First question: What advantage do ICBMs have over SLBMs? Answer: They ensure vast stretches your homeland is targeted by enemy missiles. Even the Mitchell report says if we could only retain one portion of the Triad it would be the SLBMs. Therefore, why not get rid of the ICBMs and keep the bombers? Because, as the Mitchell report points out, the bomber force has been neglected for two generations and a replacement is far off.

Second question: Are we ready to use a sea launched or intercontinental ballistic missile against a small-scale nuclear power?  How would Russia react to ICBMs or SLBMs rising out of Midwest or Atlantic, with only the President’s words over a red phone saying, “Don’t worry, those aren’t for you.” Answer: No, because we’re in a pickle if the Russians say, “If you launch, then we launch on you.” 

Third question: Without a manned strategic (i.e. nuclear) capability, what does that officially make the US Air Force? Answer: An expensive appendix to three entities – Naval Aviation, Army Aviation, and the airlines. This policy has been formalized by the current chief of staff. Re-aligning your entire force structure to be “good helpers” to the other service’s missions at the expense of “Global Reach/Global Power” is no way to ensure the future.

In the Vietnam-era movie Apocalypse Now, the flamboyant character Colonel Kilgore profoundly states, “One day, this war is going to end.”

Our current wars will end, too. When the dust settles, we will find ourselves with an air arm only capable of fighting bush wars, but unable to strike globally at will. This wasn’t the truth twenty years ago, but it’s the truth now. Since sitting on its laurels at the end of Desert Storm the U.S. Air Force has brilliantly succeeded in self-destructing and ceding its mission to the other services. Walking away from a manned, long range strategic and nuclear bomber is the final nail in the coffin.

This morning’s DOD Buzz over at Military.com hints the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will recommend slashing the carrier force from 11 to 9, killing the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, reducing the Joint Strike Fighter pro­gram buy, and chopping two Air Force wings.

The EFV is the centerpiece of the Marines’ future conventional warfare capability. Will the Marines fight for this one? According to DOD Buzz, “Reports are that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway will come out swing­ing to pre­serve the abil­ity to kick down the door and ensure forcible entry from the sea.”  Will Gates fire him? Nope.

After the demise of the F-22 program, the F-35 is the last active production fighter program in the US. The Air Force (after having its n*ts cut off and handed to it by Gates) gently rolled over on the F-22, handed over majority on control of tactical UAVs to the Army, rolled over on CSARX, and got bi*ch-slapped on the tanker. This service will mutter some weak-kneed platitude about “jointness,” meekly cut even more from it’s F-35 program (I’m sure the Navy and Marines will adequately defend their F-35 purchases) as well as a couple of combat wings. Afterwards, to make themselves feel better, the Air Force will issue a new policy about wearing reflective belts.

For our money, one of the better parts of President Obama's speech at West Point this week was his connection between a healthy economy and U.S. national security. To quote: "Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy." We only wish Mr. Obama understood the link between the larger welfare state he is trying to build at home and the economic weakness that will undermine our military power.

The proof is right before his eyes in the U.S. struggle to get Europe to contribute more forces to Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has called on NATO to buttress the U.S. surge of 30,000 in Afghanistan with 5,000 or more European troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Brussels today to round up promissory notes. But except for the usual stalwarts—Britain and Poland—the allies are having trouble meeting even this modest goal. Germany and France are reluctant to contribute anything more to defeat the Taliban.

This is by now a familiar story, and a big part of the problem is the relative lack of military spending. Among the Western Europeans, only France and the U.K. spend more than 2% of GDP on defense, supposedly the NATO-mandated minimum. Nearly everyone else is below that. Germany, the continent's largest economy, stands at 1.3%. U.S. defense spending has been above 4% of GDP since 2004, having fallen to 3% after the Cold War ended.

No amount of pleading and shaming has worked on the continentals. NATO launched the "Defense Capabilities Initiative" in 1999, only to abandon it a few years later. Various attempts to stand up European "rapid reaction" forces have floundered.

Most European countries also commit more than half of what little they do spend on defense to soldier salaries and benefits. Equipment and training are shortchanged. Belgium devotes 74% to personnel; the U.S. 30.6%. Europeans lack cargo planes and helicopters to enable troops to get to, and move within, far-off conflict zones. In 2007, the U.S. deployed 14% of its troops in overseas operations, Europe 4%.

