Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Stripped Naked





 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.” 
From TheWashington Free Beacon by Adam Kredo we read:
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



11 comments:

Revernd Idaho Spud said...

Do we need a Valkyrie event?

Anonymous said...

Are the tomahawk & hellfire the ones used to whack US citizens? If he runs out, what then?

gadfly said...

But Obama would not get caught dead in a bunker, now would he?

Mile 66 said...

They'll end up equipping the Reapers and Predators with .22LR. That would also explain it's scarcity.

Mike C said...

I 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?

You 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...

Anonymous said...

The Beacon story disappeared right after I read it. . .

American Thinker story is still up at this moment.

--mech

Rodger the Real King of France said...

That's odd, but I relinked it to the WaTimes who picked up the story.

Helly said...

I 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?

Anonymous said...

Mike C. - Well said.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

"Romanov......... Bonaparte........ Mussolini..... _ _ _ _ _ "

Answer for a Thousand -Anymouse

lip said...

Yep.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.