Tag: defense budget

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Army Faces Budgetary Challenges

Budget constraints are taking an increasingly severe toll on the United States Army, impairing its ability to defend the nation. The financial challenges come at a time when threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorists have increased dramatically.

The Army’s base 2017 budget request, including Overseas Contingency Operations, is $125.1 billion.  60% of that figure goes to personnel costs. Major General Thomas Horlander,  the force’s budget director, notes that the Army’s base budget has been reduced by 12% over the past six years, and Overseas Contingency Operations funding has been reduced to 20% of what it was in 2010.

Although America’s adversaries field advanced weaponry and cutting edge technology to a degree greater than ever, the Army’s research budget is being reduced. The 2017 Research, Development and Acquisition budget request of $22.6 billion is a decrease of $1.4 billion from the 2016 enacted levels. According to General Horlander, “the Army had to make some difficult choices between current and future readiness. We assess that this risk will continue until we achieve a greater balance between readiness, end strength and modernization early into the next decade.”

In an article in National Defense magazine General H.R. McMaster, deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command noted that   “Future Army forces may be not only outnumbered … but we also may face enemies who have overmatch capability over us in some key areas…”

The article notes that “Adversary technologies that pose an increasing threat to U.S. forces include: sophisticated air defenses; highly capable anti-tank weapons; unmanned aerial systems and associated swarm capabilities; long-range rockets and artillery; cyber weapons; electronic warfare; anti-satellite capabilities; and advanced combat vehicles…Meanwhile, the Army’s ability to modernize as well as field and sustain critical capabilities ‘is being sorely tested on all fronts,’ said Katrina McFarland, acting assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, technology and logistics.”

The National Commission on the Future of the Army  has completed its analysis on the condition of the Army, and the results are truly worrisome.
So the point is all these men should be choosy before picking up the right product here is Fezinil- natural women cialis australia sex enhancement treatment is totally protected from side effects that individuals may experience when taking the anti-erectile medication. 1. Hope you will follow them and keep yourself away from saturated fats and viagra no prescription india Trans fat. This article highlights 8 of the most important tips that one discount viagra Our pharmacy store can follow to stop erectile dysfunction normally. Erectile dysfunction levitra prescription has all concerns with the erections of the man.
The Commission found that demands made on Army to protect the nation are “significant and, in many cases, increasing. Yet, the Army is down-sizing. After all we have heard, read, seen, and analyzed, we find that an Army of 980,000 is the minimally sufficient force to meet current and anticipated missions with an acceptable level of national risk. Within that Army of 980,000, the Commission finds that a Regular Army of 450,000, an Army National Guard of 335,000, and an Army Reserve of 195,000 represent, again, the absolute minimums to meet America’s national security objectives. However, the reserve components must be resourced to provide both needed operational capability and the strategic depth the nation requires in the event of a full mobilization for unforeseen requirements. These forces should be maintained at currently planned readiness levels, and every effort should be made to increase funding for modernization…

“Even with budgets permitting a force of 980,000, the Army faces significant shortfalls. Army aviation represents a key example. Today, some aviation assets cannot meet expected wartime capacity requirements. Considering all types of Army units, peacetime demand for aviation assets is among the highest, and demand may grow as threats from Russia and other nations escalate. Retaining an eleventh Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army would help meet these demands. With an eleventh CAB, the Army would be better postured to retain a forward stationed aviation brigade in Korea—a major advantage over rotating forces as currently planned—and shortfalls in capabilities would decline significantly.

“Short-range air defense represents another example of an important shortfall. In the post-Cold War era, the Army envisioned little threat from the air forces of potential adversaries. Recent activities in Ukraine and Syria have demonstrated the threat environment has changed. Yet, no short-range air defense battalions reside in the Regular Army. Moreover, a sizeable percentage of the Army National Guard’s short-range air defense capability is providing essential protection in the National Capital Region, leaving precious little capability for other global contingencies, including in high-threat areas in northeast Asia, southwest Asia, eastern Europe, or the Baltics. Other capabilities with significant shortfalls include tactical mobility; missile defense; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN); field artillery; fuel distribution; water purification; watercraft; and military police

“… more efficiencies and fewer redundancies will not be enough; added funding will eventually be needed if major shortfalls are to be eliminated…

“As a result of the budgetary constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army had to make many significant trade-offs, including cancelling Combat Training Center rotations and furloughing Army civilians. Moreover, the Army replaced four Army National Guard units scheduled to deploy in June 2013 for overseas operations in order to avoid about $93 million in added costs required to mobilize and deploy the units. Given that year’s tight budget situation, the decision to employ Regular Army units in lieu of reserve component units was understandable. However, these decisions caused longer-term harm by reducing opportunities for leader development and training for reserve component soldiers. The decisions also increased tension and suspicions between the Army components, leaving some reserve units feeling that they were not being treated as an important part of the Army…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Missile Defense Cut as Threats Expand

The inadequate funding of America’s missile defense program (See the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s article “Obama Opposes Missile Defense even as Threats Expand) is getting harder to justify.

President Reagan originally championed anti-missile defenses against the vast Soviet arsenal. The potential success of that program—even before significant development began—has been considered by many a factor in the belief by some in the USSR hierarchy that they could no longer compete with the U.S.  After the collapse of the Communist regime, the program seemed unnecessary.  But the meteoric rise of China’s military and the growing missile prowess of North Korea and Iran made the concept again necessary.

And of course, there is Russia.  While the current missile defense program provides no defense against Moscow’s nuclear arsenal which, for the first time in history, is larger than America’s, the Kremlin opposes the existence of this purely defensive effort, without offering any logical reason why it takes such a position. At the same time, it works against international efforts to stop the proliferation of missile technology.  Russia has blocked UN Security Council attempts to oppose Iran’s growing missile program, much the same as China has taken no significant action against North Korea’s nuclear and ICBM efforts, despite its overwhelming influence over Pyongyang.

