Month: March 2018

We continue our review of the Trump Administration’s change in defense strategy. As previously noted, The Trump Administration is seeking a dramatic but little-discussed shift in American defense planning.

Last year, the White House Executive Budget Request noted that  “The surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one…” It then altered the strategy that had prevailed since the fall of the Soviet Union, which had largely geared the U.S. military to fight smaller conflicts against less capable forces such as those possessed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

That perspective began to change in the 2018 budget, when the White House noted that “Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities…These competitions require both increased and sustained investment, reflected in the Budget request, because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those threats to increase in the future. Concurrently, the Budget requests funding for sustained DOD efforts to deter and counter rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran, defeat terrorist threats to the United States, and consolidate gains in Iraq and Afghanistan while ensuring these approaches are resource-sustainable. The Budget ensures the United States can maintain a joint force that possesses decisive advantages for any likely conflict, while remaining proficient across the entire spectrum of conflict.”

A prior Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute analyses of each branch of the military revealed 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.”

Native Americans also used ginseng http://www.devensec.com/sustain/Rosenthal_matrix_article.pdf online levitra canada extensively but this fact is less known. Next reason for cheap viagra india the sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD is the common cause of chronic pain after gallbladder removal. achat viagra pfizer Do not practice it for any other purpose. This event was probably driven generic tadalafil no prescription by social factors with such a great cultural emphasis on personal fulfillment and openness to discuss sexuality, as well as their reported success rate. 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.”

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.

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.”

The Trump Administration is seeking a dramatic but little-discussed shift in American defense strategy, and has made its intention clear in the 2019 Executive Budget Request.

The 2019 Executive Budget Request notes that the White House’s revised National Defense Strategy “prioritizes major power competition, and in particular, reversing the erosion of the U.S. military advantage in relation to China and Russia.” Specifics include increasing end strength for the Army, Navy and Air Force (+25,900), continuing the Department’s Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancement initiative, increasing procurement of preferred and advanced munitions, modernizing equipment for the second Army Armored Brigade Combat Team, buying ten combat ships, increasing production of the F-35 aircraft and F/A-18 aircraft, enhancing deterrence by modernizing the nuclear triad, Increasing funds to enhance communications and resiliency in space, supporting U.S. Armed Forces with a pay raise of 2.6 percent, and  increasing the emphasis on technology innovation for increased lethality.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was mistakenly assumed that the era of great-power military confrontations was over as the Kremlin’s forces went into virtual hibernation.  China was busy developing its economy, and its large but unsophisticated armed forces posed no significant threat to any nation except those directly on its borders. North Korea had yet to develop nuclear weapons, and Iran’s significant military had not developed the missile technology nor the basics of atomic weaponry that could pose a significant threat beyond its own immediate neighborhood.

In response, the American military changed in character. Following 1991, it was substantially reduced. Personnel was slashed, with the Army being reduced from 710,821 personnel to 515,888.  The Navy went from 570,262 to 319,120. The Air Force was cut from 510,432 to 336,432, and the Marine Corps dropped from 194,040 to 192,787.

The Navy best symbolizes the extraordinary change.  It floated approximately 585 ships in 1991, and now has only 285. China’s navy will soon surpass that number.

The world, however, has changed again. Russian President Putin, who considers the end of the USSR the greatest tragedy of the 20^th century, has moved to restore Moscow to military dominance. He has committed vast sums to make his nations’ armed forces a vast and world-threatening force. His nation now leads the world in nuclear armaments. He has invaded neighboring nations, established a strong presence in the Middle East, and has engaged in military relations with a number of Latin American nations.
Flaxseed, fishes like tuna and salmon, pumpkin seeds and Walnuts are the better sources of omega-3 fatty acids. browse around over here buy levitra Well can’t actually blame them on that, viagra purchase canada as the price and reviews to get the overall picture. Rest will give the muscle time to robertrobb.com viagra sale heal. There are some other medications that have been prescribed to you. viagra viagra
China’s rate of military spending has increased faster than either that of the USSR or the USA at the height of the Cold War, and those funds have produced results.  Beijing’s military technology equals and in some areas surpasses America’s.

Korea has become a nuclear power, and Iran is on the brink of having missiles that can strike worldwide.

Great power rivalry is again a reality, requiring an enlargement and revitalization of America’s depleted military.

During the Obama Administration, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) study 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  noted 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 Report Concludes Tomorrow.