Monday, December 06, 2010

Kaplan adopts PLAN SALAMANDER

Let's review PLAN SALAMANDER that I talked about briefly in yesterday's Midrats. Though there have been slight Revisions as the truth changed over the last decade + as reviewed now and then here, the basic Plan has remained the same since the late 1990s.

In summary: WWII and the Cold War are over; the European Union and economic powerhouses Japan and Korea do not need to be defended mostly by the world's largest debtor.

Return all maneuver forces from overseas, starting with Europe, then Korea, and then Japan. Retain a few Joint/Combined training and logistics facilities. Build and maintain an expeditionary mindset based on our geographic location, global realities, and economic necessity. A bit of the speak softly but carry a big stick approach - without the Imperial decorations. Domestic Base, Global Reach.

Reduce the standing Army and focus on the Army Reserve and National Guard with realistic plans for activation as needed (the way this nation was founded and acted most of its existence, natch).

Focus majority of expeditionary and first reaction ground forces to Marine Corps as is fitting for a Maritime Power. Heavy, big, fat, and mean on the ground will mostly be in the Army Reserve and National Guard. Have substantial logistics, replenishment, and strategic sea and air lift in the Navy and Air Force reserve.

Space, Air, and Sea should be our first and most capable assets. Light, quick, and deadly on first-responder ground forces with a bias towards consequence management and punitive expeditions as needed - a holding force until relieved as required.

Over at
WaPo, Robert Kaplan makes the argument in an almost airtight manner.
Then there is America's military power. Armies win wars, but in an age when the theater of conflict is global, navies and air forces are more accurate registers of national might. (Any attack on Iran, for example, would be a sea and air campaign.) The U.S. Navy has gone from nearly 600 warships in the Reagan era to fewer than 300 today, while the navies of China and India grow apace. Such trends will accelerate with the defense cuts that are surely coming in order to rescue America from its fiscal crisis. The United States still dominates the seas and the air and will do so for years ahead, but the distance between it and other nations is narrowing.

Terrorist acts, ethnic atrocities, the yearning after horrible weaponry and the disclosure of secret cables are the work of individuals who cannot escape their own moral responsibility. But the headlines of our era are written in a specific context - that of one deceased empire that used to be the world's preeminent land power and of another, the world's preeminent sea power, that finds itself less able to affect events than ever before, even as it is less sure than ever of the cause toward which it struggles.

This is no indictment of President Obama's foreign policy. There is slim evidence of a credible alternative to his actions on North Korea, Iran and Iraq, while a feisty debate goes on over the proper course in Afghanistan. But there is simply no doubt that the post-imperial order we inhabit allows for greater disruptions than the Cold War ever permitted.

Husbanding our power in an effort to slow America's decline in a post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan world would mean avoiding debilitating land entanglements and focusing instead on being more of an offshore balancer: that is, lurking with our air and sea forces over the horizon, intervening only when outrages are committed that unquestionably threaten our allies and world order in general. While this may be in America's interest, the very signaling of such an aloof intention may encourage regional bullies, given that rogue regimes are the organizing principles for some pivotal parts of the world.
Hat tip McGrath.

64 comments:

  1. Anonymous08:52

    Sounds like a good, and hopefully affordable, non-interventionist policy. 

    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Salty Gator09:28

    Sal, it is a very well thought out idea based on logical and rational reasoning.  I would encourage you to take another look at Reserve realities, however.  Perhaps my experience in the reserves was unique because we were in the middle of the GWOT, but as a Reserve OPS O in a Full Time Commissioned Unit (staffed by 99% reservists), it was a second full time job.  I spent almost every day after work, before work, or sometimes having to take a vacation day, in order to go to the Unit.  If we do this, we need to be realistic and GUT the peripheral "GMT" training requirements that we thrust upon our reservists (exactly the same as Active Duty) and adopt a more Spartan lifestyle.  I would hope that we retain our Navy and Marine Corps Active Duty units, plus up the amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Forces, and start shrinking Marine Corps gear so that it can be "Expeditionary" again and not just another land army (URR, I understand how important MRAPs are but the fact is that they just don't fit in a Well Deck if you want anything more than 2 MRAPs).

