| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV |
| 2009-12-10 |
| UPDATED: JSF Cut About 100 Planes, One Year Added to Schedule Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should result in the demise of two Navy carÂrier groups and the MarinesÂ’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike Fighter proÂgram is likely to lose a so-far uncerÂtain numÂber of planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings. Folks on the Hill are watchÂing the carÂrier cuts parÂticÂuÂlarly closely. They were willÂing to accept the temÂpoÂrary loss of one carÂrier but two groups may just be too much for lawÂmakÂers to swalÂlow though it would conÂveÂniently answer the hot debate about whether the Navy faces a fighter gap. “Even if they cut two carÂrier strike groups (which will be an uphill batÂtle for DOD), they still face a sigÂnifÂiÂcant USN fighter gap,” said a conÂgresÂsional aide folÂlowÂing this. “The Navy seems to recÂogÂnize this, but everyÂthing weÂ’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to indiÂcate that theyÂ’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.” The 2010 defense authoÂrizaÂtion report noted careÂfully that Congress was willÂing to accept the “temÂpoÂrary reducÂtion in minÂiÂmum numÂber of operÂaÂtional airÂcraft carÂriÂers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78 is comÂmisÂsioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has made a long-term comÂmitÂment to field 11 airÂcraft carÂriÂers outÂfitÂted with 10 carÂrier air wings comÂposed of 44 strike-fighters in each wing.” Congress, the reportÂ’s authors said, is “very conÂcerned” about “curÂrent and foreÂcasted shortÂfalls in the strike-fighter invenÂtory.” Given the totemic nature of carÂriÂers for the Navy and the numÂbers of jobs and the money at stake for memÂbers of Congress, a batÂtle royal over plans to perÂmaÂnently reduce the fleet by two carÂrier groups seems assured. On the Joint Strike Fighter, one conÂgresÂsional aide said a cut to the F-35Â’s overÂall numÂbers would not be surÂprisÂing given the programÂ’s risÂing costs and the tightÂened budÂget sitÂuÂaÂtion the counÂtry faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how big those cuts may be, Our colÂleagues at Inside Defense are reportÂing that a draft Pentagon direcÂtive would result in extendÂing, “develÂopÂment by at least a year, reduce proÂducÂtion by approxÂiÂmately 100 airÂcraft and require the addiÂtion of bilÂlions of dolÂlars to the effort through 2015.” The Marines are unlikely to sit still for the EFV kill. Reports are that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway will come out swingÂing to preÂserve the abilÂity to kick down the door and ensure forcible entry from the sea. Jones made his basic posiÂtion on the problem-plagued EFV durÂing a May speech at CSIS. |
| Posted by:Hupereth Glack5732 |
| #12 Not really useful for close-in air support. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-12-10 22:29 |
| #11 That's why we'll be investing a lot in long range UAVs with the money we get by not building any new |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-12-10 20:38 |
| #10 Only if you never expect to project power ashore NS. Subs run out of missiles fairly quickly when using conventional warheads rather than nucs. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-12-10 18:24 |
| #9 We can keep the seas open more effectively for less money by using weapons systems far less costly than a CSG. Like a lot more submarines. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-12-10 14:27 |
| #8 "But reducing the USN isn't the answer because it's them who keep the seas open for American trade." Actually, it is the answer, gromky. For the clowns in the White House (and the DemoncRat For just the reason you stated. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-12-10 14:13 |
| #7 Well, fewer carriers is good because they are just hugely expensive targets in this age of modern supersonic antiship missiles. But reducing the USN isn't the answer because it's them who keep the seas open for American trade. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-12-10 14:05 |
| #6 UCAVs. We're accelerating delivery by outsourcing the programming to TatvaSoft. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-12-10 13:41 |
| #5 P-35's then? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-10 13:41 |
| #4 So we won't buy more F-22s because they're too expensive and buy F-35s instead. Now F-35s are too expensive. What do we do to ensure air supremacy in the future? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-12-10 13:37 |
| #3 Even if they only cut carriers and carrier groups from 11 to 10, we're still at only 9 carriers, because several of our carriers need to refuel. With nuclear powered ships, refueling is a year long operation and is combined with a yard stay to update the ship. The plan is to rotate them in one at a time, and so for the next few years one carrier is always unavailable. So 10 = 9 in this math, and 9 = 8. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-12-10 13:36 |
| #2 I thought so. We're dropping the Taiwan guarantee. No way they can maintain a credible threat to the Straits if we're cutting the carrier groups that much. What is that, twenty percent? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-12-10 12:20 |
| #1 History lesson on why ’78 should not be repeated By: James Carafano Examiner Columnist October 26, 2009 Extracts He followed an unpopular president. He received a strong election mandate. He changed the tone in Washington, D.C. He said human rights mattered, that America’s image in the world had to be remade. He would receive a Nobel Peace Prize. As the end of his presidency’s first year drew near, the future looked bright. He had brought change — change that mattered. It was 1977. The next year was very bad.... ...At the same time the White House was amping up the soft power, it was also looking to cut back on military commitments. Faced with a troubled economy, the Carter administration was also looking to cut back on military spending. Thus, the president embraced Defense Secretary Harold Brown’s “offset” strategy. The Armed Forces would buy nothing new. The Pentagon would “skip a generation” and “rethink” military needs.... The rest here Preview problem? |
| Posted by: Willy 2009-12-10 11:51 |
