• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    May 2024
    M T W T F S S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    texan2driver on NY Doctor Confirms Trump Was R…
    markone1blog on NY Doctor Confirms Trump Was R…
    markone1blog on It’s Only OK for Kids to…
    America On Coffee on Is Healthcare a “Right?…
    texan2driver on Screw Fascistbook and *uc…
  • Archives

Dead Man Walking, But With a Severe Limp

This story from 2013 is more true now than ever. We didn’t buy enough F-22s to do the job, so the F-35 is going to be asked to do things it was never intended to do, and probably isn’t capable of doing.

A phrase I sadly use often, “symptomatic of a larger problem,” comes into play. Our increasingly leftist government refuses to pay the price of freedom. Our adversaries are circling us, waiting for the moment they feel we are weak enough to defeat. With our refusal to maintain a force strong and modern enough to serve as a deterrent, that time is rapidly approaching.

I pray that God gives us mercy because we are rapidly spiraling towards some very dark times in America.



Dead Man Flying

Regardless of how much the Air Force has to shrink, it can’t do the air superiority mission with just fourth-generation fighters, no matter how “efficient” they may look on paper, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said on June 17. During an AFA-sponsored Air Force breakfast event, Welsh acknowledged that USAF will field a “mix” of fourth-generation F-15s and F-16s as well as  fifth-generation fighters like F-22s and F-35s “years into our future.”  But the F-35 is not negotiable, he said.  “When we truncated our F-22 buy, we ended up with a force that can’t provide air superiority in more than one area at a time,” he acknowledged.  The F-35 “is going to be part of the air superiority equation whether it was intended to be, originally, or not.” Competitors with fifth-gen fighters will field them not in 15 to 20 years, but “five to 10 years from now,” Welsh said, and if the US doesn’t have a credible fifth-gen force to counter them in a “high end fight”  it will be “in trouble.” There’s “nothing else that can do” what the F-35 can, he said. “Out there where people fight and die, for real, if a fourth-generation aircraft meets a fifth-generation aircraft, the fourth-generation aircraft may be more efficient, but it’s also dead.”

Link to article: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/June%202013/June%2018%202013/Dead-Man-Flying.aspx


Fighter Gap, Spending Gap, or Freedom Gap?

Either out of ignorance or in an effort to keep us from questioning their decisions to so drastically limit the size of our fighter force, Robert Gates and company kept telling us that the Chinese and Russians were years away from fielding a 5th generation fighter to compete with our F-22 and F-35.

Defense analysts, officials, and industry personnel have long believed that the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter would not face serious threats from foreign fifth-generation fighters for the next 20 years.  In September 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repudiated claims of a looming “fighter gap”—a deficit between the services’ fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements. “[T]he more compelling gap,” he argued, “is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations.” In an earlier speech, he argued: China…is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese.” http://www.defencetalk.com/russia-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-developments-mean-for-america-30434/

Now it appears that they missed their estimate of both time and technology by a few years as both Russia and China have now flown 5th generation prototypes, and expect to have them in mass production by as early as 2015.  With their own production, exports, and licensed production, the numbers of these fighters we are likely to face will greatly exceed the numbers of F-22’s and F-35’s we have decided to build.

Russia unveils its first stealth fighter jet
This happened several years sooner than our “experts” said it would

China stealth plane still ‘years away’, says Pentagon
Our government was wrong AGAIN about the capabilities of our potential enemies

Black Silk – Chinese J-20 Stealth Takes Off
Yep.  Still YEARS away.

China’s new stealth fighter may use US technology
Intel shows the Chinese actively sought access to the wreckage following the shoot down.  After both selling them nuclear secrets for campaign contributions (Clinton), and their active nuclear espionage efforts, there’s nothing that makes their pursuit of our stealth technology implausible.

U.S. Doubts ’99 Jet Debris Gave China Stealth Edge
Remain calm.  All is well.  Nothing to see here.  Our secrets are safe.

China Says Stealth Technology Not From U.S. Plane
<wave of hand, Jedi mind trick> “These are not the storen technorogies you’re rooking for.  We deveroped everything on our own.  Not even Hans Brix can prove otherwise.”