    ReplyDelete
  3. ewok40k09:52

    The problem is your standard genocide seems to be non-deterrable with a failed nation, no industry to be bombed, no trade to be blockaded, civil war going on, and weapon of choice being machete or at best AK-47.
    Also both the allies and the enemies will start to think hard what exactly constitutes outrage strong enough to trigger US involvement - exactly same thing that led to Korean War...
    finally the allies may either adopt Israel-like policy of "we stand alone" with attendant risk of nuclear proliferation (especially in the corner of Asia borderng on N.Korea), or simply fold and accomodate regional bullies.
    Still there is not much alternative given economic reality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Byron10:04

    You know, that policy has never worked, not even once in the history of our nation. We are an island nation whether you want to believe it or not and one hell of a lot of our commerce goes out or into the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Southern Air Pirate10:10

    Only question I have is what makes one outrage more important then another. Remember about five years ago there was a minor debate in Proceedings (and by extension a few other mil professional trade pubs) that asked what made the former Jugoslavic states more important then the Rwandan genocided, then the Darfur crisis, the Checnya, then a slew of other world events. I think one of them in either JFQ or Proceedings that even went as far as saying it was a racist policy that kept us from being involved in Rwanada when they needed US Military referees more then the white slavs fighting over religion in Serbia.
    I would say that it wasn't until the moral outrage of the news media that we went into places like Kosovo, Serbia (which now almost 20yrs later we are still there), and Somalia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:07

    You're mistaking non-interventionism for isolationism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Salty Gator11:26

    The question is:  if we don't do it, then
    a) who will
    b) does anyone need to in order for us to continue to enjoy our current standard of living

    I would say
    a) nobody
    b) nobody needs to but we need to actually start manufacturing shit here again and not just being a service society / middle management

    ReplyDelete
  8. Salty Gator11:27

    The question is:  if we don't do it, then
    a) who will
    b) does anyone need to in order for us to continue to enjoy our current standard of living

    I would say
    a) nobody
    b) nobody needs to but we need to actually start manufacturing shit here again and not just being a service society / middle management

    ReplyDelete
  9. Byron11:32

    No, I'm not. I'm saying that events that happen overseas can have an adverse affect upon the welfare of the nation. Those that do, we need to be involved in one way or another. Those that don't, someone else can sort it out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ewok40k11:44

    I think Balkans got the bailout card due to proximity to Old Europe... the nearer the crisis, the more attention it gets. As far as I know the whole subsaharan Africa could disappear any day and hardly anyone in the world would notice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "but we need to actually start manufacturing shit here again "
    --------------------------
    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. xbradtc12:48

    If putting the bulk of the Army on reserve status is a good idea, surely it's a good idea for the Navy as well, right?

    Let's build new ships, run them through workups, them lay them up in ordinary.

    What? You don't like that idea? The same problems the Navy would have, the Army units would face as well. 

    There is simply NO substitute for full time training for the military in ANY branch.  Reserve units activated for wartime service are doing great things, but they are also very resource intensive in training them up to deploy. 

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike M.13:26

    Haze gray, under way...and ready to beat your head in if you cross Uncle Sam.  :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. cdrsalamander14:07

    Brad,
    Don't get your balls in an uproar.  Let me offer an question and then an suggestion.
    1. Are we naturally a land power (like Germany, Russia, and China) or a maritime power (UK, Japan).  If so, how do you properly mitigate risk inside a limited budget?
    2.  If you have not already, listen to Midrats from right before when Jerry called in - about the 15 minute mark or so.  We flesh out the argument a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  15. UltimaRatioRegis14:49

    Sal,

    Perhaps some different perspective for this argument:  For a nation of 305 million people, a standing army of below 1.5 million, and a 280-off ship Navy is miniscule.  Our entire DoD budget is just under 4% GDP (about 3.7%).  We should have standing forces big enough for the two Major Regional Conflicts and a Navy large enough for world-wide sea dominance, even in the littorals. 

    How big is big?  The recommendation in the post-Cold War world that has held the most water was an Army of 14-15 divisions, a Navy of 370 ships (with 12-13 CVBGs) and a Marine Corps of three full Divisions, and three full Air Wings.  And an AF proportional with that. 

    If we are going to be a rapid deployment force instead of a forward deployed one, we need very robust strategic mobility and the capability for mid-to-large scale forcibel entry and exploitation. Our biggest failure in the Clinton Years was not only to cut the military to well below prudent levels, but to go from a largely forward deployed force to a supposed "rapid deployment" force, and then proceed to get rid of strategic mobility.   The further cuts to the US Navy's auxiliary hulls means far less ability to sustain a naval campaign elsewhere.  This idea of "self-deployable" is largely nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Southern Air Pirate16:40

    I might be a little wrong here. However, as I think about it now a days, maybe Smedley Butler was correct. It is all a racket and we are doing it to preserve the economic well-being of American based companies. It is a shame that our politicos don't understand that and cut the throats of our econmics because someone has built a better mouse trap via sweating just a little bit more then thier neighbor. It is also a shame but there are some places more needful of our helping hands then others.
    So again the question would then come up how do we decided the difference 'tween flooding relief in Pakistan and preventing genocide in Lebanon or landing USMC BLT to protect food shipments vs putting forces into the Black Sea showing support of a potential ally?