A recent General Accounting Office  study noted that “According to the Department of Defense (DOD), protection of the United States from the threat of ballistic missile attacks is a critical national security priority.”

The FY2017 Missile Defense Agency budget request of $ 7.5 is considerably smaller than the last pre-Obama budget request of $9.3 billion, and smaller than the FY2016 request of $8.1 billion.  Strangely, as the threat increases, support for protection decreases.

In 2013, National Security expert  Loren Thompson, writing in Forbes,  observed “it is surprising to note how little money the Pentagon spends on missile defense, given the high priority of the dangers it addresses.”

Testifying before Congress in 2015, Vice Admiral J.D. Syring,  USN Director, Missile Defense Agency told the House Armed Service Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces:
The FDA or Food & Drug Administration approved this significant viagra usa pharmacy medicine by the Ajanta pharmacy. In most cases, it takes just half an hour for a person to be able to uncover the accountable firms. discount generic viagra If you want any information regarding male enhancement then you can certainly read the articles, views and opinions of cheap viagra from uk people present over the internet. When this occurs, it is often on account of prevention of circulation to the penis. dig this low cost levitra
“The threat continues to grow as our potential adversaries acquire a greater number of ballistic missiles, increasing their range, incorporating BMD countermeasures, and making them more complex, survivable, reliable, and accurate. Space-launch activities involve multistage systems that further the development of technologies for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In addition to the Taepo Dong 2 space launch vehicle/ICBM, North Korea is developing and has paraded the KN08 road-mobile ICBM and an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) capable of 2 reaching Guam and the Aleutian Islands.

“As part of a series of provocations last year, North Korea conducted multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missile launches and threatened to conduct additional longer-range launches. Today it fields hundreds of Scud and No Dong missiles that can reach U.S. forces forward deployed to the Republic of Korea and Japan.

“Iran has publicly stated it intends to launch a space launch vehicle as early as this year (2015) that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such. Iran also has steadily increased its ballistic missile force, deploying next-generation short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs and MRBMs) with increasing accuracy and new submunition payloads. … Iran continues to develop more sophisticated missiles and improve the range and accuracy of current missile systems, and it has publicly demonstrated the ability to launch simultaneous salvos of multiple rockets and missiles.”

There are implications for America’s allies.

The Jerusalem Post reports that “The timing of the US cuts is regrettable as the capability of missiles developed by both Iran and North Korea is advancing and their production numbers are increasing. According to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency overall funds earmarked for anti-missile defense will fall in 2017 by a projected 10 percent…Funding for the cooperative Israeli program will be slashed by 60% while funding for the highly effective Iron Dome system faces a 25% cut. This certainly hurts Israel, but these cuts also put South Korea and Japan at risk as those countries face off against an increasingly belligerent and technologically capable North Korea.

“Israel, with American help, has proven the investment in missile defense pays off. It should be clear to the United States and all Americans that in an increasingly dangerous world with missile proliferation rampant it is more important than ever to give our leaders more options to protect our cities and our allies.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

What is the Russian Navy up to?

Russia is engaging in an extraordinary buildup of its naval power, at the same time that the U.S. defense budget has been shrinking.

Spacewar reports that “A total of eight Borey-class submarines are planned to join the Russian Navy by 2020 to be the backbone of Russia’s marine nuclear forces. The first three have been launched, and another three are currently under construction. By 2020, the Russian Navy also plans to operate a total of eight Borei-class nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines, which will become the mainstay of the naval component of the country’s strategic nuclear deterrent.” Russia is upgrading other subs with Kalibr cruise missiles.

Moscow’s innovative undersea fleet is getting a further upgrade, Spacewar  reveals, through the development of “fifth generation submarines,” unmanned  nuclear vessels with advanced stealth, noise-reduction, automated reconnaissance and warning systems.

In the far east, The Associated Press notes,  the Kremlin’s military will deploy state-of-the art Bal and Bastion anti-ship missile systems and new drones will be deployed. The Arctic region is also receiving substantial attention.

Moscow has not been shy about the deployment of its growing naval strength. It has engaged in war games with ally China both in the Pacific and in the Mediterranean. It has returned to cold war-era bases in Cuba.  Both the invasion of the Ukraine and the recent incursion into the middle east were motivated in large part by Moscow’s desire to hold onto or secure warm-water ports in those regions.

Connecticut’s Senator Chris Murphy told the Washington Examiner “Russian submarines have been pushing out to the very precipice of NATO-ally waters…We have seen Russian boats coming closer to the U.S. and to our European partner ports than ever before, in immensely provocative ways — in ways that were rare even during the days of the Cold War.”
It has now been widely accepted as cialis australia FDA approved medicine for male sexual worries. Many computer training schools allow people to take refresher and supplemental courses even if they are not enrolled as viagra generic discount full-time students. A popular and wide prescribed birth control pill should function not only controls the possibilities of conceiving, it should also reduce the chances of women developing generic viagra mastercard ovarian and endometrial cancer. Here, we discuss levitra online cheap the key psychological issues behind it.
Last year’s budget testimony to Congress by top naval officials demonstrated the U.S. navy’s dilemma.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated  “It is absolutely true that our fleet shrank dramatically… It takes a long time, measured in years, to produce a deployable ship. As I noted earlier, it is the least reversible thing we might do to deal with budget constraints. If we miss a year, if we cancel a ship, it is almost impossible to recover those ships because of the time involved and the fragile industrial base. To do the job America and our leaders expect and demand of us, we have to have those gray hulls on the horizon…the way some of the budget reductions have been executed in the law, through continuing resolutions and the sequester, have made planning virtually impossible and have not allowed us to approach reductions in a strategic way… We continue to accept some risk to our capacity to complete all ten of the missions, and we have continued reductions to the maintenance funds for our shore infrastructure, elements of our weapons capacity, and selected aviation accounts.”

