“Every program you mentioned, every single one, is useful primarily against a large State enemy such as the Soviet Union.”

Garbage. Not every one of them. Not even close. Vide the V-22, which is useful for every type of conflict, but especially irregular ones, and has been HEAVILY used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The other weapon systems I listed, and which Coburn wants to kill, have also been widely used in those three theaters (e.g. bombers, carriers, Naval and Marine fighterplanes), and indeed, without them, starting, let alone waging, these wars, would’ve been impossible. Before Oct. 2001, the US had no bases in Afghanistan’s vicinity to launch air attacks and had to rely on B-52 and B-2 bombers coming out of the US as well as carrier-based aircraft. The first American “weapons” to participate in the Afghan war were the aircraft of the Enterprise CAW, which attacked the Taleban on Oct. 7th. Their carrier, the Enterprise, was positioned within range of Afghanistan by its CO, James Winnefeld, on 9/12/2001, just a day after the 9/11 attacks. That same James Winnefeld is now VCJCS.

But the idea that all weapon systems should be viewed solely through the prism of Afghanistan and Iraq is ridiculous, and I debunked it here on RS yesterday. We WILL fight conventional wars against large enemy nation states someday. The question is when and against whom, not it.

“We currently do not face one. The closest is China, and they?re heading for quite an economic disaster.”

We face two: China and Russia. China is not heading for an economic disaster – its economy is growing quickly and is projected to overtake the US economy in 5 years, and the PRC has lots of cash with which to bail out Europe, which it is being begged to do, and which it might do – but only under its conditions.

China is already on par with the US militarily. But we also face other, smaller-sized, but militarily strong nation-states, such as Iran and North Korea. Not being prepared war for with them would be suicidal.

Moreover, more than anything else, the US needs a large, survivable nuclear deterrent, and that will not be possible if the ICBM fleet is cut further to just 300 missiles, the SSBN fleet to 11 boats, and the bomber fleet is unreplaced until the mid-2020s or later.

MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, your division of enemies/threats into nation-states and irregular enemies, into big war threats and small war threats, is obsolete and suggests that you’re totally ignorant about defense issues, which of course you are. The most lethal and most likely threats the US will be facing – from peers like China and Russia, rogue states like Iran and NK, and terrorist groups like Hezbollah – will be access-denial threats/weapons (China calls them “assassin’s mace” weapons), which all of these enemies possess, albeit in varying degrees of quantity and quality.

To be prepared for these threats, and other threats America is facing, the US military needs to be prepared for all kinds of threats and wars, and most importantly access-denial threats. These consist of, inter alia:
- land attack BMs and CMs;
- anti-ship BMs and CMs;
- SAMs;
- GRAM weapons;
- naval mines;
- submarines;
- ASAT weapons (e.g. BMs);
- cyberweapons; and
- small missile craft.

To defeat these weapons, defeat America’s enemies, and therefore protect America and its allies and achieve the objectives set by the Nation’s civilian political leadership, the US military needs a wide array of weapons, but the DOD should accord priority status to protective equipment (e.g. missile defense systems), the Nation’s nuclear deterrent, stealthy tactical aircraft, and long-range strike weapons, which should consist of the following:
- a next generation bomber type (which needs to be affordable to allow it to be produced in large numbers – Col. Mark Gunzinger (ret.) shows how in Sustaining America’s Advantage in Long-Range Strike, CSBA, 2010);
- a new naval strike platform with a range of no less than 1000 nmi;
- a prompt global strike system, such as a FALCON plane or conventional ICBMs and SLBMs;
- new tankers;
- next-generation AEA aircraft.

A friend of mine did an analysis of this for the American Thinker several months ago, and the CSBA has done several studies on this subject.

But this won’t be possible if Coburn and Perry get their way and eliminate 2 variants of the JSF (which, mind you, Gunzinger is critical of), the next generation bomber program, 200 of America’s 500 ICBMs, the FALCON program, 3 of America’s 14 SSBNs, and tons of other weapons.

“What we need for the small wars are practical things. Upgrades for humvees, replacements for the aging fleet of A-10 Warthogs, better drones, and more ? many, many more ? boots.”

The F-35 is supposed to replace A-10s as well as F-16s, AV-8s and F/A-18s. More boots on the ground? Good luck with that under a Perry Administration! Coburn’s plan calls on the Army to be cut to is pre-2001 size, and says we should be grateful to him that he doesn’t advocate cutting the Army any further.

“Perry?s approach to the Texas border problem ? standing up a brownwater naval unit as part of the Texas Rangers ? as well as his stance on immigration”

Like providing tuition subsidies to illegal aliens at taxpayers’ expense?

“boots, not fences ? tells me that he has a better handle on this than you do.”

I know more about military issues than Perry (or you) ever will. FYI, I joined the military while Perry was still in school. I’ve served our country in Vietnam, and although I was just a grunt on the ground, I always appreciated the air support provided to us by our friends in the sky, and the strategic bombing conducted by B-52s.

“Tell me. Are you employed by the so-called defense industry?”

No.