    ReplyDelete
  17. ewok40k16:41

    you cant sadly have this levels of force with the costs of the hulls, planes etc as they are right now, and costs of the fully professional military in a country where average income is quite high to start with...

    ReplyDelete
  18. UltimaRatioRegis17:11

    Ewok,

    Yes, you can.  You fix the procurement process, and you sustain a national will to defend its vital interests.  And you don't fritter away the national treasure on society's ne'er-do-wells and drains.  Promote the general welfare.  Not provide it.  What is provided is for the common defense.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Southern Air Pirate17:20

    E40K,

    Compare and contrast the US of today with the UK of the 1930's into the 1940's. In both instances they had a progressive/liberal ruling class coming to political well being, all the while off-setting defense budgets to pay for larger and larger social welfare programs. At the same time economic crisis's lead to needed replacements for older aircraft, personnel, land weapons, and ships get pushed back or get totally eliminated with no replacement at all. In the end the UK went into WW2 with the Army and Navy and Air Force they had instead of slightly more modernized force they needed. There is some that say the lost of the HMS Hood was cause of this for putting off needed upgrades in exchange for social programs to put down the growing socialist and communist rabble rousers at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Southern Air Pirate17:20

    E40K,

    Compare and contrast the US of today with the UK of the 1930's into the 1940's. In both instances they had a progressive/liberal ruling class coming to political well being, all the while off-setting defense budgets to pay for larger and larger social welfare programs. At the same time economic crisis's lead to needed replacements for older aircraft, personnel, land weapons, and ships get pushed back or get totally eliminated with no replacement at all. In the end the UK went into WW2 with the Army and Navy and Air Force they had instead of slightly more modernized force they needed. There is some that say the lost of the HMS Hood was cause of this for putting off needed upgrades in exchange for social programs to put down the growing socialist and communist rabble rousers at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Grandpa Bluewater17:45

    At least it's plan. Which is more than the four stars are showing. Deer in the headlights; but hey, what do I know. I could be wrong. Never heard a four star say that in my  lifetime.

    The Salamander plan has a few 'tings need a closer pocking look. IMHO.
    The show stoppers are:
    1) erosion of the industrial base to the point of disappearance.
    2) the need for vigorous R& D to keep the forces ahead of:
      i) aging into obsolescence/wear
      ii) block obsolescence due to unforseen breakthru technologies.
      iii) erosion of ammunition stocks once combat operations cease.
    3) loss of fungible combat and logistic skills/capabilities in the active force because numbers of skilled practitioners/capable assets fall below the minimum necessary to pass them on to recruits or the reserve force.

    The problem with cadre is that once the platforms and their crews are gone, they are GONE.
    Some of them took a hundred years of frequent, large and small scale, and bloody combat/ combat logistics to develop.

    Everything you let go, you may have to buy back in blood. Cadre works when you have enough space and regulars to trade for enough time to mobilize and move into position. Training National Guard and Reserves is expensive?  It's just money. Try sending them to the front from the Armory with forty year old equipment.  Ask the New Mexico National Guard Cavalry about that - and Bataan. Paid in blood, and utterly lost.

    I wouldn't drive the Army too deep into cadre.

    Next phrases to ponder...National Industrial Mobilization, and loss of industrial base. Key phrase...when it is gone, it is GONE.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Grandpa Bluewater17:55

    How do you mitigate risk inside a limited budget? All budgets are limited. Wrong question. The correct term is grossly inadequate budget, and you don't.

    You get Task Force Smith, the defense of Wake and Guam, the Philipine submarine Flotilla's defense of PI, and the U-boats'  happy time from Montauk to the Straits of Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Grandpa Bluewater18:02

    Any hemisphere defense strategy that will work requires, at a minimum, advanced air and sea bases for the logistics auxiliary vessels, which the fleet train will shuttle to and return from the combat task forces.

