As independent panel reports go here in Washington, D.C., this one just released by the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, co-chaired by former Bush administration National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Clinton-era defense secretary William Perry, is really awful.
It recommends buying more of pretty much every weapon system or at least replacing the current inventory on a one-to-one basis, maintaining ground forces at current levels, expanding the Air Force, greatly expanding the Navy’s battle fleet and to pay for all of that the panel recommends increasing the defense budget.
For an example of how unserious this report truly is, the panel took as its force planning default the 1993 Bottom Up Review. How a strategic analysis conducted in 2010 can look backwards 17 years to come up with a force planning model is beyond me. Has the strategic landscape not changed dramatically over the past two decades?
The problem with so many of these various exercises masquerading as strategic thinking is they do their best to maintain a force that was designed to fight a massive land and sea war against a monolithic, hyper-militarized Soviet Union. Here is an analysis of the 1993 BUR by two of this nation’s foremost strategic thinkers, Andrew Krepinevich and Bob Work contained in A New U.S. Global Defense Posture for the Second Transoceanic Era:
“Although the BUR cautioned against planning for the last war, it proceeded to do just that. In essence, it used Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm to help explain and justify a regionalization of the Cold War military problem of forward defense along the inner German border and the demilitarized zone that separated North and South Korea.
Regionalizing the Cold War planning problem thus ensured that little substantive change would come to the US defense program beyond shaving force structure and the total numbers of weapons systems. After all, weapons and systems designed for fighting along the inner German border were likely to be just as relevant against regional aggressors fielding combined-arms, mechanized forces like Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards. More importantly, however, it made US defense planners lazy; they had little new thinking to do other than concentrating on winning regional wars as efficiently as possible.”
Intellectual laziness abounds in this new QDR assessment that should be thrown into the trash faster than most reports of its kind. The report’s drafters even write: “we had neither the time nor the resources to conduct a detailed force-structure analysis.” Well then, what the hell good are you?
For what its worth, here’s a summary of the force structure recommendations the report made without putting in the time to do the analysis to back them up:
• Maintain the Army and Marine Corps at current levels.
• Expand “substantially” the Navy toward the BUR recommended 346 ships and keep 11 carriers, “the reason being the potential challenges in Asia.”
• Make deep strike a priority for the Air Force.
• “Replace inventory on at least a one-for-one basis, with an upward adjustment in the number of naval vessels and certain air and space assets.”
– Greg Grant
{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }
So pretty much they copied and pasted the previous report?
yut
Congress wants more military spending for their districts, so they put together this study to justify it.
Jyst like they want more multi-billion dollar bailouts and overhaul bills to line their and their supportes pockets! Wake up. The US Government is required to provide with defense, NOT welfare, Social Security or any other Big Government program. Get that through your thick skull. You may think we'll reign supreme forever and won't need this technology. But let me tell you something you're in for a big surprise. I'd rather they spend a trillion dollars on making our military the best in the world, training and equipment wise, than to bail out failed companies and to undermine the free market!
Considering that in WW2 companies that made farm tractors were retooled to make tanks and tank parts, I’d say we have a responsibility to ensure our heavy industries don’t get pissed into the wind. In the Next World War, if we let our heavy industry rust away in Flint or Detroit, it won’t be there when we need tanks by the dozen.
I'm not being insistent about this, but the defense budget is probably one subset of the federal budget that should increase, though maybe not in the way they'd like. (It's the entitlement mentality that needs to have much less of a say in our federal budget.) Yes, I'm in favor of cheaper, off-the-shelf products without all the glitz and glam, but I'm also in favor of the high-end stuff; just with a proper balance (whatever that means, probably shifting/adapting over time based on the current and future threat environment).
1. Perry was awful a SecDef but Hadley is not a stupid guy. By various accounts he played an important role in the eventual success of the Iraq Surge.
2. The report is not intellectual laziness. It just predicts a different world than the one that current planners and media types seem to have deluded themselves into (ie we will face a long period of peace between nation state actors while all of our defense needs will go into combating nonstate actors such as Al Qaeda). The panel has recognized that, in reality:
*We are faced with the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of regional powers starting with Iran
*The erosion of Western military dominance due to falling defense spending in allied nations and proliferation of advanced weapons technologies.
