Obama, Now Biden, Guts the Military

[Ryan Ruck]

Pentagon Slashes Fighter Squadrons, Airlifters In New Budget Proposal

January 26, 2012

The US Air Force will eliminate six fighter squadrons, divest the L-3 Communications C-27J and retire 27 Lockheed Martin C-5As and 65 ageing C-130s under a new round of sweeping budget cuts announced on 26 January.

The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk procurement will also be truncated, while the Block 40 variant of the high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicle will be increased.

The reductions in military airpower are a small part of a $259 billion package of cuts to planned budget increases over the next five years.

But the review also rededicated the Department of Defense to supporting new military aviation programmes, including the next-generation bomber and the Boeing KC-46A tanker.

The Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, meanwhile, escaped the budget reviews with all three variants intact, although procurement over the next five years will be further slowed, said Leon Panetta, secretary of defense.

"We want to make sure before we go into full-rate production that we are ready," Panetta said.

Despite the reduction of six tactical fighter squadrons and one fighter training squadron, the US military still remains committed to the F-35's full programme of record, Panetta said. That programme anticipates buying 2,443 operational fighters through 2035, including 1,763 for the air force.

The US military also plans to make new investments in enabling airpower capabilities, such as equipping existing aircraft with new missiles, sensors, communications and electronic warfare systems, Panetta said. The budget preserves the army's joint air-to-ground missile, but at a reduced funding level.

The budget review was launched after the Obama Administration committed to reduce military spending by $487 billion over the next decade. Pentagon officials unveiled a new strategic guidance document earlier this month.

[American Patriot]

End of an era. My era.

I flew on a lot of C-130s in my time. LOTS of them. C-141s as well, and a few C-5As.

[Ryan Ruck]

5 A-10 Squadrons To Be Cut

Tight budgets lead AF to focus on F-35 capabilities

January 30, 2012

The A-10 Thunderbolt II provides the type of close-air support that ground-pounders love and the Taliban dread. Although the A-10s are workhorses in the war on terrorism, the Air Force in its new budget request is planning to get rid of five squadrons.

As part of the Defense Department’s efforts to trim close to $500 billion in spending over the next decade, defense officials said Friday that the service intends to cut five A-10 tactical squadrons and two other squadrons as well.

The Thunderbolt squadrons to be stood down encompass one active-duty, one Reserve and three National Guard units. The remaining two squadrons disappearing are a Guard F-16 tactical unit and an F-15 training squadron.

The move was part of a series of proposed budget cuts announced Jan. 26 at the Pentagon. Also on the chopping block are the C-27 and the Global Hawk Block 30; and as the ground force shrinks, the service plans to retire the oldest of its aging transport aircraft.

Facing a new age of fiscal austerity, the Defense Department is trying to pivot away from the counterinsurgency campaigns of the past decade, which required large numbers of conventional forces, toward smaller, less expensive missions waged primarily by special operations forces.

While the A-10 is very good at providing close-air support, the Air Force needs aircraft that can do more than one mission, Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Jan. 26 in an interview with Military Times reporters and editors.

“Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don’t think anybody believes that,” he said, “But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be? So again, the Air Force is trying to get as much multimission capability into the limited number of platforms it’s going to have.”

While Air Force fighter aircraft are the most advanced in the world, some critics have said the need for an aircraft that can outfight near-peer rivals seems a bit over the horizon. But Winnefeld said the issue is not so clear-cut.

“It could be that those who think there’s never going to be an air-to-air engagement ever again in the history of the world could be wrong,” Winnefeld said. “It could be those who believe that the close-air support role of the A-10 is absolutely paramount could be wrong, as well.”

As the Air Force looks toward the future, it expects its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions to become even more important. That’s why the service wants to have the ability to conduct 85 unmanned aerial drone patrols when needed. Currently, the Air Force can provide a maximum of 61 continuous patrols.

The Global Hawk Block 30, which was supposed to replace the U-2 spy plane, has proved to be too expensive for its mission, so the Air Force announced Jan. 26 that it has also canceled the Block 30 and extended the life of the U-2.

The move does not affect the other variants of the Global Hawk, said Ashton Carter, deputy defense secretary.

As the ground forces shrink, the Air Force will need fewer transport aircraft, so the proposed spending cuts call for the Air Force to retire 27 aging C-5As and 65 of the oldest C-130s, leaving Air Mobility Command with 52 C-5Ms, 318 C-130s and 222 C-17s.

Carter called the older C-5As and C-130s excess capacity, adding, “In this budget environment, we can’t justify capacity that is excess to need.”

