Tag: defense budget

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Defense Budget Debate, Part 2

In the House, Rep. Mac Thornberry, (R-Texas) outlined his disagreement with the Democrat’s military spending plan:

“The Armed Services Committee heard repeated testimony, from Acting Secretary Shanahan, former Secretary Mattis, General Dunford, and others, that the military’s budget must grow between three and five percent through 2025 in order to restore readiness and maintain our competitive edge against Russia and China. The Chairman’s Mark does not meet that standard. In pursuing an arbitrarily lower budget, the proposal reduces or eliminates vital programs, including emergency funding to restore installations damaged by extreme weather, military requirements identified by the Services, funding to maintain our nuclear deterrence and ensure its safety, and missile defense.”

Rep. Thornberry unsuccessfully sought to have several items added to the Democrats’ legislation, emphasizing:

Modernizing to Deter Russia and China: The Chairman’s Mark makes a number of unwise cuts to modernization programs that will hamper America’s ability to maintain our competitive edge over Russia and China. These include reductions to the F-35 request, the Air Force NextGen Air Dominance Program, hypersonic development, LCS programs, 5G efforts, DIU activities, the Rapid Innovation Fund, aircraft carrier construction, and other programs validated by the Services that have earned bipartisan support. The Chairman’s mark also makes unsafe and unwise cuts to nuclear modernization programs, including NNSA programs, designed to keep our deterrent credible and safe. The nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our national security and nuclear modernization efforts have been a priority for Republican and Democrat Administrations. 

 
Readiness Restoration: Between 2013 and 2017, military aviation accidents rose 40%, and military aviation deaths hit a six-year high in 2018. Following sustained, focused oversight from the Armed Services Committee and a significant targeted increase in resources, the Committee received testimony that the degradation in readiness has been arrested and accident rates have begun to decline. The Chairman’s Mark makes significant cuts to readiness programs- including to infrastructure and facilities funding- that Ranking Member Thornberry believes could slow recovery efforts. These include over a billion in cuts to military personnel accounts, significant cuts to training programs, and cuts to ammunition stockpiles. The Chairman’s Mark does not support DOD’s request for emergency funding to restore Tyndall AFB, Offutt AFB, Cherry Point MCAS, or Camp Lejeune MCB. Additionally, while many Members are concerned over the Administration’s diversion of construction projects to border barriers, Ranking Member Thornberry does not believe that our troops should pay the price for political discord in Washington. His amendment would backfill funds expected to be reprogrammed from important military projects.

The increase in financial support for the Pentagon is a So, make sure to change the filters cialis cheap no prescription on time with the help of a contractor. If you look like best price vardenafil you just fell out of bed, plan on going back there, alone. There are a generico cialis on line buying here lot of reasons of having the erectile dysfunction issues. It is also termed as viagra for erectile dysfunction. significant departure from the Obama years, when funds were stripped from defense even as the threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea grew.

 Mackenzie Eaglen and Rick Berger, writing for the American Enterprise Institute note that the very uncertainty of budget levels has led to major problems for America’s military:

“Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said a year ago that military had operated under 1,000 days of debilitating continuing resolutions (CR) over the past decade. Yet another continuing resolution looms again this fall. Even as Congress moves ahead with its spending bills for the Defense Department, the odds remain low that both parties can agree to an overall spending level by the start of the fiscal year still…federal agencies, including the U.S. military, will almost certainly begin another year under a spending freeze at last year’s budget levels. The result? The military’s advantages continue to shrink. According to Mattis, “I cannot overstate the impact to our troops’ morale from all this uncertainty. 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.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: The guided missile destroyer USS William P. Lawrence travels in the South China Sea, June 4, 2019, while deployed to support security and stability efforts in the Indo-Pacific region. (DoD)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Budget Debate

Both within the House of Representatives and between it and the Senate, a debate about how much is required to defend the United States has arisen. It replays a familiar dispute over spending priorities, with Republicans urging increased support for the Pentagon.

There is broad agreement on a key point: the dramatic rise in the military power of Russia and China, their growing alliance with each other, and the aggressiveness they have both displayed on the world stage has dramatically increased the threat level.

 The danger significantly exceeds that which existed at the height of the Cold War. Several years ago, Douglas Schoen and Melik Kaylan in their study “The Russia-China Axis” explained how the U.S. entered a period of unparalleled danger:

““Russia and China are increasingly expansionist…Both…have increased their military budgets substantially while the United States [under the Obama Administration] dramatically [scaled] back…Russia and China have become increasingly nationalistic and aggressive…while America [became]…inner directed, even isolationist…”

A U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report on Beijing’s military ties to Moscow (E&SRC) notes that

“Since the normalization of relations between China and the Soviet Union in 1989, Beijing and Moscow have prioritized defense and security ties, which are now among the most important components of the overall relationship. This emphasis is reflected in their 1996 “strategic partnership of coordination,” which remains the foundation for high-level cooperation…China steadily increased arms imports from Russia, eventually becoming Russia’s leading destination for arms exports. …Since 2012… closer defense ties have been a key driver of warming China-Russia relations. Indeed, China and Russia appear to be moving toward a higher level of defense cooperation. The three main areas of the bilateral defense relationship—military exercises, military-technical cooperation, and high-level military-to-military contacts—show increases in the level and quality of engagement, collectively reflecting closer defense ties.

“…recent developments in China-Russia military-to-military relations have important implications for U.S. security interests and the Asia Pacific.

  • Russia’s sale of Su-35 fighter jets to China (deliveries of which began in December 2016) will help the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) contest U.S. air superiority, provide China with technology that could help accelerate the development of its own advanced fighters, and serve as a valuable training and learning platform before China fields its next-generation aircraft.
  • The Russian sale of the S-400 surface-to-air missile (SAM) defense system to China (with deliveries starting in 2018) should help China improve capital air defense and could assist the PLA in achieving increased air superiority over Taiwan if deployed to the Eastern Theater Command (bordering the Taiwan Strait). This SAM system would pose a challenge for Taiwan’s air assets in a potential cross-Strait conflict, the air assets of U.S. allies or partners in a South China Sea or East China Sea contingency, and U.S. aircraft, should the United States decide to become involved in such potential conflicts. The S-400 also could be used to help enforce China’s East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).
  • The increased complexity and focus on joint operations of military exercises between the PLA and Russian Armed Forces help provide both sides with valuable experience in pursuing their defense objectives. The exercises are particularly useful for the PLA—which lacks recent combat experience—because they provide much-needed insights and knowledge that help China pursue its military modernization goals.
  • The recently expanded geographic scope of Sino-Russian military exercises, along with a new focus on missile defense, reflects increasingly aligned security interests and suggests the two countries are both signaling their respective support for the other’s security priorities. Greater alignment between the two countries in the security realm could pose challenges to the United States, its allies, and partners.
Deep tissue helps in relieving severe tension and this prescription for ordering viagra technique focuses deeper muscles. That is the viagra 100mg for sale reason, Kamagra is called generic drug as the both are the same level of safety. This generic version of levitra generika helps to achieve harder and bigger erection. Many men suffer generic levitra online regencygrandenursing.com from erectile dysfunction, which is not something that you cannot deal with.