*The intensification of regional conflicts
*And the increased support of aggressive non-state actors (such as Hezbollah) by possibly nuclear equiped nation states such as Iran.
Together these trends will dictate a dramatically _increased_ likelihood of nation-state conflict at various intensities over the next 50 years.
3. Decreased US capability _invites_ increased proliferation of advanced weaponry. With cut backs in US capability, nation states will calculate that _increased_ investments in advanced capabilities are cost-worthy, and invest more. This will in turn lead to greater investment in new military technology, which will further erode our edge. Thus, a vicious cycle starts with the end result being greater likelihood of US involvement in armed conflict against nation states, from a more disadvantageous position.
4. For the last 50 years the DoD has been the impetus behind development of technologies such as the internet, satellite communications, remote sensing, advanced materials such as carbon fiber, better trauma treatment, and innumerable other technologies. Crucially, the DoD doesn't just invest in research, but is often the _first_ paying customer, which is what truly gives advanced technologies life. Together, defense related technologies probably account for a substantial portion of our GDP (IE trillions of $ per year). Thus, one has to wonder if defense spending is really a money losing venture, or is it rather the best way we have of investing in and stimulating our economy.
Sounds good to me. I do not buy into the idea, that we must shrink the military, why?
Points three and four are interesting but irrelevant. Their task certainly has nothing to do with the benefits of spinoff technologies, and their report is far more concerned with quantity than quality.
With regard to point two, this doesn't explain why we need the same sized Army and Marines, and yet more Navy. If we will be fighting more regional wars, it would seem from our past experience that we need more Army and less Navy.
If the threat is nuclear proliferation than instead of 1-1 replacements of existing ships, we need a very different mix of ships oriented towards missile defense, instead of conventional warfare in the Blue Sea. I'm pretty sure that a 1:1 replacement of surface combatants isn't important to taking on Hezbollah, for example. If we are worried about proliferation to nations that don't have nukes, we should be spending more on the CIA to prevent that from happening, and less on conventional forces.
This hardly seems to be a crazy proposal. Just doesn't fit the current US government mindset of gutting the military to pay for new entitlements and bailouts.
The bailouts were necessary. Most economists say they were necessary. You want to see what our defense budget would look like if we hit Great Depression 2.0?
Necessary? All it did was delay invertible problems. And the stimulus? You would have to work hard to produce less jobs with that sort of cash.
Jacob most econmists cant agree on anything. All economists are taking an educated guess on what will happen. Sure they have numbers to support thier
guess, but they are not fortune tellers.
The problem is not that the proposal is crazy. Stay the course and do exactly what we are doing now is never crazy. The problem is that it is timid and intellectually lazy.
The likelihood that the current force structure is really the best of all possible worlds is dubious. The likelihood that we have learned nothing that can improve upon the current force structure in Iraq or Afghanistan or all the little incidents that have taken place around in the world in the last few years suggests that we are real slow learners.
The other problem is that it is almost certainly insincere. I don't believe for a minute that these authors don't have opinions on how they think the force needs to be changed to make it better suited to the tasks that it will face. But, instead they have taken the route of least resistance. Rather than seeing a QDR as an opportunity to rethink the big picture, they are looking for a reason to justify current spending, acting like a quartermaster trying to expedite a delivery by providing a meaningless reason on a meaningless form.
I read it half way through, then gave up reading the Base Force proposals. Waste of my time.
>Hadley is not a stupid guy. By various accounts he played an important role in the eventual success of the Iraq Surge.
Yea sure was involved, as one of the core neocons that committed what has been described as a strategic blunder of the first order or the biggest mistake of the 21st century.
The strategy of the QDR is sound – keep up throwing money at useless programs to maintain monopoly profits. It’s just not a military strategy for America in the real world.
Biggest mistake of the 21st century? Can Oblat read the future now. 90 years to go and Iraq was bill the worst mistake a country ever made?
Stop replying to this troll. Don't feed it and it leaves.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/07/t…
We need more ships, F-22s, and a NGB. How hard would it be to raise the defense budget to a meger 5% of the national GDP…
Expect liberal heads to explode, but I agree with you about all of those things.
Against whom? Who threatens the U.S.? Who's gonna invade or cut its maritime trade?
