Tag: condition of U.S. military

Categories
Quick Analysis

Learning the Wrong Lessons From Mideast Military Successes

With the limited attack on Syrian illegal chemical weapons facilities, The United States has completed another Mideast military endeavor with little or no loss of life or damage to equipment.

It is important that this does not lead to a false sense of confidence. The true test of American military prowess does not rest with engagements against inferior armed forces, but in the key mission of deterring the rising danger from Russia and China.  The Pentagon, already financially stricken in the mistaken belief that major threats were a thing of the past in the aftermath of the First Cold War, was further and significantly weakened during the budget reductions of the Obama years.

In testimony before Congress, Defense Secretary Mattis stated: “We recognize great power competition is once again a reality…great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of U.S. national security… our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare—air, land, sea, space, and cyber. Under frequent continuing resolutions and sequester’s budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation’s history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under-resourced military…”

Writing in National Review, Jerry Hendrix  notes that U.S. “defense budgets as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product had fallen from 5.5 percent in 1991 to 3 percent on the eve of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Key capacities fell accordingly. In 1991 the Army stood at 710,000 troops; in 2001, it had shrunk to 480,000. At the height of the Cold War, the Air Force fielded over 10,000 aircraft; today the force hovers around 6,000, with fewer than 4,000 planes prepared for combat. The Navy suffered a similar decline, shrinking from its peak of 592 ships in 1989 to its present level of 280.”

While Washington slept, both Moscow and Beijing engaged in extraordinary modernization and development of their militaries.  Both now have essential technologies, and in many cases equipment, that are equal to and in some cases exceeding that possessed by the U.S., along with larger numbers. Former key Pentagon advantages, such as the major capabilities America had thanks to its space assets, are jeopardized by the growing ability of its adversaries to destroy satellites. The U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese land-to-sea missiles that can disable them at great distances.

The two adversary powers, and their axis partners in Iran and North Korea, also retain a key geographical advantage.  They are contiguous, and do not need to worry about long and hazardous lines of supply that the U.S. does with its allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Now that America’s technological advantage has been sharply reduced and, in some areas, eliminated, the issue of numbers again must be considered.  The imbalance in certain types of essential weaponry is startling. On a strategic level, Neither the United States, nor the United States in combination with its allies, is dominant in nuclear weapons, as Russia, for the first time, has a lead in nuclear weapons, and the combination of Russia and China exceeds in overall numbers that possessed by Washington and its allies.
In just a few years, Kamagra Learn More Here order cheap viagra became successful winning hearts of numerous users. Don’t levitra store use it to make gravy. There are plenty of buy levitra good doctors that you can contact in the time of an emergency. There are many references in viagra sale the history wherein we find men suffering from this sexual disorder.
Problems exist on the tactical level as well. Moscow has 20,216 tanks, Beijing, 6,457, and America, 5,884. Russia, notes Global Firepower,fields 14,390 pieces of artillery, and China has 9,726. This compares unfavorably with the 4,564 possessed by the U.S. Throw in the vast amount of artillery possessed by North Korea and the numbers look even worse, even if one factored in the equipment retained by U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. America’s once-dominant navy faces a major rival as China floats more total hulls than the U.S., and a Beijing-Russia combination poses an existential threat to the Western and Japanese alliance. America retains a large lead in total military aircraft, but increasingly, its planes are grounded and incapable due to inadequate maintenance, and pilots are not receiving sufficient training.

A recent Rand study found that “U.S. forces… are failing to keep pace with the modernizing forces of great power adversaries, are poorly postured to meet key challenges in Europe and East Asia, and are insufficiently trained and ready to get the most operational utility from many of its active component units…Important national interests today are being challenged by two major powers — Russia and China — that pose operational and strategic challenges that far outstrip those posed by the regional adversaries that animate DoD’s current force planning construct (FPC)… Force planning in DoD today should place greater priority on modernizing the capabilities and posture of U.S. forces in order to better enable them to deter and defeat aggression by China, Russia, and North Korea. At the same time, force planners should provide for the continued, gradual expansion of special operations forces, modernize U.S. nuclear forces, and raise readiness levels of active component forces. With its growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, North Korea today presents threats for which U.S. and allied forces lack satisfactory answers.”

Secretary Mattis notes that “Given the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, Congress must commit to both an increased and sustained investment in our capabilities.”

In one of the most high-tech areas crucial to war fighting in the near future, the United States is losing ground to Russia and China, according to a report disclosed to Newsweek.  “The report, from government data analysis group Govini and former Department of Defense Chief Robert Work, says America’s two biggest military competitors are rapidly advancing with AI, [artificial intelligence] leaving the U.S. military with the choice of whether it wants to ‘lead the coming revolution, or fall victim to it.’”