Such relative strategic weakness has made the Europeans more dependent on the American security umbrella, even as they resent it. But it also makes Europeans more disposed to avoid confrontation with adversaries like Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Henry Kissinger has put it, European leaders are no longer able to ask their people to make major sacrifices.

The overlooked culprit here is the rise of the modern welfare state. Since World War II and especially from the 1960s, Europe has built elaborate domestic income-maintenance programs, with government-run health care, pensions and jobless benefits. These are hugely expensive, requiring high taxes and government spending that is a huge proportion of GDP. The nearby table compares the so-called tax wedge across nations, which is one measure of the relative burdens to finance cradle-to-grave entitlements.

One consequence has been slower growth in Europe, relative to the U.S. and China, with less tax revenue to spend on everything. Another result is that welfare spending has crowded out defense spending. The political imperative of health care and pensions always trumps defense spending, save perhaps in a hot war. Europe may never again be able to muster public support for a defense buildup of the kind the U.S. undertook to end the Cold War in the 1980s, or even the smaller surge after 9/11.

The tragic irony of this year is that Democrats are rushing the U.S. down this same primrose entitlement path. With ObamaCare certain to eat up several more percentage points of GDP as it inevitably expands, we will take a giant step toward European social priorities.

For many Democrats, this is precisely the goal. Many Europeans, such as those at the Financial Times, will also welcome America's relative decline. But we doubt the American people fully understand what such a gilded entitlement cage means for our national vitality, or for our ability to defend U.S. interests at home and abroad.

The chart nearby shows the change in the share of U.S. federal spending on defense and domestic programs across recent decades. The upward blips in defense outlays occurred during Vietnam, the Reagan buildup and post-9/11. But the overall trend has been to spend less of the budget on defense. Add the stimulus, ObamaCare, a new entitlement for college and other Democratic plans, and the defense squeeze will only tighten. Higher taxes and borrowing may allow guns and butter to co-exist for a while. But over time, the welfare state will defeat the Pentagon here, as it has in Europe.

President Obama's domestic agenda may well mean that his successors lack the option to deploy 100,000 troops to Afghanistan, or to some other future trouble spot. This is the way superpowers lose their superiority.

The Foreign Office refused to discuss the funding but privately officials confirmed the money was cut amid vain hopes that the Americans would foot the bill instead...

“It was a highly successful mission and the Afghans were getting better every day,” a special forces source said last week. “The paltry sums involved were getting a pretty valuable return.”

Ed Butler, who commanded British troops when they first deployed to Helmand in 2006, said: “It strikes me as pretty counter-intuitive and verging on the ridiculous to cut this funding when the government is stressing the training of Afghan security forces as a way of withdrawing our troops.”

...The Conservatives said it “beggared belief" that the Foreign Office should withdraw funding from what was clearly an important project.

Even the smallest of counter-insurgency programs prove too much of a strain for the British military to sustain.

The next article, U.S. Seeks 10,000 Troops From Its Allies In Afghanistan, shows America’s other allies cannot sustain token troops in Afghanistan, let alone increase force levels.

The United States is scrambling to coax NATO allies to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s strategy for the region. Those countries appear willing to provide fewer than half that number, American and allied officials said Wednesday.

The British government is facing opinion polls showing that around 70 percent of the public favors an early withdrawal...

Germany and France have balked at committing any more forces to a war that has so little public support that they can barely maintain current troop levels...

The Netherlands and Canada have begun discussing plans to pull out. Canadian defense officials told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Halifax last week that they had no intention of sending troops in the future, and that they remained committed to withdrawing by the end of 2011...

Waning public opinion plays an important role in most NATO members’ reluctance to remain in Afghanistan, but I believe the heart of the matter lies in two important facts: Europe can no longer afford to send troops abroad; and they know the US will pick up the slack.

As sun sets in the west, it also rises in the east. China,Japan Boost Defence Ties illustratesas western power quickly retreats once staunch allies are running for cover and seeking other benefactors.

Japan and China yesterday agreed to conduct their first joint military training exercise as ties warm up between the Asian neighbors, which have long argued over a range of issues and have been suspicious of each other

Top defence officials and military officers from both sides will also meet regularly...(and) The joint exercise will be held next year, according to the Japanese Defence Ministry.