    ReplyDelete
  24. UltimaRatioRegis18:22

    Guest,

    "<span>You're mistaking non-interventionism for isolationism."</span>

    From a practical standpoint, kindly explain the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Southern Air Pirate19:09

    Grandpa Bluewater,

    The loss of Wake and Guam was from our willingness to abided by various arms limitiation and elimination treaties. Specifically the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty. That dicated that we couldn't not upgrade or improve any of the defenses to the east of the international date line (neither could the British, nor supposedly the Japanese) just replacement of obscelete weapons. So that is why places like Corrigedor and Bataan costal defense forts still had weapons dating back to the Spanish American war and most of the AA guns were dating back to the First World War. TF Smith also came from austerity, however it also came from short-sightness on the next challenger in the world and the belief in wonder weapons. I would also suggest that it wasn't until the mid 1980's that we finished off paying for the debt incurred during WW2, if I remember a stat right. Also, Stalin and the rest of COMINTERN tried to fight us via proxy fights and probing to see where we would stand up for. Hence the Berlin incident in 48, the capture of most of Eastern Europe tween 45 and 92, proxy fighting in Greece in the late 40's, China in 1949, Korea in 1950.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Southern Air Pirate19:23

    I would also say tha the Happy Time off the US East Coast came from our failure to properly shift from a peace time footing to a war time footing. If you look at the history both CNO's Stark and King were stripping Cruisers and Destoryers from PacFlt and giving it up to LantFlt to help fight the proxy war in the Atlantic with the German U-Boats. Heck in the time tween we took over Iceland and the time that the war actually started. Well over 400 Red-blood American Bluejackets passed away in this proxy war. Most of them on the USS Reuben James on a cold Halloween night in 41. Most everyone in the Navy Department and War Department was looking East and not West. Also most of our processess to get the convoy's up and running, to start the Civil Defense, etc wasn't started properly and those that were thrown in to postions were Officers who had been stagnating in thier pay grades for the last five to six years in a peace time Navy. These were the officers who believed that a ship passing its engineering inspections and thier personnel inspections, and gun-decking their gunnery scores. The go-getters and the hard chargers that would turn things around in 1942 and 1943 were still JG's and LT's with no say in things.  

    ReplyDelete
  27. Southern Air Pirate19:24

    I would also say tha the Happy Time off the US East Coast came from our failure to properly shift from a peace time footing to a war time footing. If you look at the history both CNO's Stark and King were stripping Cruisers and Destoryers from PacFlt and giving it up to LantFlt to help fight the proxy war in the Atlantic with the German U-Boats. Heck in the time tween we took over Iceland and the time that the war actually started. Well over 400 Red-blood American Bluejackets passed away in this proxy war. Most of them on the USS Reuben James on a cold Halloween night in 41. Most everyone in the Navy Department and War Department was looking East and not West. Also most of our processess to get the convoy's up and running, to start the Civil Defense, etc wasn't started properly and those that were thrown in to postions were Officers who had been stagnating in thier pay grades for the last five to six years in a peace time Navy. These were the officers who believed that a ship passing its engineering inspections and thier personnel inspections, and gun-decking their gunnery scores. The go-getters and the hard chargers that would turn things around in 1942 and 1943 were still JG's and LT's with no say in things.  

    ReplyDelete
  28. Grandpa Bluewater20:06

    True enough, but the bottom line was no bucks, budget, gelt, valuta. Then about 1940, Congress decided there might be something to this preparedness stuff. This with a President was a Naval enthusist and former undersecretary of the Navy. Lately, the Marine guards have to teach how to properly return a salute, and nobody seems to realize the correct courtesy in civilian clothes is a courteous "Good Morning, Private. Thank you, carry on." at which point the salute is cut away smartly. So as to strategic sense, or appreciation of the value of sea power, well, good luck.

    They all had too little budget and too little training, especially realistic and frequent drilling on the fundamentals.  The late forties were lack of will and probably unavoidably so. Korea was a gift, it got us a balanced fleet back, and got rid of hacks like Louis Johnson. Ike understood. Truman was a good NG Artillery Captain as far as national military strategy went. 

    ReplyDelete
  29. Grandpa Bluewater20:27

    These are all true, but symptoms of two decades of grossly inadequate budgets. No bucks, gelt, wampum, OP&MN, what ever.

    The 10-20 year veterans had never known any thing else and too many were never trained in anything above the unit level in any meaningful way.  A few,  more senior, got a good education at the War Colleges (currently in the decline cycle). The Captains and Admirals who planned and lead the mobilization and operations were about LT/LCDR CO high in the early twenties- raised up in a period of naval expansion, some were recently retired and then recalled early in the war. There were 55-60 year old retired senior Captains and junior Flag Officers who took no-glory jobs upon recall and literally worked themselves to death. Ellsburg, recalled when somewhat younger, was invalided home twice, once after Torch, and again after Overlord, when he was in such bad shape they re-retired him.