So far, the U.S. can only defend allies because it's really out of reach for normal warfare.
Adding allies into considerations means to add their military power – and honestly, not a single ally is threatened enough to require even half of the current U.S. arsenal for its security.
Keep in mind that military expenditures are about security needs, not about fantasies.
Who theatens the US? N. Korea; Iran; China (indirectly); Russia (still sends spies, that mean anything to you?). While non of them have the level of tech america has the are overzelous (nk, iran) or have alot of troops (china).
The increase is way over due, should have happened 9/12/01. We are way under our past defence spending.
For all you coin only boys don't forget a few things
1. Coin war is a result not alternative to our overmatch
2. Using conventional weapons on coin is not ideal but good strategy can compensate however using coin weapons in a conventional war cost heavy easily exceeding in a day what our total loses so far have been in GWOT
3. Finally and primarily the best way to avoid major nation war is our conventional overmatch
A whole bunch of naive and dumb comments on here by a very uninformed media. And to boot, this article blasts something that makes sense. While I do not agree with pentagon waste on weapons systems, I do feel we need to desperately replace on a 1 for 1 basis aircraft like the F15 and F16, and add ships to the navy. It makes no sense in the world to cut and cut to a point where if we did end up going to war with a powerful regional power, we would be destroyed because we did not have the assets to complete the mission. We always seem to think we can do a job with minimal equipment. The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are very, very good examples of the thinking that gets people killed needlessly. So, to all of you idiotic fools,including the author of this article, cut cut and cut. And when the next war comes along, lets send you to war with broken, non working equipment, all because you want to "save" money like fools that you are
Get real.
As a first step to justify your stance, please name me one threat country of noteworthy size that replaces old fighters, ships and AFVs in a 1:1 ratio.
Its not "just one country" you try and shape the debate with a false premise. How about China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Russia. Now look geographically are these countries all right next to each other or close to the US?
The ability to project power to defend ourselves and our allies is very expensive and requires massive technological over match and significant enough platforms to be in multiple theaters at the same time.
There is a cheaper way, let's rebuild our nuclear strategic deterrent forces. It would be far less costly than building hundreds of F-22's and more aircraft carriers. But wait we are also disarming the most cost effective way to deter our enemies. It is like this administration want the US to be weakened, but that can't be true!!!
I don't believe we can rely solely on nuclear deterrent force, although we should certainly have the capability to "nuke the crap out of something".
Not the point I was making. I was trying to show the obfuscation by pointing out if it was about money there would be other ways to "possibly" defend the nation of course which the left has no intention of trying to do on its' way to its' dream of a solcialist entitlement utopia.
The problems with nukes are that they are nukes. While a nuclear deturent is oviously needed all all nuke force would be a horrible idea because unlike planes, ships, tanks, etc nukes cant destory 1 building, be used in CAS, etc. Nukes are great at stopping other nukes but not much else since accuarte bombing and stealth. I mean if america would have been able to send a plane in, avoid all threats, and drop a penitrating bomb on japan's leaders/factories would they have needed a 2 nukes? Also I propose replacing every plane exept A10s (big gun, armored) and F22s (designated dogfighter) on a 1-1 basis with F-35s.
Do you really think I was advocating an "all nuclear force"? The point I was making that apparently no one picked up on was that it is possible to increase our defense capabilities more cheaply if that was the goal. But they are cutting everything meaning they are not interested in national security at all only the growth of the entitlement utopian state.
While the 93' BUR was and is flawed, I'll take it as a basis for starting a rampup to sensible Superpower force size, (but I'd prefer the The Base Force (about 30% larger, see http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/history/baseforc.p... ) as a starting point). thanks for the CSBA reference! I checked and oddly didn't have that one yet.
BTW: I suspect that the 1 for 1 replacement recomendations is because the force is already too small, so the additional capability needed would come from having mor ecapable systems vs more of the same.
Yikes – no more PDA posts for me. I make enough fat fingered typos on a regular keyboard as it is.
F-22's have an 17% Mission Capable Rate! That is horrible. Block 30 F-16's at Luke AFB for example 62nd AMU have an 82% MCR. We need to work on increasing their maintenance issues, and computer problems that ground the plane rather than buy more. I love the plane for what it can do… when it can do it. But, right know it is an expensive eye candy and not much else.
you have a source for that claim (17%)?
