At least get the quote right: "you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The military doesn't have a problem going to war with the forces it has. That war might be much more difficult to fight and win at the present materiel, equipment and force manning (and 'woman-ing' ;-) levels, though. Perversely, we'd lose more men and women and equipment and materiel fighting a war or a conflict, or whatever contingency situation you might want to call what we'd find ourselves in, at present force size and disposition because we'd be spreading ourselves across too-wide a swath of territory, globally speaking, in order to deal with a given contingency situation.

It also takes time to surge reserve units and the reservists themselves and I don't know that we've gotten any better at doing that since Iraq/Kuwait in 1990/1991, where it took months for some units to be ready to deploy. Theoretically, we're supposed to be able to pour reserve units into not only backfill roles but directly into theater-wide conflict situations. Certainly, many Guard and reserve units are training at a much more effective pace, from what I've observed, but budgetary constraints and cutbacks are also beginning to impact that aspect of Guard and reserve activities as well.

We're told that conflicts as we might see them today will be handled at least in part by coalition-style aggregations of various nations' military forces. Again; I'm not sure such coalitions can be as quickly effective as we'd need them to be in order to efficiently deal with a conflict situation as it might be presented to us. We're still looked to to provide the bulk of such forces, though, and I certainly wouldn't be counting on much support from many of our Western allies, outside of the traditional friends and allies that operate with us on a regular basis.

Mr. SeaDog made an excellent point about the 'true' size of our fleet (I'd add Fleet Marine Forces to the 'fleet'), which is actually woefully undersized when you start excluding ships kept on our books that are unsuited to modern warfare requirements, those in extended yard periods (we'll soon be down to 8 aircraft carriers actually available for operational deployments while three of their brethren are either still in yard periods or moving into them) and those that aren't combatant men of war-type ships. Though recommended fleet size varies by expert, 322 to 346 could work under present contingency requirements. It's a far cry from the 600 ships we hit in the mid-to-late 1980s but the world is also different, too.

One last thing: Mr. SeaDog correctly pointed out training and maintenance shortfalls, which is where you always see budget cutbacks hit first. If you can't train to fight a war, no matter the kind of 'army' you go to war with, you simply can't win that war. And if your equipment isn't ready to go to war when you need it to go to war, you're doubly hurt.

we'd all be better served if we saw war, and the preparedness of war for what it truly is - - the biggest scam on earth.

When I left in 2011 there was talk of a tail gun, to keep it from being all the way helpless the huey cobra tandem pairs over head in Afghanistan are better, no talib ran from v22's ever

---

____________________________________________________
Life is a Near Ambush, ASSAULT THROUGH!!!!!!! https://www.facebook.com/The44thMongolArmy

That might be, but that particular day will never come as long as humans are human, sir. Until that day, should we somehow become capable of genetically modifying our genes for aggression, there are just times when war is necessary. I surely wish that wasn't so, but it is. If we don't defend ourselves and prepare to wage war -- which even the Swiss and the Swedes do, especially the Swiss -- we just increase the likelihood of it.

I agree. It was given a CAS role more to justify having more of them for theater contingencies and, thus, a reason to build and keep them, than anything else. Serviceable as a slick, not so serviceable as a gunship, which is kind of like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when it comes to that particular Osprey role.

If you can turn a C-47 into a gunship, surely you can make an Osprey a decent gunship.

The C-47 Dakota (DC-3). That was simply one of the best airframes in aviation history. The V22 Tilt Rotor is not, but that doesn't mean it's a bad air asset. We've been dealing with figuring out the proper role for the Osprey since the mid-1980s, though, and it's not the all-in-one solution that many might think.

what do you think about an AC-17

---

____________________________________________________
Life is a Near Ambush, ASSAULT THROUGH!!!!!!! https://www.facebook.com/The44thMongolArmy

It would work at least as well as the V22. A Spectre gunship with jet engines...

An AC-17 would cost waaaay more to acquire and operate than a AC-130; also, it can't turn as tight, is a lot louder, etc, etc. I don't think that an AC-17 would bring many benefits to the gunship mission other than being able to carry a lot more firepower (and perhaps greater range/endurance). The AC-130, despite the venerable age of its platform, is really still the best candidate for the job. A V-22 doesn't have the range required when heavily loaded for the gunship job, nor could it carry large ordnance like the 105mm howitzer...I would think the V-22 would make a poor gunship (perhaps you could stuff it full of those new mini-missiles, but that would be about it).

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

[/img]
From FP.
Is anyone REALLY concerned about Obama's plan and think Romney's isn't excessive?

The QDR probably should guide us, outside of any defense plans or forecasts from the two candidates, sir. What we know at the moment is that Defense appears to be underfunded for its current missions and requirements. The Navy has asked for 313 ships, QDR envisions 322, the panel I cited in the Air Force Times article believes about 346 is appropriate. At 285 ships or so, many of which aren't combatant men of war-type hulls, we simply can't cover the ground we need to cover, and President Obama and his staff people know this. My guess is that if President Obama were reelected (this appears increasingly unlikely) he'd deliberately force us into sequestration, take to the bully pulpit and claim that "those evil Republicans" caused it, in order to gut defense in favor of various entitlement and social programs, all of which should also be cut if we're to be reasonably fiscally responsible these days.

I've been privileged to serve the United States Marine Corps in various enlisted and commissioned officer roles and I served in the United State Navy, again in various enlisted as well as commissioned officer roles. I may be a somewhat wild-eyed retired officer these days, but I'm not stupid or unlearned by any means, especially when it comes to defense spending and appropriations. As I said: My top-of-the-head "blue water" and "brown water" Navy and Marine Corps experiences tell me that the Navy and Marine Corps combat team is simply stretched too thin to handle "normal" and everyday operations, let alone contingency requirements that seem to be picking up in number, not slackening. The oceans aren't shrinking, after all.

Yes, I do think Obama's plan is excessive. Much of the DoD's equipment is old and worn out. The USAF is in particularly dire straits....their fleet is the oldest in its history, and doesn't appear to be getting much relief in the near or even mid-term future. As planes age, they get more and more expensive to maintain. This in turns eats into the budget for buying new planes, putting the budget into a spiral of spending more and more on maintenance every year.

Then you have the fact that you have much of Congress that feels that the DoD budget is primarily about funding jobs, and not efficiently buying military capability. This gets you things like extra bases, units, and equipment that you simply don't need.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I see no current or near term threat where a large standing military waiting at the ready would be useful - I would vote towards the Post-Cold War Style Drawdown