The Defense Department is also looking to kill the C-27, a joint Army-Air Force cargo aircraft.

“The C-27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C-130 might not be able to operate effectively,” DoD stated in a budget presentation. “However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C-130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-130s and the current cost to own and operate them is lower, we no longer need — nor can we afford — a niche capability like the C-27J aircraft.”

Even before the proposed cuts were announced, one aerospace nonprofit organization weighed in, arguing the Air Force has been putting “short-term operational demands over long-term global realties.”

“While attributes like stealth, speed and range were not necessary above the occupied states [Iraq and Afghanistan], they are essential preconditions for securing U.S. interests elsewhere,” according to a letter sent by the Air Force Association on Jan. 26 to Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Signed by several former senior Air Force officials, the letter urges the service to pursue modernization programs put on the back burner since the end of the Cold War. “The need to strike distant targets and return safely did not emerge during the Cold War, nor did it end when the Berlin Wall fell,” it says, “While the U.S. was engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations were busy designing, fielding and proliferating new weapons that have the potential to curtail our freedom of action throughout major regions of the world.”

I really can't believe that people in high places seriously think the F-35 will be a replacement for the A-10. Hell, even their name points out their differing roles - A vs. F! And really, talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket with dependance on the F-35.

Also, we really need to be moving away from multi-role aircraft and back to specialized aircraft, in my opinion.

[vector7]

Obama Pulls Combat Pay for U.S. Troops

February 4, 2012 | Filed under: Florida Review | Posted by: Javier Manjarres

By Javier Manjarres



President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at, or at risk of being injured by hostile aggression. A Marine who lives in Florida(also currently serving in Afghanistan) has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at.

So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Marine from Florida (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons)

According to Military.com, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 1540-7 Sec 616) as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to receive the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay.

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:

• Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
• On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
• Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
• On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen.

[Ryan Ruck]

Thanks for posting that vector.

I heard about this on Mark Levin's show earlier but couldn't find an article on it.

[American Patriot]

THIS is how to get rid of the military without "looking bad" by cutting deeply.

Attrition.

[Ryan Ruck]

Air Force Force Structure Changes Affect 14 States

February 3, 2012

The Air Force plans to retire 82 Air Force Reserve Command aircraft and make other changes in the command in the next few years, according to Pentagon officials Feb. 3. States impacted are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Called the "Air Force Strategy and Force Structure Overview," the Air Force plans to rebalance its overall ratio of Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard forces at about 60 installations in 33 states and retire 227 aircraft to support a new defense strategy and the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2013.

"We're going to do everything we can to take care of our people as these changes occur," said Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr., chief of Air Force Reserve at the Pentagon and AFRC commander at Robins Air Force Base, Ga. "We're putting together programs to retain as many of our reservists as possible."

One of the biggest changes for the Air Force Reserve Command is the planned closure of the 911th Airlift Wing, Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station, Pa. If the 911th AW is deactivated, the Pittsburgh ARS is expected to close. However, the Pittsburgh Air National Guard Base is planned to remain operational.

Faced with austere budget times, the Air Force is refocusing and reducing the size of its forces to comply with the president's new defense strategy and the Budget Control Act's requirements to cut $487 billion from the defense budget over the next 10 years.

The Air Force's share is about $54 billion - and those cuts may grow.

"The president and the Department of Defense have directed our new Defense Strategy Guidance," Stenner said. "Now our Air Force has to set priorities and make some tough choices to rebalance our forces and realign with the new strategy."

To achieve these goals, the Air Force is planning significant organizational changes. AFRC's portion of the cuts includes reducing its inventory by 61 airlift and aerial-refueling aircraft, as well as, 21 fighter jets.

This will retire the Air Force's oldest aircraft, make room for newer models, and consolidate similar types of aircraft at common locations as much as possible. Changes in AFRC structure include:

Barksdale AFB, La. - Drawdown one Air Force Reserve Command squadron by retiring 18 A-10 aircraft as part of the FY13 president's budget. Also, retire three other A-10s in fiscal 13 that were previously slated for retirement and awaiting to be transferred. Transfer three remaining A-10s to Whiteman AFB, Mo. End the active associate unit that hosts Regular Air Force Airmen and flies A-10 aircraft with the AFRC A-10 squadron The Air Force Reserve unit that flies B-52 aircraft remains operational at Barksdale.

Dobbins ARB, Ga. - Retire seven C-130H2 aircraft and add 10 C-130J aircraft during FY14.