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of naval operations,   worried: “With each year that the Navy receives less than requested, the loss of force structure, readiness, and future investments cause our options to become increasingly constrained. Navy has already divested 23 ships and 67,000 personnel between 2002 and 2012. And we have been assuming significant risk by delaying critical modernizations of our force to keep pace and maintain technological advantage. Unless naval forces are properly sized, modernized at the right pace, ready to deploy with adequate training and equipment, and able to respond with the capacity and speed required by Combatant Commanders, they will not be able to carry out the defense strategy, as written. Most importantly, when facing major contingencies, our ability to fight and win will not be quick nor as decisive as required. To preclude a significantly diminished global security role for the Nation’s military, we must address the growing mismatch in ends, ways, and means. The world is more complex, uncertain, and turbulent; this trend will likely continue. Our adversaries’ capabilities are modernizing and expanding.”

The U.S. Navy has already been sharply reduced from a high of 600 ships down to its current level of between 254 to 278. President Obama has demonstrated considerable reluctance to use military force.  Russia’s alliance with China and Iran provides it with extraordinary security. NATO members in Europe continue to dramatically underfund their armed forces, including their naval forces.  In essence, Moscow faces no significant threat. Why is it building and acting so aggressively?

It’s time to become deeply concerned about Russia’s intentions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

USAF in Crisis

It’s the crisis that almost everyone prefers not to discuss: the rapid deterioration of the U.S. armed forces, at the same time that adversaries Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are rapidly building up and modernizing their militaries.  Those nations are not only expanding their capabilities; they are not shy about using their newly produced muscle.

Each of the military branches has their own harsh problems to relate. On March 8, the Air Force presented testimony  to the U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee’s subcommittee on Airland Forces.   Testifying for the USAF: Ms. Darlene J. Costello Performing the Duties of the Principal Deputy Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition & Logistics) Lt. Gen. James M. “Mike” Holmes, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff (Strategic Plans and Requirements) Lt. Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations) and Lt. Gen. Arnold W. Bunch, Jr. USAF Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary Of the Air Force (Acquisition.)

These are the crucial points Air Force personnel provided, in their own words:

  1. For the first time in decades, our adversaries are closing in on our capability advantage. Our efforts to address these increasing challenges have been stymied by reduced and unpredictable appropriations.
  1. Even at these funding levels, we continue to face difficult choices between capacity, readiness and modernization. We need …support in the form of stable and predictable appropriations if we are going to build the Air Force that ensures the joint force can continue to deter, deny and decisively defeat any enemy that threatens the United States or our national interests. Any return to sequestration-level funding will force us to chase short term requirements at the expense of long term strategic planning, modernization and readiness.
  1. The Air Force’s fighter fleet is approaching 30 years old on average—the oldest in our history. Without recapitalization and selective capability upgrades, it will not be possible to mitigate the growing risk.
  1. The Air Force is currently 511 fighter pilots short of the total manning requirement and our projections indicate this deficit will continue to grow to approximately 834 by 2022. The shortfall is the result of force structure reductions of active duty fighter and fighter training squadrons. The remaining active component fighter squadrons do not produce enough experienced fighter pilots to meet all of the staff, test, and training requirement
    Men who have the buy cialis used this medication have no other words but are happy and satisfied. This is the basic dosage which has to be about generico viagra on line generico viagra on line initiated an hour ago reconciling for romantic session. prices viagra It boosts energy levels and cure PE. A concern for many persons these levitra pills for sale days is much higher than ever.

  1. the Air Force is only able to slow the decline in fighter pilot inventory and will be incapable of meeting our overall requirement for fighter pilot expertise for the foreseeable future. Without these fighter pilots, the Air Force will be very challenged to continue to provide the air supremacy upon which all our other forces depend.
  1. While our potential adversaries continue to modernize, our legacy fourth generation aircraft are rapidly approaching the end of their effective service lives and are limited in their ability to operate in a highly contested environment. Our Air Force must rapidly re-capitalize our fourth generation aircraft. At the same time, we must sustain and modernize our fifth generation fleet in order to maintain our ability to execute our National Defense Strategy in the near to mid-term while looking even further into the future at further modernization efforts that ensure continued dominance in the air.
  1.  Due to current operations, the shortfall in Joint Direct Attack Munitions tail kits will continue to increase. The root causes of the problem include extremely high expenditure rates—higher than previous contingencies—and a starting inventory below the desired objective. Additionally, historically low procurements over the past decade…driven by restricted budgets, led to diminished industrial capacity.
  1. Air-to-Air missile inventories in their latest variants are also short of objectives. The AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the AIM-9X Block II are in limited supply, placing reliance on less capable variants to meet combat objectives.
  1. We view our national security as inextricably dependent on space-enabled capabilities. At the same time, space has become contested, congested and competitive; our space capabilities today are facing advanced, demonstrated, and evolving threats, which require fundamental 17 changes in the way we organize, train, and equip our forces. Congestion has increased the complexity of maintaining space situational awareness. There are over 60 active space-faring nations, nine of which have indigenous space launch capability. Almost any nation or state actor can access space services globally and globalization has made the latest technology available to our competitors and adversaries.