So, how many fighters of equal or greater capabilities can 187 F-22’s defeat?  It’s kind of difficult to have air supremacy, or even air superiority, when you’re heavily outnumbered by a force that is at least technologically similar.  We have to ask ourselves what is worth more.  An overblown sense of entitlement in our country indulged by power hungry politicians willing to feed that beast to stay in power, or a strong national defense that provides the protection and environment necessary for opportunity and freedom to flourish?

How does that old saying go?  Oh, yeah.  Freedom isn’t free.


Can You Define “Wasteful?”

How Obama defines wasteful spending is beyond me. Let me see if I have this straight. Funding new tanker aircraft for the military is wasteful, but spending $3 Billion on a wasteful cash-for-clunkers program that does nothing for the economy isn’t. Buying F-22’s to ensure we have a fighter force capable of defeating anyone threatening our dominance of the air (such as China and a resurgent Russia who are fielding 5th generation fighters in large numbers) is apparently wasteful, while pouring billions of dollars down the black hole of a failed auto company only to give a majority stake in said company to the unions apparently isn’t wasteful. In summary, supporting and funding the one and only thing the constitution mandates the government to fund via taxes or other means (national defense) is wasteful in the eyes of Obama and the liberal left, while doubling the national debt of the entire history of this country in 6 months and plans to double it again within 10 years spending on wasteful social programs that mostly reward political supporters and only put our nation in more debt apparently is not wasteful to Obama and the liberals. Hope and change. Not quite all it was cracked up to be.

_____________________________________

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/box081909obama.aspx

Inexcusable

Inexcusable

At VFW, Obama chides Congress over wasteful military spending.

August 19, 2009—President Barack Obama on Monday reiterated his staunch opposition to funding what he calls wasteful military projects such as the F-22 and the F-35 competing engine.

In a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix, the President said it didn’t make sense to spend nearly $2 billion on more F-22s in Fiscal 2010—as the Senator Armed Services Committee had supported, but the full Senate later overturned—when the nation “can move ahead with a fleet of newer, more affordable aircraft,” meaning the F-35.

Obama also decried the ongoing attempts by Congress to fund the General Electric-Rolls Royce F136 engine for the F-35, the competing powerplant to Pratt & Whitney’s F135, saying it’s wrong to continue to invest in the F136 “when one reliable engine will do just fine.” (Defense Secretary Robert Gates also recently reaffirmed his desire to ax the F136, downplaying any purported cost and development issues with the F135.)

Obama continued, saying such “waste would be unacceptable at any time, but at a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, it’s inexcusable.”

(Full transcript of Obama speech)

China would likely prevail over the US and Taiwan in an air war over the Taiwan Strait

I’ve been talking about why continuing to spend (i.e. waste) money on stimulus packages that don’t stimulate, on bailout packages that prop up failing, poorly managed companies, on illegal aliens, on a government takeover of health care, and most of all on just plain political pork is a REALLY bad idea when compared to spending money on national defense. If you can’t defend yourself, the rest of that stuff won’t matter anyway. We haven’t been defending and can’t currently defend our own borders right now. We would likely lose if China and Russia ganged up on us. We are in a weak position, and getting weaker as we reduce the numbers of combat aircraft, airlifters, and tankers we have available. The pure numbers are not the only point to focus on here. The age of our aircraft in comparison to what we would face from China or a resurgent Russia should scare the crap out of anyone who knows anything about military strategy, and the fact that we are scared should make the average man worry as well. Let’s put the priorities of this administration in perspective once again. Obama and company say we can’t afford a dozen F-22’s for a total price of about $350 million, yet he and the democrats gleefully throw $2 billion more (for a current total of $3 billion if it passes the senate), or 10 times the money, at the cash-for-clunkers welfare giveaway. The fraud in this program is astounding.