Keesler AFB, Miss. - Transfer 10 C-130J aircraft to new location in FY14. Although the active associate unit ends as part of the FY13 President's Budget, the Air Force Reserve unit remains operational.

Lackland AFB, Texas - Retire 16 C-5A aircraft from FY13 through FY16. Close the C-5A training school. Add eight C-5M aircraft in FY15.

Little Rock AFB, Ark. - Retire two C-130H2 aircraft in FY17. Unit remains operational.

March ARB, Calif. - Retire one KC-135 aircraft in FY13. Unit remains operational.

Maxwell AFB, Ala. - Drawdown one squadron by retiring seven C-130H2 aircraft in FY14. Unit remains operational.

Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS, Minn. - Drawdown one squadron by transferring eight C-130H3 aircraft in FY 13. The Air Force Reserve unit remains operational even though the air reserve station is transferred from the Air Force Reserve to the Air National Guard.

Niagara Falls, ARS, N.Y. - The air reserve component associate unit - composed of Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard -- ends as part of the FY13 president's budget. The Air Force Reserve retires three C-130H2 aircraft in FY13 and eight more in FY17. However, eight C-130H3 aircraft are planned to be added to the Air Force Reserve unit during FY13.

Pittsburgh ARS, Pa. - Drawdown one squadron by retiring six C-130H2 aircraft and transferring one C-130H2 in FY13. Air Force Reserve operations end and the Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station closes. However, Pittsburgh Air National Guard Base remains open.

Pope Field, N.C. - Retire one C-130H2 aircraft and add one C-130H2 in FY13.

Tinker AFB, Okla. - Retire four KC-135 aircraft in FY13; however, unit remains operational.

Westover ARB, Mass. - Transfer eight C-5Ms in FY16. Unit remains operational.

Youngstown-Warren ARS, Ohio - Retire six C-130H2 aircraft and add four C-130H2.5 aircraft.

"Our future plans must ensure the Total Force can fulfill the nation's need for daily operations and a surge force in the new strategy," Stenner said. "DOD's goal is to balance force structure reductions with our ability to project power globally and to maintain our force readiness."

The Air Force is scheduled to announce manpower changes caused by these structure changes in the next few weeks.

In order for the planned reductions to take effect, they must be approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.

"We worked closely with our Regular Air Force and Air Guard partners to rebalance our Total Force team," Stenner said. "In order to make our Air Force smaller, all three components had to find efficiencies and reductions - to get smaller together."

To view the Air Force Overview listing all of the Air Force's planned changes, go to: www.af.mil.

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Pulls Combat Pay for U.S. Troops

Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay

February 11, 2012

While I understand that only a fraction of the population of this nation is directly affected by what you are about to read, I would never-the-less like to remind you that the remainder of the population is affected coincidentally. While the majority of the American population probably never even considered the Armed Forces as a possible career objective, there are those who never considered life without serving their country, in uniform, on a field of combat. Most of these young men and women never take the time to internalize some idealized vision of charging death for God and Country, they just have a burning desire for the call on their lives to do so and then, most importantly, they act!



President Obama, however, was apparently never burdened with that urgent call to serve others or his country selflessly. And because the only thing he ever answered to was a call to “self-empowerment” and self-ingratiation, he has been a brutal failure as a moral leader and Commander in Chief. In addition, his unquenchable desire to “win over” that portion of the world population to whom he has sold his soul has led him to a new round of actions that should anger every red blooded American and will disgust every American who has ever donned the uniform of a United States Marine!

This week, President Obama sought to block legislation that would hold Iran accountable for the Hezbollah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983. This inexplicable move hasn’t any bearing on the current crisis except for it’s ability to tilt world opinion in favor of US interests. The Obama administration’s actions to derail this legislation in Congress, then, can only be seen as an effort to bolster support for the Iranian regime which can only be understood through the prism of this sitting President’s indefatigable efforts to “reconcile” with the Islamic nations of the world.

If three plus years of his purposeful attempts to insult the country he has sworn to defend through his many prostrating speeches on Islamic soil and this latest otherwise despicable move haven’t enlightened you, then maybe this next story will help finish your education!

As of February 1st 2012, President Obama has determined that Combat Pay for US forces will be determined by a new criteria. In general, Afghanistan has been deemed a combat zone and all US forces deployed in that region have been eligible for combat pay due to the certainty of encountering dirt-bags in firefights, ambushes, IED’s or suicide bombings. This new policy now requires having been shot at first. For those not understanding the problem with this, it now says that the US Government has effectively declared Afghanistan a “safe zone”! And this in spite of the nearly daily reports of Americans being either wounded or killed!