Prior to the testimony, the Heritage Foundation analyzed the Air Force’s condition, and noted that “The USAF is now the oldest and smallest in its history, and the problem is growing as the demand for air power continues to grow…The Air Force’s capacity in terms of number of aircraft has been in a constant downward slope…”

Robert Gehl, writing for Downtrend.com   reported that  “The United States Air Force now has one-quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it had 25 years ago and only two-thirds of active-duty airmen…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Not as Safe as President Claims

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking to the National Press Club  on January 13, delivered a fact-filled rebuke  to President Obama’s State of the Union comments that the U.S. has become safer and stronger. We have excerpted his key points:

Too many of us tend to assume that it is the Executive’s job to decide what we need to defend the country, and then send the bill to Congress, expecting us to salute and write the check. That is not what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says. It says that it is Congress’s duty to “raise and support, provide and maintain, make rules for the government and regulation of” the military forces of the United States. …

Some of the calls we have made in the last few years in disagreeing with the Administration’s requests, such as retaining an aircraft carrier, keeping the A-10, keeping both the U-2 and Global Hawk when we have a severe ISR shortage, look pretty good in hindsight.

Today, we have to make those judgment calls within limited budgets and in the most complex, difficult national security environment our nation has ever faced. Just think for a moment about the last two weeks or so: Escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran have brought the Mideast closer to open sectarian conflict than it has been in many years; North Korea tests another nuclear device as it continues to develop more advanced missiles and seems less concerned about world opinion than ever; Reports indicate Russia took down the power grid in parts of Ukraine over the holidays; A British film crew came back from Raqqa with evidence that ISIS is vigorously pursuing chemical weapons, heatseeking missiles that can shoot down aircraft, and remote-controlled vehicles; More evidence is made public of ISIS operatives already inside the United States and Europe working to carry out further attacks; And, China lands aircraft on islands it has constructed in South China Sea.

Not to mention Iran shooting missiles at U.S. ships and yesterday detaining 10 American sailors and their boats. If we look back just a few weeks more, we read about a Russian nuclear torpedo able to devastate coastal areas. And Iranian hackers infiltrating the control system of a small dam less than 20 miles from New York City, while it was also attacking the websites of U.S. banks. And about the FBI stopping four attempts in the past five years by Russian gangs to sell radioactive material to “Middle Eastern extremists.”

Who knows what the next two weeks or two months of 2016 will hold? The world is more dangerous today than it was in 2009. Despite the President’s claim…that is reality. But, it is certainly unlikely that the Obama Administration will do anything in its last year to change that situation or to alter that trajectory…

No country is better positioned to continue being one of “history’s winners” than the U.S. But we cannot assume that it will be so; we have to make deliberate decisions to ensure that we are still able to be this unique force for good in the world. For Congress, that means deciding to provide the funding needed to defend the country, deciding what capability and authorities we need, and overseeing the activities of the Executive Branch.

BUDGET ISSUES

The Obama administration argues that a ship today is more capable than one twenty years ago. Generally, that is true, but a ship can still only be at one place at a time, and we need enough of them to protect against the threats all around the world. We do not have enough of them today. Building a strong military requires money. Last fall’s budget agreement does not provide enough money for defense, but I agreed with those who believed that it was better to accept less than is required in order to be assured that the funds will be there.

After the budget brinkmanship of the Obama years, budget stability, even for just two years, counts for a lot. So I am disturbed at rumors that the Administration may not keep to the agreement in its budget submission. The agreement was for FY ’17 that $573 billion would be available to meet base defense requirements and the OCO account would receive no less than $59 billion with the exact amount dependent on the world situation. That agreement was reached more than two weeks before the Paris attacks, and the pace of our military operations has only increased since then.

Rather than asking for more money to cover the higher operational costs, the Administration is looking at cutting the base funding to pay for those OCO needs. That cuts people, weapons, research. Guaranteeing a minimum level of defense spending was the key to getting last year’s budget agreement. The terms were clear to everyone; and everyone should stick to it. At the same time, our Committee will not relent in our continuing oversight of how that money is spent. Waste and inefficiency drain military strength and erode political support, so in addition to vigorous oversight, we put a high priority on reform, which I will discuss more in a moment. Of course, what we spend that money on is crucial, which brings me to capabilities. While ensuring that our service men and women have the best weapons and equipment for today’s operations, we also have to move rapidly to develop and field the capability they will need tomorrow. I am paying particular attention to the third offset efforts, cyber, modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and special operations forces.

The President said last night that “no nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.” And that has been true for a long time. Unfortunately, that is changing…

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES

Deputy Secretary Work and Vice Chairman Selva are advancing a focused push, known as the Third Offset, to ensure that no state dares take on America in the future…no one should be under the illusion that a handful of technological breakthroughs, even if they come, can create the unchallenged position we have enjoyed in the past. Technology changes too quickly; information moves too fast; and the threats are too diverse. Bigger change is required.

cyber is a new domain of warfare, where technology development is not the most pressing need, but organizations, doctrine, and authorities are. The challenges here are not just for the military, but we have to have the ability to fight and win in cyberspace. The Committee will be pushing on issues related to people, organization, and how we fight in cyberspace to close the gap between the threats we face and the laws and policies we employ to deal with it.

Issues in A Relationship Men find difficulty to take a helping hand discount viagra of Kamagra tablets due to their pill swallowing phobia. Normally the online course demands the student to start and complete two hours of going to bed. levitra uk respitecaresa.org Mast Mood oil is developed using herbal ingredients like Tulsi, Jawadi Kasturi, Jaiphal, Javitri, Dalchini, Ashwagandha, Kapur, Nirgundi, Samudra Phal, Sona discount viagra Patha, and Buleylu oil. cialis generic usa The reasons are the excessive intake or alcohol, the intake of narcotic drug, the process of aging etc. are the main reasons for erectile dysfunction. NUCLEAR FORCES

It may seem odd to include nuclear deterrent among the top capabilities that demand our attention for the future. But as we have seen over the past week, nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are spreading. Our own nuclear deterrent is the foundation of all of our other defense efforts. Unfortunately, our warheads and delivery systems have all been neglected and are aging out at about the same time. We have to put the resources, which studies show would never be more than 5% of the defense budget, and also the attention and willpower to ensuring that we will have an effective nuclear deterrent for today and tomorrow’s world, not yesterday’s.

