{"id":109828,"date":"2017-12-04T16:37:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-04T16:37:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T10:55:34","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T10:55:34","slug":"admiral-shanahan-gets-it-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/04\/admiral-shanahan-gets-it-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"Admiral Shanahan Gets it Wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>Retired Navy Vice-Admiral Jack Shanahan is out with an op-ed (in the <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.statesman.com\/opinion\/content\/editorial\/stories\/07\/13shanahan_edit.html\">Austin American-Statesman)<\/a><\/em> , calling for termination of the Air Force&#8217;s F-22 fighter program.  Shanahan, who once commanded the U.S. Second Fleet, views the F-22 as a  Cold War relic, no longer relevant for a long war against terrorism.<\/p>\n<p>Admiral Shanahan now chairs the military advisory committee of the Priorities! campaign, run by a group called <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sensiblepriorities.org\/\">Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities<\/a>.  Established in 1998, the group apparently believes that the nation&#8217;s  defense spending actually jeopardizes national security, by wasting  money that could be spent on more productive pursuits, such as education  and alternative energy sources. From the group&#8217;s website:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8220;Top  American businesspeople believe that the federal government&#8217;s spending  priorities are undermining our national security. Advised by retired  admirals and generals, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities&#8217; 650  members include the present or former CEOs of Bell Industries, Black  Entertainment Television, Goldman Sachs, Men&#8217;s Warehouse, and Phillips  Van Heusen &#8211; as well as Ted Turner and Paul Newman.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In  other words, the usual, liberal suspects. On the military side, (along  with Admiral Shanahan), the &#8220;advisory committee&#8221; includes former CIA  Director Admiral Stansfield Turner, and former Assistant Secretary of  Defense Frank Korb, who served in the Reagan Administration. Next to the  website description of the military advisory committee, there&#8217;s a  flashing bar chart that compares U.S. defense spending to that of our  adversaries, and the paltry amounts spent on the group&#8217;s favored  programs, in contrast to the Pentagon budget.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s ridiculously  easy to pick apart the group&#8217;s &#8220;arguments.&#8221; Admiral Shanahan and his  committee fail to mention that over half the DOD budget goes toward  personnel costs, including military pay, retiree pensions and  sky-rocketing health care costs for active duty personnel, retirees and  their dependents. Additionally, the advisory committee fails to mention  that the defense budgets for other nations are only estimates&#8211;and  probably poor estimates at that. In the case of China, for example, much  of the military spending and resources are hidden in the various  commercial enterprises and front companies controlled by the People&#8217;s  Liberation Army. Factor in funding for those establishments, and the  PRC&#8217;s defense budget rises by another 20-40%. In that regard, the &#8220;gap&#8221;  cited by the committee isn&#8217;t as large as they&#8217;d have you believe and  it&#8217;s closing, as China increases its annual defense spending by  double-digit margins.<\/p>\n<p>You&#8217;ve also got to question the  &#8220;priorities&#8221; championed by the group. $10 billion for  renewable\/sustainable energy programs? Never mind that most of these  efforts are technical pie in the sky, and that some of these  schemes&#8211;such as ethanol&#8211;will supply only a fraction of our energy  needs, even if full production is realized. How about $10 billion for  new schools? Sounds good, but if the schools aren&#8217;t meeting their  educational mission&#8211;and many aren&#8217;t&#8211;it doesn&#8217;t matter how new the  building is. Besides, many of the policy goals cited by the group have a  long history of wasting taxpayer dollars, with far less to show for the  effort than military weapons programs.<\/p>\n<p>But Admiral Shanahan  devotes most of his op-ed to the F-22, and I&#8217;ll address my comments to  his critique. He says the F-22 was developed to provide a stealth  capability against improving adversary air defenses, but a funny thing  happened: their air defenses stopped improving.<\/p>\n<p>What a crock. As  with many of his claims, Shanahan carefully cherry-picks the data,  ignoring relevant facts. Truth is, air defenses in Russia and China have  dramatically improved over the past decade, with the introduction of  modern, long-range SAM systems, such as the SA-10\/20 and the SA-12. Both  are at least equal (and in some ways, superior) to the U.S.-made  Patriot and pose a serious threat to the current generation of &#8220;legacy&#8221;  fighters (F-15\/F-16). These advanced SAMs are now being marketed around  the world, and will eventually wind up in countries like Iran and Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In  the air, those &#8220;unbeatable&#8221; F-15s and F-16s face an increasing threat  from the latest generation of Russian and European fighters, equipped  with advanced radars and air-to-air missiles. As we discovered during  recent COPE INDIA exercises with the Indian Air Force, a late-model  SU-27\/30 FLANKER, in the hands of a skilled pilot, is more than a match  for an F-15 or F-16. To ensure air dominance&#8211;a linchpin of our overall  military strategy&#8211;we need a platform that widens the gap between our  capabilities, and those of potential adversaries. Enter the F-22. As  we&#8217;ve noted before, the Raptor&#8217;s blend of stealth and supercruise will  guarantee air dominance for decades to come. On the other hand, sticking  with the F-15 and F-16 will make it more difficult to sustain control  of the skies, and force more expenditures in other areas, notably  ground-based air defenses. Afterall, if the Air Force can&#8217;t dominate the  skies, then the Army will need more SAMs on the ground.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s  easy to say the F-22 is irrelevant in a war against terrorists. But  military planners cannot focus exclusively on that threat. Beyond the  struggle against Islamofacists, the Pentagon must also field forces  capable of dealing with more conventional threats, on both a regional  and global level. By the end of this decade, China alone will field  close to 300 FLANKERs, with dozens of SA-20s for ground-based air  defense. Those systems are also expected to be deployed in the Middle  East and even the western hemisphere. Against that threat array, America  needs an advanced fighter, capable of &#8220;kicking down the door&#8221; against  evolving air and ground-based threats.<\/p>\n<p>Admiral Shanahan is  entitled to his opinions, but his depiction of the threat&#8211;and the air  assets needed to defeat it&#8211;is completely distorted and unrealistic.  Maybe that&#8217;s the result of hanging out with Ted Turner and Paul Newman.  In the case of Admiral Shanahan, we should be thankful that he&#8217;s on the  retired list, and no longer in a position to influence defense policy.  His ideas on national security are far more threatening than the  &#8220;wasteful&#8221; and &#8220;irrelevant&#8221; F-22.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Retired Navy Vice-Admiral Jack Shanahan is out with an op-ed (in the Austin American-Statesman) , calling for termination of the Air Force&#8217;s F-22 fighter program. Shanahan, who once commanded the U.S. Second Fleet, views the F-22 as a Cold War relic, no longer relevant for a long war against terrorism. Admiral Shanahan now chairs the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109828"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}