This newest insult is certainly an effort to bolster what will be his campaign claim to have “pacified” Afghanistan during his tenure and having kept one of his last campaign promises to bring all troops home by the end of his first term. But here again is where perception, does not align with reality. In a land where the Taliban are given new control over the country by our unwillingness to hold them accountable in combat and where discussions of “peace talks” include promises to release known murderous thugs back onto the battlefield where our troops still operate, the Taliban have made it clear they are not only not in talks but that they are not interested.

Is this the “safe” Afghanistan where Warriors are still forced to patrol daily, are wounded in daily, killed in daily, betrayed by Afghan Soldiers and Police Cadets, daily and which the Obama Administration has now effectively declared no longer a combat zone?

So once again, the health and well-being of our Warriors will suffer for political expedience. In addition, all troops fired upon, wounded or killed by our “Afghan partners” will not be viewed as combat deaths but fratricide/murder, making those incidents criminal acts. This will affect the way United States Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen who are wounded or killed in that polluted land are treated by this government. It will also most likely change the SGLI eligibility status from non-taxable to taxable!!

Are things clearing up now??

These latest actions by this sitting President would be curious and difficult to understand if his actions in the first months of his administration had not been so telling. When one of the first actions in a President’s term is to give a speech on foreign soil, to people who are spiritually opposed to our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and who we know have supported terrorist acts across the world, these newest actions can only be described as part of some subversive plan. Let’s not forget that he “apologized” for the United States in that and following speeches to yet other foreign, Islamic audiences and in at least one meeting, prostrated himself to his Muslim host which had the affect of subjugating the United States and it’s citizenry to that “host”.

It remains a mystery why no one in Congress has seen fit to decry either of these last two outrages which should give you an indication of the current condition of the heart of leadership in this country.

This election cycle certainly won’t give DC the enema it needs or deserves, but it could have the affect of sending a message to all those who dare suggest they are fit for leadership on the national stage. People seeking to “serve” on the national stage need to know that their personal proclivities toward self-aggrandizement will no longer be tolerated. They need to know that the American voter will be educated and engaged in the political process and that our first concern is for the future security of this nation and that vision includes those who are actively serving in regions of the world into which they have been thrust.

The people of this nation need to realign their priorities and put Honor first; not only in their own lives but in their requirement for those they would have represent them. Our Warriors have done that by the simple act of stepping forward and raising their right hands.

They should at least be afforded the dignity of having the dangerous space they operate in continue to be declared a combat zone!

www.letthemfight.blogspot.com

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

[American Patriot]

That ought to save, oh, a few hundred thousand bucks towards repaying the 4 trillion plus deficit, huh?

[Ryan Ruck]

Oceans So Wide, A U.S. Navy So Small

February 17, 2012

The new Obama budget does little to restore American sea power, which has reached lows not seen for almost a century. Who's noticing? You can bet that Beijing is.

Go to the website of the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget, and you'll find a list of 23 links to "Fact Sheets on Key Issues" in the president's proposed 2013 budget. Most are about how Barack Obama's spending blueprint will benefit this or that group, from farmers and college students to seniors and "the LGBT community."

Notably missing is national defense. Maybe the president just doesn't find the topic interesting.

Well, we're interested. And the American public should be interested too, because the budget fails to give the U.S. what it needs to maintain its power in a dangerous world. Nowhere is this clearer than in the spending plans for the Navy.

Sea power has been out of political fashion for some time, and the neglect shows. Late in the 2000s, a decade focused on counterterrorism and land wars, the Navy's active ship count sank to its lowest level — 278 — since before World War I. At that 2007 nadir, it was at less than half its strength of 20 years before.

It has increased only slightly in the past four years, and the new Obama budget would bring only modest net increases after taking ship retirements into account. It's also scaling back from the prior budget. The new spending plan proposes building 10 ships in 2013, down from 13 proposed for the same year in the 2012 budget.

Raw active-ship numbers are not a precise measure of strength. What really counts is how those numbers fit the missions. The Navy had 6,768 active ships at the end of World War II. There's no reason to aim that high now. On the other hand, the world of the 1980s, when the Navy was twice as large as it is now, doesn't look radically different from that of today.

Back then, U.S. sea power played critical roles all over the world, from protecting Persian Gulf shipping lanes to restraining an autocratic power that dominated much of Asia. Today, power in Asia is shifting toward China, with Russia still an ambitious player. But the oceans haven't shrunk a bit. And the biggest of them, the Pacific, needs a strong American presence more than ever.