Japan knows the Pax America that kept peace across the Pacific for half a century is coming to an end and China’s rising power is fed from America’s and Europe’s decay. They are smartly moving out from under one shadow to another.  US Navy and Air Force power in the region is atrophying, and China is quickly rising, as seen the article Admiral Says PLA's Strength, Intentions Should Be Displayed.

Beijing should not be shy of displaying the full breadth of its growing military power and intentions to the world, a senior naval officer wrote in comments published yesterday.

In a commentary in the Global Times, a newspaper published by party mouthpiece the People’s Daily, Naval Rear Admiral Yang Yi said Beijing should expand its military power and need not hide this from the world.

“We should confidently and overtly tell the US and other countries that China needs to expand its overseas military power because of the continuation of national interests abroad,” wrote Yang, director of the Strategic Studies Institute under the People’s Liberation Army’s National Defence University

...Yang said Sino-US strategic relations were moving from the level of “common interest” to “ balance of power”.

 “The Taiwan issue has been the most sensitive and explosive problem,” he wrote. “This is a friendly reminder to the US – please be careful, careful, careful, and don’t think Beijing won’t dare to declare war with Washington.”

Anthony Wong Dong, president of the International Military Association, an independent grouping of observers based in Macau, said the article was a candid assessment.

These articles show the West can no longer sustain low-intensity combat operations against an enemy clearly bent on their destruction. At the same time, China is drawing traditional allies from the US orbit and brazenly challenging America as the sole military superpower.

They have the money and leverage to do so. We, on the other hand, have vaults full of IOUs and a congress full of fools.

I don’t like the odds.

The Hill reported on 19 November:

Ranking member Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) raised alarm over a “dramatic decline” in funding for weapons systems — from 35 percent of the overall defense budget in fiscal 2010 to 24 percent in 2020...

“The picture is not a pretty one,” Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in his opening statement Wednesday at a hearing on future defense budgets.

The CBO also states the Obama Administration is low-balling its requested Pentagon budget by 6% versus what is required for the Department of Defense's current missions.

A 13% cut vs. GDP over 5 years...while fighting two wars.  Keep in mind, the GDP is stagnant due to the deep recession and this figure also doesn’t factor in potential inflation.

By Tom Coghlan, Kandahar

As Sergeant Matthew O’Neill spotted the thin copper wire snaking through the dust he knew, too late, that it was attached to a roadside bomb. It exploded under him an instant later, picking up the stocky, sandy-haired US Marine combat engineer and catapulting him more than 20 feet.

From a ploughed field in southern Helmand to the medical care of the main Nato field hospital in Kandahar is a journey of 100 miles — and getting there, or to the British hospital at Camp Bastion, is a race against the clock. Make it in less than an hour and the rate of survival is well over 90 per cent. Any longer than that, and the chances of survival begin to ebb away.

Meeting that target is the job of the 55th Expeditionary Rescue Squadron, a US Air Force unit now nearing the end of a three-month tour. They have flown nearly 1,500 missions so far, making them the hardest-working American casualty evacuation unit since Vietnam. “This is the highest tempo of missions we have ever seen,” says their commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Jim Kuehn, 41.

As Sergeant O’Neill crashed to earth, adrenaline surged through his body and carried him straight back to his feet. A figure bolted across the field ahead of him. Sergeant O’Neill was sure it was the bomb’s “trigger man”. He opened fire and the figure collapsed. Only then did he realise that he was injured.

He had third-degree burns to his left hand and face. His hearing was gone in his left ear and the vision in his left eye was blurred. The bones in his left forearm — the arm that had just supported and held his rifle steady — were fractured. His left side and face were peppered with high-velocity dirt and stones picked up by the blast. It was not immediately clear whether the pressure wave from the blast had caused damage to his internal organs and brain. At Kandahar airbase, the casevac crews wait for the call to scramble in a hut by the runway, much like the fighter squadrons of the Second World War, although these days the news comes with the simultaneous bleeping of pagers. The crews are in the air within five to seven minutes, flying in what Colonel Keuhn describes as “the single worst helicopter environment in the world”. Afghanistan’s high altitude air is thin; the heat reduces lift for rotor blades and the mountains incubate storms; the fine, dust of the plains attacks electronics and moving parts. The helicopters are regularly hit by enemy fire, but a bigger danger are the “brownouts” of dust whipped up around a descending helicopter.

As they fly into hastily prepared emergency landing sites to pull out wounded men, often from rough fields littered with drainage ditches, the pilots are blinded by a dense dust cloud for the last 50 feet. The casualties appear through the haze, carried by their comrades, while the rotor blades are still turning.