These weapon systems are not “relics of the last war.” As they have proven, IN REAL WORLD COMBAT, they are quite useful for a wide range of missions against a wide range of threats. By “they”, I mean fighters, bombers, submarines, and all other weapon systems that Coburn aims to kill, and which you derided as relics of the last war.

In any case, in my above threats, I outlined in large detail, what the most likely and most lethal threats to America are, and consequently, what weapon systems are needed, and which ones deserve priority status. My policy prescriptions are focused squarely on the future, not the past.

Your claim that

“Every system you?re arguing for has a couple common points. (…) it?s got lots of pork, it?s narrowly focused….”

is a blatant lie.

F-35s, B-2s, AEA aircraft, and missiles are useful for a wide range of missions, against a wide range of enemies – whether it’s the Taleban, Iran, North Korea, or China and Russia. Read the CSBA studies on the subject of long range strike weapons and the access-denial weapon threat, starting with the Gunzinger study I’ve referred to.

Nonstealthy, unsurvivable platforms such as A-10s are useless in the current threat environment, except against the most primitive adversaries.

“Yes, we?re using F-22s and B-2s in Afghanistan and Iraq, in part because we don?t have enough A-10s and B-52s to do the job. It?s like using a $40,000 Dodge Ram when what?s needed is a $100 wheelbarrow.”

WRONG. We’re using B-2s (but not F-22s) in these theaters, and were using them in Libya, because we needed STEALTHY aircraft to fly from the CONUS and defeat enemy air defense systems and attack key targets. We have hundreds of A-10s and 76 B-52s, but A-10s are now worn out and there’s a lack of spare parts for them. They need to be replaced, and soon- Both A-10s and B-52s are nonstealthy and cannot survive in Iranian, NK, Venezuelan, or Chinese airspace. Our venerable B-52s can, at most, attack targets in benign threat environments or launch cruise missiles from outside enemy airspace. Moreover, A-10s are tactical aircraft that need in-theater bases. Bombers and carrier-based aircraft do not.

“I?ll point out that your grasp on China and on the Texas Dream Act are both wrong..”

The one wrong here is you.

“Tell me, does your congressional district do a lot of manufacturing of ?big systems? ?”

My district (VA-6)? Not really. This ain’t Buck McKeon’s CA-25 district. Now I’ll ask YOU a question. How old are you?

You clearly don’t know JS about defense issues.

“Yes, the A-10 fleet has worn out and need replacing, but the F-22 is not the right replacement. The F-22 is significantly more expensive to build and maintain, and does not do as good a job.”

I didn’t say the F-22 is the replacement for A-10s, I said the F-35 is. The F-22 costs just 150 mn bucks per copy and offers HUGE value for the buck. It’s the best air superiority fighter the world has ever seen, and is decisively superior even against the Russian PAKFA. If it came to a fight between F-22s and any enemy aircraft, F-22s would win decisively. That, I can guarantee.

“Further, you make my point for me ? ?we need stealth? in large part because we are no longer fighting a symmetrical enemy.”

No, I don’t make points for you. Your claims are completely false. We need stealth because we WILL be fighting (and not that long ago, in Libya, we DID FIGHT) a symmetrical enemy. An enemy armed with radars, SAMs, and other conventional weapons. Denial won’t make that threat go away.

“Every one of these ?large systems? is vulnerable to small but highly refined weapons.”

Not really.

“The F-22 ? SAM.”

ROTFL! Thanks for proving how ignorant you are! You’ve managed to beat even Herman Cain! While an F-22 could technically be shot down with a SAM, it would first have to be detected. But there is no radar currently in the world that can detect an F-22, which has an RCS of a metal marble.

“The M-1 main battle tank, even with its? Chobham armor, is vulnerable to the current Russian RPG.”

Keep wishing. In Iraq, M1s have been fired upon with RPGs to the rear, to the sides, and from above, and so far, no kills with RPGs that I know of.

“Subs are great for Mutually Assured Destruction, but the less sane among Iranian leadership welcome Ragnarok.”

Thanks for proving that you’re even more ignorant about defense issues than Herman Cain. The Iranian leadership is NOT suicidal and is deterrable. Moreover, SSBNs are useful more more than nuclear deterrence. They can launch a nuclear first strike if need be and conventional Trident missiles. SSGNs and SSNs can launch UAVs, SEALs, UUVs, and Tomahawk missiles. SSNs can also hunt down any ship and conduct intelligence missions.

“My opinion remains that boots beat systems. Lots of old men have gotten wealthy off systems that are no longer necessary.”

The weapon systems that the DOD currently maintains are necessary. Hell, even Bob Gates admits that. And no, boots don’t beat systems. Even the best-trained soldier is toothless and impotent without weaponry.

“Boots will always be necessary, especially if Mexico continues her descent into civil war. We don?t need a new submarine fleet, we need a couple new divisions on our southern border.”

We DO need a submarine fleet for the reasons and purposes I stated earlier. Personally, I’d take a Virginia class submarine over an entire Army division, and 10 Virginia class subs over all divisions of the Army, even though I am myself an Army veteran.