_________________________________

airforce-magazine.com e-update, 06 August 2009

Sufficiently Grave: In 2013, China would likely prevail over the US and Taiwan in an air war over the Taiwan Strait, potentially clearing the way for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, finds the new RAND study “A Question of Balance,” released Wednesday. In fact, “a credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the blue air forces have even fired a shot,” write RAND’s authors in the 185-page monograph. Even the presence of a large force of F-22s in the fight would not change the final outcome. This “sobering” picture, RAND states, is a “substantially less optimistic” assessment for the Taiwan and US side than the think tank’s 2000 study that examined cross-strait battle scenarios circa 2005. RAND’s analysts attribute this bleaker prognosis to an evolving set of circumstances that “have changed the character of the air war.” These include: China’s growing short-range ballistic missile force, along with its cruise missiles, that places the bases that Taiwan and the US would rely upon to defend Taiwan—including Kadena Air Base on Okinawa—in danger of attack and incapacitation; and China’s accelerated pace of air force modernization that has allowed it to field or be near fielding “sizable numbers” of advanced fighters like the Su-27/J-11, Su-30, and J-10 to challenge Taiwan and US supremacy. RAND says such an air war is likely to be “intense and play out rapidly,” lasting perhaps only four days.

Windsock McCain Jumps on Sellout Bandwagon

McCain, Gates, and the like are planning our next war based on our current one.  Any reader of a Tom Clancy novel can see the next large conventional threat(s) to our country.  McCain and company are burying their collective heads in the sand.  You may remember back when Pakistan exploded their first nuke, and our intelligence community said they were caught off guard, not knowing they had that capability.  Anyone who had been in the science and mathematics departments during the previous decade new it was coming because we were educating their scientists for them and sending them back.

Now the same head in the sand mindset says we only need 187 F-22’s.  Even if we were to ONLY face one large conventional enemy such as a China or Russia, with such a small number of 5th generation fighters, the enemy wouldn’t even have to field a 5th generation fighter of their own.  They can already field more 3rd and 4th generation fighters than we have missiles to shoot them down with.  All they have to do is overwhelm our fighters with numbers.  They care so little for human life that they don’t care if they loose 10 or 15 fighters to each of ours, as long as they win.  With the weakened state of our military, and our declining ability to project power due to our aging and shrinking airlift fleet, victory on our part is now far from certain in a large scale engagement.  Once upon a time we based the size of our forces on a “two major regional conflict” model, or the ability to simultaneously wage two major conflicts in two separate theaters of operation at one time.  Rather than say we don’t have the forces to sustain that model and asking for more, the joint chiefs caved the other day and simply said “we don’t see a possibility like that on the horizon.”  They are now basing Gates’ and the administration’s assertion that we have enough forces, and don’t need to replace things like our 1950’s era tankers (which were only intended to last 10 years) on the wishful assumption that we will never see a large scale conventional enemy on the battle field.  An 8 year old who faces a bully on the playground each day can shoot that theory balloon down with a spit wad.

When has weakness on our part, and “leading the way/setting the example” by disarming ourselves unilaterally EVER made us safer or convinced ANY of our adversaries to do the same?  NEVER!!! Any time we have shown weakness as Obama is doing now, as Clinton did in Somalia, as Carter did in Iran, as Truman and Eisenhower did in Korea, and as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford did during Vietnam, our enemies have capitalized on the opportunity and attacked us or taken advantage or our weakness to gain other things they desired.  Now McCain is doing his best to help ensure our weakness.  Sadly, I voted for him in the last election because after the sheeple who were too lazy to research their own candidates let the media pick the most beatable opponent for Obama, we were left with no viable alternative.  As Glenn Beck puts it, you are offered poison and poison-lite.  Which one are you going to drink?

From airforce-magizine.com e-newsletter

Tuesday July 14, 2009

McCain Supports Obama, Gates on F-22: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday moved to strike $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense authorization bill that would go toward building more F-22s. He was joined in his amendment by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Levin and McCain are the chair and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which voted to approve the F-22 money over the pair’s objections. McCain, in a Senate floor speech, also said he would advise the White House to veto the defense bill if the final version includes new F-22 production money. He argued that production of the F-35 will suffice for the nation’s air combat needs and suggested that the F-22 was being added back in as a jobs measure. Even as McCain addressed fellow Senators, President Obama himself issued a veto threat over the F-22 issue in a July 13 letter to Levin and McCain (see Full Court Press). The Senate is likely to finish its work on the 2010 defense policy measure this week. The House passed its version last month and included more F-22s, which prompted an Administration statement that senior advisors would recommend a veto.