    Bottom line, no bucks, no Buck Rogers. The more you sweat (and skull sweat exponentially more so) in peace, the less you bleed in war.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Grandpa Bluewater20:36

    <span>You all know how much I hate to seem cranky and cynical, so I will limit myself to saying the first lesson of the twentieth century was when Balkan Idiots wish to quarrel, don't pick a side; and nothing in all of Africa is worth a disability pension for one Tennessee PFC.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  31. xbradtc21:01

    Sal, I think if you've seen me commenting here and elsewhere across the naval blogosphere, you'll recognize that I'm as staunch a supporter of a strong navy as anyone here. 

    The Congress and several consecutive administrations have shown a willingness to provide adequate, if not generous, funds to the Navy. But somewhere in the 80s or 90s, the Navy lost the ability to design and build warships that can fulfill their mission at  a reasonable price. 

    When the Navy quits throwing good money after bad with LCS, DDG1000, LPD-17,  then and only then can we talk about cutting the Army's budget to feed the Navy's maw. 

    ReplyDelete
  32. cdrsalamander21:45

    That's fair.  Good folks can disagree - and I think we are a lot closer than our comments seem.

    What I do know is that the fat years are over.  We can scream all we want, but our budgets will shrink.  It isn't my world - it is the world I live in.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ewok40k22:01

    lack of industrai base is most grave danger, usually the US forward elements bought time for both military and economic mobilisation , but now there is not much to mobilise
    SAP, re: brits mid-ww period - they actually did decently focusing on radar, air superiority fighters and bombers that would carry the 1000 bomber raids later, and testing escort sloops that were testbeds for future corvettes, frigates and DE's
    2 lessons to be learned - sometimes capital ships are useful overall but useless against main enemy thrust - u-boats in this case, and there is never enough escorts (as already Nelson mused...)
    US stumbling not prepared into conflict in the past was offset by the industrial might, manpower reserves and fleet allowing to transport men and weapons and supplies to the theatre of war
    next time it can be not possible, with industrial might gone, manpower needing professional levels of training, and fleet... well you know best

    ReplyDelete
  34. James22:21

    As much as i do agree with you on many things i cant on this one. The days of having infantry who's manual contained a sheet of paper that said-do what the guy with the fluffy hat tells you to heres how to load a gun-are over. Infantry combat is now much more complicated. Thats just with the accually combat stuff lets not talk about all the legal, cultural and PC crap.

    First their is the problem of tanks. Tanks are simply to expensive for a National guard. States are already shifting away from them. Infantry, logistics, some aviation assests fine and good. But all the big heavy crap is a problem. But as much of a problem it is its something we must have.

    Unless your prepared to obliterate cities and millions you arent winning a war from the air, sea and space only. And as much as i am a fervent believer in the Corps...they simply dont have the weight of the army.

    I think as far as force goes we just need to spend more wisely. Take military precurment away from politicans Permanently. No more buying more billion dollar aircraft than the military says no more building the ships that congress wants instead of what the navy needs etc.

    Closing bases.....the ones in europe sure. Maybe Korea. Not to sure about Japan.

    Oh and if we DID move the forces back from Japan. Dont base them all in the same place. If another war pops off with a nuke equiped enemy or terrorist get one im just praying they dont set it off in a naval area.

    I guess my point is that though people want to claim Imperialism! Our imperialism has few of the benefit but all the draw backs. China, france and others act as imperialist they just arnt as flashy and arent as visible.

    And none of that even touches on the steady erosion once the basterds in DC get ahold of it.
    Do you really need that many rounds of ammo? Why not use less? Yes use less.
    Do you really need that much fuel? No use less.
    Do you really need so much wasteful training? NO use less.
    Really need that many people? No use less.

    Pretty soon we have our position before WW2 began.

    Me myself i have a way to stop it all!

    Stop funding tens of millions of people to sit on there but when they will NEVER get a job-because they dont want one. Stop making it so expensive to maintain or build industry here so we can get some jobs back. Stop playing with the dang imigration law and ENFORCE the law. Stop paying people to pop out 10 babies as a job!

    Thats part of the way you solve the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ewok40k22:39

    you will get your industry back when blue collars will work for Chinese - or worse - wages... the problem is with US costs of living they would just starve on that level of income.
    simply lowering taxes will generate few jobs at Tiffanys, not many in the industry
    trying to erect walls against imports will likely do more harm than good with everyone following the suit around the world and trade grinding to a halt
    and if people are risking their very lives at the hands of criminal gangs to land into the US, do you think some laws and fences will stop them?