He saw that in Halo wars
Red flag reports that ive seen give the F-22 a 72% MCR. Report also said they were
trying for a 74% or higher MCR. Check your sources ASSASSYN, 17% is way off. They
would ground the fleet.
You can't replace F-15s and F-16s with $100M+ F-35s on a one for one basis. Even the 2443 number (A,B&C models) ain't gonna happen as the realities of what the real pricetag are sink in. Also, the prices are dependent on export sales that will fall short further increasing the unit cost.
Quit dreaming.
F-35s aren't going to cost $100 million each (not even the higher cost B & C). In fact it would cost MORE to replace existing F-16C/Ds, F/A-18A-Ds & AV-8Bs with new built F-16s, F/A-18s & AV-8s then it will to replace them with F-35s. Not to mention the quantum leap in capability the F-35s bring vs F-16s, F/A-18s & AV-8s.
The realities of the REAL pricetag are that the F-35 has been & continues to track in line with the 2007 JPO projections which place full rate production recurring flyaway F-35As at ~$60 million with F-35Bs & Cs ~$70-75.
Just like they want more multi-billion dollar bailouts and overhaul bills to line their and their supportes pockets! Wake up. The US Government is required to provide with defense, NOT welfare, Social Security or any other Big Government program. Get that through your thick skull. You may think we'll reign supreme forever and won't need this technology. But let me tell you something you're in for a big surprise. I'd rather they spend a trillion dollars on making our military the best in the world, training and equipment wise, than to bail out failed companies and to undermine the free market!
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/independent-qdr…
Defense.org
We also need to look at stealthy versions of the F-15 and F-18, while cutting the number of F-35s.
I stronly disagree with this article. Reason? While the USSR (weak economy, lots of people) is gone and done there is another "commie" right below it; People Republic of China (strong economy, lots of people, lots of cheap outdated weapons). Currently china doesnt spend as much as america does on defence, no where near as much. But if the liberals keep cutting budgets for health care, bailouts, etc we could fall behind. If there is another liberal pres next thats 8 years of the only fighter/bomb project being the F35. Which i support to replace non-stealth F-15/16/18 and harriers 1 for 1. Though with A10Cs and F22s I personally (because its an opinion, like this article) think they bring a unique ground atttack and dogfighter role the F35 sadly cant match. As for the navy's ships: upgrading the Burke class ships is a great idea for the base of the destoryers esp with the PGS missles showed on this site. However only making 3 next gen destoryers seems flawed. Even the Ford carreirs are in jeopardy and carriers are americas go to weapon
You are caught in a mindfart of grossly overpriced, poorly working hardware for the coldwar, buying weapons for enemies we don't have.
Ya nothing to worry about cut defense to zero and sing kumbaya. Thinking of starting a website ONETRILLIONFORDEFENSE.COM
Russia Plans 60 Percent Defense Budget Boost
Friday, July 30, 2010
Russia resolved yesterday to boost its defense budget by 60 percent within three years, increasing the allocation from roughly $41 billion to about $66 billion, the Xinhua News Agency reported (see GSN, Aug. 10, 2009).
The boost is expected to most substantially benefit space, aviation and naval priorities, according to the Russian business publication Vedomosti. Analysts suggested the additional funds could support production of new submarines, ballistic missiles and warships (Xinhua News Agency, July 30).
Why is it that the Israelis, even Hezbollah for God's sake, can get more bang for their buck than we do by at least a factor of ten. Defense contractors make the worse welfare queen from Reagan's fever dreams look like paragons of productivity. The defense budget could be cut in half and we could still have a stronger defense because with a tight budget we could finally face the cold facts and get serious.
At a billion dollars a day for Iraq/Afghanistan and two billion a pop for B-2s that are far less effective than the much older B-1s, even as the B-1s were short changed before they were built, their landing gear is steel because they took the money for the titanium gear and handed it over to the B-2 program. But hey, we are rich and nothing is to good for our boys. Like the body-armor that the cut corners on. In the end when it comes down to defense spending it is and always has been about profits over quality. Promise the moon for pennies and make the profits on cost overruns and patches to get the system to meet minimum standards.