China is still just dipping its toes in the water; it has one aircraft carrier, an old Soviet retread, to America's 11. But it clearly wants to make the 21st century its own, and it doesn't need a navy the size of America's to make the U.S. look weak.

[American Patriot]

I had a taco salad made from TVP last night. That sure makes some gas......

(TVP= Textured Vegetable Protein"... my wife is experimenting again....)

[vector7]

Pentagon is planning ‘contingency’ for Iran and North Korea

By Rowan Scarborough
-
The Washington Times
Tuesday, May 1, 2012


Enlarge Photo** FILE ** Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outline the main areas of proposed defense spending cuts during a Jan. 26, 2012, news conference at the Pentagon. (Associated Press)

The U.S. military is discussing significant changes in its war plans to adhere to President Obama’s new strategic guidance that downplays preparing for conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and counts on allies to provide additional troops.War planning for Iran is now the most pressing scenario, or what the Pentagon calls a contingency.

U.S. Central Command believes it can destroy or significantly degrade Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks using air and sea strikes, according to a defense source familiar with the discussions.

Such strikes are an option in a response to Tehran’s striking U.S. and international ships in the Persian Gulf and attempting to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil is transported.

The Pentagon now is conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.

It is maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and is increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters.

Aviation Week reported the Air Force recently dispatched its premier penetrating strike fighter, the F-22 Raptor, to a base in the United Arab Emirates, across the Gulf from Iran

A smaller, more agile force

Army Lt. Col. T.G. Taylor, a spokesman at U.S Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Gulf, said the command does not discuss war planning.

“We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president,” Col. Taylor said. “We take our guidance from the secretary of defense and from our civilian bosses in D.C. So any kind of guidance they give us, that’s what we go off of.”

The defense source said the U.S. would respond to an invasion of South Korea by the North primarily with massive air and sea power. It would be up to the South Korean army to do most of the ground fighting, and it would have the lead in stability operations for a defeated North.

Overall, the U.S. military is reducing the planned number of U.S. ground troops that would be needed in a major conflict and is counting on allies to fill the gap.

It also is expanding the number of days it would have to begin fighting one war and blunt an aggressor in another region.

Mr. Obama presented his eight-page strategic guidance in January as his vision of a smaller, more agile armed forces that would focus on air and sea power in two regions — the Pacific and the Persian Gulf.

He presented the document a month before the Pentagon announced how it would grapple with $487 billion in budget cuts over the next 10 years.

The hallmark savings: reduce ground forces by 90,000 soldiers and Marines.

The Obama guidance lists 10 “primary missions” for the armed forces.

The guidance for counterinsurgency missions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, is significant as much for what the military will not do as what it will do:

“The United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations,” it states.

“U.S. forces will nevertheless be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible.”

‘Doing less with less’

“U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations,” it says. “Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives.”

Conservatives have called the Obama plan too risky in its assumptions that the U.S. will not face a protracted ground war and can rely on significant numbers of allied troops if it does.

“I think it’s just rubber-stamping the budget cuts,” said James Carafano, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “Basically what they are doing is dumping any scenarios that require long-term commitment of forces on the ground.

“The problem is the enemy gets a vote. I don’t think this will mean much in the long-term on doctrine, but it will speed hollowing out the force.”

A analysis by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of Congress, states: “On the surface, the guidance appears to call for doing less with less. … It includes willingness to assume some greater risk, without specifying the scope and scale of that risk, to accomplish simultaneous missions.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta says the strategic guidance will lead to a “smaller and leaner” force that “will be agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced. … The joint force will be prepared to confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world.”

A spokesman for Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the general is holding a series of strategic seminars to discuss the Obama strategy and how the force will be postured over the next five years to carry it out.

Gen. Dempsey has held two such meetings with the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders and will hold another this month.

“We made some assumptions about changing capabilities, technologies and policies of both adversaries and allies in 2017, and to take a rough look at the supply and demand for our forces worldwide in 2017,” said Marine Col. David Lapan.

“We’re testing our assumptions and testing our ideas. As expected, we’ve come up with many questions to explore in future seminars. We’ll keep doing that.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Air Force Accepts Final F-22 Raptor

May 3, 2012

Senior Air Force officials attended a ceremony here May 2 commemorating the delivery of the final F-22 Raptor to the service.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz was joined by Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia and other industry, Air Force and civilian leaders as they were welcomed to Dobbins Air Reserve Base and the Lockheed Martin Marietta plant for the event.