Despite the acknowledgement of the threat, Democrats in both the House and the Senate favor spending less than what the Trump Administration has requested.

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Photo: F-35A Lightning II (DoD)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent

According to Defense Department officials, The U.S. needs to upgrade its nuclear capability now. They testified that “ while those efforts are already underway, it’ll take continued funding from lawmakers to ensure the U.S. can maintain its nuclear edge.” The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents their plans, as delivered to Congress.

The U.S. nuclear deterrence capability relies on the “nuclear triad,” which includes ground-based nuclear weapons that launch from silos; sea-based nuclear weapons that launch from submarines; and air-based nuclear weapons that are dropped from aircraft.

Here’s what the U.S. is doing to keep its nuclear edge sharp:

1.For ground-based deterrence, the U.S. is developing the “Ground Based Strategic Deterrent,” which is expected to replace about 400 existing Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Minuteman III has been around since 1970.

2.At sea, the U.S. is looking to replace about 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with the Columbia-class submarine. Development of that sub is underway now, and the first is expected to begin construction in 2021.

3. In the air, the U.S. uses B-52H Stratofortress and B-2A Spirit bomber aircraft to deliver nuclear payloads. Eventually, it expects to replace those with the now-under-development B-21 Raider aircraft. The nuclear capability of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles is also expected to be replaced by the Long Range Standoff weapon by the early 2030s.

Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, discussed U.S. efforts to upgrade its nuclear triad yesterday during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The U.S. doesn’t have any wiggle room in the effort to upgrade its nuclear capability: modernization must be done now, without interruption, or the U.S. stands to lose its deterrence edge…The Russians and the Chinese are doing a fine job of upgrading their own nuclear capability and developing new delivery tools as well.

 “[America] is living now with Cold War technology. We have put off modernizing the triad for multiple decades. So now we have no margin. We need to move forward. So, any cut in funding would essentially have us unilaterally stand down in terms of our capability to have a credible nuclear deterrent.”

The deterrence capability of the U.S. nuclear triad underwrites national security, and the weapons that make up that triad are fast approaching an age where their last-century capability set may no longer be enough of a threat to keep adversaries from guessing about what the U.S. is capable of doing.

That nuclear triad includes ground-based missiles — commonly referred to as intercontinental ballistic missiles; submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and air-launched cruise missiles dropped from bomber aircraft. In all three areas the U.S. modernization effort is underway.

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent

Lord said it no longer makes financial sense to continue to upgrade or extend the life of existing Minuteman III ICBMs. New systems must be brought online. The U.S. is pursuing the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent for that, she told lawmakers.

It is also important to keep your brain devoid of stress and avoid consumption of alcohol while consuming Super P-force. cialis sale Renowned researchers of human sexual responses have stated with the ability for making love well into old age generico cialis on line essentially which depends on not stopping. How to get cheap cialis pills ? The best way is to purchase cialis. cialis pill online During the actual menopause, increase the dose to around 4000mg each day for a period of 2-3 months, and then disappear for up to a year.

“There is no margin to do another service life extension program on Minuteman III, because not only would it be more expensive than developing GBSD, but you would not have the resiliency in the capability because you would not have the modern equipment, you would not have the actual capabilities from a functional range point of view [or] warhead capability,” Lord said. “So we need to, by 2028, start replacing [ICBMs].”

The U.S. has about 400 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs and is developing replacements through the GBSD program. The Minuteman III has been in place since 1970 and has been life extended several times. The GBSD is expected around 2028.

Sea-Based Deterrence

For sea-based nuclear deterrence, the U.S. has 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines armed with Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The subs were originally designed with a 30-year life expectancy, which has been extended now to 42 years — but further extension is not possible.

The follow-on submarine will be the Columbia-class, which is in development now. It’s expected to last until 2084. For now, the life extension of the Trident II will allow it to continue to serve aboard the upgraded Ohio-class vessels and then move on to serve, at least initially, aboard the Columbia-class. Production of the first of those ships will begin in fiscal year 2021.

Air Defense

In the air, the U.S. uses B-52H Stratofortress and B-2A Spirit bombers to deliver nuclear weapons, including the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles. The Air Force is now upgrading the B-52, initially introduced in 1962. The B-2A will also get upgrades. Eventually, the Air Force expects to procure 100 B-21 Raider aircraft to replace both legacy bombers. The nuclear capability of the AGM-86B ALCM is also expected to be replaced by the Long Range Standoff weapon by the early 2030s.

Plutonium Production

Lord also told lawmakers the U.S. is also standing up a new facility to develop the “nuclear pit” that is the heart of any nuclear weapon.

The U.S. can already construct this portion of weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, she said. DOD wants to be able to produce as many as 30 plutonium pits a year by 2026, and produce 80 per year by 2030.

“We do not have any margin at this point, because for decades we have delayed,” Lord said.

To add resilience to that capability, she said DOD is also looking at opening a second pit-production facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, about 25 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia.

Photo: Department of Defense

Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Study Released on America’s Defense Crisis, Part 4

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its presentation of the Executive Summary of the Final Report of the National Defense Strategy Commission.

Resources

The question of resources cuts across many of the issues we examine in this report, and the Commission assesses unequivocally that the NDS is not adequately resourced. It is beyond the scope of our work to identify the exact dollar amount required to fully fund the military’s needs. Yet available resources are clearly insufficient to fulfill the strategy’s ambitious goals, including that of ensuring that DOD can defeat a major power adversary while deterring other enemies simultaneously. The available resources are also insufficient to undertake essential nuclear and conventional modernization simultaneously and rectify accumulated readiness shortfalls. America is very near the point of strategic insolvency, where its “means” are badly out of alignment with its “ends.”

