« Is Democracy Possible Among Muslims? | Main | Just War Series - Competent Authority »
January 11, 2005
Defense Cuts?
Frank Gaffney has a disturbing editorial that appears in today's Washington Times. He mentions "reports" that the defense budget that President Bush is going to submit to Congress contains substantial cuts in spending. Four key areas of reduction are cited:
The Air Force will lose perhaps as many as 110 of the 270 of the F/A-22 fighter/attack aircraft it has intended to buy. These "Raptors" would permit the replacement of 30-year-old F-15s with stealthy planes capable of providing assured air superiority and support for ground forces, even against enemies with advanced anti-aircraft defenses.
The F-15 dates to the early 1970s and is past middle age. Our enemies are not sitting still, but are purchasing advanced Russian fighters. The last time we fought an air war against an enemy who could do us serious harm was the Vietnam War. We discovered that our F-4 was only an even match for the MiG-21, and could easily get into trouble against the "older and obsolete" MiG-17. We barely held a two or three to one advantage during the first phase of the air war. It was only after developing realistic training (Red Flag and Top Gun) that we were able to perform at what we considered an acceptable rate. Let's not go through that again.
According to press reports, the Marines would be obliged to cut some $1.5 billion from their budget for the revolutionary V-22 "Osprey" tilt-rotor aircraft. This would involve delaying or reducing procurement of the mainstay of the Corps' future combat capabilities, with potentially profound repercussions.
Helicopter technology is reaching the point of diminishing returns. The existing birds are reaching old age. We have been experimenting with tilt-rotar technology since the 1950's. Yes there will be crashes and accidents; sadly, there always will be. Yes the V-22 is expensive, all new aircraft are. But if we are to outperform our enemies and maintain our advantage in quick, mobile war, we need this aircraft.
The Navy will lose one of its 12 aircraft carriers, while its shipbuilding program will be kept at a level that will reduce the service to fewer than 270 ships — a number clearly inadequate to meet the nation's worldwide missions. Particularly worrisome are the severe cuts envisioned in the needed modernization of the submarine fleet — arguably the most valuable and certainly among the most flexible of sea-going platforms, given their important roles in sea control and intelligence operations.
As I recall, only about one-third are typically at sea at one time. One is always undergoing a major update, or SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) as it is called, which puts it in drydock for a year or more. We might not always have access to land bases when and where we need them during an emergency. Recall that during the Afghan campaign the Navy carried out most of the tactical strikes. Check the Navy website; we've only got one being built at this moment, and the two oldest carriers are over forty years old.
As for submarines, the current Los Angeles class of attack boats (non-nuclear missile boats whose mission is to sink ships and other subs) is ageing. The proposed Seawolf class was too expensive and was cancelled after only three boats. We need to maintain constant production of the new Virginia class in order to have enough on hand to meet any threat. And lest anyone think that the days of high-seas naval battles are over for us, I'd say that there is a better than 50/50 chance that we'll go to war with China before the decade is out (see post here).
Nowhere is it likelier that John Kerry would have cut back Pentagon spending than in the portfolio of the Missile Defense Agency. Yet, here too, President Bush is said to be considering $5 billion in reductions over the next five years. These could essentially eliminate the most promising means of performing boost-phase missile intercepts (namely, using an airborne laser and/or from space); preclude building out the initial, very modest deployment of ground-based interceptors; and sharply curtail sea-based anti-missile defenses.
You don't have to be a political analyist to know that North Korea may take a shot at us some day. Not to mention China. Or Iran.
Assuming Mr. Gaffney is correct, and the cuts are in the offing, we all know the "why" and it is Iraq. I do believe that what we are doing there is right, and that if anything we need to spend more money there for troops and rebuilding infrastructure. But we can't starve the rest of the military. It is hard to imagine that in a federal budget of nearly 2 trillion dollars we can't find somewhere we might find the money.
Posted by Tom at January 11, 2005 9:08 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/261