    ReplyDelete
  36. ewok40k22:41

    <span>You fix the procurement process</span>

    if it was so easy...

    ReplyDelete
  37. USAF Mike22:48

    <span>"Unless your prepared to obliterate cities and millions you arent winning a war from the air, sea and space only."</span>

    Win a war?  No.  But you can win and maintain a peace, which is the whole point of AirSea Battle and any off shore balancing strategy.  The U.S. will not be engaging in any large scale land wars any time soon, short of a legitimate no kidding existential threat.  That isn't some vast far reaching pronouncement on the future of war, that is a fiscal and political fact. We are broke, land wars are costly and expensive, and regardless of your or my personal feelings on the subject, the American public will not tolerate another large scale ground war any time soon.

    <span> "I think as far as force goes we just need to spend more wisely. Take military precurment away from politicans Permanently. No more buying more billion dollar aircraft than the military says no more building the ships that congress wants instead of what the navy needs etc."</span>

    This assumes that the military would be any better at choosing what it needs and getting it built than the politicians would.  I submit that recent acquisitions history has shown us that this is a dubious proposition at best.

    ReplyDelete
  38. USAF Mike23:31

    I can't speak for the USNR, but I can speak for the AF Reserves and Air Guard.  We've pretty much implemented what you call for, in that the Guard and (especially) the Reserves provide a large proportion of the airlift (both strategic and tactical) and other mobility related forces (tankers being the most significant). 

    On that note, it's worth mentioning that one of the few things the AF has unquestionably gotten right in the past few decades is total force integration...our Reservists only have 4% of the USAF budget and 10% of the manpower but provide 30% of the capability.  Every day Air Guardsmen fly combat missions.  I work with Reservists (they're an Associate unit to my Active Duty one) and they are literally indistinguishable from the AD folks.

    I think there's a lesson here to be learned...while it may not transition over perfectly to the other services due to a different culture/mission, it seems to me that the AF has been successful in TFI due to a few main reasons.

    First, we were and are willing to make the extra payment up front to maintain an appropriate number of "full time" Reservists/Guardsmen, whether this is through straight up full time Reservists/Guardsmen, ARTs (Air Reserve Technicians...GS whatevers during the week, Reservists E- or O- whatevers during their one weekend a month/two weeks a year), or embedding AD personnel in a Reserve/Guard unit in a "reverse" Associate unit.  I think the Reserve statistics I cited above regarding money in and what the AF gets out speak for itself.  The breakdown here is out of a rough force of 88,000 personnel, there are 10,000 ARTs, 3,000 Active Guard personnel, and another 8,000 IMAs working directly for AD units.  So setting aside the IMAs that don't directly enable Reserve units, you've got 13,000 full time personnel enabling the effectiveness of 67,000 traditional Reservists.

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  39. USAF Mike23:32

    Part II

    Second, we have committed to ensuring that the traditional Reservists/Guardsmen receive the exact same training and the exact same treatment as the AD force to the maximum extent possible.  We do this a few ways.  One is by ensuring that the traditional weekend training is spent doing their primary mission, not ancillary duties.  I work in maintenance at a fighter base...the Reservists here spend 11 of their 12 annual one weekend a month UTAs launching jets and flying sorties, not doing CBTs.  Another is by holding them to the same standard; Reserve and Guard units are not allowed to be lax or lazy, they are held to the same standard as AD units, which leads me into the third way we ensure this, which is by utilizing them the exact same way as we utilize AD units.  Reserve/Guard forces are not, as they once were, forces only to be utilized in the case of a major WWIII level of conflict.  As I said above, Reserve/Guard aircraft and airmen are conducting combat missions worldwide every single day.

    ReplyDelete
  40. UltimaRatioRegis23:40

    Ewok,

    Not easy to fix procurement.  Damned difficult.  But damned important, as well.  With what is in the balance, certainly worth the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Grandpa Bluewater00:17

    Ewok:

    Bermuda doesn't have any taxes. Just import duties. On every thing. Except onions and carrots, those they grow there. Oh, and fresh fish. The island is prosperous, law abiding and completely modern. Exports? Onions and hotel reservations in Bermuda. Cost of living, high. Incomes, high. Living standards, good. The government, you see, runs the place for the benefit of the populace, they only steal a little. Like Lex Luthor, they know how to work a town, errr, island nation.

