Could These Intended Cuts Devastate the Military?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Darin Jordan
    Fast Electric Addict!
    • Apr 2007
    • 8332

    #1

    Could These Intended Cuts Devastate the Military?

    07/29/2009

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32895


    Last week, the Obama administration succeeded in killing the F-22 Raptor program, ending production of the fastest, longest-range, stealthiest, most survivable strike fighter in the world.

    Obama’s stated reasoning was that we haven’t used the F-22 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, we haven’t used nuclear submarines, ICBMs, or strategic missile defense in Iraq and Afghanistan either. Does this mean we should cancel those programs as well?

    Whether politicians choose to understand it or not, the purpose of strategic military systems is to deter strategic threats. And if we have learned anything since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is just how rapidly the world can change.

    Obama has also stated his intention to cut deeply into missile defense, just as North Korea and Iran are becoming more belligerent to the U.S. and our allies and are test firing missiles of increasing range. Is this not a predictable threat? And if U.S. missile defense were not a serious deterrent, why is Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin so emphatic in his opposition to it?

    It is also important to note that it is not just America’s strategic systems and capabilities that are being diminished by the Obama administration. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) revealed last week that shortages in the Navy and Marine Corps strike fighters are far worse than was earlier predicted. Instead of a shortfall of 125 fighters, we now are facing a shortage of a least 300 fighters. That’s about six aircraft carriers worth of strike fighters.

    No one can seriously claim that the F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets are not being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, CRS found that the principal reason for worsening F-18 shortages is the wear and tear these top line fighters are getting from operations in those theatres. Yet there are no serious plans to ramp up F-18 production to fill the gap, and the Navy’s version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is not expected to be operational for another six years.

    Another vital military capability slated for cuts is the Future Combat Systems program. This program offers our soldiers integrated communications command and control systems that give them far greater intelligence and significant new tactical advantages over the enemies they face. These are systems soldiers and military experts refer to as force multipliers, meaning they allow one U.S. soldier to overcome the capabilities of many enemy soldiers. Again, this is not a system built to suit some mythical threat. It is specifically designed for U.S. troops outnumbered by the enemy -- exactly the situation we are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Whether it comes to dealing effectively with current threats, or deterring strategic aggression over the time horizon, theses defense cuts are a bad idea.


    Mr. Schroeder, United States Marine Corps Reserve (Retired), served in Vietnam, Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina during the Balkan Civil War. He also served as Chief of the Military Liaison Team to the Republic of Slovenia after duty in Sarajevo. He is currently a lawyer in private practice in Castle Rock, Colorado.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."
  • Bill-SOCAL
    Fast Electric Addict!
    • Nov 2007
    • 1406

    #2
    The DOD wanted to stop the F-22 program for some time but the defense lobby stopped it. This fighter was developed to fight an enemy that no longer exists and has turned out to be a total hangar queen.

    The funds from the F-22 program are being diverted into the F-35 JSF and more UAV, both of which are better suited for the conflicts we are facing and will face in the future.

    The Navy would not have used the F-22 so that would not have any impact on F-18 acquisition, in fact the money saved may be available to fill that gap.

    The FCS program has also been shown to be a huge money pit with very little positive return for the actual troops. So while the author is up in arms about the cuts he fails to mention the programs are not really wanted by the Pentagon and the money is being redirected into more effective weapon systems.

    But that's bad somehow?





    Don't get me started

    Comment

    • Darin Jordan
      Fast Electric Addict!
      • Apr 2007
      • 8332

      #3
      Funny... I don't see anyone calling the F15 a "hanger queen"... The F22 is it's direct replacement... AND, the F-35 isn't designed to fill this role...

      Dietsch: Without additional F-22s, American dominance of airspace over all future battlefields in jeopardy



      By DAVID DIETSCH

      Special to the Star-Telegram





      The Senate vote last week to cut funds for the continued production of the F-22 fighter is fraught with danger for America’s future national security.

      The Raptor is the one aircraft that can ensure our domination of the airspace over whatever battlefield we may find ourselves on far into the future.



      The projected 187 planes may seem more than adequate to today’s threat, but other nations continue to develop more capable fifth-generation fighters and highly deadly surface-to-air missiles, both of which can and will be proliferated to many armed forces as the world economy continues to compete.



      Modern weapon systems take a very long time to develop. The F-22 program began development in the late 1980s. Because of this long development cycle and the admittedly high cost of capable modern weapon systems, most of the senators who voted to terminate the program will no doubt be out of government — and many may not even be alive — when the United States finds itself faced with a serious threat that only this aircraft can defeat.



      When aircraft necessarily dedicated to training pilots to fly the airplane and those that are in necessary maintenance are subtracted, the total available for combat falls to 100. Again, this may seem like an impressive number, but historically, our military planning has been based on the ability to fight simultaneous engagements in two theaters. One hundred aircraft would be hard-pressed to provide air dominance in two theaters simultaneously, and the freedom of other air assets as well as ground and naval forces to operate as they choose starts with air dominance.



      The F-35 Lightning II, while a superior aircraft for its mission, was not developed to attain and maintain air dominance and, indeed, relies on that to be effective at its intended role of ground attack. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which play a crucial role in intelligence and real-time attack, would be useless in an environment without air dominance.


      If the Senate’s will stands, the United States will have taken its first step since the end of World War II in abdicating its position as the world’s superpower — a position attained through the blood and sacrifice of millions of Americans. To whom do we want to relinquish that position?



      Retired Air Force Col. David Dietsch of Arlington is president of Air Force Association Texas.
      Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
      "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

      Comment

      • Bill-SOCAL
        Fast Electric Addict!
        • Nov 2007
        • 1406

        #4
        I never said the F-15. Read the Washington Post article, a paper which is no tool of the left by any accounts, it is pretty clear about the problems with the F-22.

        And Gates, who may I remind you was appointed by Bush, is no wussy when it comes to spending. What he is trying to do is spend the money where it makes sense, not just spend it to save a program to make a Congressman or lobbyist happy.
        Don't get me started

        Comment

        • Darin Jordan
          Fast Electric Addict!
          • Apr 2007
          • 8332

          #5
          Bill... I've read the article...

          I can GUARANTEE you that I am WAY closer to the source on this one than you, or that Washington Post reporter could ever hope to be... His facts were correct, if you believe in reporting from OLD facts... I'm not going to go into any detail, but let's just say that all endevours of this magnatude, including the F-15, F-18, and every other aircraft out there, especially those using new technology, go through growing pains...

          Your UCAVs, and your F-35, won't be any more effective without the F22, than the F-16 is without the F-15 to provide air dominance...

          When one only reports on the problems that have occurred, and not on the human spirit, inginuity, and drive to overcome those problems, you might want to question what the other side of the story might be...

          If we aren't at the leading edge, then someone else will be...
          Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
          "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

          Comment

          • Bill-SOCAL
            Fast Electric Addict!
            • Nov 2007
            • 1406

            #6
            Well, it is not like there are NO F-22's. All they did was kill the funding for more than they have now. I think it is a little overly dramatic to characterize that as the end of the US as a superpower.
            Don't get me started

            Comment

            • Rumdog
              Fast Electric Addict!
              • Mar 2009
              • 6453

              #7
              Wasn't aware of our jet shortage.

              Comment

              Working...