Thursday, March 03, 2011

The Politicians, always budgeting for the last war...

Remeber when the F-22 contract was reduced to 187 aircraft on the basis that that type of aircraft was unecessary for the low intensity conflicts of today?

The numbers changed when Obama's Defense Secretary Gates changed the prior defense doctrine of the US from being able to fight two major regional wars at once to only being ready to fight one major regional conflict.

This lead to costs savings as less military equipment and manpower was needed, whoihc let obama spend more money domestically.

For example, the F-22 program was reduced by Gates from 243 to 187 aircraft, considered enough for one major conflict. This of course reduces the number of aircraft available if needed as you can't just reopen a production line and crank them out on an on-call basis.

Now its starting to look like we'll need more aircraft.

Pentagon pours cold water on no-fly zone
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that the U.S. military could establish a no-fly zone over Libya, but cautioned that doing so would first require widespread air strikes across that nation.

“If it’s ordered, we can do it,” Gates said. But, he added, it would be “a big operation in a big country.”

Establishing control of Libyan air space would “start with attacks to destroy” Libyan air defense systems, Gates said. That kind of assault would require more U.S. military aircraft than “you would find on a single aircraft carrier.”


Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) asked Gates several questions about establishing control of Libya’s air space, but added that he was not endorsing such an action. Still, Frelinghuysen noted, “there is a perception that we are the only ones who can do it.”

With so many fighter jets involved in other conflicts, the needed additional jets would have to be redeployed, Pentagon officials said. Another option would be to accelerate the deployment of the USS George H.W. Bush, set to sail in three weeks from Norfolk, Va., officials said.

Looks like we're getting a little tight on aircraft availability hmm? And this is just for a local uprising against a tin-pot dictator with a suspended NBC warfare program, but a dictator with the potential for some NBC nasties nonetheless.

What happens when we have to face more than one major regional conflict, or as now lots of minor-but-serious regional conflicts?

We're already scrambling for resources to deal with this outbreak, can we handle the next with what we've got?

Perhaps a defense strategy seeking military cost savings for increased spending domestic programs based on a prognstication that all future wars will be low intensity conflicts was a bit over-optimistic?

1 comment:

Scott said...

Over-optimistic is not the word I would have chosen. Something more along the lines of "damned-foolishness" is where I land.

Of course this is not surprising from one who bows like a slave to every dictator on the planet, but bravely snubs democratically elected historic allies like Netanyahu. He is not interested in maintaining American interests, he wants to tear them down.