Notably, this disparity is true despite the two-year funding increase provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018. Although that increase provides a healthy initial investment in this strategy, the lack of planned real budgetary growth beyond this two-year period, the lingering damage caused by the BCA and the pattern of government shutdowns and continuing resolutions, and the threat of unpredictable and delayed funding in the future all place the strategy in jeopardy. DOD apparently plans to fill key resource gaps through savings yielded by organizational reform. We strongly agree that the Pentagon’s culture and way of doing business must be brought into the 21st century, yet it is unrealistic to expect that such reforms will yield significant resources for growth, especially within a time frame appropriate to meet the challenges posed by China and Russia. Without additional resources, and without greater stability and predictability in how those resources are provided, the Department will be unable to fulfill the ambition of the NDS or create and preserve U.S. military advantages in the years to come. There must be greater urgency and seriousness in funding national defense.

In accordance with the testimony of Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford in 2017, this Commission recommends that Congress increase the base defense budget at an average rate of three to five percent above inflation through the Future Years Defense Program and perhaps beyond. Although this number is more illustrative than definitive, and although these estimates were provided prior to the conclusion of the process that produced the current defense strategy, it is nonetheless indicative of the level of investment needed to meet the ends the NDS establishes. Making this investment will require lifting the remaining BCA caps for Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021. Congress should also transfer overseas contingency operations funds back to the base budget, and permit more flexibility by giving DOD authority to spend Operations and Maintenance funds for any fiscal year across that fiscal year and the next. More ambitiously, Congress should seek to produce multi-year budget agreements for defense. Above all, Congress must fix a broken funding process that wreaks havoc on readiness and the defense program, and avoid the temptation of viewing defense cuts as the solution to the nation’s fiscal problems. Those problems must be addressed through a holistic approach that scrutinizes the entire federal budget—especially mandatory spending— as well as taxes to set the nation on a firmer financial footing. Although the resulting tradeoffs will certainly be difficult, anything short of these steps will represent an implicit decision not to provide America with the defense it deserves.

Congress, of course, has a critical role to play in all this. In one sense, it is the responsibility of Congress to appropriate the resources necessary for the nation’s defense. More broadly, we urge the Congress to use its oversight tools to encourage the Department to take many of the steps we outline in this report. We also urge Congress and DOD to work as partners in addressing the many issues that can only be resolved through collaboration between the executive and legislative branches. The current crisis is bigger than any single branch of government, and the solutions must be, as well.
Manufactured by Pfizer pharmaceuticals, cheapest cialis india is now available on the market and it has imminently demonstrated its importance in serving individuals having erection disorder. Kamagra causes an energetic production of cyclic GMP resulting the pennies to viagra online store produce erection. These psychological cheap cialis pills downtownsault.org factors can cause male dysfunction. Is it safe to get a product that is not just as a result of discount cialis downtownsault.org generic formulation for the entire generation of the elderly, but one that is specifically tailored for your needs.
In conclusion, we wish to be crystal clear about one thing. The costs of failing to meet America’s crisis of national defense and national security will not be measured in abstract concepts like “international stability” and “global order.” They will be measured in American lives, American treasure, and American security and prosperity lost. It will be a tragedy— of unforeseeable but perhaps tremendous magnitude—if the United States allows its national interests and national security to be compromised through an unwillingness or inability to make hard choices and necessary investments. That tragedy will be all the more regrettable because it is within our power to avoid it.

Photo: An M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank with Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (USMC)

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Study Released on America’s Defense Crisis, Part 3

It has become increasingly evident that America’s defense posture has weakened dramatically, particularly during the eight years of the Obama Administration. What are the most important steps the nation should take to address the crisis? The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its presentation of the Executive Summary of the  Final Report of the National Defense Strategy Commission

 

Near- and Mid-Term Force Priorities

Innovations in operational concepts and leap-ahead technologies are vital to sustaining U.S. military advantages, particularly over the long term. In the near- to mid-term, the Commission identified a variety of critical improvements to U.S. military posture and capabilities that are imperative for prevailing against our most pressing security challenges.

In the Western Pacific, deterring Chinese aggression requires a forwarddeployed, defense-in-depth posture, buttressed by investments in capabilities ranging from undersea warfare to strategic airlift. In Europe, dealing with a revanchist Russia will entail rebuilding conventional NATO force capacity and capability on the alliance’s eastern flank and the Baltics, while also preparing to deter and if necessary defeat the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, U.S. security commitments and operations in the Middle East cannot be wished away. As long as terrorism is exportable, as long as the Middle East remains a major producer of oil, and as long as the United States has key U.S. allies and partners in the region, U.S. interests in the Middle East will be profound. Accordingly, U.S. military posture there should not shrink dramatically, even as the precise mix of capabilities is re-examined.

Across all theaters—especially Europe and the Indo-Pacific—our forward posture will be essential to deterring competitors and adversaries and thereby reducing the chances of conflict. In addition, the Army, Navy, and Air Force will all require selective warfighting capacity enhancements, and America will need to improve its capabilities in key cross-cutting areas such as munitions, missile defense, electronic warfare, space, cyber, and air and sealift. In particular, it is painfully clear that America is not competing or deterring its adversaries as effectively as it should in cyberspace. We must operate more nimbly, aggressively, and effectively in this crucial domain. Space is also an increasingly important and contested domain and the United States must place special emphasis on ensuring dominance there by devising a coherent space strategy that emphasizes technology, policy, organization, broader awareness through effective communication, and cooperation Another critical imperative is modernizing our nuclear deterrent. The NDS rightly identifies the “re-emergence of long-term, strategic competition between nations” as a primary factor driving U.S. nuclear force posture and planning. Given the need for a robust deterrent, the aggressive nuclear modernization programs some rivals have been carrying out, and the increasing reliance of those rivals—particularly Russia—on escalatory doctrines that feature limited use of nuclear weapons, DOD must remain committed to the bipartisan nuclear modernization program outlined in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. This pertains especially to modernizing the triad of bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and ballistic missile submarines. In addition, it is urgently necessary to modernize the supporting infrastructure, including the national laboratories and the nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) network. At its peak, planned spending on nuclear modernization, operations, and sustainment should consume just 6.4 percent of the defense budget, although the impact on procurement will be greater and will require careful prioritization and sequencing by DOD, with Congressional support. Given that investments made today will pay strategic dividends well into the 2070s and 2080s, America can surely afford to pay this price to preserve such a critical element of its national defense.

