PERSPECTIVES OF THE MILITARY SERVICES ON THE STRATEGIC CHOICES AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
The United States Navy Gives Up The Following for 2014:
NIMTIZ CARRIER TASK FORCE, OFFICIAL U.S.NAVY PHOTO
One Virginia class submarine would be canceled.
One Virginia class submarine would be canceled.
Work on the first replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear missile submarines — SSBN-X — would be delayed from fiscal year 2021 by one year, leaving the United States with a gap in part of the nuclear triad.
One Littoral Combat Ship would cancelled.
Some 11 tactical aircraft – four EA-18Gs, one F-35C, one E-2D, two P-8As, three MH-60s and roughly 400 weapons purchases cancelled.
One Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) would not be purchased.
Delivery of the USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN-78) would be delayed by two years, raising questions about whether the Navy could keep the requisite number of carriers at sea as needed.
Link To entire Statement: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf
The most scary part of the recent Congressional testimony of the service chiefs is simply that if sequestration continues into 2014 only the marines think their service is still capable of dealing with one serious contingency, and possibly fighting a holding action on a second. Our post Cold War defense policy had been to maintain sufficient forces to assure a win if two armed combat situations with major forces broke out. Some of the service chiefs responded that they are not prepared to win a single conflict at present levels of funding. But we repeat our observation that we are confronted on at least three fronts now with serious potential naval challenges. Making cuts across the board undermines not only our follow on readiness (Army /Air Force) but now our first respondents (Navy/Marine Corps) are in serious trouble. Frankly we don't think taking the costs of our overblown social programs,foreign aid, corporate welfare, and decades of reckless spending out of defense hide is a good idea. period. If defense has to be cut our present world situation must be countered by naval forces. If we can counter the moves being made against us we may not need to put boots on the ground or bombers in the air. An army can be a deterrent while existing largely in reserve. A powerful naval air component including ship launched missiles for deep strike missions can buy an air force time to build up, especially if the an air force has a strong ready reserve component. But you either have a Navy/Marine Corps team on scene or you don't. If you don't you have a real response, a real presence, you can not influence events.
Our foreign policy becomes tilting at wind mills.
Link To entire Statement: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf
The most scary part of the recent Congressional testimony of the service chiefs is simply that if sequestration continues into 2014 only the marines think their service is still capable of dealing with one serious contingency, and possibly fighting a holding action on a second. Our post Cold War defense policy had been to maintain sufficient forces to assure a win if two armed combat situations with major forces broke out. Some of the service chiefs responded that they are not prepared to win a single conflict at present levels of funding. But we repeat our observation that we are confronted on at least three fronts now with serious potential naval challenges. Making cuts across the board undermines not only our follow on readiness (Army /Air Force) but now our first respondents (Navy/Marine Corps) are in serious trouble. Frankly we don't think taking the costs of our overblown social programs,foreign aid, corporate welfare, and decades of reckless spending out of defense hide is a good idea. period. If defense has to be cut our present world situation must be countered by naval forces. If we can counter the moves being made against us we may not need to put boots on the ground or bombers in the air. An army can be a deterrent while existing largely in reserve. A powerful naval air component including ship launched missiles for deep strike missions can buy an air force time to build up, especially if the an air force has a strong ready reserve component. But you either have a Navy/Marine Corps team on scene or you don't. If you don't you have a real response, a real presence, you can not influence events.
Our foreign policy becomes tilting at wind mills.
No comments:
Post a Comment