitely think alike. my boy Paralus always says People first...weapons are useless without people and we're going up against a mechanized Chinese armored formations if this guys anywhere close to the truth.
DeleteTo be honest, it was the late Col. John Boyd who always said "People, Ideas, Hardware - IN THAT ORDER! People fight wars, not machines"
DeleteI've never been accused of being a smart man but I've always been told that "Hope" is not a tactical task. I believe cuts are necessary but I'm amazed at the thinking that one aircraft can justify the loss of so many ground troops. Last time I was in Ramadi, I don't remember any aviation platform being able to hold blocking positions around Sadam Mosque or having the ability to conduct targeted raids on AQI safe houses. Kill the damn F35, fix the damn Ox issues in the F22 and let us get back to relearning the force maneuver battlefield that we have forgotten over the past 12 years. I had Armor LTs that were amazing negotiators but didn't know how to develop an engagement area let alone maneuver a platoon of tanks in an attack! We need to do basic things flawlessly again!
ReplyDeletesee the above. i'm able to see comments when they're published...even if the commenter deletes them to make modifications later.
DeleteI need to read before hitting submit. I wrote "group troops" when I meant ground troops. Don't expect too much from me. During officer's call, while the LTC talked Clausewitz, I was downloading funny youtube videos.
Deletedamn! too funny!
Deletesooooo, what adversarial nation has more than a few dozen tanks that we should worry about?
DeleteChina? Not unless you invade mainland China.
Russia...... all those cold war relics the M1 was designed to take out.
Iran..... if they eventually get their spare parts, their 70s era tanks may be dangerous... to a AAV.
Beyond those, no US-hostile nation has significant tank forces.
you're being so damn silly you're on the verge of being on my ignore list (not ban, just not even worth responding to) by that same logic why do we need the F-35 unless we invade China.
Deleteyou're being a DUMBASS. go sit down, shut the fuck up and think before you speak.
Nonsense.
DeleteModern SAMs are alot cheaper than gigantic tank forces. Even Iran has relatively modern SAMs.
To be fair the current cruiser class is pretty silly (carries less missiles than korean variant of Arleigh Burke Destroyers), and doesn't have decent legs. That doesn't mean the US shouldn't operate any cruisers (especially if the US is going to rely on the USN for ABM). And really, how is disbanding special forces and navy seals 'modernizing', it isnt... He even said without any cuts the US couldnt afford what they had last year, so what has changed! I agree that the USMC should change, but not get smaller, not become a marine airforce, instead upskill, get more efficient, more effective, be better equipped and have more emphasis on it than the army. If someone doesn't stop these people the US military will go the way of the royal military...
ReplyDeleteThe Royal military is only small due to the UK's idiotic budget cuts.
DeleteBritain had a MUCH bigger military in 2000, and no one complained about the cost.
Plus, the USMC is bigger than many nations whole armies.
Its a combination of budget cuts, poor procurement costs and inflated costs of producing equipment. For instance they type 45 destroyer cost like 1.7B USD whereas a similar ship (especially if you produced a slighlty larger stretched hull version) Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate cost around 333Million each. The french mistral class amphibious assault ship cost about 500M each (compared to what?). The eurofighter typhoon cost like 238M inc development costs (from wikipiedia don't know how reliable..). Then people turn around and say 'we can't afford x'. They do that here in new zealand too, yet they have no idea what things cost. Part of the problem is that for things like ship/aeroplane construction it becomes a social wealfare program to keep noncompetitive ports open.
DeleteOh well, according to this study the USMC had it's time in the sun, but Modern ASMs have made amphibious assault almost impossible.
ReplyDeleteAlso, who needs a carrier in the Gulf? We have PLENTY of airbases over there. No need to waste a carrier to show off to Iran.
dang dude what the hell are you talking about. you obviously didn't listen to the presentation OR read his briefing slides. the Marine Corps escapes relatively unscathed. you're just reacting aren't you.
DeleteIf unscathed, you mean a MASSIVE number of troops lost.
DeleteThis briefing REALLY (aka I want that LockMart money) likes the F-35, I'll give you that.