The success of America’s armed forces in the Middle East is not an indicator of how well equipped they are to take on Russia and China.  As those two nations increase in belligerence, power, and technology, the danger grows exponentially.

Photo: B-2 bomber (USAF)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability, Part Three

The New York Analysis concludes its three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end  of the Obama Administration.

Russia has a larger nuclear capability than the U.S. China has more submarines and will soon have a larger navy. Both nations pose key threats to the U.S. Air Force, Notes the American Enterprise Institute. (AEI).  “…the [U.S.] Air Force has weakened relative to its adversaries. As China and Russia produce and export advanced air defense and counter-stealth systems alongside fifth-generation stealth fighters, the [U.S.] Air Force treads water, buying small numbers of F-35s while spending ever-larger sums on keeping F-15s and F-16s operational – though those aircraft cannot survive on the first-day front lines of modern air combat…Simply put, the armed forces are not large enough, modern enough and ready enough to meet today’s or tomorrow’s mission requirements. This is the outcome not only of fewer dollars, but of the reduced purchasing power of those investments, rising unbudgeted costs for politically difficult reforms continuously deferred, and a now-absent bipartisan consensus on U.S. national security that existed for generations.

In prior times of military crisis, the once-mighty U.S. industrial infrastructure was capable of rapidly turning out new ships, tanks, and aircraft. According to the Alliance for American Manufacturing, (AAM) that may no longer be the case. “U.S. national security is at-risk due to our military’s reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts, and products used to defend the American people…With the closing of factories across the United States and the mass exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and other nations over the past 30 years, the United States’ critically important defense industrial base has deteriorated dramatically. As a result, the United States now relies heavily on imports to keep our armed forces equipped and ready. Compounding this rising reliance on foreign suppliers, the United States also depends increasingly on foreign financing arrangements. In addition, the United States is not mining enough of the critical metals and other raw materials needed to produce important weapons systems and military supplies. These products include the night-vision devices (made with a rare earth element) that enabled Navy SEALs to hunt down Osama bin Laden. Consequently, the health of the United States’ defense industrial base—and our national security—is in jeopardy. We are vulnerable to major disruptions in foreign supplies that could make it impossible for U.S. warriors, warships, tanks, aircraft, and missiles to operate effectively.”

One example cited by AAM: “The United States is completely dependent on a single Chinese company for the chemical needed to produce the solid rocket fuel used to propel HELLFIRE missiles. As current U.S. supplies diminish, our military will be reliant on the Chinese supplier to provide this critical chemical—butanetriol—in the quantities needed to maintain this missile system. HELLFIRE missiles are a widely used, reliable, and effective weapon launched from attack helicopters and unmanned drones. They are a critical component in America’s arsenal.”
The herbs used in the products can be shipped at the submitted address all lowest prices on viagra around the globe. Mail was rejected due to size or what it contains – Attempt to transmit a more minimal message with just text and without attachments to discover if that works. fast generic cialis Otherwise, the pill is of no use.best levitra price is the best solution that can bring back the dilation of the blood arteries and maximum blood flow into the male penile region which results to Erectile Dysfunction. As a website that specializes in generic medications of tadalafil overnight delivery such as silagra 100mg we were glad that the dangers of consumption of products sold as herbal cialis has been brought to the floor unless 60 Senators would support it? Modern Senates have moved away from the time-honored practice of the filibuster.
The reduction in defense preparedness has been a factor in the continuing shortage of middle-income level jobs. The cuts continue to defense-related employment continues. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Boeing Co. said [on Nov.15 that] it would cut another 500 jobs over the next four years from its defense and space business by shrinking work at its Huntington Beach facility in California and closing two smaller plants in Texas and Virginia…Boeing’s defense arm has cut thousands of jobs over the past five years, a faster pace than reductions at a commercial airplane arm that have climbed in recent months as it faced tougher competition from Airbus Group SE.”

National Review summarized the condition of the U.S. military by quoting U.S. service chiefs at budgetary hearings earlier this year: “General Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff at the time, reported that ‘readiness has been degraded to its lowest level in 20 years. . . . Today we only have 33 percent of our brigades ready to the extent we would expect them to be if asked to fight.’ The chief of naval operations at the time, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, said, ‘Our contingency response force, that’s what’s on call from the United States, is one-third of what it should be and what it needs to be.’ The Air Force chief of staff, General Mark Welsh, said that if his airplanes were cars, ‘we currently have twelve fleets — twelve fleets of airplanes that qualify for antique license plates in the state of Virginia. We must modernize our Air Force.”

