2nd_Amendment
03-09-2001, 04:45 PM
The Sonarman
Forum Host
posts: 242
(2/14/01 12:31:08 pm)
Reply
Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.cato.org/dailys/02-13-01.html (http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-13-01.html)
February 13 2001
Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
by Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is the director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.
In a September 1999 speech at the Citadel military academy, then-candidate George W. Bush pledged to skip a generation of weapons. In January 2000 at his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld repeated the possible need to "leap frog" some weapon systems. They're on target.
Studies by independent researchers estimate that the defense budget is over-programmed by $50 billion to $100 billion per year. To overcome the disparity between programs on the books and likely budgets will require hard decisions about which weapons to curtail. Many unneeded or Cold War-era weapons should end up on President Bush's chopping block.
The President's own advisers have complained that the excess of tactical fighter aircraft programs must be reassessed. According to the National Defense University, the consensus view among U.S. government and private threat assessments is that U.S. aircraft will face no substantial threat from enemy aircraft from now until 2025. Yet the U.S. military is developing or beginning to build three new tactical fighters—the Air Force's F-22, the Navy's F-18E/F, and the Joint Strike Fighter (a collaborative effort by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps)--at a cost of $360 billion.
Two of those three aircraft could be cancelled. The troubled and expensive F-22 ($180 million per copy), designed mainly to battle advanced Soviet aircraft that were never built, is a prime candidate for cancellation before it goes into limited production. Also, the production of the costly F-18E/F, at best a marginal improvement over the F-18C/D, could be ended.
The tactical air forces will eventually need a new aircraft, but one that is optimized for attacking targets on the ground rather than other aircraft. Thus, the less expensive Joint Strike Fighter should be produced.
The new administration should also consider canceling the expensive V-22 tilt rotor aircraft—a plane that takes off like a helicopter, shifts its propellers, and flies like a plane—that was designed to transport Marines and their light equipment to the beach. The aircraft ($80 million each) has a mission that Blackhawk or CH-53 helicopters could perform adequately, and at a lower cost.
In addition, the Navy's Virginia-class attack submarine is a good candidate for the scrap heap. According to the National Defense University's consensus threat assessment, between 2001 and 2015, war in the open ocean is unlikely. With the demise of the Soviet navy—the only threat to the world's oceans—the U.S. Navy is justifying more submarines on their ability to collect intelligence. But at about $2 billion each, the submarine is an expensive way to carry out that mission. It's also limited to collection in coastal regions. The money saved by truncating production of the Virginia-class would buy many intelligence satellites and manned and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which do not face the limitations of the submarine. With a negligible open ocean threat, no replacement for the Virginia-class is needed now, and the submarine fleet can be reduced in size.
The DD-21 destroyer also should be scrapped. Each one costs about $750 million and it is being developed primarily for land-attack missions. The destroyer will feature two guns and 120 to 250 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes to fire missiles. Marines suffer from insufficient fire-support from the sea. But they need high volume, suppressive gunfire to keep the enemy forces in their foxholes. Instead, the DD-21—reflecting the Navy's priority of deep strike—is a missile ship with a couple of ancillary guns. Also, in a time of uncertain threats and constrained resources for defense, the Navy already has thousands of VLS tubes and should buy only versatile multi-mission ships rather than ships optimized for a narrowly focused mission.
The Army's costly Comanche light scout and attack helicopter ($30 million apiece), built to fight Soviet tanks in Europe, is no longer needed. In the Gulf War, no scout helicopters were used with Apache heavy attack helicopters. If a scout aircraft is needed in the future, unmanned aerial vehicles might be more effective and would not put pilots' lives at risk. Although the Army is trying to put the heavy Crusader mobile artillery piece on a diet, the gun system does not mesh well with the goal of making the Army lighter.
If President Bush intends to keep his campaign pledge to skip a generation of weapons, he has a rich menu of unneeded programs from which to cut.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
EagleTed
Forum Host
posts: 121
(2/14/01 5:21:41 pm)
Reply Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking into my crystal ball, all is murky.