SPECIAL FORCES

The world, including our enemies, has gotten a look at the enormous capability provided by our Special Operations Forces. I have no doubt that they will be even more crucial in the future. But, there is a temptation, as we have seen in other nations, to use SOF forces in just about all situations, and that can lead to losing some of their unique capability…

While the U.S. has always needed a military strong enough to protect us from the threats of the day, the current situation is unlike any other we have faced. For we must have the military capability to protect us from an enormous array of threats all at once, as well as for the unexpected.

PEOPLE

The most important component of our defense is our people. We can never relax our efforts to ensure that the nation’s security continues to have the benefit of the best and brightest our country can produce. Last year, we followed many of the recommendations of the Military Retirement and Modernization Commission, including instituting a new retirement system. This year, under the able leadership of Subcommittee Chairman/General/Doctor Joe Heck, we are focusing on health care. Year after year, the Administration has proposed raising Tricare fees and copays on service members. Simply taking more money out of their pockets is not reform.

AQUISITIONS

Last year, we made a good start on improving the way DOD acquires goods and services, focusing on the acquisition workforce, acquisition strategies for each program, and rebalancing the responsibilities between the Services and DOD. This year, we will build on those reforms… One goal I have is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping. Studying military innovations of the past leads to the clear conclusion that experimentation was the heart of those successes. It encourages innovative thinking not only to develop technology but in how it is used. It helps ensure there is mature technology before large scale production begins. It reduces the odds that large sums will be invested in a program that gets canceled…

ORGANIZATION

Another key area of reform is organizational. We have to ensure that our organizational structure inside the Pentagon and beyond fits today’s world…The first step in dealing with sluggish bureaucracy is simplification, but I acknowledge, we have a long way to go…The Defense Business Board says that about half of all uniformed personnel serve on staffs that spend most of their time going to meetings and responding to tasks from the hundreds of offices throughout the DOD, including the 17 independent agencies, 9 unified commands, 250 joint task forces. We have much more to do to de-layer and simplify……

INTELLIGENCE

Having served on the House Intelligence Committee for more than 10 years and continuing to sit in on its briefings, as well as the briefings our Committee receives, I have no doubt that just at the time we face more diverse terrorist and other kinds of threats than ever before, we know less about what are adversaries are planning — certainly less than we did at the beginning of the Obama Administration. Part of the reason is evolution of technology; part of the reason is leaks that tell the world what we do and how we do it; part of the reason is the restrictions we place on ourselves unnecessarily. For example, PPD-28 gives foreign intelligence targets essentially the same rights as American citizens, overriding instructions given to the IC by every President since Ronald Reagan. We are asking more of our intelligence professionals than ever before and yet they have to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Our nation is more vulnerable as a result.

MICROMANAGEMENT

Finally, I mentioned earlier that it is unlikely for the Obama Administration to do anything over this coming year to significantly improve the perilous situation in which we find ourselves…The White House imposes rules of engagement upon our men and women fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan that make it harder for them to succeed in their mission and, in some cases, actually increases the danger to their lives. In addition, there is an unprecedented degree of micromanagement from National Security Council staffers – not only of the top management in DOD, but even of 8 military service members in the field….

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Defense Time Warp

Washington’s leaders appear trapped in a time warp when it comes to making decisions about defense and foreign policy.

Still reveling in the bloodless victory a quarter-century ago over the Soviet Union in the first Cold War, President Obama, his progressive supporters, and some Republican budget hawks more concerned with balancing the budget than funding national security needs cling to the illusion that, since the USSR’s demise, there are no overarching threats from powerful nations.  In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that the only real threat to the U.S. came from failed states.

Arguments are frequently made that the U.S. military is funded far better than any potential adversaries. The reality is, of course, that a vast percentage of spending on the armed forces of nations such as Russia and China are simply not reported, a strategy made easier by the absence of a free press in those nations.

Substantially ignored by far too many in government and media are these crucial realities that make the current era the most dangerous in American history:

For the first time in a century, Washington’s alliances do not constitute the most powerful military grouping in existence.  That distinction goes to the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.

For the first time in history, the U.S. does not possess the most powerful or modern nuclear force.  Since the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia and the New Start Treaty, that distinction belongs to Moscow. Some believe that China’s vast military tunnel system may contain more nuclear weapons than America’s arsenal, as well.

The equipment, weapons and vehicles of America’s conventional forces are old and worn down by overuse. Those of our potential adversaries are fresher.

Get in the sun, or, take vitamin D. canada cialis levitra Foods that help spice up your sexual relationship with the cialis no prescription look at more info partner. It works the same as levitra 40 mg http://respitecaresa.org/christmas-wish-list/ does and contain the same ingredient sildenafil. The order cialis http://respitecaresa.org/event/554/ act of Lovegra holds up for roughly 4-6 hour. Concerns over the diminished armed forces is not restricted to Republicans, conservatives, or hawks.

The U.S. Navy, once the unquestioned master of the world’s oceans, has shrunk to less than half its previous size while facing adversaries who have dramatically increased the size and capabilities of their fleets. The Chinese Navy already has more submarines than the U.S. has, and by 2020, its navy will surpass Washington’s in total numbers.  Beijing also possesses some unique weapons, such as land-based missiles that can devastate ships nearly a thousand miles from shore, a true game-changer.