There is a reason why we have squads in Afghanistan hanging out all on their own fifty miles from the nearest help and no way to get there because all the helicopters are all busy. And it has nothing to do with a lack of money. Simple fact is we have spent all the money on a very few gold-plated systems that try to do everything and end up doing nothing well. Trying to make uber-weapons we end up with over-sized, overweight, over complicated systems that are so expensive that we produce them in militarily insignificant numbers. There is a really good reason why the B-52 is more highly rated for ground support than the B-2. Why the Israelis still use F-16s and why ground troops are still saddled with the M-4 and humping around 120 pounds of gear. All the money went to gold-plated underachievers. We need trucks and they sell us dragsters.
Problem is we want to be untouchable and special. So instead of A-10s and B-1s in real numbers we get too few uber-weapons to do the job. But the infantry still only gets the coins that missed the big contractor's pockets.
As for that increase in defense spending by Russia, the $66 billion they will get to in three years is what we spend on defense in less than two months. The last 2010 budget was priced at 680 billion dollars for DoD. That figure excludes the Iraq/Afghanistan wars that have sunk $900 billion in direct costs. Indirect costs are expected to exceed direct cost over time as care for veterans will continue for over fifty years after the last veteran comes home.
If Russia will be coming in at less than 10% of our spending what are we afraid of? If we are afraid of them when they spend less than a tenth of our budget the question is; what are they doing right that we aren't? How come they get so much bang for their bucks? Why do we get so little?
This is idiotic. It's almost like the authors comletely missed the last decade. For instance, using aircraft carriers as a measure of capability against China is absurd. Ignoring the fact that China won't even have a blue water navy for the next few decades, it completely misses the entire threat of China. Put simply, if one China maintains growth rates 8-10% above the USAs it's only a matter of time. The idea that this math can be stopped by throwing a few trillion dollars a year into, economically, useless defense projects is jut ludicrous. "Hey, China, screw you with your high savings and investment in infrastructure and education, we will just borrow money to buy fighter jets! Yea, take that, commies!"
China doesn't need a blue water Navy. Their pond is Asia. China long ago cut education funds, they do not invest in education…go to rural China..most are illiterate. The average Chinese still makes less than 950 dollars per year. That hardly qualifies as super power status. You know nothing about carrier tactics either. Force projection from over the horizon (US Marines) and battlefield air dominance is essential, For now, naval aviation has the throw weight. Only carrier task forces can bring that air asset volume. Our goal is to insure that our allies and non-aligned states remain confident we can protect their democracies. Japan, S Korea, Philippines, etc. China is a piss hole.
Brilliant insight, rare in this space.
Seriously, no one has said anything about the photo? External tanks on an F-22? WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is all.
Yep, it can carry external tanks. When dropped, the pylon goes too and the aircraft's radar signature goes back to normal.
The the recent QDR, take a look at the roster of consultants who "supported" studies in the Services at at the OSD level. The usual suspects with the usual conflicts of interest. The worst stain on our fiscal machinery is the protection of the defence and IC budgets as nondiscretionary. They should be largely discretionary. Shorting nondefense and non IC programs produces far more of a national security set of problems than a few less grossly overpriced tanks, ships, and planes. This madness needs to stop, beginning with a declaration of mission accomplished and exit from Afgh and Iraq. Or send your own kids.
This does seem like a very odd report.
First off, in a more of everything conclusion, why do you recommend keeping the Army and Marines constant, when ground troop resources have been deeply overtaxed for almost a decade and we will almost certainly still be in Afghanistan when the next QDR comes along?
Second, if new fighters are better than the old ones, and the most well equipped opponent (Russia) is weaker than the last time around, why is it important to replace 1-1?
Third, is there really no change in the mix that makes sense? Even if overall spending levels were appropriate and a little low, surely anyone thinking the matter through carefully ought to be able to discern that there are some things that we need more of, and some that we need less of, that is the whole point of doing a QDR.
Fourth, with regard to “we had neither the time nor the resources to conduct a detailed force-structure analysis," anyone who has been a Defense Secretary or NSA advisor ought to have spent a lot of time thinking about force structure and have a pretty well formulated set of opinions and analysis to back it up that you've spent an entire career developing on this point before you walk into the room. It isn't as if they were being asked to deal with something that they'd never encountered before in their lives.