Who knows whether or not we will be fighting
Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, or even Mexico
twenty years from now?
The "new" Army seems to think that the
next war will be house to house or with
a lightly armed enemy. That assumes,
it seems to me, that we will be expanding
our "peace" missions. I don't know what
they are basing that assumption on.
I think a more prudent plan would
assume a heavy war with a major enemy, with
a quicker response time than we have now.
Gearing toward a war with China would be
an obvious objective. This should be the
Army's goal. The Marines can take care of
a smaller enemy, if given the tools they
need.
The Air Force needs to have the best fighters
and bombers available. And, they need more
transports to give the Army and Marines a faster
response time.
The Navy has to have the ability to control the
seas, support the Marines, and to protect their
carriers.
How the Services meet those goals is for people
who are a lot smarter than me.
Stonewall Jackson's formula for winning was to
"get there firstest with the mostest." That still
applies.
Life, Liberty, Property
Edited by: EagleTed at: 2/14/01 5:22:40 pm
The Sonarman
Forum Host
posts: 253
(2/14/01 5:37:37 pm)
Reply
Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EagleTed,
I agree.
As to major wars with a major enemy:
If we prepare for just such a major conflict (not dropping our theoretical ability to fight two major conflicts simultaneously), we can take care of the little "brush popper" wars. As to "Police Actions".... the US has little to gain and much to lose (in terms of blood and treasure) being "The World's Policeman".
We have nothing to gain in Bosnia. If Europe wants to intrude, let Europe do the police activity as well.
We have little to gain in Korea, as well, truth be told. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea? We lose hundreds if not thousands of troops, inflame our people, and get dragged into another war. Mind you, I do not expect this to happen... but having our people's "ass in the grass" there is just asking for our people to get popped.
We don't need to be in Europe anymore, either. It is far less expensive to base our guys in the US.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
Rhino
Forum Host
posts: 455
(2/14/01 5:45:20 pm)
Reply
Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, our doctrine is to be prepared to fight two simultaneous regional theater conflicts, not a major war. The force structure is supposed to be such that it can fight a delaying tactic until we have time to gear up for major war. Of course, our current readiness levels wouldn't support a war against Wisconsin, thanks to Bubba.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"We have every right to dream heroic dreams." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.siscom.net/~simdad
EagleTed
Forum Host
posts: 123
(2/14/01 5:46:51 pm)
Reply Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you about Europe. I disagree
about Korea. Communism is the enemy of
everything we believe and stand for. I
would not be in favor of getting our troops
out of it.
In fact, I'd like to see us have China
surrounded, with pacts with Russia, India,
Japan, South Korea, and believe it of not,
Viet Nam. We could conduct training missions
with all of them, and have "forwarded"
supplies in each, guarded by a minimum of
personel.
However, that's the hawk coming out in me.
Don't see it happening.
Life, Liberty, Property
Edited by: EagleTed at: 2/14/01 6:11:27 pm
Rhino
Forum Host
posts: 457
(2/14/01 5:55:43 pm)
Reply
Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonarman, if our force projection capabilities had not been decimated, I would tend to agree with you considering the drop in threat level in Europe. If we can revamp some of that force projection capability, I may agree with you on Europe, at least with a drastically reduced presence. It already has dropped a whole bunch.
Gotta go with Ted on Korea. Just don't trust them suckers at all.
As far as what weapons we should skip, I say we forego the phasers and move directly to photon torpedoes.
Sorry ........ couldn't resist.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"We have every right to dream heroic dreams." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.siscom.net/~simdad
EagleTed
Forum Host
posts: 124
(2/14/01 6:03:15 pm)
Reply Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval power isn't my strong suit, so
pardon my ignorance. Are the DD-21's 2
guns laser guided guns simular to the
M1 tank or what? If not, what else does
the Navy have on the drawing board to
support the Marines, assuming that just
2 guns aren't enough?