Also, we need at least 10 carriers, as 1/3 are either in refit or port at any one time.
Actually between 50-70% of carriers are typically in refit or port at any one time, mostly tending toward the latter. It is 50/50 now though.
Deletehttp://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
Good to know
DeleteForgive me if someone's already mentioned this... A quick search revealed that in 2002 Donelly here was the "Director of Strategic Communications and Initiatives for Lockheed Martin." So much for unbiased reporting!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aei.org/scholar/thomas-donnelly/
AWESOME CATCH! quite honestly i suspect that every think tank in DC is on the LM payroll. they've penetrated all parts of our govt. but still awesome work Bro!
DeleteNP. Just helping the team. This whole thing stinks like an old dirty jock strap... Keep up the good work Sol!
DeleteI wonder if the proposed cut of two carriers has anything to do with the fact that the British are currently building two of their own. I remember hearing a story several years ago that the US was pressurising the Brits to build them so they could cut two of their own
ReplyDeletethe US has pleaded and prodded europe in general to contribute more to defense but we never make cuts based on what they do. show me a link or it didn't happen.
DeleteDid he just say cut the F/A-18 force by 40 percent? What a fucking joke. This is obscene.
ReplyDeleteThis is only a think tank, but do how much clout do they have?
I guess what I really want to ask is how much of a push for Lockheed Martin is this?
ReplyDeleteEvery Republican/conservative/right-wing think tank is in the pocket of the weapons contractors. They always propose more, more expensive weaponry and less troops.
ReplyDeleteThomas Donnelly has a long and deep neocon pedigree.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/donnelly_thomas
My two cents:
ReplyDeleteReduce size of Marine Corps to 135,000. Makes sense if the "sweet spot" is somewhere between a company and a brigade - MEU, SPMAGTF, distributed company ops.
40% reduction of Navy F-18sHe most likely is referring to the older models A, B, C and D.
Reducing the number of carriers by two. Again, reasonable and many other experts have recommended reducing carriers by 2-3. Also, I believe the USN only has nine carrier air wings equipped with F18E/F/G planes.
Building more aircraft and downsizing troop strength. It takes longer to build aircraft and train pilots than it does infantry I see nothing wrong with his position other than people will lose their jobs.
When he recommends eliminating 1/3 of SF I don't believe he is referring to SFGs, but to battalions. Remember, during the last ten years the AC SFGs added a fourth battalion. A friend of mine who is a former SF guy said that in his opinion the quality of the SFGs went down with the addition of the 4th battalion and it left all battalions under strength. MARSOC is not needed - duplication of missions with SF and the SEALS. Eliminating one SEAL Team is also possible since Team 7 was activated during the GWOT.
The Bradley and Stryker work and there should not be a rush to replace either one with the GCV until DOD gets the cost under control (right now 9-11 million - fucking retarded).
Keep the LCS. Got me there. Ship is too expensive for what it supposedly does.
Rush F-35. Why? So pilots can crash 120 million dollar planes (I have to admit that would be cool). IMO if the G goes forward with the F-35 then only buy B and/or C models because of dual capabilities - sea and land based.
gute
David McSpadden, you don't need stealth to defeat SAMs, you need a coherenet EW and deception plan enabling lethal fires to take down the whole IADS network. Yes stealth has a role to play in that initial takedown, but we did it to Iraq, twice, with first and second generation stealth aircraft as part of the operational mix.
ReplyDeleteSure it takes less time to train infantry. But it takes a damn long time to train GOOD infantry. Remember what happened to the 104th Division at the Battle of the Bulge. You can't stand up massive amounts of green troops and expect them to hold the line. Even if you use them as replacements for seasoned units there is still a learning curve.
You know I asked a former Airman why the USAF was larger than the US Army, and he told me about how long the work hours were, how 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, maintaining planes to keep them flying was the norm. How it takes 100 people to keep a C5 airworthy. Alrighty then, if you do the math, aircraft operations still account for maybe half of the USAF, the rest is in things like STRATCOM, CYBERCOM, or other non-combatant commands that serve as worker bees to three letter agencies.
I'll close with a quote:
“In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies the buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
― T.R. Fehrenbach