“The violence here is very ‘in your face’,” says Captain Colin De Groote, 27, from Los Angeles. “To see kids injured, to see Brits and Americans with horrific injuries, in a lot of pain, to see their buddies’ faces of shock and disbelief . . . a lot of guys I replaced were really ready to go home.”

As Sergeant O’Neill was lifted into a helicopter, it was clear that he was incredibly fortunate. “He was the first guy I’ve seen get blown off an IED (improvised explosive device) and not get any appendage loss,” said Senior Airman Lucas Ferrari, 27, who treated the wounded Marine as a helicopter carried him off the battlefield. Further examination in Kandahar hospital would also show that he had suffered no internal injuries.

Swathed in bandages in his hospital bed, Sergeant O’Neill was phlegmatic about the experience the next morning. “I was out chasing command wires,” he told The Times with a shrug. “I stepped on a bomb.”

The number of casualties recorded during the summer months has begun to drop with the onset of cold weather, but a steady stream of broken bodies still arrives in Kandahar aboard the Black Hawk helicopters. On Friday night Sergeant O’Neill’s arrival was closely followed by three young American soldiers wounded in a mortar blast. On Saturday morning they picked up a dead American and a British Special Forces soldier with a serious bullet wound to the neck.

The medics say that some badly wounded patients can become extremely violent in the helicopters; drawing on, as one medic puts it, “some sort of primordial survival instinct”. Others are freakishly calm. A British Special Boat Service soldier who was shot through the face earlier this month astonished the helicopter medics by refusing morphine and calmly picking bits of bone and teeth out of his own wound. “Some people are just tougher than others,” said Staff Sergeant Brian Oswald, who treated him. “I guess it is no surprise that they tend to be in the special forces.”

As well as rescuing the living, the evacuation crews must collect the dead; eight in one day late last month. The crews drape the body bags with the national flags of the dead soldiers as they carry them from the aircraft.

They have, they believe, saved the lives of about 300 soldiers and civilians who would not otherwise have survived to reach hospital since September and they have carried a further 500 who did not have immediately life-threatening injuries.

Almost 50 per cent of their patients have been Afghans, many of the rest have been British soldiers. A letter on the wall of the squadron hut in Kandahar airbase from Colonel Rob Thompson, whose 2 Rifles have suffered the worst casualties of all the British units, reads: “It seems you’ll fly through anything and land anywhere just to be there for our wounded Riflemen within the shortest time possible. I know that the speed with which your crews have made it to our emergency helicopter landing sites has saved a number of lives and we will be forever in your debt for that.”

In my last blog entry I highlighted the imminent demise of the Royal Air Force. Over the next 5 years the RAF will slash its force by 25%, essential ending it as a global power projection force.

This morning’s Washington Times heralds the same forces are now at work eroding America’s military might:

...The era of American military dominance, or "Pax Americana," is dwindling as the nation loses its position far atop the global marketplace, a congressional military analyst said Wednesday...

...The new dynamic - in which the U.S. remains a world force, but does not hold the pre-eminent position it attained after World War II - is the result of global financial centers shifting to Asia, said Stephen Daggett, a defense policy and budget specialist for the Congressional Research Service...

..."It seems this administration finds massive amounts of money for bailout and [stimulus spending] but not enough to fund the basic money needed for defensive hardware and personnel," said Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican.

Victor Davis Hansen had a good quote this morning, “...political influence and military power are ultimately predicated on economic strength.”

Our economic strength, like that of Great Britain, is dying as we quickly drowned in a sea of self-induced socialist debt. Only two pillars are keeping us afloat: the fact oil is traded in dollars and the might of the US military protecting the global trade system.

The dollar hangs upon a precipice; it dies overnight if the world turns to another medium for oil trading. Now, our military is about to be cannibalized to feed the socialist beast eating us all alive.

When the US military is gone, depleted in endless wars abroad and cashiered for progressive votes, it will not rise again. We will be naked before our enemies and creditors...one in the same.

The once mighty British Royal Air Force will cut 10,000 personnel, close five bases, and retire the majority of its Harrier and Tornado fighter aircraft. The RAF will reduce its flying programs, ground or mothball major weapons programs such as the Nimrod MR2, Puma helicopter, and Boeing E-3D AWACS.