Obama’s Pentagon Cuts

Obama doesn’t know Bo, Jack, Diddley, or Bubkiss.  Not only is he the driving force in the destruction of our economic system, he is doing everything he can to destroy our military capability and ensure our removal from the world stage as a superpower.  The one and only thing the constitution provides the authority to tax for is national defense.  Yet defense is being sacrificed for vote-buying give away programs funded involuntarily with our money.  But we the sheeple have allowed our morals and ethics to be eroded, and our government to take so much of our freedom, that there may be no turning back.  America, it’s time to take back our country.

Obama’s Pentagon Cuts

The unclassified version of the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) — the U.S. Defense Dept.’s four-year strategy planning exercise — has yet to be released. But an unprecedented gag order placed on those responsible for developing the QDR, combined with Monday’s proposed terminations of programs — like the Air Force’s newly operational air-superiority fighter, the F-22 Raptor — has military experts concerned the writing may already be on the wall.

“I am appalled at the decisions just made by the secretary, as are other very senior Air Force general officers,” retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (U.S. Air Force), told HUMAN EVENTS following U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ press conference yesterday.

Gates proposed delays and terminations of current and next-generation platforms and weapons systems programs, which included, among other particulars:

  • cutting aircraft carriers from 11 to 10 and decreasing production of other surface combatants
  • delaying amphibious ship programs
  • halting the planned increase of ground-based interceptors in Alaska
  • cancelling a second airborne laser (antimissile) aircraft
  • terminating the ground-vehicle element of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (essentially killing the program)
  • delaying production of a new presidential helicopter
  • ending development of a new Air Force search and rescue helicopter
  • canceling the development of a new bomber
  • ending the C-17 transport aircraft, and
  • stopping production of the F-22 at 187 fighters

Additionally, the secretary of defense vowed to “maximize the production” of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and up the purchase of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’ F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 14 to 30 in Fiscal Year 2010.

“But the F-35 cannot survive a Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile, and the F-22 can,” says McInerney, a former assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force. “The question should be, why don’t we have a fly-off between the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter?”

McInerney adds, “He [Gates] is trying to make the Air Force a supporting service. He does not understand airpower.”

Among the concerns expressed — in the wake of yesterday’s proposed cuts before the QDR — is that the current crop of defense planners and policymakers may be suffering from shortsightedness. They may be dismissing potential strategic military threats to the U.S. as overblown. They may be capitulating to the “change” crowd in Washington. Or all of the above.

Asked if he was “walking into a buzzsaw,” Gates responded: “There’s no question a lot of these decisions will be controversial. My hope is that — as we have tried to do here in this building [the Pentagon] — the members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.”

But Gates’ remarks in 2008 in which he said, “I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called ‘next war-it is,’” have fueled fears among many retired generals. And the QDR gag order (a non-disclosure agreement reportedly signed by defense officials stating they will not discuss the QDR) is certainly not alleviating any concerns.

“It’s the first time it [the agreement] has ever been done in history,” says McInerney. “If I was one of the chiefs, I would have said there is no way I’m signing anything.”

A general who spoke on condition of anonymity added, “[A] serious naiveté has begun to fester [in the Beltway],” and the White House and senior defense officials “want to shape the military the way they think it should be without debate. They don’t see Russia or China as a threat. And the idea that we should not focus on future potential conflicts — from guerrilla operations to even air or sea battles — is troubling.”

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (U.S. Army), former deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Pacific, tells HUMAN EVENTS, “There is no overriding strategy, not only for the war against radical Islam — the planners don’t even know what to call it anymore — but no broad strategy for the Middle East and beyond. We do not seem to have senior people — particularly among the political appointees — who understand the threats against us, much less how to develop a strategy to meet those threats.”