The final delivery completes the Air Force's fleet of 195 F-22s. The Raptor is a key component of the Global Strike Task Force and is unmatched by any fighter aircraft due to its speed, stealth and maneuverability, according to Air Force officials.

During his remarks at the ceremony, Schwartz said the delivery represents an important element in the Air Force's overall modernization effort.

"Thank you to all of the partners in industry and government that made this occasion a reality," the general said. "I especially want to pay tribute to the line workers and engineers whose technical expertise, attention to detail and commitment to our nation's defense transformed an innovative notion into America's first 5th generation fighter aircraft."

When it was time to unveil the final F-22, the hangar doors rose and cheers from the assembled guests and workers erupted.

Robert Stevens, Lockheed Martin chairman and chief executive officer, said the very existence of the F-22 has altered the strategic landscape forever.

"It is also fair to say that, along the way, the F-22 has had a fair number of challenges and a fair number of critics," Stevens said. "But let's not fail to take note today of the number of nations, who rank among either competitors or adversaries, who are frantically trying to replicate what you have done."

The final F-22, tail number 4195, will be flown to its new unit at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska.

[vector7]

Obama’s Flawed Strategic Plan: Simultaneously Reduce Both U.S. Nuclear And Conventional Forces

15:33 GMT, June 20, 2012

Is anyone surprised that the Obama Administration will seek even deeper reductions in U.S. strategic nuclear forces? According to reports circulating in Washington, the administration’s most recent Nuclear Posture Review will propose a strategic nuclear force of 1,000 warheads. This is a one-third reduction from the number agreed to just two years ago in the New START and which will take another five years to fully implement.

Even without seeing an unclassified version of the review, there are some obvious questions that need to be raised about the plan. First, in what ways has the international security environment improved in the last two years warranting such a significant reduction? Have Iran and North Korea abandoned their nuclear weapons programs? Has China declared a moratorium on improving its theater and strategic nuclear forces or its conventional military? Has Russia written a new national security strategy, one which does not rely heavily on the use of nuclear weapons to win a local conflict? Are prospective adversaries no longer pursuing anti-access and area denial capabilities designed to undermine U.S. conventional force advantages? Have the prospects for global instability and terrorism from North Africa through the Greater Middle East to Central Asia, Pakistan and Southeast Asia declined in the past two years?

Second, how is extended nuclear deterrence to be achieved at this lower number? Russia and China are believed to have thousands of theater nuclear weapons, hundreds of them modernized. The U.S. retains only a small number of aging theater weapons. If either of these countries employs even a small number of relatively low yield theater weapons against our forces or allies, the U.S. will have only one option: retaliating with a part of its strategic arsenal. Such weapons have very large yields. Moreover, what is the implication for controlling escalation when what Russia or China will see is one or more ICBMs or SLBMs heading in their direction? Unless proposed negotiations with Russia include all nuclear weapons, the effect will be to undermine extended deterrence, encourage U.S. allies to develop their own nuclear deterrents and increase regional instability.

Third, what is the rationale for simultaneously reducing both U.S. strategic nuclear forces and our conventional forces? The administration’s new Defense Strategy acknowledges that planned force structure reductions will leave the United States with the capability to fight only one major theater conflict. If a second conflict arises -- say one in the Middle East and one in East Asia -- the U.S. will take unspecified steps to deny the second aggressor his objectives or impose on him unacceptable costs, whatever these words mean. But the implication is clear; the United States will not have sufficient forces to win a second conflict. Deeper defense budget cuts, not to mention sequestration, will reduce the U.S. conventional posture to a single contingency force.

Since the end of the Cold War, successive administrations have pursued significant negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear forces and unilateral cuts in theater nuclear forces based on the belief that the United States enjoyed a significant qualitative and even quantitative advantage in conventional military power over prospective adversaries. If those conventional advantages were vitiated, logic dictates that a more robust nuclear posture would be required. Conversely, if the Obama Administration sees further reductions in nuclear forces as a strategic priority it must reverse course on its plan to cut defense budgets and reduce U.S. conventional forces.

Cutting U.S. conventional and nuclear forces simultaneously is a sure recipe for less security both at home and abroad. How will the United States sustain security commitments to allies or protect vital international interests with a declining conventional force posture and a nuclear arsenal fit only for deterring direct attacks on the U.S. homeland? Obama’s new strategic plan invites an opportunistic aggressor to wait until the U.S. is committed to a major conflict in another part of the world and then attack.