Politico  has reported: “We have a crisis in the fleet… Today, at 284 warships, the United States Navy’s fleet is the smallest since World War I. But even that number probably overstates the Navy’s true capability: The Pentagon recently changed the rules by which it counts active warships and if you apply the traditional and more stringent method, the Navy has but 274 warships. [The NY Analysis pegs the number even lower.] Given sequestration, the fleet will continue to decline.”

The U.S. military no longer has the capability to fight a two-front war. The Heritage Foundation  notes that “The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

The American Enterprise Institute opines: “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, American power has slowly but surely atrophied relative to the burgeoning threats that confront the United States. Seemingly attractive short-term defense cuts carried long-term costs, not only in monetary terms, but also in proliferating risk to American national interests. Military spending has fallen since 1991 by every metric—as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and in real terms—even as a declining share of the Pentagon budget funds combat-related activities…

“American political leadership has consistently asked the military to do more with less. Without sufficient military credibility to deter or contain conflict, an ever-smaller American military has been sent abroad far more frequently than in the Cold War. If the rosy assumptions about threats to American interests had proved true, none of this would matter. Yet the past decade has seen drastic and widespread negative developments for American interests, from the direct threat of radical Islamist terrorism to China’s unwillingness to cooperate instead of compete and Russia’s delusions of grandeur. These threats to stability might each be soluble in isolation, but together they require sustained application of American economic, diplomatic, and cultural power, each buttressed by credible US military power. If American political leadership continues to underfund and overuse the military, it will not result in a less ambitious foreign policy. It will result only in greater risk to American national interests. A weaker military has resulted in less credible American security guarantees and increased likelihood of conflict. A strong American military will rebuild the trust of our allies and ensure stability for a new American century.”

Decisions over the fate and funding of America’s military have been tied to balance sheets, politics, and conflicting ideologies. It’s time that the only appropriate criteria—the ability to deter enemy aggression—replaced those comparatively trivial considerations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Warthog Lives to Fight Again

Defense One reports that the U.S. Air Force may be forced to postpone any immediate plans to retire the A-10 Warthog attack plane.

The debate over the A-10 concerns more than just a type of aircraft.  In many ways, it is a microcosm of how policy makers envision future security threats to the U.S.  On one side is the White House, which has generally promulgated the concept that large-scale nation vs. nation warfare is a thing of the past, and the type of weaponry necessary for conventional combat operations such as destroying tanks are an unnecessary expense.  On the other side are those who point to the dramatic conventional arms buildups of Russia and China.

Part of those two nation’s conventional buildup has been developing new and powerful tanks. Moscow’s “Armata” tank will enter service in 2020, according to the Diplomat.  China Daily reports that Beijing’s VT-4 is the equal of its Russian counterpart. Both seek to sell their new combat vehicles internationally, as well as equipping their own armed forces with them. “Production lines of tanks have been closed in Western countries for a long time, so among large tank makers, only China and Russia have such facilities, which means if an international client wants to buy a new tank, it can only choose between China and Russia”

In addition to being a contentious issue between the USAF and the US Army, the aircraft’s fate pitted Congress against the White House.  For the past two years, the President’s Executive Budget sought to retire the Warthog, but Congress fought to keep it alive.

The Warthog, an extremely durable aircraft designed to attack tanks and other ground targets, has been targeted for retirement on a number of occasions by the USAF, which prefers to use scarce resources for other priorities such as air to air fighters and bombers.  Estimates are that the USAF could save up to $4.2 billion by retiring the Warthog, according to Breaking Defense.

During the Obama Administration, defense spending has been severely curtailed, and attempts to retire the Warthog have been part of that. Breaking Defense quoted Dustin Walker, Senate Armed Services Committee spokesman earlier this year: “The A-10 continues to prove its enduring value as a close air support platform against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The A-10 is also deploying in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve, reassuring our NATO allies and partners in the face of continued Russian aggression in Ukraine…Senator McCain continues to believe this administration’s attempt to prematurely retire the A-10 fleet without fielding a suitable replacement is folly. And he will do everything in his power to oppose it.”

Thus, generic Apcalis makes it possible for the person to have viagra for cheap regencygrandenursing.com a soothing and better love making session with your partner Safety measures to be taken? A person always has to take some treating advice for your impotence. These buying viagra in usa is the cost-effective generic drugs are easily accessible online – including Dapoxetine. Whether free viagra samples https://regencygrandenursing.com/testimonials/video-testimonials-joan-daye or other medications, they are good but not affordable for everybody. Such soft viagra tabs an herbal remedy called as Gynecure capsule can provide great relief to women from excessive menstrual periods. The fact that there is nothing in the U.S. arsenal that can accomplish its tasks of knocking out enemy armor and safekeeping American troops as effectively is a powerful argument for its preservation. The diminishing defense budget forces difficult choices to be made, particularly at a time when international threats are rapidly rising.

One problem is the aircraft, as mandated by law, is assigned to the Air Force,  but its primary mission is one that belongs to the Army, the destruction of enemy armor and protecting ground forces.

According to Defense One, “Putting the A-10’s retirement plans on hold is a key policy shift that will be laid out next month when the Pentagon submits its 2017 budget request to Congress, said Pentagon officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the Obama Administration’s spending plan before its official release.”

Its role is not, by any stretch of the imagination, obsolete. Indeed, it may well be needed now more than ever, and not just in the current fight against ISIS.  As the NEW YORK ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT reported earlier, most American tanks have been withdrawn from Europe.  The White House has also, inappropriately, sought to close down the very last factory that manufactures tanks, to make the job complete. For the United States to continue its NATO obligation to defend against the increasingly likely possibility of threats of Russian aggression , the A-10 would be a key aspect of providing a credible deterrence.