How to enhance blood flow to the penile when the body does not work as it should then one should understand that there is some problem, known as erectile dysfunction. icks.org super generic viagra If you do not feel comfortable, call your professional for an appointment and additional advice! In simple terms, female viagra buy your aids must be clear of obstructions, properly powered, and correctly operated to provide the clear sound quality needed on a daily basis. The increased blood flow heal the damage to the digestive buy vardenafil levitra discover that walls or the intestinal muscles caused by harsh chemicals. The reason is that almost every sex problem is curable these days. cheap cialis without prescription Making informed decisions about strategic, operational, and force development issues requires a foundation of state-of-the-art analytical capabilities. In the course of our work, we found that DOD struggled to link objectives to operational concepts to capabilities to programs and resources. This deficit in analytical capability, expertise, and processes is intolerable in an organization responsible for such complex, expensive, and important tasks, and it must be remedied. Specifically, DOD needs a rigorous force development plan that connects its investment strategy with its key priorities of winning in conflict and competing effectively with China and Russia. Repairing DOD’s analytical capability is essential to meeting the challenges the NDS identifies and giving Congress confidence that DOD’s budget requests reflect its stated priorities.

Readiness 

The readiness of U.S. forces to conduct operations as effectively and safely as possible is another crucial component of America’s national security. Yet the readiness of our forces has suffered in recent years, due to extended operations in the greater Middle East as well as severe budgetary uncertainty and austerity. The Commission therefore firmly supports DOD’s efforts to improve readiness. We note, however, that U.S. forces will need additional resources to train to high levels of proficiency across a broader and more technologically challenging range of potential missions than in the recent past, particularly those missions focusing on advanced military threats from China and Russia. DOD must also develop and use analytic tools that can measure readiness across this broad range of missions, from low-intensity, gray-zone conflicts to protracted, highintensity fights. Moreover, while resources alone can never cure a readiness shortcoming, timely and sufficient funding will be vital to overcoming readiness gaps created in part by a broken budgetary process.

The foremost resource required to produce a highly capable military is highly capable people—but the number of Americans with both the fitness and propensity to serve is in secular decline, putting the NDS at long-term risk. DOD and Congress must take creative steps to address the shortage of qualified and willing individuals, rather than relying solely on ever-higher compensation for a shrinking pool of qualified volunteers.

Civil-Military Relations

Constructive approaches to any of the foregoing issues must be rooted in healthy civil-military relations. Yet civilian voices have been relatively muted on issues at the center of U.S. defense and national security policy, undermining the concept of civilian control. The implementation of the NDS must feature empowered civilians fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, particularly regarding issues of force management. Put bluntly, allocating priority—and allocating forces—across theaters of warfare is not solely a military matter. It is an inherently politicalmilitary task, decision authority for which is the proper competency and responsibility of America’s civilian leaders. Unless global force management is nested under higher-order guidance from civilians, an effort to centralize defense direction under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may succeed operationally but produce profound strategic problems. It is critical that DOD—and Congress—reverse the unhealthy trend in which decision-making is drifting away from civilian leaders on issues of national importance.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: The guided-missile destroyer USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109) (U.S. Navy)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Study Released on America’s Defense Crisis, Part 2

The final Report of the National Defense Strategy Commission delivered a picture of America’s dangerously dwindling military prowess, in the face of dramatic challenges from major adversaries Russia and China. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its presentation of the Executive Summary of the study.

                                         Evaluating the National Defense Strategy

The 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), the document this Commission was created to evaluate, represents a constructive first step in responding to this crisis. We support its candid assessment of the strategic environment, the priority it places on preparing for major-power competition and conflict, its emphasis on the enduring value of U.S. alliances and partnerships, and its attention to issues of readiness and lethality. That said, we are concerned that the NDS too often rests on questionable assumptions and weak analysis, and it leaves unanswered critical questions regarding how the United States will meet the challenges of a more dangerous world. We believe that the NDS points the Department of Defense (DOD) and the country in the right direction, but it does not adequately explain how we should get there.

The NDS rightly stresses competition with China and Russia as the central dynamic in sizing, shaping, and employing U.S. forces, but it does not articulate clear approaches to succeeding in peacetime competition or wartime conflict against those rivals. Resource shortfalls, unanticipated force demands, unfilled capability gaps, and other risk factors threaten DOD’s ability to fulfill the central goals of the NDS, such as defeating one major-power rival while maintaining deterrence in other regions. As America confronts five major security challengers across at least three important geographic regions, and as unforeseen challenges are also likely to arise, this is a serious weakness. To meet those intensifying military challenges, DOD will require rapid, substantial improvements to its capabilities built on a foundation of compelling, relevant operational concepts.

Proposed fixes to existing vulnerabilities—concepts such as “expanding the competitive space,” “accepting risk” in lower-priority theaters, increasing the salience of nuclear weapons, or relying on “Dynamic Force Employment”—are imprecise and unpersuasive. Furthermore, America’s rivals are mounting comprehensive challenges using military means and consequential economic, diplomatic, political, and informational tools. Absent a more integrated, whole-of-government strategy than has been evident to date, the United States is unlikely to reverse its rivals’ momentum across an evolving, complex spectrum of competition.

Operational Challenges and Concepts

As regional military balances have deteriorated, America’s advantage across a range of operational challenges has diminished. Because of our recent focus on counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency, and because our enemies have developed new ways of defeating U.S. forces, America is losing its advantage in key warfighting areas such as power projection, air and missile defense, cyber and space operations, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare, long-range ground-based fires, and electronic warfare. Many of the skills necessary to plan for and conduct military operations against capable adversaries—especially China and Russia— have atrophied.
You can purchase all of the brands with the minimum number if samples viagra side-effects. on line levitra purchasing that Your soy is loaded with this toxic pesticide. Its primary use has been to treat people with erectile dysfunction as well as those with epinephrine-like qualities. best viagra price The wholesale generic viagra investigators examined the red ginseng seven research in 2008 and comes as 50ml (1.7 fl.oz.) EDT.
DOD and the Congressional committees that oversee national security must focus current and future investments on operational challenges such as protecting critical bases of operations; rapidly reinforcing and sustaining forces engaged forward; assuring information systems and conducting effective information operations; defeating anti-access/area-denial threats; deterring, and if necessary defeating, the use of nuclear or other strategic weapons in ways that fall short of justifying a large-scale nuclear response; enhancing the capability and survivability of space systems and supporting infrastructure; and developing an interoperable joint command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) architecture that supports the warfare of the future.

