Sol, hear what you are saying and I have railed against the corrosive inter service bitching that has beset UK defence for far too long.Sorry for picking on my boy Think Defence but he's thinking along the lines of Sweetman.
Unfortunately, it shows no sign of getting any better, at least at the higher echelons.
Looking in from the outside, the US has 5 air forces each operating manned, unmanned, rotary and fixed wing; Army, USAF, USN, USMC and SOCOM. Now I could be dead wrong but that looks like duplication to me which as I have said may be perfectly fine in times a plenty but of you look at all western nations, the budget deficits are crippling and simply have to be tacked with reductions in spending. Different countries will of course see defence as different priorities, that is only natural, but defence will surely form part of a deficit reduction plan so all armed forces and industry had better get used to that fact for the next 10 or 20 years
Lean times are coming
Time to bury this bone of thought, kick dirt on it and not let its ugly head rise again (this is a no zombie zone)!
First, lets take this to its most outrageous place...
If you get rid of Marine Air because the Navy and Air Force can perform that function then why not get rid of the Marines entirely.
But wait while we're at it, the US Army is always complaining that the US Air Force doesn't provide close air support or enough transport aircraft for its troops and we once had the Army Air Corps so....
LETS PUT THE Air Force back into the Army.
But wait their is more. Lets kill the Coast Guard, fold its law enforcement functions into Customs, its rescue facilities into the Navy...
More you say???? We got along without a SOCCOM so we'll send all the snake eaters back to their respective services and save money there.
Who needs land based ballistic missiles? We can put them all on subs and be more survivable that way...
Oh and the Army? Yes we folded the Marines and Air Force into it but guess what, we need to downsize it so we'll have it maxed out at say 200,000 men.
Wait a second! We already had that. So really lets save money and KILL THE ARMY AND THE USAF AND LEAVE THE DEFENSE OF THIS NATION TO OUR SEA SERVICES!
The Marine Corps is 202,000 strong right now, and can certainly take care of any land battles!
So if you really want to save money, don't kill Marine Air...KILL THE ARMY, KILL THE AIR FORCE AND YOU HAVE ALL THE CUT BACKS YOU COULD EVER NEED!
Fame at last :)
ReplyDeletelet me get the link to your page put on your name....a little bold and italicization should be good too.
ReplyDeletehow do you like the circular logic ... pretty obscene huh?
careful what you wish for!
ReplyDeleteI can actually see the logic of going to a submarine only deterrent, think of the cash you could divert into other projects
I forgot about the Coasties by the way, so that makes 6 fixed, rotary, manned and unmanned air forces.
Nice thing to have but playing devils advocate I don't see why the USMC, USAF, USN or anyone else can avoid having to justify their existence based on logical argument
I am not really qualified to comment on US defence but I really do think its time for military forces the world over to employ some of that strategic thinking they supposed to be able to do and realise that making do with less is going to be THE strategic imperative for the next 20 years.
Wishing for more money is not a viable strategy
One of my favourite films is Bad Santa and the best bit goes something like this;
wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up first
It certainly was the case of wishing for UK forces in the last decade but when they finally realise that all they have is a hand of the other stuff, its rather a shock, the impact of all that wishful thinking is being realised right now.
Maybe its what's coming for the US as well so best get start planning now, making do, toning down ambitions, being realistic about future budgets, eliminating waste and duplication.
I am not saying USMC fixed wing aviation falls into any of those categories but it seems a few other people do.
ya know, i really wish we were discussing this on your blog---cause the comparisons between what the UK did cut and what we should cut are going to be the center pieces of this discussion...
ReplyDeletefirst...tell me with a straight face that the Harrier cuts made sense...it can be justified on the ledger books but does it make sense?
second ...tell me with a straight face that the scrapping of the Nimrods, the binning of the Typhoon and other moves done by your Ministry of Defense don't come with significant risk?
a major drain on your and ours resources is this Afghanistan mess. once that's done then it'll hit...but no US administration wants to be saddled with losing a war...so for us at least the conflict will continue and the defense budget won't rise but will remain stable for at least another 5 years (2 years to wind down the war and another 3 to replace equipment)...
Harrier, Sentinel, Nimrod, reduction in personnel in all three services, aircraft carriers, amphibs and so on are all crazy decisions and none make sense in any military capacity and adds risk that will be borne not by politicians but service personnel, it makes me sick
ReplyDeleteWhat makes them even harder to take is the ring fencing of overseas development aid, bank bailouts or funding for the EU.
But none of that fails wipe out the actual reality of the situation. All I am saying is however wrong, budget cuts are a looming reality for all western military forces and we are going to have to put up with it, unfortunately