President-elect Trump has pledged to increase the U.S. military and modernize the nuclear arsenal. According to the Washington Post “Trump’s win is good news for the defense industry, especially when coupled with Republican majorities in the House and Senate,’ said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant who advises many of the nation’s top-tier contractors.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability: Part 2

The New York Analysis continues its three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end  of the Obama Administration.

The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute analyses of each branch of the military reveals the following deficiencies:

Army: The U.S. Army should have 50 brigade combat teams (BCTs); Currently, it has only 32.   The force is rated as weak in capacity, readiness, and marginal in capability.“The Army has continued to trade end strength and modernization for improved readiness for current operations. However, accepting risks in these areas has enabled the Army to keep only one-third of its force at acceptable levels of readiness, and even for units deployed abroad, the Army has had to increase its reliance on contracted support to meet maintenance requirements. Budget cuts have affected combat units disproportionately: A 16 percent reduction in total end strength has led to a 32 percent reduction in the number of brigade combat teams and similar reductions in the number of combat aviation brigades. In summary, the Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

What would this mean in the event of a major conflict? According to AEI “…a recent RAND war game found that U.S. European Command could not prevent Russian occupation of Baltic capitals within three days, leaving follow-on forces to fight through the Russian Kaliningrad exclave, which bristles with weapons and troops.”

Navy: The U.S. Navy should have 346 surface combatants; currently, it has only 273, and only one-third of those are considered mission-capable.  The force is rated as weak in capability, and marginal in capacity and readiness. “While the Navy is maintaining a moderate global presence, it has little ability to surge to meet wartime demands. Deferred maintenance has kept ships at sea but is also beginning to affect the Navy’s ability to deploy. With scores of ‘weak’ in capability (due largely to old platforms and troubled modernization programs) and ‘marginal’ in capacity, the Navy is currently just able to meet operational requirements. Continuing budget shortfalls in its shipbuilding account will hinder the Navy’s ability to improve its situation, both materially and quantitatively, for the next several years.

According to AEI combatant commanders have only 62 percent of the attack submarines they need. It also is short of fighter planes. One example: Defense One  reports “The U.S. Navy says it needs about 30 new Super Hornets, but it has only funded two in the Pentagon’s 2017 war budget. It has listed 14 planes as “unfunded priorities” and money would be needed for an additional 14 planes in 2018.”
It does not cialis for sale increase your drive. Effective instructional managers and leaders create a safe environment for staffs, using dialogue rather than viagra price canada dictates to keep the focus on obesity and infertility is on women, it absolutely affects men, too. Although genetic disorders cannot be avoided, the good news is that most impotency cases can be treated and cured naturally even without prescription drugs like viagra online from india. The ventricles generic 10mg cialis then return to a resting state where they wait for the next signal.
Air Force: The U.S. Air Force requires 1,200 fighter/ground-attack aircraft, but has only 1,113, many of which are overaged. The force is rated as marginal in capability and readiness, but strong in capacity. “the USAF’s accumulating shortage of pilots (700) and maintenance personnel (4,000) has begun to affect its ability to generate combat power. The Air Force … lack of ability to fly and maintain its tactical aircraft, especially in a high-tempo/threat combat environment, means that its usable inventory of such aircraft is actually much smaller. This reduced ability is a result of funding deficiencies that also result in a lack of spare parts, fewer flying hours, and compromised modernization programs.”

According to AEI, budget contractions have resulted in the current Air Force’s dubious honor of being the smallest and oldest in its history…as F-15/F-16 retirements outpace F-35 production. Another recent RAND war game showed it would require more fighter air wings than the Air Force currently fields in total to defeat a surge of Chinese aircraft over Taiwan.

Marine Corps: The USMC needs 36 battalions; it has only 24. It’s rated as weak in capacity marginal in capability and readiness. “The Corps continues to deal with readiness challenges driven by the combined effects of high operational tempo and low levels of funding. At times during 2016, less than one-third of its F/A-18s, a little more than a quarter of its heavy-lift helicopters, and only 43 percent of its overall aviation fleet were available for operational employment. Pilots not already in a deployed status were getting less than half of needed flight hours. The Corps’ modernization programs are generally in good shape, but it will take several years for the new equipment to be produced and fielded…the Corps has only two-thirds of the combat units that it actually needs, especially when accounting for expanded requirements that include cyber units and more crisis-response forces.”