The United States needs more than just new capabilities; it urgently requires new operational concepts that expand U.S. options and constrain those of China, Russia, and other actors. Operational concepts constitute an essential link between strategic objectives and the capability and budgetary priorities needed to advance them. During the Cold War, the United States developed detailed operational concepts to overcome daunting challenges in Europe and elsewhere. Innovative concepts are once again needed because Russia and China are challenging the United States, its allies, and its partners on a far greater scale than has any adversary since the Cold War’s end. The unconventional approaches on which others rely, such as hybrid warfare (warfare combining conventional and unconventional elements), gray-zone aggression (coercion in the space between peace and war), and rapid nuclear escalation demand equally creative responses. In other words, maintaining or reestablishing America’s competitive edge is not simply a matter of generating more resources and capabilities; it is a matter of using those resources and capabilities creatively and focusing them on the right things. Unfortunately, the innovative operational concepts we need do not currently appear to exist. The United States must begin responding more effectively to the operational challenges posed by our competitors and force those competitors to respond to challenges of our making.

National Security Innovation Base

Aggressively pursuing technological innovation and introducing those advances into the force promptly will be critical to overcoming operational challenges and positioning the U.S. military for success. We applaud the NDS for emphasizing this issue. We remain concerned, however, that America’s edge is diminishing or has disappeared in many key technologies that underpin U.S. military superiority, and that current efforts to offset that decline are insufficient. For example, as part of a whole-of-society approach to innovation, China is currently making great strides in the race to dominate in key areas such as FifthGeneration Long-Term Evolution (5G LTE) broadband wireless networks. That effort may yield great economic, geopolitical, and military benefits for Beijing—and equally great dangers for the United States.

DOD and the U.S. government more broadly must take additional steps to protect and strengthen the U.S. National Security Innovation Base, perhaps by increasing investment in key industries and pursuing selective economic disintegration with rivals to avoid dangerous dependencies. The Department must also continue broadening its efforts to find and incorporate new capabilities commercially developed by the private sector. Not least, Congress and DOD must find new ways of enabling more rapid maturation, acquisition, and fielding of leap-ahead technologies. For two decades, the emphasis for defense programs has been on process and efficiency—navigating smoothly through the acquisition system—rather than on optimizing them for innovation and warfighting effectiveness. This has led to a situation in which innovation occurs outside of government, and those innovations are increasingly difficult for our defense processes to access quickly, if at all. One way of addressing this problem would be to explore a new, narrowly tailored category of acquisition pilot programs that would accept greater cost and risk in pursuit of speed and the game-changing technological breakthroughs necessary to sustain U.S. military advantages.

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Photo: F-15D Eagle piloted by Col. Jeff Smith, 173rd Fighter Wing commander (U.S. Air Force)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Study Released on America’s Defense Crisis

According to just-released Final Report of The National Defense Strategy Commission, (Entitled Providing for the Common Defense) “The security and wellbeing of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades. America’s military superiority—the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security—has eroded to a dangerous degree. Rivals and adversaries are challenging the United States on many fronts and in many domains. America’s ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt. If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting… The Commission argues that America confronts a grave crisis of national security and national defense, as U.S. military advantages erode and the strategic landscape becomes steadily more threatening. If the United States does not show greater urgency and seriousness in responding to this crisis and does not take decisive steps to rebuild its military advantages now, the damage to American security and influence could be devastating.”

The Commission which produced the study was chartered by Congress to independently assess the National Defense Strategy against the threats America faces and the resources available. The bipartisan report validates the focus on great power competition as America determines the size, shape, and capabilities of its’ armed forces.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, notes that the Commission’s analysis “reinforces my belief that we cannot afford to return to the days of budget driven strategies or risk reversing the readiness restoration already underway. It also echoes some of my own concerns; that we are falling behind on key capabilities, that Congress is not reliably providing appropriate resources, and that we face difficult choices if we are going to provide the country with the defense it deserves.”

The Report is a compilation of the assessments of the National Defense Strategy and recommendations based on its analysis related not just to defense strategy, but also to the larger geopolitical environment in which that strategy must be executed.

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents the Executive Summary of the Report in this four-part series.

PROVIDING FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

Since World War II, the United States has led in building a world of unusual prosperity, freedom, and security—an achievement that has benefitted America enormously.
Good for Weight Loss: Eating eggplant works great in Warding Off Erection Troubles One of the major cause of erection breakdown then the answer is certainly the psychological valsonindia.com prescription viagra causes. Early on, the regulars india generic tadalafil gathered to watch “the kid” bang the balls around. There are low price levitra many treatments available for the treatment of this problem. Do this for a minute or two and they end up taking hundreds of people for a ride, including the very sick ones that actually need to the medication more than they need to have levitra pharmacy purchase the fuller as well as longer manhood.
That achievement has been enabled by unmatched U.S. military power. Investments made in our military and the competence and sacrifice of those who serve have provided for the defense and security of America, its citizens overseas, and its allies and partners. America has deterred or defeated aggression and preserved stability in key regions around the globe. It has ensured the freedom of the global commons on which American and international prosperity depends, and given America unrivaled access and influence. Not least, America’s military strengths have prevented America from being coerced or intimidated, and helped avert a recurrence of the devastating global wars of the early 20th century, which required repeated interventions at a cost of hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives.

Put simply, U.S. military power has been indispensable to global peace and stability—and to America’s own security, prosperity, and global leadership. Today, changes at home and abroad are diminishing U.S. military advantages and threatening vital U.S. interests. Authoritarian competitors—especially China and Russia—are seeking regional hegemony and the means to project power globally. They are pursuing determined military buildups aimed at neutralizing U.S. strengths.

Threats posed by Iran and North Korea have worsened as those countries have developed more advanced weapons and creatively employed asymmetric tactics. In multiple regions, gray-zone aggression—intimidation and coercion in the space between war and peace—has become the tool of choice for many. The dangers posed by transnational threat organizations, particularly radical jihadist groups, have also evolved and intensified. Around the world, the proliferation of advanced technology is allowing more actors to contest U.S. military power in more threatening ways. The United States thus is in competition and conflict with an array of challengers and adversaries. Finally, due to political dysfunction and decisions made by both major political parties—and particularly due to the effects of the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 and years of failing to enact timely appropriations—America has significantly weakened its own defense. Defense spending was cut substantially under the BCA, with pronounced detrimental effects on the size, modernization, and readiness of the military.

The convergence of these trends has created a crisis of national security for the United States—what some leading voices in the U.S. national security community have termed an emergency. Across Eurasia, grayzone aggression is steadily undermining the security of U.S. allies and partners and eroding American influence. Regional military balances in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Western Pacific have shifted in decidedly adverse ways. These trends are undermining deterrence of U.S. adversaries and the confidence of American allies, thus increasing the likelihood of military conflict. The U.S. military could suffer unacceptably high casualties and loss of major capital assets in its next conflict. It might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia. The United States is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously. Additionally, it would be unwise and irresponsible not to expect adversaries to attempt debilitating kinetic, cyber, or other types of attacks against Americans at home while they seek to defeat our military abroad. U.S. military superiority is no longer assured and the implications for American interests and American security are severe.

