Here is what I think of it:
OK:
-Begin a frigate program
-More Super Hornets
-Increase the number of destroyers
-Reserve carrier air wing
-Cut flag ranks (hopefully)
Not OK:
-Continue Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
-..."no intention to cancel it" (LCS)
-Increase in amphibs
-"Missle defense ship"
-"Essential" to keep F-35 in production
How will it be paid for? Well, the only way I can see is to kill off things that contribute nothing to the defense of the nation.
"The bureaucracy itself has almost doubled what it was during the Reagan administration. The Navy is half the size it was, the Air Force is half the size, the Army is half the size."
4 comments:
Too bad he doesn't explain how it intends to pay for all these new things. If he keeps everything "bad", I don't see how we can get to the good stuff...I have no beef for the OK stuff, most of it I agree with but the "not OK" just has to go, they have to have the courage to get rid of the dead wood, like LCS,etc...
It's hard to see staying "committed" to the F-35 with it eating almost 20% of the entire current budget for the US military.
The idea of continuing production of the LCS is equally stupid now that we're facing a rapidly developing Chinese Navy with much heavier armed vessels.
Nico's point about how this gets paid for is spot on. It reminds me of another Republican President that started a war with a dictator over WMD's that were never found without a thought as to how much it would cost the US.
It makes the Obama stimulus package look like kiddie stuff...
http://costofwar.com/
He's trying to alienate not a single arms industry PAC.
The list does not make any sense, especially the duplicities of frigate/LCS and F-35/F-18EF.
Besides; he signals he's more concerned about Russia than China. Now if this was true, shouldn't the current state of the Russian Navy (much of which is holed up in the Black Sea anyway) lead to an emphasis on personnel development, R&D, experiments and prototype ships over actual production?
Some of the proposals aren't bad, new build replacement for Perry class, more SHs instead of F35Cs, amphibious ship turned arsenal ship,etc...but the fact that they aren't getting rid of the dead wood (LCS,F35,etc...) makes me wary that we are just seeing more pandering and really no sense of strategic direction for the US military, it's all just corporate gravy....if they can't find a program to KILL now, they aren't going to kill it once in office!
I would like to hear more about the arsenal ship derived from San Antonio class, interesting concept but bad feeling that it will be horribly expensive. Just think of how many SM2/SM3/Tomahawks you would have to buy, wonder if you could keep a small deck/hanger to still operate a few helos....then how many do you need? Need at least one of the shores of North Korea, one off of Iran, probably you need to buy 6 to 8 to have a continuous presence, not cheap...
Agree S O, that it would be nice to get a sense of direction facing future threats, not some 80's cold war rerun with the Soviet Union....
Post a Comment