    Tariffs do not grind trade to a halt. They establish orderly trade for mutual benefit. Assuming the anti smuggling security is good and the customs folks are professional.  Walls and fences are there to channel traffic through the gates. It's called the border. The gates are ports, to control imports, and exports. Tariffs and duties? You adjust them to keep trade flowing and protect your economy. How do you do that? Well, don't make any big sudden changes.  Don't fall in love with a policy or a tariff rate. Watch, evaluate, adjust, evaluate, readjust, monitor.

    Bull headed ideologues, left and right, will be the death of us all. If we let 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Grandpa Bluewater00:23

    USAF MIKE: And who will bell the cat? And who will guard the guardians?

    Take military procurement away from the politicians?  Read the constitution lately? Jr. Birdman, have you lost your sky blue mind?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Grandpa Bluewater00:38

    Make that lost the ability to design and build most surface warships and naval aircraft. Also known as BuShips and BuAer. Or more properly the officers, enlisted and civil servant who worked as a team therein. It's been Marx Brothers at the shipyard and aircraft factories ever since. Fortunately, a few places survive which can meet a schedule on budget with a quality product.
    Portmouth, Maine; New London, Conn.: and Newport News, Va come to mind, but maybe I'm behind the times. There was another place on Long Island somewhere, wonder whatever became of it...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous01:51

    I have a horrid suspicion that the Breeder Of Cats has produced it's last cat.  I hope I am wrong, and someday we will see a Hellcat II, or Super Wildcat.

    ReplyDelete
  45. SCOTTtheBADGER01:52

    I have a horrid suspicion that the Breeder Of Cats has bred it's last cat. I hope I am wrong, and that will someday see a Wildcat II, or Super Hellcat.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ewok40k03:14

    Well,  sometimes even millions of casualties and ruined country aren't enough to force surrender - eg Germany in  WW2, and Japan too if the military putsch  managed to kidnap the Emperor before his surrender speech.
    On the other hand even when Serbia folded in the result of NATO bombing, it took ground forces to separate conflicted nationalities.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ewok40k03:23

    What is the military of Bermuda? It's industry?
    <span>Bull headed ideologues, left and right, will be the death of us all. If we let 'em. QFT!</span>
    One idea that caught my eye was a tax (think about it as of catch-all tariff) on yuan-$ exchange. This would be set to the level of artificially low yuan price. Maybe it wont fix the trade balance in one sweep but it can be a good start.

    ReplyDelete
  48. ewok40k03:25

    in my ideal world, it would be a set price in contract, and any cost overruns are the problem of the producent...

    ReplyDelete
  49. ewok40k03:31

    I'd love the Tomcats to be taken from the boneyard and re-enlisted... but that comes from armchair strategist that loved to have them against Backfires in harpoon... what do I know...

    ReplyDelete
  50. ewok40k03:33

    Entire Balkans are not worth one Pomeranian grenadier - Bismarck.
    If only his successors stuck to it... no WW1, and by extension, Soviets, Nazis, WW2...

    ReplyDelete
  51. UltimaRatioRegis09:05

    Absolutely agree, ewok.  Except that the USG proceeds most times to shoot holes in its moccasins by changing requirements and specifications mid-stride.  This is particularly true of shipbuilding. 

    A few years ago at USNI West, the VP of Newport News Shipbuilding (a sharp young man not yet 40) made that point eloquently.  Demanding experimental technology in large measure, and making fundamental changes to design concept once work is under way puts virtually all the risk on the contractor.  And such would never be tolerated in other manufacturing realms. 

    Having worked my share of production management and done plenty of bill of materials/TCBD calculations, I have to say that young man was right as rain.  You want changes?  You pay for changes.  If cost is not yet known for those changes, then the contract has an open ceiling or it is canceled and you pay me for materials and work performed short of delivery.

    Bottom line is the US Navy and USAF are co-conspirators with these large contractors on the massive cost of system procurement.   We gotta fix both ends of that equation.

    ReplyDelete
  52. USAF Mike10:03

    ...I was quoting James.  I think it's a terrible idea, both for those reasons and the fact that the services would be just as bad as the politicians, if not worse.  We've demonstrated that over the past decade with shipbuilding, if nothing else, although I can think of several more examples (KC-X comes to mind).