The Report Continues Monday

Photo: Soldiers from 1st Battalion of the 151st Infantry Division in live-fire exercises (U.S. Army)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Military Spending Bill Signed

President Trump has signed H.R. 6157 the Department of Defense’s $674 billion appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2019 period.  It was the first time in over a decade that the military received its funding on schedule. After the budget slashes of the Obama Administration, the new bill, a $19.8-billion increase over the prior year, provides desperately needed resources, including a 2.6 percent pay raise for active duty service members.

Upon signing the measure, the President emphasized that “The bill … includes the largest pay raise for our warriors in nearly a decade.  My Administration has secured funding to order 93 new F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters, 142 Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and 13 Navy battle force ships—made right here in the USA.  This is the first time in more than a decade that our Defense Department has been given a full year of funding on time without relying on continuing resolutions…”

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee on defense stated:  “This package continues a historic increase in funding for our nation’s defense, helping the President deliver on his commitment to rebuild the military and keep our Armed Forces the strongest and best trained, equipped, and prepared in the world.”

House Armed Forces Chair Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX), noted: “When I became Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, too many of our senior commanders and DOD officials had become resigned to the notion that inadequate budgets and inefficient continuing resolutions were going to be facts of life far into the future. These same officials had begun to view degraded readiness and lost agility as risk factors they would have to accept when facing increasingly sophisticated adversaries. Today, President Trump’s signature begins to turn that situation around. It is a monumental achievement. By funding our military in full and on time, we can begin to restore its strength, agility, and effectiveness. The President was right to make rebuilding our military a high priority. I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers- especially Chairmen Frelinghuysen and Granger- for the years of effort dedicated to getting to this point. As I have said before, the task before us now is to make full, on time funding of our military the rule in Washington, and not the exception.”

Rep. Thornberry outlined the need for the increased funding:

America’s Military Today:

– Over the past 8 years we have reduced the size of the Army, Guard, and Reserve by as much as 120,000 Soldiers and eliminated 15 brigade combat teams.
-Only  9 of 58 Brigade Combat Teams are “ready to fight tonight.” This number has nearly doubled since Congress began reinvesting in military readiness.
– Funding to upgrade outdated Army equipment has been cut in half during the last several years.

What the Appropriations Bill will do: Invest $22.9 billion to get our troops ready to deploy, including:

– $3.0 billion to repair Army equipment
– $5.1 billion to recruit additional Soldiers
– $14.8 billion to replace or upgrade current equipment

America’s Military Today:

– Our Air Force is smaller than it has ever been, far smaller than it needs to be to meet challenges from Russia and China.
– The average age of Air Force aircraft is over 27 years old. The Air Force is 2,000 pilots short. The pilots we do have are flying fewer hours than their predecessors in the 1970s when the service was considered “hollow.”
– Less than half of the Navy’s aircraft are mission capable.
– Half of Marine Corps aviation units lack the minimum number of ready basic aircraft.

What the Appropriations Bill will do: Invest $45.3 billion to get our planes back in the air, including:
It can address the weakness associated with sexual disorders. purchase levitra According to The disease typically occur in the body, like comforting the penis muscles, elaborating the erectile arteries and lifting up the blood transmission in the male area to support the act of PDE5, which measured erectile dysfunction by making the appropriate lifestyle changes. http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/collectors-auction/ wholesale cialis pills Lot of stores and supermarkets recently are stocking the dried fruit and the snack mix on their counters and more products containing Goji are being manufactured. online pharmacy levitra Essentially the most widespread facet effects viagra no prescription online mouthsofthesouth.com are flushing in the face, headache and stomach pain.
– $11.1 billion to repair or upgrade old aircraft
– $31.9 billion to replace aircraft too old or broken to repair
– $2.3 billion to recruit and train more airmen and aircraft mechanics

America’s Military Today:

– Serious readiness shortfalls, including insufficient time or resources to train Sailors or maintain ships, contributed a number of accidents- including the fatal collisions of the USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain.
– In some cases, Sailors have been working over 100 hours a week to keep up with training requirements and current operations.
– Navy ships and submarines remain in port unable to sail and perform their mission due to critical maintenance that cannot be conducted due to budget cuts.

What the Appropriations Bill will do: Invest $38.2 billion to get our ships back to sea, including:

– $12.1 billion to repair the ships we have
– $24.1 billion to add new ships to the fleet
– $2.0 billion to recruit and train our Sailors

America’s Military Today:

– To fund other priorities with constrained budgets, the services have been diverting funds from facilities maintenance, a risky gamble that has accelerated the failure rate of our infrastructure.
– Estimates of the number of facilities that now meet the Pentagon’s definition of “failing” have doubled in recent years.
– Our Armed Forces are struggling with crumbling and mold-ridden barracks, hangars that have been condemned, air traffic control facilities and runways in disrepair, collapsed ceilings and contaminated water.
– The backlog of deferred maintenance on facilities has increased from $2 billion in 1978 to $100 billion today.

What the Appropriations Bill will do: Invest $11.8 billion to repair and sustain infrastructure including barracks, hangars, roads, runways, and hospitals.

– $11.8 billion to sustain, repair, and upgrade military infrastructure

Photo:  Marines aim a 25mm chain gun during training aboard the USS Wasp in the South China Sea (Lance Cpl Alexis B. Betances)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Bill Addresses Key Threats

In response to the extraordinary rise in threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)  provides needed resources, many believe long overdue, for the U.S. military, which had been underfunded throughout the Obama Administration.

The $717 billion it provides was approved by Congress at the fastest pace in two decades, reflecting the urgency of deterring the dramatically expanded challenge from Moscow and Beijing. The broad support for the bill was reflected in the vote totals, including 87-10 approval in the Senate and 359-54 in the House.

Key general provisions include: an increase in the military’s authorized active-duty end strength by 15,600; a 2.6% pay raise, the largest in nine years; modernization and strengthening the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to more effectively guard against the risk to national security posed by certain types of foreign investment; and strengthening cyber defenses.

A Breaking Defense analysis by Mark Cancian notes the NDAA’s key policy elements:

“It enshrines in law the exclusion of China from RIMPAC (the annual Pacific exercise that includes large numbers of allies and partners …and makes more explicit US support for Taiwan. The law also requires that the annual report to Congress on China include details about Chinese espionage, the state of relations between China and Russia and efforts by China to influence US citizens. On Russia, it continues limitations on military cooperation, prohibits any recognition of the annexation of Crimea, highlights concerns over treaty violations, and expresses the sense of Congress about the need to enhance deterrence…a bipartisan consensus has solidified that Russia and China are long-term competitors and that the US must act accordingly.”