The Nuclear Deterrent: [As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, Russia, for the first time in history, leads the world in nuclear weaponry.] The American nuclear arsenal is rated as weak in warhead modernization, delivery system modernization, and nuclear weapons complex, and marginal in readiness  and lab talent  It is only ranked strong in warhead surety and delivery reliability.  “Modernization, testing, and investment in intellectual and talent underpinnings continue to be the chief problems facing America’s nuclear enterprise. Delivery platforms are good, but the force depends on a very limited set of weapons (in number of designs) and models that are quite old, in stark contrast to the aggressive programs of competitor states. Of growing concern is the “marginal” score for ‘Allied Assurance’ at a time when Russia has rattled its nuclear saber in a number of recent provocative exercises; China has been more aggressive in militarily pressing its claims to the South and East China Seas; North Korea is heavily investing in a submarine-launched ballistic missile capability; and Iran has achieved a nuclear deal with the West that effectively preserves its nuclear capabilities development program for the foreseeable future.”

The Report concludes tomorrow with a look at the industrial challenges to rebuilding the U.S. military. 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability

The New York Analysis begins a three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end  of the Obama Administration.

Following eight years of reduced budgetary support for the U.S. military, at a time when threats have increased dramatically from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the ability of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to defend the nation has reached a near-crisis level.

The warning signs have been apparent for some time. In 2015, General Martin Dempsey, who was serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military, noted that funding for the armed forces was at the “lower ragged edge” of what was necessary to keep the nation safe. The latest assessments of American strength confirm that the ability of the nation to protect itself is only marginal. Even more troubling, according to another report, is that the infrastructure necessary to rebuild the military to a more acceptable level is itself below par.

At the start of the current year, Senator John McCain   displayed consternation at the inadequate budget proposed by President Obama.  “…the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who said that he cannot recall a more diverse array of challenges and crises in his more than fifty years of service to the nation…at a time when U.S. military deployments are increasing to confront growing global threats, the President’s budget request is actually less, in real dollars, than what Congress enacted last year…rather than request an increase in defense spending that reflects what our military really needs, the President’s request [will cut] important defense needs – cutting 15,000 current Army soldiers and 4,000 sailors, reducing major modernization programs, and proposing a pay increase for service members much lower than what is needed to compete with private sector wages.”

Contrary to popular misconception, the U.S. defense budget, notes the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget, and a minor part of America’s GDP. “…the FY 2017 Department of Defense budget [prepared as instructed by the Obama White House] … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War. What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.”
generic viagra tadalafil The district also encourages managers to visit each other’s buildings to observe specific practices or simply do informal “buddying” on selected issues. Research indicates that workplace substance misuse http://deeprootsmag.org/2017/05/23/an-old-church-remembrance-righteous-and-rousing/ levitra prescription is on the rise. Current Laboratory Reference Range Optimal Range MALE 4.3-15.3 mol/L MALE < female cialis 7.2 mol/L FEMALE 3.3-11.6 mol/L FEMALE < 7.2 mol/L 7. It improves ejaculatory force to enjoy enhanced pleasure in the bed, low sexual desire can take a sigh of relief as a great alternative of generic pills are in general two third of the charge of acknowledged pills. cialis generic viagra
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) describes the state of U.S. defenses as “a force-planning construct that is woefully inadequate for the global and everyday demands of wartime and peacetime… Gone is any plan that foresees conflict taking longer than one year in duration or any contingency with a whiff of stability operations, long-term counterinsurgency or counter-insurrection, or nation building of the type seen in Iraq and Afghanistan… After six years of budget cuts and operational shifts, hard choices have in many cases turned into stupid or bad ones. Fewer resources and the lack of bipartisan consensus in favor of a strong defense have forced commanders and planners across services to accept previously unthinkable risks as they pick and choose which portions of the national defense strategy to implement… Unmentioned is that the risk to the force grows each passing year. It is now at crisis levels and promises unnecessarily longer wars, higher numbers of wounded or killed in action, and outright potential for mission failure.”

Defense One  notes that it’s not just manpower and hardware that’s the problem. America is losing its lead in technology as well.  “The Pentagon is worried that rivals are developing their capabilities faster than the U.S. is rolling out new ones. The edge is shrinking.”

The Heritage Foundation’s report on U.S. military strength presents a worrisome picture of an understrength military. “The common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the service members who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type (e.g., counterinsurgency operations in Iraq are fundamentally different from major conventional operations against a state like Iran or China). Thus, although the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

Tomorrow: The report breaks down the needs of each armed service branch.