These cuts are generated by the RAF itself “designed to pre-empt the savage cuts expected as part of the strategic defense review promised by whichever party wins power in next year’s general election.” According to the Times Online “Senior RAF officers believe that whichever party wins the general election it will have to make cuts to defence because of the economic situation.”

The RAF will cease to exist as a strategic force. Why?

Britain is broke. It budget deficit now runs 100 billion pounds, or over 12% of its GDP. The Pound is falling as fast as the dollar. Stand and Poor is threatening to downgrade their debt from AAA to AA. Why does this concern America?

No other European air force ranked with the RAF in its ability to project air power both regionally and globally. The British spend less than 1% of GDP on defense. They have just ceded air defense of Western Europe to the American. Under NATO, Americans are now stuck with the bill.

The UK is the literally “canary in the coal mine.”  Last year, Rep Barney Frank called for almost identical cuts in our military. This level of cuts will come to our shores. Our debt is almost $1.5 trillion, that’s the same 10% ratio as the UK. The national debt just passed $12 TRILLION. Our GDP is only $15 trillion. Translation – we are on the brink of owing more than we are worth. This is called insolvency.

Insolvent nations cannot afford world class militaries. Trading empires without power projection cannot defend their economic interests. Insolvent nations unable to defend their national interests...perish.

America’s deficit and debt are our number one national security issue.

Author’s note: This blog entry has nothing to do with politics. This entry is strictly military in nature and pure self-indulgence.. This one goes to the heart of why I blog at Townhall...I needed a safe place to store my ideas where I can be sure no one will read them (ha ha) 

Recently, I asked an Air Force captain, master sergeant, senior airman and first lieutenant a simple question, "What is an Airman?" No one could give me a sure answer. Proud members of the most powerful military force on earth could not clearly define who they were. This irritated me. With an official definition like this, I can’t blame them for being confused:  

Air Force Doctrine defines an airmen as “those people who formally belong to the US Air Force and employ or support some aspect of the US Air Force’s air and space power capabilities. The term airman is often used in a very narrow sense to mean pilot. An airman is any person who understands and appreciates the full range of air and space power capabilities and can employ or support some aspect of air and space power capabilities.”

According to this, my dead grandma was an Airman (as she supported some aspect of air and space capabilities when she sent me money at college). This definition was likely penned by a committee, lawyers, or both. It’s unfit for a military service.

What is an Airman? Here’s my definition.

 An Airman is a technologist who converts the fruits of America’s technological base into instruments of Airpower. Technology is his sword and shield and is why he identifies himself with his technology; whether it’s an aircraft, weapons system, or career field. He gleans the best his nation has to offer in every scientific field and forges them into instruments of Airpower. If you ask him, “What is your requirement?” he’ll always responds, “The newest, the fastest, the highest, the boldest, and the best.” If his nation cannot provide a technological answer to match his requirement, he’ll create it himself. With Airpower he carries the battle to the enemy.

An Airman is a professional warrior who wields Airpower to dominate battle-space, from the earth’s surface to the reaches of outer space, as if he were the hand of the Almighty himself.   

This is not a boast, it’s a simple truth because an Airman is the most powerful force on earth other than God or Mother Nature. In the hands of professional American Airmen, Airpower seems like divine magic to an enemy. He is the deadly lighting and the terrible thunder from a blue sky. Invisible, he roams at will, unseen, high over an adversary. He knows every inch of the planet though sensors unseen. The darkness is his playground. From the heart of CONUS he can be anywhere in the world in matter of hours (or minutes), delivering precision death without warning. With a single bomb he can surgically kill a dictator or he can level a city. He delivers manna from heaven upon silken chutes and sends angels of mercy upon whirling helicopter blades. 

An Airman is always a flyer. It doesn’t matter what badge he wears or if he actually flies as part of his job, because without him Airpower cannot be forged or employed. His first love is the sky. It’s where he lives, even when he is on the ground. And it’s where he fights, even when he’s earthbound.  

An Airman is the ultimate expression of his nation’s will. A navy carrier is often placed off an unfriendly coast as a political warning. Soldiers and Marines may be sent as peacekeepers. Airmen are only sent to crush the enemy...completely. This is why the Air Force is known as the “knock-down-the-door force.” When the bombers are launched it means negotiations are over. When contrails appear over an enemy capital it means the war is over. The Air Force is the most serious expression of America’s will. When the Airman is brought into play all hope within the enemy dies. The Airman is the Alpha and Omega of modern warfare.