Seth McCormick Lynn, writing for the Princeton Journal of Public and International Affairs , notes:There is no indication that the U.S. military has seen the last of conventional warfare…conventional threats represent a far greater danger to U.S. national security than do irregular threats…U.S. conventional capabilities have deteriorated significantly, making these threats even more severe.”

The A-10’s cost about $18.8 million each. F-35’s, which are a multi-role aircraft that would to some extent undertake A-10’s role should the Warthog be retired, can cost about $178 million each.

Categories
Quick Analysis

“Warthog” proves its worth again

Reports indicate that the A-10 Thunderbolt, (known widely as the “Warthog”) has been crucial to recent U.S. efforts in combatting ISIS in the Middle East.

Military.com  notes that the A-10’s “operating out of Incirlik airbase in Turkey provided ‘devastating’ close air support for U.S.-backed Syrian-Arab fighters in taking a town in northwestern Syria from the Islamic State.” About a dozen Warthogs were recently deployed to the Turkish Air base.

Despite numerous attempts by the USAF to retire the plane (which first took flight in 1976) with more costly aircraft more suited to the type of air to air and bombing missions which are that services main stays, the Warthogs’ ability to fly slow and close to the ground while withstanding significant punishment from enemy fire make it the most effective airborne defender of troops in existence.  It has survived, with bipartisan support, another appropriations battle and will be funded again in the FY2016 Pentagon budget. But with increasingly constrained funds, the future looks less than optimistic.

The battle to save the indispensable aircraft has been fierce. Former Defense Secretary Hagel had stated that “The A-10’s age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with that aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere.” His remarks were met with disagreement by ground troops, many of whom have noted that they owed their lives to the aircraft.

While funds are limited, the fact that there is nothing in the U.S. arsenal that can accomplish its tasks of knocking out enemy armor and safekeeping American troops as effectively is a powerful argument for its preservation. It is unfortunate that the diminishing defense budget forces inappropriate choices to be made, particularly at a time when international threats are rapidly rising.
The impact cialis price in canada of nicotine affects the physical health, but also affects the mental health. Besides, cheap kamagra is a viable choice for dealing with any sort of erectile issue. generic levitra from canada If you have a problem with your levitra prices https://pdxcommercial.com/property/1128-main-street-oregon-city-oregon-97045/ sexual health, immediately seek medical attention. Earlier doctors consisted that males having buy viagra pills ED problems had psychological issues.
The problem is, the aircraft, as mandated by law, is assigned to the Air Force,  but its primary mission is one that belongs to the Army, the destruction of enemy armor and protecting ground forces.

Its role is not, by any stretch of the imagination, obsolete. Indeed, it may well be needed now more than ever.  As the NEW YORK ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT reported earlier, most American tanks have been withdrawn from Europe.  The White House has also, inappropriately, sought to close down the very last factory that manufactures tanks, to make the job complete. For the United States to continue its NATO obligation to defend against the increasingly likely possibility of further Russian aggression, the A-10 would be the best solution to provide a credible deterrence.

A 2014 Breitbart analysis noted: “The problem is that the Air Force doesn’t want to ‘own’ the CAS [close air support] mission. Since the A-10 was created, many argue that CAS has always been an orphan in the Air Force’s planning, budgeting and training. That may be going too far, but it is clear that the Air Force doesn’t want to ‘own’ CAS by devoting the resources needed to perform CAS.”

A Bloomberg report last year disclosed that “Active-duty and retired service members … are trying to persuade the U.S. Department of Defense to drop its plan to save $4.2 billion in operation and maintenance costs over five years by retiring all 283 of the 1970s-era Air Force planes. Some top Army officers say there’s no substitute for the protection the jet has long provided to troops in ground combat. The Air Force says that newer, faster aircraft, such as the F-16, F-15E, and, eventually, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) new F-35 fighter, can perform the A-10’s principal mission of “close air support,” striking targets on the ground to help soldiers in a land battle…[but retired Lieutenant Col. William Smith, who flew the A-10 in Iraq and Afghanistan] asks  “You really think they’re going to allow a $200 million airplane to get down in the weeds, where it’s extremely vulnerable?”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense budget cut again

Congress and the President appeared to have reached an agreement  on the 2016 defense budget. According to our preliminary calculations, the fiscal year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low, representing about 14 percent of total federal discretionary and nondiscretionary outlays. The 2016 defense budget is $177 billion lower than its 2010 counterpart.

According to a report just filed by Defense News , the 2016 defense bill has been slashed  by $5 billion to comply with the budget deal between Congress and the president, including $2.6 billion in “adjustments” to acquisition programs. The total package now comes in at $607 billion, down from the original $612 billion for the 2016 fiscal year.

Breaking Defense outlined the cuts, which run the gamut from mundane items such as fuel purchases to yet another blow to America’s shrunken navy, and cost-cutting on strategic weapons programs as well as on force readiness.  Research into new weapons appears also to have taken a hit.

The cuts come at a time when spending by Russia and China has increased dramatically, and increased threats are presented by Iran, North Korea, and terrorist organizations. Russia has, for the first time, a lead over the U.S. in strategic nuclear weapons, and a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.  China already has more submarines than the U.S. Navy, and will have a larger force overall within five years. Beijing also has sophisticated anti-ship missiles that America does not, and which the American fleet has no defense against.