McInerney says — based on information he and other retired general and flag officers are gleaning — whatever strategy is being planned seems to be too narrowly focused on ground-centric, irregular warfare operations and forces. Though, he adds, those forces are critically important in the 21st century, so are sea, air, and space forces which must never be neglected in the face of emerging and yet-unseen threats to national defense.

“Ground forces will not deter China from going into Taiwan,” says McInerney. “The Air Force and the Navy’s carrier strike groups have been fighting for 19 years. They are worn out. They need money.” The money, he argues, is desperately needed for recapitalization (also known as resetting — essentially putting a new engine in an old F-15) and modernization (replacing an F-15 with a brand-new F-22).

Retired Brig. Gen. Jim Cash (U.S. Air Force), former vice commander of the 7th Air Force, agrees.

“I think there is some shortsightedness,” Cash tells HUMAN EVENTS. “The Sec. Def. does not seem to realize that the major long term threat to this country may well come from Russia and China. The only way to negate that threat is through development and maintenance of a continuing strong deterrent. The F-22 will provide that deterrent by insuring command of the skies over the battlefield for the next 50 years. UAVs will not.”

Cash says U.S. Army and Marine forces have enjoyed air-superiority above their battlespaces “almost continually since the inception of air warfare” without which those ground forces could not survive.

Therein may lie one of the problems: America’s air and sea forces are indeed so dominant — the equipment and technology so superior to anything fielded by other nations, and the training of American airmen and sailors so effective — that much of America has grown to take that dominance for granted. “Our equipment and people are simply so good, they make warfighting look easy. But there is nothing easy about what we do,” Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commanding general of U.S. Central Command’s Air Forces, told me back in 2007.

Peter Brookes, a former CIA operations officer who also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, tells HUMAN EVENTS, “The QDR needs to show a balanced force capable of dealing with a range of contingencies because the next war is not necessarily going to be like an Iraq or Afghanistan. It could be with Russia, China, even a conventional war with Iran or North Korea. And because of the lag time [from drawing board to fielding] of these weapons systems, we must be moving out smartly on next generation systems.”

As Brookes says, “You can build a second lieutenant in six weeks, but you can’t build a ship or a tank in that same time.” And the longer we postpone production of a new weapons system, the more expensive that system becomes.

But it’s not simply development lag time and increasing costs: America’s Defense-Industrial base cannot afford to atrophy. If production of ships, planes, and tanks is halted, it will be difficult — perhaps impossible — to reengineer and retool from “cold iron” quickly enough to defend the country in a 21st-century environment. “The world is far different today than it was in World War II,” says Brookes. Time is critical.

Maj. Gen. George B. Patrick III, former special assistant to the director of Air National Guard and chief of staff U.S. Air Force, believes that much of what we will see in the forthcoming QDR will reflect Gates’ belief that the focus should be on the near-term threat. “But some of our high-tech weaponry that has been broadly listed under this ‘next-war-it is’ heading, is very effective in the global war on terror,” Patrick tells HUMAN EVENTS. “And if we do not continue to leverage the technology that’s available to us, and if we don’t pursue the fifth-generation fighters and other systems, potential peer competitors will.”

Patrick adds, “In my opinion, the QDR over the years has become something of a budget drill, making the threat and the resources needed to address the threat match the reality of the projected budget. It should, however, be a true empirical analysis of what our threats are regardless of budget.”

Barack Obama’s 2010 baseline defense budget is $534 billion: Still, “$26 billion below four percent of GDP, according to the Senate analysis,” writes Rowan Scarborough. Four percent is what many analysts and experts believe we should be spending as a minimum on defense.

For perspective, the U.S. was spending a whopping 34.5 percent of GDP for Defense in World War II. We spent 11.7 at the height of the Korean War, nearly 10 percent at the height of the Vietnam War, six percent under President Reagan in 1986, and 4.6 percent in 1991, the year of Gulf War I.

“Four percent for baseline Defense budget is certainly not too much to ask,” says McInerney. “After all, we spent $787-billion on a stimulus package that gives $3-billion to ACORN.”

Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com.

_______________________________________________________________________________________