Last year the United States Air Force’s top three acquisition priorities were the F-22, new aerial refueling plane, and a new rescue helicopter. Say what you want about any of these programs, but one thing is clear – the military service thought they were important and necessary.

The F-22 was fully supported by the previous Air Force secretary and chief of staff. Then Secretary of Defense Gates fired both of them and terminated the program at ½ of the services requested numbers

The rescue helicopter languished for over three years, a victim of the service’s own acquisition follies, a tinkering congress and their powerfully defense contractor allies, and eventually succumbed to Secretary of Defense Gate’s unilateral termination. Strike two.

Now, only the aerial tanker program remains.  It’s been struggling since 2001, though two iterations and vicious congressional interference, and still no tanker has been selected.

The service has so far unsuccessfully tried to acquire three replacement weapons systems – three new aircraft it states (or at least stated under the previous administration) it desperately needs.

Now, out of the blue (literally) Congress, in its wisdom, directed the Air Force to buy 8 corporate jets worth $550 million, including high end Gulfstreams and a 737, it doesn’t want. That would buy about 10 new combat rescue helicopters or about three F-22s, which the service said it did want. No debate, no grueling acquisitions process, no oversight, no serious justification...just "here, buy this."

I’m glad the men and women of the U.S. military could provide the honorable men and women of our legislative branch a source of funding to support their lifestyles and re-election chances.

The Pentagon is being limited to zero growth as well as having $60 billion redirected from current budget to initiatives not necessarily in line with the Pentagon’s requirements priorities.

As Defense News reports Some of these initiatives are legitimate:

…the big winners appear to be light intratheater cargo planes, unmanned aerial vehicles, countermine warfare systems.

However, according to Newsweek, about 5% of that $60 billion, or $2.7 billion, is being doled out to key congressional vote-getters like Rep John Murtha, head of the House the Defense Appropriations Committee, and Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Appropriations Committee.

I believe if these, and other congressmen, play ball with the White House this fall on critical votes healthcare and cap & trade (regardless of how vocal their constituents tell them to oppose these programs) they may see their precious pork emerge unscathed in the final defense budget.  In my opinion, the defense department will be used as a slush fund to bring congressional votes into line. If you want to know of healthcare reform will pass, then maybe you need to look at the congressional and senate line-item appropriations in the defense budget. The future of the President’s domestic initiative may very well be forged when for defense budget is built. Next step: follow the pork when the Senate gets its hands on the defense budget.

DefenseNews goes on to say:

…Losers may include amphibious craft, heavy armored vehicle and air defense systems, according to defense officials and experts… Asked how program cuts to free up dollars to fill the $60 billion shortfall might be split among the services, Ochmanek said: “Higher-end stuff is typically more expensive.”Defense analysts said that suggests the Navy and Air Force will receive the bulk of the $60 billion (budget cuts).

Aviation Week & Space Technology states:

An early look at the U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) reveals major force and capability alterations that are being described as “high-g changes in direction, and high-g causes pain,” says a senior U.S. Air Force official.

Moreover, the pared-down, reshaped, multifunctional forces under consideration are expected to cost $50-60 billion over five years above the planning target of no real growth in defense spending through Fiscal 2015…

This is the where the defense budget is heading: no additional spending though 2015, continuing combat operations, billions of extra funds needed to withdrawal forces from Iraq in the next few years (if everything goes as planned), huge modernization bills overdue for the Air Force and Navy, and the whole budget being used as a political sweetener to advance the president’s domestic agenda.

The sad side effect of this pork-barrel politics is transformation of our military from a strategic global power projection force to an expeditionary ground support only good for peacekeeping and counter-insurgency. More specifically, we’re gutting the U.S Air Force into nothing more than a glorified army air corps. 

Secretary of Defense Gates recently discussed the cancellation of the CSAR-X rescue helicopter program with a group of Air Force officers.

“Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles behind enemy lines by itself to rescue somebody didn’t seem like a realistic op-con,” he said.

If it wasn’t realistic for a helicopter to go alone 250 miles behind enemy lines then US Special Operations Command would have shutdown years ago. Since Vietnam, both special operations and rescue helicopter crews have perfected the art of flying alone and unafraid into enemy territory. Even if it was unrealistic, combat rescue helicopters seldom go alone, but instead operate as part of a combat search and rescue task force, which may include platforms such as unmanned systems, A-10s, and AC-130s.

