Yup...Cut Defense First...

"The demonstration was original enough. A bomber without any weapons, but having onboard equipment for jamming enemy radar, worked against a destroyer equipped with "Aegis", the most modern system of air and missile defence. But this system of mobile location, in this case the ship, has a significant drawback. That is, the target tracking capabilities. They work well when there is a number of these ships which can coordinate with each other somehow. In this case there was just one destroyer. And, apparently, the algorithm of the radar in the "Aegis” system on the destroyer did not load under the influence of jamming by the Su-24. It was therefore not only a nervous reaction to the fact of flying around by the Russian bomber which was common practice during the Cold War. The reaction of the Americans was due to the fact that most modern system, especially its informative or radar part, did not work adequately. Therefore, there was such a nervous reaction to the whole episode."

News Hawk wrote:We could always have bake sales to support U.S. research into radar-jamming technology.

  

WHL wrote:And then we leave all that equipment over in Iraq and Afghanistan because "it costs too much" to bring it home.

Anti Federalist wrote:Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world. The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

See more at: http://scientistsascitizens.org/2014/05/15/academics-and-scientists-on-preventing-war/#sthash.FjT8ESPB.dpuf

News Hawk wrote:Your source had cherry-picked the highest figures—don't they know what casualties mean?

"At its core, the United States is a maritime nation.  Since the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution as the guiding document for a new nation, they wisely saw the need for maintaining a Navy capable of defending the new republic.  While the forces necessary to maintain American seapower have waxed and waned over the years, the need for a strong Navy – capable of defending the homeland as well as projecting power around the globe – has never been more stark than today.The Navy is being challenged on every front – manning, training, equipping, growing, and shaping the fleet.  The size of the current fleet continues to raise concern within the Navy itself as well as on Capitol Hill.  While ships today may have greater capability than just a generation ago, an inadequately sized fleet without the ability to sustain continuously forward deployed assets wastes those advances.

While contributing on its face to the numbers of ships in the active fleet, the Littoral Combat Ship has repeatedly fallen short in meeting its mission requirements.  Unfortunately, the program is being continued to artificially inflate the Navy’s fleet numbers for political purposes while maintaining the embattled industrial base that builds and supports it until a suitable guided missile frigate program can be developed.

In the interim, a true success story in shipbuilding continues with remarkable results – the Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyer.  The Navy is on track to field the Flight III destroyer, built to counter the growing vulnerability of the aircraft carrier to the threat of anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles.  As the threat has evolved, so has the Navy’s ability to defend against it.  Greater survivability will ensure the Navy’s ability to project power in anti-access/anti-denial combat environments such as the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific.

Combat systems don’t work if they are not exercised in training like they would be in combat.  Today, the Navy routinely deploys ships that are undermanned, undertrained, and underequipped. The ability to operate and survive in a hostile environment depends on being combat ready.  If a ship sustains the level of damage I experienced aboard the USS Cole when it was attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists, it might not survive if the manning numbers and training opportunities remain as low as ships experience today.

On the equipping front, the recent decision by the administration to downsize and eliminate the Tomahawk missile program without a suitable replacement on the horizon borders on negligence.  Since its initial large-scale use in Desert Storm I, the Tomahawk missile remains the go-to weapon of choice in almost every operational scenario planned for by combatant commanders in their theaters.  As warfare tactics have advanced, so has this unique weapon system, which is deployed extensively on Arleigh Burke class destroyers and submarines.  Until a suitable replacement is developed and is ready to be fielded, it makes far greater sense to upgrade the Tomahawk than create a capability gap in the Navy’s ability to project power.

Throughout the panel discussion, the one point that consistently came through – the United States needs a combat-capable, forward-deployed Navy capable of defending our national security interests at home and abroad.  The Navy must develop a clear strategy that can be directly tied to force structure.  We can no longer afford the political temptation to cut corners under the guise of budgetary discipline in the form of sequestration.  The American people deserve better and so do the young men and women who choose to risk their lives in the service of our nation.

Kirk Lippold, a retired U.S. Navy commander, was in command of the USS Cole when it was attacked by al-Qaeda in October 2000.