Cancel Hellfire and Tomahawk
missile programs -Obama

Stu
Tarlowe sent me this piece from the American Thinker. I wasn’t
aware
of these cuts, and didn’t know the Hellfire was in the Navy budget, but
it’s logical from an Obamaesque point of view. If you want to
destroy
the American military, you have to get into the details like the actual
weapons they use. The big question is why there are no
resignations of
senior military officers. I have to guess they agree with the
cuts. skoonj
My take: Obama's end game is to
provoke an attempt to remove him from office. TRKOF
|
Let’s
start with a simple question. What happens when a soldier runs out
of ammunition during a firefight? First, he either retreats, or he
quickly becomes killed, wounded or captured. Second,
his tactical position converts from active to
indefensible which imperils the strategic array of the
entire battlefield.
What do you call a submarine that runs out of torpedoes? Missing
in action. That’s an old Navy joke that dates back to WWII.
However the fundamental military concept remains true:
without the ability to attack your enemy and inflict
serious damage, you’re unable to influence any
subsequent events on the battlefield. The military has a term
for any ship or combat unit that cannot defend
itself, “Useless as tits on a boar.”
President Barack Obama is seeking
to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say
have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the
past several decades.
The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most
advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million
under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely
eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according
to budget documents released by the Navy.
In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual
Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop
significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number
will then drop to zero in 2016.
The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the
well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015,
according to Obama’s proposal.
The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to
lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending or cutting these
missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter
enemy forces.
The U.S. Navy relied heavily on them during the 2011 military incursion
into Libya, where some 220 Tomahawks were used during the fight.
Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning
that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be
completely depleted by around 2018. This is particularly
concerning to defense experts because the Pentagon does not have
a replacement missile ready to take the Tomahawk’s place.
“It doesn’t make sense,” said Seth
Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American
Seapower. “This really moves the U.S. away from a position of
influence and military dominance.”
Cropsey said that if
someone were trying to “reduce the U.S. ability to shape events”
in the world, “they couldn’t find a better way than depriving the
U.S. fleet of Tomahawks. It’s breathtaking.”
Meanwhile, the experimental anti-ship cruise missile meant to
replace the Tomahawk program will not be battle ready for at least
10 years, according to some experts. The Long Range Anti Ship
Missile has suffered from extremely expensive
development costs and has underperformed when tested.
This article
brings up so many unasked and unanswered questions.
Where do the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CNO (Chief of Naval
Operations) stand on this absurd military folly? Have these
supposed war fighters become so politically emasculated that they would
allow our soldiers and sailors go in harm's way without the
sufficient and proven weapons they require to win big and
win fast?
This Administration certainly understands the need for sufficient
ammunition, hence the purchase of hundreds of millions of rounds
for Homeland Security, the IRS, and dozens of other domestic
Federal agencies. But why does this same Administration seeks to
“abolish two highly successful missile programs.” that are key to
projecting force both on the seas and in any heavy tank and artillery
land warfare scenario?
What changes in
policy and operational deployment will the Russian, Chinese, and
Iranian military staffs’ be making in the next few years, in light
of this new information?
First published in 1898, H.G. Wells, War of the Worlds, continues
to warn us of evil, by “intellects vast and cool and
unsympathetic.”
“Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are
to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and
unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and
surely drew their plans against us.”
And we also know there are “envious eyes” residing in the
White House, quickly and surely drawing their plans against us. [Full
(American
Thinker)]
Stu
Tarlowe via skoonz
|
Do we need a Valkyrie event?
ReplyDeleteYep.
DeleteAre the tomahawk & hellfire the ones used to whack US citizens? If he runs out, what then?
ReplyDeleteBut Obama would not get caught dead in a bunker, now would he?
ReplyDeleteThey'll end up equipping the Reapers and Predators with .22LR. That would also explain it's scarcity.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking that this is an indication of the sickness of the industry and their government partners. Consider that the Tomahawk entered service in 1983. It's development and manufacture got handed around the beltway contractors like a cheap floozy. Even with extensive redesign I would guess that it's components are getting more and more expensive to obtain, and it's software and control components are massively complex monsters which no one understands anymore. In addition, our opponents have had plenty of time to design systems to counter it. Thus it is time for it to step aside and let a new generation take it's place. According to Wikipedia that is the Cruise Missile XR. The burning question is what is the budget for that and how screwed up is the development and procurement?
ReplyDeleteYou see this is the real problem. The defense industry is reaching a point where they and their government overseers are having problems completing the development of anything. As a case study take what happened with the EFV, the supposed replacement for the Marines AAAV amphibious assault vehicle. When I first started working on that program back in 2003 they gave me a token challenge coin proudly announcing that the EFV was celebrating 10 years of development. I could not believe the lack of shame they displayed by making such a coin! To make a long story short, the Marines ended up cancelling that program due to overruns. It wasn't so much the contractors working on it didn't have the talent or professionalism to produce a good vehicle, but the EFV got caught in a cycle of chasing newer and newer technology coupled with ever changing requirements by the Marines. I fear there are probably too many new defense systems caught in this fatal loop. With no real leadership at the executive level, there is little hope of correcting the problem.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the Hellfire. It came in service in 1984 and is subject to the same problems that I mentioned for the Tomahawk. Unfortunately, it's replacement was supposed to be the Joint Common Missile (JCM) which got canceled, and the replacement for that, the Joint Air To Ground Missile (JAGM) is 'under development'. Does anyone detect a common refrain here? -Sigh- yeah, me too. The only way out of this cycle in strong leadership forcing the defense development complex out of these non-productive cycles. Is there a prayer that the current commander in chief is capable of such leadership, or that the dysfunctional Congress can bring focus via budgeting guidelines? I am thinking not a chance in hell.
One real answer is the complete privatization of the armed forces. There are already an amazing number of contractors on our ships and on the front lines, so it is not too much of a stretch to imagine this as the next logical step. With that, the companies would be responsible for their own R&D, perhaps accepting technology feeds from such incubators such as DARPA. Again, this is not much of stretch given that they are already doing all the development anyway. What would be different is that with the cost internalized, they would have to become more efficient and lean in their weapon system design. The real 'right' systems would get fielded, and inefficient designs that cost the company money would not be tolerated. It is something to think about...
The Beacon story disappeared right after I read it. . .
ReplyDeleteAmerican Thinker story is still up at this moment.
--mech
That's odd, but I relinked it to the WaTimes who picked up the story.
ReplyDeleteI figured this out. Local SWAT teams are too dumb to learn how to use these missiles. So what's the point of making them anymore?
ReplyDeleteMike C. - Well said.
ReplyDeleteLt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
"Romanov......... Bonaparte........ Mussolini..... _ _ _ _ _ "
ReplyDeleteAnswer for a Thousand -Anymouse