Life, Liberty, Property
Forum Host
posts: 242
(2/14/01 12:31:08 pm)
Reply
Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.cato.org/dailys/02-13-01.html (http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-13-01.html)
February 13 2001
Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
by Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is the director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.
In a September 1999 speech at the Citadel military academy, then-candidate George W. Bush pledged to skip a generation of weapons. In January 2000 at his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld repeated the possible need to "leap frog" some weapon systems. They're on target.
Studies by independent researchers estimate that the defense budget is over-programmed by $50 billion to $100 billion per year. To overcome the disparity between programs on the books and likely budgets will require hard decisions about which weapons to curtail. Many unneeded or Cold War-era weapons should end up on President Bush's chopping block.
The President's own advisers have complained that the excess of tactical fighter aircraft programs must be reassessed. According to the National Defense University, the consensus view among U.S. government and private threat assessments is that U.S. aircraft will face no substantial threat from enemy aircraft from now until 2025. Yet the U.S. military is developing or beginning to build three new tactical fighters—the Air Force's F-22, the Navy's F-18E/F, and the Joint Strike Fighter (a collaborative effort by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps)--at a cost of $360 billion.
Two of those three aircraft could be cancelled. The troubled and expensive F-22 ($180 million per copy), designed mainly to battle advanced Soviet aircraft that were never built, is a prime candidate for cancellation before it goes into limited production. Also, the production of the costly F-18E/F, at best a marginal improvement over the F-18C/D, could be ended.
The tactical air forces will eventually need a new aircraft, but one that is optimized for attacking targets on the ground rather than other aircraft. Thus, the less expensive Joint Strike Fighter should be produced.
The new administration should also consider canceling the expensive V-22 tilt rotor aircraft—a plane that takes off like a helicopter, shifts its propellers, and flies like a plane—that was designed to transport Marines and their light equipment to the beach. The aircraft ($80 million each) has a mission that Blackhawk or CH-53 helicopters could perform adequately, and at a lower cost.
In addition, the Navy's Virginia-class attack submarine is a good candidate for the scrap heap. According to the National Defense University's consensus threat assessment, between 2001 and 2015, war in the open ocean is unlikely. With the demise of the Soviet navy—the only threat to the world's oceans—the U.S. Navy is justifying more submarines on their ability to collect intelligence. But at about $2 billion each, the submarine is an expensive way to carry out that mission. It's also limited to collection in coastal regions. The money saved by truncating production of the Virginia-class would buy many intelligence satellites and manned and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which do not face the limitations of the submarine. With a negligible open ocean threat, no replacement for the Virginia-class is needed now, and the submarine fleet can be reduced in size.
The DD-21 destroyer also should be scrapped. Each one costs about $750 million and it is being developed primarily for land-attack missions. The destroyer will feature two guns and 120 to 250 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes to fire missiles. Marines suffer from insufficient fire-support from the sea. But they need high volume, suppressive gunfire to keep the enemy forces in their foxholes. Instead, the DD-21—reflecting the Navy's priority of deep strike—is a missile ship with a couple of ancillary guns. Also, in a time of uncertain threats and constrained resources for defense, the Navy already has thousands of VLS tubes and should buy only versatile multi-mission ships rather than ships optimized for a narrowly focused mission.
The Army's costly Comanche light scout and attack helicopter ($30 million apiece), built to fight Soviet tanks in Europe, is no longer needed. In the Gulf War, no scout helicopters were used with Apache heavy attack helicopters. If a scout aircraft is needed in the future, unmanned aerial vehicles might be more effective and would not put pilots' lives at risk. Although the Army is trying to put the heavy Crusader mobile artillery piece on a diet, the gun system does not mesh well with the goal of making the Army lighter.
If President Bush intends to keep his campaign pledge to skip a generation of weapons, he has a rich menu of unneeded programs from which to cut.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
EagleTed
Forum Host
posts: 121
(2/14/01 5:21:41 pm)
Reply Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking into my crystal ball, all is murky.
