"Why America Must Overhaul its Military"

[MarkOttawa]

Note:

...we grew the Navy fleet 27% from today's 272 ships to 345 in ten years by pursuing a balance between highly sophisticated destroyers and cruisers and low-end high-speed platforms outfitted with missiles, lasers, and rail guns. Given America’s asymmetric advantage undersea, we aggressively expanded the Navy’s undersea warfare capabilities, increasing submarines from 58 to 74 and expanding undersea strike capacity by 680 cruise missile tubes. We funded these investments by terminating the Ford- and America-class carrier production lines in light of their costs and vulnerability to anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats.  This does not mean that we eliminated aircraft carriers from the force, but rather set up a process of steadily riding the carrier inventory downward over the next 50 years as existing carriers retire. We also curtailed the current amphibious fleet (LPD/LSD) in light the challenging environment in the littorals.  We preserved Marine expeditionary and crisis response missions by shifting to cheaper commercial-derivative (“black hull”) expeditionary sea bases, resulting in a larger overall expeditionary lift capacity...

Jerry Hendrix, Paul Scharre, and Elbridge Colby are Senior Fellows with the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security [ https://www.cnas.org/research/defense-strategies-and-assessments ]. CNAS does not take institutional positions.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-america-must-overhaul-its-military-18096

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

A bunch of liberals pretending to be defense experts.As soon as I read that they would have zero carriers and LPD's over 50 years,which guts the USMC ability to rapidly intervene.I did like their USAF program which was made possible by the elimination of USN carriers [which is not good].They would keep the Army at 450,000 and focus on heavy forces at the expense of light infantry.I believe in going big or not at all.

 

[MarkOttawa]

tomahawk6: These people below, two of three authors of the piece?

A bunch of liberals pretending to be defense experts...

Perhaps you might reconsider:

Jerry Hendrix is a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security.

A retired Captain in the United States Navy, his staff assignments include tours with the Chief of Naval Operation’s Executive Panel (N00K), where his efforts centered on Homeland Defense, Naval Aviation, and Navy Missile Defense, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (Force Development) where he served as Executive Secretary for the Irregular Warfare Quadrennial Defense Review cell, and the OSD Office of Net Assessment where he assisted the Director on topics related to forecasting future capabilities and alternative security environments...
https://www.cnas.org/people/dr-jerry-hendrix

Paul Scharre is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Future of Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Security.

From 2008-2013, Mr. Scharre worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) where he played a leading role in establishing policies on unmanned and autonomous systems and emerging weapons technologies. Mr. Scharre led the DoD working group that drafted DoD Directive 3000.09, establishing the Department’s policies on autonomy in weapon systems. Mr. Scharre also led DoD efforts to establish policies on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) programs and directed energy technologies. Mr. Scharre was involved in the drafting of policy guidance in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, and Secretary-level planning guidance. His most recent position was Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Prior to joining OSD, Mr. Scharre served as a special operations reconnaissance team leader in the Army’s 3rd Ranger Battalion and completed multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a graduate of the Army’s Airborne, Ranger, and Sniper Schools and Honor Graduate of the 75th Ranger Regiment’s Ranger Indoctrination Program...
https://www.cnas.org/people/paul-scharre

Not many people like that in Canada with public, er, voices.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

I know what I know- sorry.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/center_for_a_new_american_security/

Founded in 2007, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is widely considered to be an important source of national security and military analysis for the Obama administration, particularly with respect to counterinsurgency strategy (COIN). Described by the Los Angeles Times as “a haven for hawkish Democrats,”[1] CNAS calls itself an “independent and nonpartisan research institution” that aims to engage “policymakers, experts, and the public with innovative fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate.”[2]