Very interesting arrangement of the forces of America.
Interesting.
I like the general idea, but believe that the plans are far to grandious. It is unlikely that we would consistantly spend more than 5% of GDP on the military during peacetime.
This does not mean that we cannot increase spending now. 11 divisions is not enough. I would love to see an additional 6 expiditionary brigades on the strikecom model. Of these, three would be Marine and 3 re-enforced airborne. This would entail a large build up of our lift and support capabilities.
We may also need not 12, but 15 carrier groups.
For the foreseable future, we need one in the Western Pacific around North Korea, 2 in the Indian Ocean, 1 in the Persian Gulf, and one to cover the Mediterranian. I don't see how we can do this with our current 12 carriers. in the short term, we can make due by keeping the Constallation, Kityhawk, and JFK in service as the Ronald Reagan is worked up.
Our surface and support fleets will have to grow.
In
2000 we had only 116 surface force combattants (not including carriers). Assuming that each carrier group needs 3 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, and 2 support ships, we have some building to do. (33+carriers) Likewise, we would need escorts for the new additional prepositioning and Marine Expiditionary brigades. The MEU's would require a Wasp-class (I suppose Tarawa would be fine in the meantime) ship plus a LPD, LSD, Cargo ship, some supply ships, and a 5 escort ships. That's another 33 ships.
The problem is that our current procurement rate cannot even maintain our current 316 ship force. Frankly, we need a 400 ship navy.
There are things we could do to hasten a build-up. We could upgrade and refit many of our reserve ships. We could also take a look at our surface combat program. For some reason, we are basing our future frigates and destroyers on the
DD-21, of which we plan to build but 32. Given the high cost of each unit, a lower-cost replacement for our Perry Class frigates is in order. Great Britain is doing some interesting work in replacing its older
frigates. A 4500 ton stealthy trimarine with a Spy-1F light Aegis system, and a helicopter would do nicely.
Unfortunately, due to CLinton-era decisions and a coaltion of liberal Democrats and fiscally-restrained Republicans, we aren't building enough ships to mayintain our 316 ship structure.
Better bring back the draft! Blackbird.
If we're going to have the ability to win major regional wars there's ultimately no substitute for much larger ground forces. Our principal adversaries have a thorough understanding of the limits of our air and space power and the means to counter them will proliferate over time. Look how much trouble we're having in securing Iraq - the drain on the army's resources is making it difficult to focus on other threats.
The greatest danger is that in the future our enemies won't pick fights that we can win easily, with only dozens of combat deaths. If we fool ourselves into thinking that mastery of space gives us the ability to control events on the ground, we're basically telling ourselves that our primary goal isn't to win wars at whatever cost, but to minimize our own casualties. However superior our technology is, that's not the mindset the military should have if it wants a dominant role in world affairs.
Well, it's certainly imaginative.