Who knows whether or not we will be fighting
Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, or even Mexico
twenty years from now?
The "new" Army seems to think that the
next war will be house to house or with
a lightly armed enemy. That assumes,
it seems to me, that we will be expanding
our "peace" missions. I don't know what
they are basing that assumption on.
I think a more prudent plan would
assume a heavy war with a major enemy, with
a quicker response time than we have now.
Gearing toward a war with China would be
an obvious objective. This should be the
Army's goal. The Marines can take care of
a smaller enemy, if given the tools they
need.
The Air Force needs to have the best fighters
and bombers available. And, they need more
transports to give the Army and Marines a faster
response time.
The Navy has to have the ability to control the
seas, support the Marines, and to protect their
carriers.
How the Services meet those goals is for people
who are a lot smarter than me.
Stonewall Jackson's formula for winning was to
"get there firstest with the mostest." That still
applies.
Life, Liberty, Property
Edited by: EagleTed at: 2/14/01 5:22:40 pm
The Sonarman
Forum Host
posts: 253
(2/14/01 5:37:37 pm)
Reply
Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EagleTed,
I agree.
As to major wars with a major enemy:
If we prepare for just such a major conflict (not dropping our theoretical ability to fight two major conflicts simultaneously), we can take care of the little "brush popper" wars. As to "Police Actions".... the US has little to gain and much to lose (in terms of blood and treasure) being "The World's Policeman".
We have nothing to gain in Bosnia. If Europe wants to intrude, let Europe do the police activity as well.
We have little to gain in Korea, as well, truth be told. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea? We lose hundreds if not thousands of troops, inflame our people, and get dragged into another war. Mind you, I do not expect this to happen... but having our people's "ass in the grass" there is just asking for our people to get popped.
We don't need to be in Europe anymore, either. It is far less expensive to base our guys in the US.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
Rhino
Forum Host
posts: 455
(2/14/01 5:45:20 pm)
Reply
Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, our doctrine is to be prepared to fight two simultaneous regional theater conflicts, not a major war. The force structure is supposed to be such that it can fight a delaying tactic until we have time to gear up for major war. Of course, our current readiness levels wouldn't support a war against Wisconsin, thanks to Bubba.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"We have every right to dream heroic dreams." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.siscom.net/~simdad
EagleTed
Forum Host
posts: 123
(2/14/01 5:46:51 pm)
Reply Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you about Europe. I disagree
about Korea. Communism is the enemy of
everything we believe and stand for. I
would not be in favor of getting our troops
out of it.
In fact, I'd like to see us have China
surrounded, with pacts with Russia, India,
Japan, South Korea, and believe it of not,
Viet Nam. We could conduct training missions
with all of them, and have "forwarded"
supplies in each, guarded by a minimum of
personel.
However, that's the hawk coming out in me.
Don't see it happening.
Life, Liberty, Property
Edited by: EagleTed at: 2/14/01 6:11:27 pm
Rhino
Forum Host
posts: 457
(2/14/01 5:55:43 pm)
Reply
Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonarman, if our force projection capabilities had not been decimated, I would tend to agree with you considering the drop in threat level in Europe. If we can revamp some of that force projection capability, I may agree with you on Europe, at least with a drastically reduced presence. It already has dropped a whole bunch.
Gotta go with Ted on Korea. Just don't trust them suckers at all.
As far as what weapons we should skip, I say we forego the phasers and move directly to photon torpedoes.
Sorry ........ couldn't resist.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"We have every right to dream heroic dreams." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.siscom.net/~simdad
EagleTed
Forum Host
posts: 124
(2/14/01 6:03:15 pm)
Reply Re: Which Weapons Should President Bush Skip?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval power isn't my strong suit, so
pardon my ignorance. Are the DD-21's 2
guns laser guided guns simular to the
M1 tank or what? If not, what else does
the Navy have on the drawing board to
support the Marines, assuming that just
2 guns aren't enough?
Life, Liberty, Property