    ReplyDelete
  53. Grandpa Bluewater10:13

    Military sized to threat, therefore tiny.  Industry? Tourism.
    Point is free trade isn't the be all and end.  Free immigration isn't either. As it stands now, the two are killing the industrial base and the middle class.
    Maybe we ought rethink some things.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Grandpa Bluewater10:23

    I cited the Iron Works not out of nostalgia, but as a cautionary example. How the great were laid low, and how the few remaining great are at risk. None the less, some of the great, numbers greatly reduced, remain. So there is some hope.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Grandpa Bluewater10:31

    My point, or most of it anyway. Well done youngin!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Salty Gator14:03

    "our Reservists only have 4% of the USAF budget and 10% of the manpower but provide 30% of the capability. "

    If 30% of the USAF capability is provided by 4% of the budget, and 1/10 of the manpower, that IS a good news story.  It means that you guys are bloated and we can come to you with savings to throw into the Navy and Marines!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Salty Gator14:11

    Don't believe the bull.  The problem with American industry right now is WAGES and SKILL SETS.  The skilled workers are retiring or are already retired.  The wages and benefits that are required by unions and politicians are not business friendly.  Politicians and unions have gotten it into everyone's minds that folks who sit on an assembly line for life are entitled to huge houses with nice cars and gigantic flat screen tv's.  Sorry, not buying it.  America has become a nation of service industries, where consumption is our leading industry, financed on our grandchildren's future slavery to the Chinese debt holder.  I've said it before, I'll say it again.  We need to reinvigorate the manufacturing here in this country.  With it, our science and math programs.  The service industry jobs that were lost will NEVER come back, and if they do, they will be just as vulnerable as they were last time around.  Sacrifice them to the alter of experience.  Pick up a wrench, pick up a shovel.  Nobody is too good to dig a ditch in America...we have no aristocracy (and this coming from a European blue blood).  Obama offers you dependency on the government and "fairness."  America offers you self reliance, hard work, independence and freedom, the chance to get ahead but at great exertion and pain to yourself.  I choose America.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Salty Gator14:16

    Kill unemployment extensions.  Kill Obamacare.  Kill the tax increases.  Kill Cap and Trade.  Kill the remaining programs of the "Recovery Act."  Balanced Budget Ammendment.  Ban Earmarks.  Term Limits.

    And while you're at it

    Kill F-35, Kill LCS, Kill DDG 1000, Kill LCS.

    Fire Mullen, Roughead, Greenert, Army Sec, SECNAV, TREASURY, FED, OMB.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Salty Gator14:29

    Mega Dittos

    ReplyDelete
  60. Salty Gator14:29

    Mega Dittos

    ReplyDelete
  61. James16:47

    But then how do you propose to fix procurment? Thats part of the problem. Every senator and congresscritter wants to get their peice of the pie to hell with the greater good of the nation. So what how do we fix it. And as others have mentioned the people who REALLY know how to build a ship are leaving the work force along with all their combined knowledge.

    Then you have the unions which seem determined to destroy the very industries they are employed by unless everyone down to the janitor gets $25 a hr a pension and 25 sick days plus 30 holidays a year.

    Its rediculus its part of the reason all the car manufactures are moving plants down here.

    None of that gets around to the fact Car companies face a serious problem. PEOPLE are expensive. The japanese can afford to build cars in factories with only 100 people because of huge automation. That has been agressively blocked and stalled here sense they first put the robots on the line.

    Its all a mess a massive ugly mess and no one seems to want to confront it.

    So as much as i hate it i see once again in 25 to 30 years millions of american service men and women dying because we will cut back the military to a "more managable" size.

    Idiots and theives seem to have taken over the world and have chained the Honest to the cliffs.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Southern Air Pirate18:46

    James,

    For as much as I dislike the unions (and that is those in union management not the rank& file) as well with regards to modern American work space. Some of the failings as well fall on management as well. There were plenty of places where management found a way to cut the work force bennies out or even cut work force numbers but still tried to maintain thier 5 to 7 figure quarterly incomes and generous bennies. There were also places where they tried to automate too fast or sub-contract too much only to see issues later on due to the fact that they were expecting no/limited skill workers to try and do the same as skilled workers.
    The same is true of the folks who run our military. The farther one seems to get from the pointy end of the spear the more the metrics matter and the less the common junior solider or enlisted member matters.

    The most common question I have always is, does anyone listen to the Junior NCO (shop stewards in civilian world) or we just pretty window dressing for the nightly news sound bite?

    ReplyDelete
  63. James17:32

    Oh i agree with you entirely. But who in the media gets all the blame? Not the unions. Even when their thugs show up........

    Thats always been a problem. I think part of it is that to many people who become generals, admirals and such get that way without ever knowing what combat is.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous22:19

    Hey guys, I found this amazing cite for cheap mp4 player

    ReplyDelete