The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Branch Posts > Army

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-29-2016, 12:22 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,784
Exclamation U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years -- But Lacks The Money To Prepare

U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years -- But Lacks The Money To Prepare
By Loren Thompson
RE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorentho.../#2c53b410397f

Nothing focuses the mind like fear. What’s focusing the minds of U.S. Army leaders right now is the fear that they will be in a major war within five years. They know they’ll be fighting terrorists and insurgents for the foreseeable future, but what really preoccupies them is the likely return of large-scale conventional conflict — maybe with Russia in Eastern Europe, or Iran in the Middle East, or North Korea in Northeast Asia. Maybe in all three places.

Senior Army officials are circumspect about discussing the danger in open forums — they don’t want to advertise U.S. vulnerabilities — but it seems clear that the Obama administration’s “pivot to the Pacific” announced in 2012 has created a geopolitical vacuum stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf that Russia and Iran are trying to fill. Meanwhile, the unpredictable government of North Korea continues its bellicose behavior toward the South, which the U.S. is pledged to defend.

There isn’t much appetite for new wars in Washington, but U.S. leaders would have little choice if these countries sought to impose their will by force in neighboring nations. Whether aggression took the form of subversion or outright invasion, the U.S. would have to respond, because success for the attackers would drastically alter the global landscape to America’s detriment. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what it would mean if Russian forces were back in the heart of Europe, or Iran controlled most Middle East oil, or North Korea overran the South.

The Army's Stryker armored troop carrier built by General Dynamics has performed well against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in a fight with Russian forces it would require a more powerful gun and better underside protection in the form of a double-V shaped hull to dissipate blast energy. (Retrieved from Wikipedia)
The Army’s Stryker armored troop carrier built by General Dynamics has performed well against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in a fight with Russian forces it would require a more powerful gun and better underside protection in the form of a double-V shaped hull to dissipate blast energy. (Retrieved from Wikipedia)

What worries Army planners is that their service isn’t adequately prepared for any of these scenarios — much less a situation in which more than one unfolded simultaneously. Not only have U.S. ground forces been drawn down in Europe and Asia as Washington sought to rely more on air power and sea power for regional security, but investment in new technology for land combat is at a low ebb. The Army’s entire budget for developing and producing new equipment, from tanks to missiles to helicopters to howitzers, amounts to barely two days of federal spending annually.

The level of spending is almost unbelievably low. The Army spends less on procuring wheeled and tracked vehicles in a year than General Motors GM -0.94% generates in sales each week. Its $3.6 billion budget request for helicopter procurement, about eight hours worth of federal spending at current rates, is focused mainly on upgrading Reagan-era rotorcraft because it can’t afford to buy new ones. Its ammunition budget ($1.5 billion) isn’t much more than what Americans spend on fireworks each year (around $1 billion).

So Army leaders aren’t exaggerating when they say they have no major modernization initiatives planned until the next decade. Problem is, they expect a major war before then. In fact, it could start tomorrow. Having shrunk by over 100,000 active-duty troops since fighting in Iraq peaked, they are determined to level off at the minimal level of 450,000 required to respond to overseas contingencies. They are also determined to keep the troops trained. But they have achieved these goals by slashing spending on ammo and weapons to a point where they have very little new investment going on.

There are all sorts of pie-in-the-sky plans for “recapitalizing” aging combat systems, but if major conflict is a near-term prospect, then the service needs to focus on remedying those shortfalls that can be fixed fast. Here are a few obvious examples. Its stocks of precision-guided (“smart”) munitions have been depleted, and at current levels of spending can’t be restored. Doubling the munitions budget by a few hours of federal spending annually might help deter the danger that Army planners see looming in coming years.

Another immediate priority should be to provide so-called active protection systems to tanks and troop carriers, since those would be on the front line of any near-term conflict in Europe or elsewhere. Active protection systems complement armor and air power in protecting tanks by intercepting incoming antitank rounds before they reach the vehicle. Systems like Raytheon's RTN -1.68% “Quick Kill” technology use radars and fast-reacting munitions to provide affordable 360 degree protection against attackers, even overhead threats, without harming friendly troops.

A third near-term need is to accelerate the pace at which better capabilities are being fielded. For instance, the Army is installing blast-dissipating “double-V” hulls on the underside of its Stryker SYK -1.24% armored troop carriers and also providing more powerful guns for Strykers deployed in Europe. But too little money is available to upgrade all the Strykers in the force. Similarly, the pace at which more agile battlefield communications systems such as the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical are being fielded is glacial, and needs to be speeded up.

Getting the latter system into the field faster would help the Army cope with vulnerability to cyber attacks in future wars, since it is configured for easy upgrades of security features. The service also needs to reconstitute its electronic warfare skills and upgrade air defenses — capabilities that were allowed to languish in over a decade of fighting insurgents. Even the insurgents now understand how to jam GPS signals and use off-the-shelf drones for surveillance, so imagine what an adversary like Russia or Iran might be planning.

The simple fact is that the Army has spent all its time since 9-11 fighting foes who look a lot different from the more capable enemies it might encounter in the near future. So it needs more money than it is currently getting from Congress to make some quick investments in technology areas where it is deficient. Moving money around within an already under-funded budget isn’t the answer. The Army needs additional funds to buy better equipment fast, not only to avoid defeat in a near-term war with Russia, Iran or North Korea, but also to deter aggression and thereby make war less likely.

(Several of the Army’s equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients.)
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.