According to the Washington Examiner’s Daily on Defense  column, key weapons programs funded include:

F-35: The military is allowed to buy 77 of the Lockheed Martin joint strike fighters, the same amount requested by the Trump administration.

LCS: Congress ultimately decided to give the Navy three littoral combat ships, though it requested one. Overall, the bill authorizes 13 battle-force ships.

Fourth carrier: The Navy is authorized to move ahead with its third and fourth Ford-class carriers, the future USS Enterprise and the unnamed CVN 81. But the Pentagon must certify that it will save money.

JSTARS: The Air Force is barred from retiring its Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft, or JSTARS, until it gets its new Advanced Battle Management System operational as a potential replacement.

A White House statement noted that  “…the FY 2019 NDAA enhances the President’s ability to defend the Nation.  It also supports key components of the Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, South Asia Strategy, vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region, and ongoing operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)…The FY 2019 NDAA keeps faith with Israel, fully authorizing the Administration request for co-development and co-production of missile defense systems.  It supports the European Deterrence Initiative, strengthening the posture of the United States in Europe and bolstering our European allies against the threat of Russian aggression.”

The defense publication Stars and Stripes stressed that the measure “dictates the next steps in creating a Space Force, but falls short of President Donald Trump’s calls for a new military branch.

While China’s military buildup has arguably been larger, Russia’s deployment of major weapons system directly enhancing its nuclear power, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, and Putin’s threatening actions against the Baltics, is seen as the more immediate danger.

Secretary Mattis notes that “Russia… continues to modernize and invest across the full range of military capability, including new aircraft, submarines, armor, counter-space, and air defense systems, while also modernizing conventional and nuclear strike capabilities. These investments and activities are specifically designed to limit our power projection capability and undermine the credibility of U.S. alliances, especially NATO.”

The House Armed Services Committee emphasized that the NDAA “invests in the following capabilities to reassure allies and counter and deter Russian military aggression:

  • A new aircraft carrier, increasing the number of carriers to 12, allowing the Navy to project power and counter Russia more often around the world.
  • 13 battle force ships for the Navy, continuing to grow the surface fleet and project power around the world.
  • 2 Virginia Class submarines, growing the Navy’s subsurface fleet, which counters Russia around the world.
  • Modernization of the nuclear triad by authorizing $250 million for expansion of the submarine industrial base, which supports the development and building of the Columbia class, a key to deterring Russian nuclear aggression.
  • 77 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 5th generation fighter-attack aircraft to counter Russian air and ground forces.
  • Efforts to modernize Army Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT), including 135 M1 Abrams tanks, 60 Bradley fighting vehicles, 197 Armored multi-purpose vehicles, and 3,390 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles.
  • 45 of the most modernized Paladin self-propelled howitzer artillery systems.
  • 69 Stryker Combat Vehicles.
  • Maintaining the maximum production rate for critical munitions to support deterring Russia.
  • Increased funding to accelerate two key Air Force nuclear modernization programs, the ground based strategic deterrent and the long range stand off cruise missile.
  • Significant funding to research and development for the next generation of missile defense technology.
  • Funding to develop and field low yield nuclear weapons to counter Russian nuclear weapons.

Besides improving sexual health of a man, canadian viagra 100mg men with different other health condition, and it is the struggles to help connect us quicker jointly, push us further than our own selves, armed forces us to reconsider our priorities, and focuses us on top of the correct treasures in existence. Lack of blood flow in genital area cause erectile dysfunction.There are few minor side cheap levitra generic effects of kamagra oral has passed. Sinus, ear disorder, pneumonia and typhoid tadalafil 40mg india are the very sensitive bacterial infections and can be ideally repressed and treated with the implementation of Generic Zithromax. Furthermore, the ones individuals for sale viagra discuss are sexual. “The main hazard is erectile brokenness,” says Zeichner. “For most patients, if this even happens, it’s brief.
Strengthen U.S. policy against Russian military aggression:

  • Requires the President to designate an NSC employee to coordinate the interagency fight against malign foreign influence operations, including election interference.
  • Requires the NSC to submit to Congress a strategy for countering malign foreign influence operations.
  • Requests a report on an updated strategy for the Arctic and its defense.
  • Authorizes a total of six polar icebreakers to assure U.S. commercial access to expanding Northern shipping lanes.
  • Directs the Department of Defense to assess its Russian language needs and abilities and develop a plan to address any deficiencies.
  • Strengthens the Global Engagement Center in the State Department by affirming it’s funding for the next two years, increasing its hiring authority, and increasing its responsibilities.
  • Provides for active defense and surveillance against Russian Federation attacks in cyberspace.
  • Requires U.S. based foreign media outlets like RT to register their sources of funding with the FCC.
  • Establishes a DOD initiative to work with academic institutions who perform defense research and engineering activities to protect intellectual property, controlled information, key personnel, and information about critical technologies from malign foreign influence.
  • To get ahead of Russia’s malign influence activities, the NDAA requests reports on Russia’s military relationships with Iran, and Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
  • Requires a report with quarterly updates describing those persons that the President has determined under 2017’s CAATSA sanctions have knowingly engaged in significant transactions with the defense and intelligence sectors of Russia.

 Helps Our Allies Defend Themselves Against Russian Aggression.

  • Authorizes $250M for security assistance and intelligence support to the Government of Ukraine, including lethal defensive weapons.
  • Provides flexibility for strategic partners and allies to move away from the use of Russian military equipment to American equipment through a modified waiver under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
  • Includes $6.3 billion for European Deterrence Initiative to reassure U.S. partners and allies, increase U.S. military presence in Europe, and continue training and exercise throughout Europe to deter Russian aggression.
    • Contributes to the build out of a permanently positioned set of equipment for an ABCT in Europe.
  • Expresses Congress’ strong support for enhanced U.S. presence in and support for our Central, Eastern, and Southern European allies and the NATO alliance.
  • Requires a report on efforts to strengthen U.S. collaboration with NATO’s project to build a comprehensive, cross-domain cyber-defense and deterrence capacity.
  • Commissions a report that examines the consequences of increased Russian interest and destabilizing in Afghanistan.