The cuts continue the dramatic shrinking of America’s armed forces, which are barely at a shadow of the strength possessed as recently as 1990. The Navy is the smallest it has been since before World War 1, the army, which by the end of the year will be smaller than North Korea’s, is the smallest it has been since before World War 2, and the Air Force is the smallest it has ever been.  In the past, the drastic cuts were attributed to the downfall of the USSR, but under Putin, Russia has returned to cold war strength.  China has become a major superpower. North Korea possess nuclear weapons and will soon mount them on missiles that can reach the U.S.  Terrorist groups control more territory, money and influence than ever. Russia, China, and terrorist organizations have become active in Latin America.

cialis generika 5mg This nerve damage can occur if a bad area or spine. Taken orally, it can cause a manifold increase in your sexual performance usa cialis too. The measure of performance includes attendance, absences, missed sales viagra 20mg in india quotas, and self-assessment evaluations. Stress comes in the life of the man which in turn leads him to a cialis australia better erection and lets him enjoy a better love making session between the two people becomes quite enjoyable. The qualitative difference between American armed forces and those of its adversaries has evaporated. Both China and Russia possess weapons every bit as sophisticated as those in the U.S. arsenal.  A substantial percentage of American weaponry is worn down from decades of fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  The human effect of prolonged deployments weighs heavily on the readiness of U.S. forces, as well.

A total of $690 million in cuts to the Air Force long range bomber program is illustrative of how U.S. forces are being challenged by antiquated equipment. Currently, the Air Force only has 20 truly modern bombers.   It should be remembered that the B-52’s are so old, the grandfathers of some of today’s pilots flew the very same aircraft—not the same model, the very same plane- their grandchildren now occupy. The B-1 program of the 1970’s was cancelled before many were built, and the Reagan-era  B-2 purchase was slashed from over 100 to the current 20.

A unique feature of the 2016 defense appropriations was the threatened veto by President Obama over the Guantanamo Bay issue.  The White House has threatened to veto the defense appropriations bill if Congress didn’t submit to his plans to close the on-site prison that houses terrorists, some of whom have been released and now again engage in terrorist activities. This marks the very first time that any President has used his veto power over a defense bill on an issue that has nothing to do with defense spending. It is an indication of the lack of importance the current White House attaches to national security.

The Navy has received the fewest cuts.  While there has been very little coverage in the media about the shrinking American armed forces, China’s aggressive maritime policy and the spectacular growth of its navy, which will be larger than America’s within five years (and currently has more submarines) and its advanced weaponry (including the DF-21 missile, with technology the U.S. hasn’t yet attained) has made the public conscious of the growing threat.  However, the American Navy remains at a dangerously low level, down from 600 ships in 1990 to the current 254, and there is nothing in the new budget that demonstrates any determination to return to a safe level.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The neglected Coast Guard

Even as the U.S. Coast Guard celebrates its 225th birthday, it endures the debilitating effects of budgetary neglect, with many vessels over half a century old.

The Coast Guard, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, traces its history to Aug. 4, 1790, when President George Washington approved  a law authorizing construction of 10 revenue cutters.

The organization’s $8.1 billion dollar budget is inadequate to its worldwide mission, which has become far more difficult as aggressive actions by foreign powers strain its resources to the limit. Those actions range from Russia’s militarization of the Arctic and countering the increasing amount of cyber attacks against the U. S., responsibilities which are in addition to the service’s duties to rescue those in distress at sea and stopping the importation of illegal drugs. The Coast Guard is the only entity charged with both military duties as well as civilian law enforcement.

Retired Rear Admiral Terry McKnight, writing for the United States Naval Institute  has called the Coast Guard the “Forgotten Fleet.”

“No other service does more with less than the Coast Guard… For a service that has some of the most demanding missions to support our national security, the current departmental funding falls well short of the requirement… Even though the Coast Guard has taken on more requirements in the post Sept. 11, 2001 era the consequences of sequestration have started to directly affect some of the basic mission requirements. Like the Navy, the Coast Guard’s fleet, will see a major reduction in the next few years and, if the trend is allowed to continue, this could jeopardize our national security. If the Coast Guard does not see an increase in its shipbuilding account, the fleet of high and medium endurance cutters will suffer a major decrease in the next ten years…”

Speaking to the National Press Club last week, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft noted that his service played a key role in countering the cyber assault on defense personnel. He also pointed out that the Coast Guard, due its limited resources, is only capable of responding to 10% of the information it obtains regarding drug smuggling.
Herbalist Dr.Lee who has more than 30 years experiences of purchase cheap cialis prostate disease treatment, if you have any questions, mail to me. In people with type II or III bleeding may be severe and potentially levitra on line learn this here now life-threatening. Even if you find signs of online viagra cialis generic is low. Therefore we rely most on government policy to make distinctions between energy viagra buy sources.
However, it is the extraordinary expansion of Russian military activity in the Arctic that poses the greatest challenge to the Coast Guard. Ukrainian sources detailed Moscow’s new and ongoing activities in that region:

“Russia has announced it is deploying new radar stations and fighter aircraft on islands in the Arctic Ocean as Russia increases its presence on the frozen continent amid a simmering territorial dispute over the energy-rich region. Moscow announced back in 2008 that it would use the Arctic zone as a “strategic resource base“ for the development of Russia in the 21st century. Russia’s territorial claims encompass an area of roughly 1.2m sqkm which Moscow hopes would secure the rights to billions of tons of oil and gas. But Denmark, Canada and the US all dispute this and also each claim huge swathes of the vast continent, which is predicted to become ice-free in the coming decades.

Ukraine Today  reported in July that “The Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet has started forming a new air force and air defence system to protect the country’s interests in the Arctic.

A major portion of Russia’s increased presence is its fleet of icebreakers.  A 2013 study by the U.S. Naval Institute  noted that Russia had 37 icebreakers, plus four under construction. The U.S. totals was five, plus one under construction.

In his recent address to the National Press Club Admiral Zukunft stated that While the Coast Guard had seven ice breakers in 1977 when he entered the service, it currently has only two, “and only one of them, the 39-year-old Polar Star, is a “heavy” breaker capable of cracking through ice that is 21 feet thick. Russia, which he said is “militarizing the Arctic,” has some 20, with more under construction.”