[Ryan Ruck]

Mandated Defense Cuts Could Lead To War, Top US Military Official Says

June 13, 2012

The top U.S. military official suggested Wednesday that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee Wednesday alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes.

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.

"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."

Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad.

Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal.

The Pentagon would face cuts of about $500 billion in projected spending over 10 years on top of the $492 billion that President Obama and congressional Republicans already agreed to in last summer's deficit-cutting budget.

Dempsey said the cuts would mean fewer troops, the possible cancellation of major weapons and the disruption of operations around the world.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, called the description "candid but frightening."

Panetta said layoffs of civilian employees were possible and the cuts were certain to hit military contractors, with a possible 1 percent spike in the nation's unemployment rate. The rate ticked up to 8.2 percent in May with the the economic recovery still sluggish.

Dempsey said the billions for warfighters in Afghanistan would be subject to the cuts. To avoid that drastic step, the Pentagon would look to offset the reductions with cuts in other accounts, he said. Defense comptroller Robert Hale said the president could exempt military personnel, but the reductions would affect the department's ability to pay for health care.

The Pentagon would be facing a 20 percent cut in weapons systems, training, equipment -- all elements of the budget.

"It was designed as a meat ax. It was designed to be a disaster. Because the hope was, because it's such a disaster, that Congress would respond and do what was right. And so I'm just here to tell you, yes, it would be a disaster," Panetta said.

Last year's failure of a congressional bipartisan supercommittee to come up with $1.2 trillion in spending cuts set in motion the automatic cuts that would slash domestic and defense programs by $1.2 trillion over a decade. Republicans and Democrats have struggled to come up with a budget to avert the cuts, and an answer may not emerge until after the November election, in a lame-duck session.

That could prove too late, as the fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and companies that might lay off hundreds or thousands need to notify employees 60 days in advance.

In a message to Republicans and Democrats, Panetta, the former House Budget Committee chairman and director of the Office of Management and Budget, said all elements of the budget must be part of any solution, from entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security that Democrats look to protect to revenue from tax increases that Republicans tend to oppose.

While Panetta appealed to lawmakers for help, he also took a swipe at members of Congress who have changed Obama's defense budget request for the next fiscal year. In the initial rounds, the House added billions to the budget, preserved weapons, ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to cut and balked at the reductions in the Army and Marine Corps. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its version of the budget, rejected the Pentagon's proposed cuts in personnel and equipment for the Air National Guard.

"In reversing difficult decisions and restoring funds to those areas that achieve necessary savings, Congress risks upending the careful balance we sought to achieve in our strategy," Panetta said in his prepared testimony. He added in the open session: "There's no free lunch here. Every low-priority program or overhead cost that is retained will have to be offset in cuts in higher-priority investments in order to comply" with last year's budget agreement.

He implored members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to follow the Defense Department's budget recommendations as it crafts a spending plan for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

[American Patriot]

When you weaken your forces to lesser than your enemies any God damned fool can predict this. Geez... have we raised a complete bunch of fucking idiots in this country?

[Ryan Ruck]

Navy Orders Cuts To Begin Now; Thousands To Be Fired

January 25, 2013

Navy flag officers and top executives were told Thursday to begin cutting expenses - laying off thousands of temporary civilian workers, reducing base operations and preparing to cancel maintenance work on more than two dozen ships and hundreds of aircraft.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, directed the reductions in a memorandum sent to senior Navy officials. The cuts are driven by uncertainty over how much a divided Congress and the White House might approve for the Pentagon's 2013 budget.

"We are making the following reductions, starting now, to ensure we can fund ongoing deployments and other mission-critical activities," the memo said.

The reductions do not specifically mention Navy operations in Hampton Roads, but they are expected to affect numerous private and military facilities in the region - as well as ships and aircraft. Southeast Virginia is home to multiple bases, including the Navy's largest, Norfolk Naval Station, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, a government-owned facility in Portsmouth where thousands of civilians work on Navy vessels.

The cuts include:

• Plans to cancel maintenance for about 30 Navy ships at private shipyards between April and September.

• Plans to cancel depot maintenance for about 250 aircraft between April and September.

• Terminations of temporary civilian employees and a civilian hiring freeze. This will reduce the shipyards' workforce by more than 3,000 people.

• Reductions in base spending and plans to cancel most repairs and upgrades of piers, runways, buildings and other facilities.

Private ship-repair operators said last week they were already feeling the effects of the cutbacks, noting that new repair contracts aren't being approved.

"This is a big deal for all those yards here that have been hiring," said Craig Quigley, executive director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance. "They have been investing.... They have been doing advance purchases. This completely pulls the rug out from under them."