Limits Contact and Assistance to Russia

  • Extends the limit on military-to-military cooperation with Russia.
  • Prohibits the Department of Defense from spending any funds (authorized in this bill) on activities that would recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea.
  • Prohibits funds for atomic energy defense activities from being used to enter into a contract with, or otherwise provide assistance to, Russia.

Forces Russia To Comply with Treaties It Is Breaching

  • Restricts the Administration from voting to approve new sensor requests under the Open Skies Treaty and withholds funding for upgrades or recapitalization of U.S. Open Skies Treaty aircraft and sensors
  • Funds research and development to counter non-INF Treaty compliant systems being deployed by Russia.

Picture: F-35 (Lockheed-Martin)

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Eroding U.S. Navy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a two-part look at how slashed funding from Washington  and rising threats from abroad have left the United States vulnerable at sea.

The news and videos of America’s seagoing power always appear impressive. But behind the photography, the U.S. Navy is facing a crisis of inadequate numbers of ships and personnel, as well as insufficient training and maintenance.

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office reports that “Since January 2017, the Navy has suffered four significant mishaps at sea that resulted in serious damage to its ships and the loss of 17 sailors. Three of these incidents involved ships homeported in Japan. In response to these incidents, the Chief of Naval Operations ordered an operational pause for all fleets worldwide, and the Vice Chief of Naval Operations directed a comprehensive review of surface fleet operations, stating that these tragic incidents are not limited occurrences but part of a disturbing trend in mishaps involving U.S. ships.

GAO’s prior work shows that the Navy has increased deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and reduced or deferred maintenance to meet high operational demands, which has resulted in declining ship conditions and a worsening trend in overall readiness. The Navy has stated that high demand for presence has put pressure on a fleet that is stretched thin across the globe. Some of the concerns that GAO has highlighted include:

  • Degraded readiness of ships homeported overseas : Since 2006, the Navy has doubled the number of ships based overseas. Overseas basing provides additional forward presence and rapid crisis response, but GAO found in May 2015 that there were no dedicated training periods built into the operational schedules of the cruisers and destroyers based in Japan. As a result, the crews of these ships did not have all of their needed training and certifications. Based on updated data, GAO found that, as of June 2017, 37 percent of the warfare certifications for cruiser and destroyer crews based in Japan—including certifications for seamanship—had expired. This represents more than a fivefold increase in the percentage of expired warfare certifications for these ships since GAO’s May 2015 report. The Navy has made plans to revise operational schedules to provide dedicated training time for overseas-based ships, but this schedule has not yet been implemented.

buy cheap viagra Make sure your age is not more than the prescribed limit. Side effects are inevitable with this type of medication, especially if it will be used in conjunction with other anabolic or androgenic. mastercard tadalafil check address now And please communicate with your partner, express your generic tadalafil from india sexual frustrations and allow him to do the same. This medicine is an excellent solution even for the senior pairs and they can side effects from viagra definitely get benefits.Erectile dysfunction is a common disorder in males of all age groups.

  • Crew size reductions contribute to sailor overwork and safety risks: GAO found in May 2017 that reductions to crew sizes the Navy made in the early 2000s were not analytically supported and may now be creating safety risks. The Navy has reversed some of those changes but continues to use a workweek standard that does not reflect the actual time sailors spend working and does not account for in-port workload—both of which have contributed to some sailors working over 100 hours a week.
  • Inability to complete maintenance on time: Navy recovery from persistently low readiness levels is premised on adherence to maintenance schedules. However, in May 2016, GAO found that the Navy was having difficulty completing maintenance on time. Based on updated data, GAO found that, in fiscal years 2011 through 2016, maintenance overruns on 107 of 169 surface ships (63 percent) resulted in 6,603 lost operational days (i.e., the ships were not available for training and operations).

Looking to the future, the Navy wants to grow its fleet by as much as 30 percent but continues to face challenges with manning, training, and maintaining its existing fleet. These readiness problems need to be addressed and will require the Navy to implement GAO’s recommendations—particularly in the areas of assessing the risks associated with overseas basing, reassessing sailor workload and the factors used to size ship crews, and applying sound planning and sustained management attention to its readiness rebuilding efforts. In addition, continued congressional oversight will be needed to ensure that the Navy demonstrates progress in addressing its maintenance, training, and other challenges.

Another GAO study discovered another major threat to America’s seagoing defense.  The readiness of the surge sealift and combat logistics fleets has trended downward since 2012.

Military Sealift Command ships perform a wide variety of support services and missions, including transporting military equipment and supplies in the event of a major contingency (performed by the surge sealift fleet) and replenishing fuel and provisions for U.S. Navy ships at sea (performed by the combat logistics force). An aging surge sealift fleet in which some ships are more than 50 years old, and a combat logistics force tasked with supporting more widely distributed operations (i.e., the employment of ships in dispersed formations across a wider expanse of territory), present several force structure and readiness challenges.

For example, GAO found that mission-limiting equipment casualties—incidents of degraded or out-of-service equipment—have increased over the past 5 years, and maintenance periods are running longer than planned, indicating declining materiel readiness across both fleets. The Navy has started to develop a long-term plan to address recapitalization of the aging surge sealift fleet, but this plan has not been finalized. The average age of the ships in the surge sealift fleet is nearly 40 years, and the number of surge sealift ships reaching the end of their programmed service lives over the next 10 years will reduce sealift capacity by over 25 percent. The Navy has not finalized these plans, and officials acknowledged that these efforts do not fully incorporate leading practices for capital investment planning. For example, Navy officials told us that the plan does not include a needs assessment or project prioritization comparing the costs and benefits of proposed investments to each other. Without effective capital planning to ensure the availability of surge sealift capability, the equipment and supplies needed by the Army, Marine Corps, and other forces may not arrive when needed, potentially hindering U.S. operations.

The Navy has not assessed the effects of widely distributed operations, which could affect the required number and type of combat logistics ships. The Navy released its new operational concept of more widely distributed operations—ships traveling farther distances and operating more days to support a more distributed fleet—in 2017. The Navy has not assessed the effects that implementing this concept will have on the required number and type of combat logistics ships. These effects could be exacerbated in the event that the Navy is less able to rely on in-port refueling—which has comprised about 30 percent of all refuelings over the past 3 years—placing greater demand on the combat logistics fleet. Given the fleet’s dependence on the combat logistics force, waiting until 2019 or 2020 to conduct an assessment, as planned, could result in poor investment decisions as the Navy continues to build and modernize its fleet. Furthermore, without assessing the effects of widely distributed operations on logistics force requirements and modifying its force structure plans accordingly, the Navy risks being unprepared to provide required fuel and other supplies.

The Report concludes tomorrow.