The secretary also stated the Defense Department would continue to look to improve CSAR, but as a joint operation.  

CSAR, however, is already a joint operation. Because Air Force CSAR assets are low density and high demand they must lean heavily on other services for support. It’s not uncommon for Air Forced HH-60Gs to fight in conjunction with Army Apaches or Marine Corp Cobras or F/A-18s. This joint emphasis is one reason the other services often choose Air Force assets as their first choice for personnel recovery.  If the other services wanted a bigger piece of CSAR it would have happened before now.

The Army, Navy and Marine Corps pour billions into aviation programs they deem important, and vigorously engage in political turf battles to protect them.  The other services have far more helicopters than the Air Force and each, to some extent, dabble in personnel recovery. If they determined CSAR was critical to their operations they could have easily invested more resources and made a serious push to take CSAR from the Air Force. Instead, they’ve been willing to let the Air Force do the heavy lifting for personnel recovery for the same fundamental reason the Secretary of Defense is willing to axe it.

CSAR doesn’t put bombs on target, conquer enemy territory or sink enemy ships. It doesn’t directly add to combat capability, but is an insurance policy for those who do. The Air Force has been willing to foot this expensive bill since Vietnam and the other services have been more than willing to let them do it. Times are tough and the Pentagon is looking for ways to save money, lowering this insurance coverage is one way to do it.

If the rest of the military wasn’t willing to spend the money to bring their assets up to full CSAR capability in the good times, why would they allocate precious resources in the hard times? Just calling CSAR “a joint mission” won’t guarantee one more dime for this most critical of missions.

Gates said it may be time for the Pentagon to more carefully review the planned weapons programs of the individual services to stop costly duplication....

Few alive can recall when our nation faced such unsettling times. Servicemen watch the financial turmoil battering our nation with grave interest. Obviously, their most immediate concerns are how the crisis affects their wallets. However, in recent days I’ve been approached by concerned young officers asking, “How will this impact the military?” They’ve been at war for years and now another level of uncertainty has been dropped upon them. They understand the military doesn’t exist in a vacuum and are hungry for straight answers.

The straight answer is the budget outlook is grim, won’t get any better, and it will effect defense.

The short term outlook is dark. According to February 2008 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates, the government took in about $2.6 trillion and spent about $2.9 trillion.  That resulted in an annual deficit of almost $300 billion dollars, or roughly the equivalent of half the defense budget. Add that to America’s growing 10 trillion dollar debt, a conservative estimate. (It’s important to note these OMB figures assumed a healthy economy and unemployment under 5%.)

Those February assumptions are now worthless. The feds just spent over $850 billion of money it doesn’t have to save the global economy. Unemployment raced to 6.1% and most agree we’re heading into, at minimum, a deep recession. Tax revenues will fall and the pool of money available for the federal government to borrow will shrink in the face of the deepening global credit crisis. This year’s deficit has doubled and may top one trillion dollars before all is said and done. This bodes ill for a nation at war.

The Pentagon budget would face substantial challenges even in the best of times. The Navy and Air Force are struggling to modernize Cold War era equipment while the Army and Marines must grow and replace equipment worn out by a decade of combat. Healthcare costs are rapidly eroding the defense budget from within. Seldom has the need for defense dollars been so great, nor has the budget outlook been so bleak.

The long term outlook is even darker.

Many in the military have never heard of Mr. David Walker. He was U.S. Comptroller General under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.  As America’s former senior bookkeeper his message to America is simple: we’re way over our head in debt, it’s getting worse, and time is running out. Here’s why.

If one took the 3 trillion federal budget and condensed it into one dollar, defense spending would be about 20 cents. Mandatory spending, mostly interest on the national debt and entitlements, take about 50 cents; by law these take precedence over everything else, including defense. Starting in 2010 mandatory spending will begin to devour the entire dollar until, somewhere between 2020 and 2030, there will be no revenue left over for defense or anything else. Even worse, these OMB estimates are based on rosy economic forecasts and don’t account for anything approaching the scale of our current crisis.

I believe global economics and the colossal pressures on the federal budget are the true defense issues of our generation. Our entire strategic outlook must revolve around this new reality. Leaders of every service should level with us about the impact these challenges will present in the coming years.