Greenert stated that if Congress takes action to provide more money or permits the Navy to shift funds, the cuts could be avoided.

"These reductions are intended to be reversible," said Greenert, who will be in Norfolk today for an all-hands meeting with sailors.

The cutbacks are in response to Congress' continuing to fund the Navy at the 2012 budget level, rather than providing what the service was expecting for 2013. Unable to agree on an annual budget, Congress approved a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at 2012 budget levels until March 27.

Congress will have to decide by then how to fund the remainder of the fiscal year.

The smaller budget and other "unplanned growth" leave the Navy with $4.6 billion less than it needs for 2013, the memo says.

However, even if money is restored later for maintenance and other projects, Greenert indicated, the delays will be costly.

"Much like putting off an oil change because you can't afford the $20 service, we save in the short term, but shorten the car's life and add to the backlog of work for later," he wrote.

The reductions are separate from about $1 trillion in automatic budget cuts - known as sequestration - with more than half coming from the military. Those are set to begin March 1, unless Congress intercedes.

[Ryan Ruck]

Air Force Memo Outlines Sweeping Budget Cuts

January 11, 2013

Air Force leaders will cut flying hours by nearly 20 percent and prepare for a possible end to all noncombat or noncritical flights from late July through September if Congress can't agree on a budget and billions of dollars in automatic cuts are triggered.

In an Air Force internal memo obtained by The Associated Press, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley laid out broad but grim steps the service will be taking in coming days and weeks to enforce a civilian hiring freeze, cancel air show appearances and flyovers, and slash base improvements and repairs by about 50 percent.

Beyond those immediate actions, Donley and Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said in the memo that the service will make plans to chop aircraft and depot maintenance by about 17 percent and initiate widespread civilian furloughs if there is no resolution to the budget issue by March. The cut in flights would reduce flying hours by more than 200,000, the memo said.

In a similar memo, the Navy said it faces a $4 billion shortfall in its operations and maintenance accounts and called for "stringent belt-tightening measures" if a new budget is not passed and the military has to operate with the same funding it got for the previous fiscal year.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, in the memo obtained by The Associated Press, said a number of actions must be considered to seek cost savings, including postponing the decommissioning of ships, if necessary. Other possible steps included a civilian hiring freeze, termination of temporary employees, cuts to base improvements or repairs and reductions in travel, information technology and administrative spending.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other military leaders have been predicting dire consequences if Congress fails to pass a new budget and automatic cuts take place. The Pentagon is facing a spending reduction of nearly $500 billion over a decade. An additional $110 billion in automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs will take effect in early March if no agreement is reached.

In a briefing with Pentagon reporters, Donley said the Air Force is not targeting a particular amount in savings to achieve, but is taking steps to curtail spending where possible at this point without having an irreversible effect on the service and not impacting the nation's ability to wage war.

The Air Force accounts, Donley said, will bear about up to 20 percent of the Defense Department reductions

Asked about Panetta's directive to possibly cancel ship, aircraft and depot maintenance in the third and fourth quarters of this fiscal year if there is no budget solution, Donley said the Air Force will review each type of aircraft and its requirements.

"We're trying to take prudent actions now that are as reversible, recoverable as possible," Donley said. "We're trying to protect maintenance for aircraft and weapons systems sustainability as long as we can into the fiscal year."

Welsh said commanders will make decisions on how best to curtail flying and that the Air Force will try to protect training flights as long into the year as it can.

But, he noted, "if sequestration hits and the multibillion-dollars reductions fall on the last two quarters of the fiscal year, there is no way not to impact training, flying hours and maintenance, which are things, right now, we are trying to protect as long as we can."

Officials said that civilian pay is about 40 percent of the Air Force's operations and maintenance budget. Panetta has made it clear that if there is no budget agreement, the civilian workforce will face sweeping cuts and unpaid furloughs.

There are about 800,000 civilians across the Defense Department, and nearly 1.4 million in the active-duty military. The Air Force numbers about 330,000 active-duty service members and about 143,000 fulltime civilians.

[Ryan Ruck]

It looks like the Navy and Air Force are postponing a lot of maintenance and upkeep. This doesn't bode well for the future of these branches with all the wear and tear they have sustained over the last decade of war.

As the saying goes, spend a little now or a lot later. I have a feeling when "later" comes around, we're not going to have the money then either.

[American Patriot]

I'm in a race against the clock here. And I still have to go into work in the mean time until the cut us.

I got to get this house done.... and get the fuck out of here.