Friday, April 18, 2014

NATO: It Includes Europe, too

Russia's expedition into eastern Ukraine has Europeans, especially those in the east, wringing their hands with worry. While the decades-old North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provides for common European and Allied defense from Russian advances, most European governments have discarded it as a Cold War relic. That needs to change. 
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO's purpose has been in question. A leftover from the heady days of Sputnik and Able Archer '83, it has been neglected as European nations sought greater ties with new Russia. Western nations drastically cut defense spending and pulled troops out of European bases. Only the U.S. keeps a respectable number of forces in theater, and the common defense of Europe has become more of an American mission than a European one. 
Americans are war weary; 14 years of combat will do that. That's why NATO members need to step up and again provide for their own defense. Not entirely, of course; the U.S. should contribute to show Russia that there are consequences if NATO is to be challenged. But it's not our territory and it's not our backyard. Europeans taking charge of their own defense is what NATO is all about, and the U.S. doesn't have the funds or the political will to fight others' battles anymore. If Europeans are serious about standing up to Russia, they should start by increasing military spending and becoming equal partners in NATO once again. 

Follow me on Twitter @ClearedHotBlog. 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Tomahawks No More? Not So Fast

This article appeared in its current form at the Center for International Maritime Security. 

The most recent Defense budget, announced this month, outlined plans to shrink the number of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) for use by U.S. Navy ships and submarines. And the cuts are drastic - $128 Million in Fiscal Year 2015, reducing the number to just 100 next year and zero in 2016. Phasing out weapons systems in favor of new systems capable of meeting current and future threats is a normal course of action. Cutting a highly successful program when there is no replacement on the horizon is shortsighted and threatens to eliminate the Navy’s offshore strike capabilities.

TLAMs have a long and decorated service history. They were first deployed onboard Iowa Class Battleships, as well as integrated into the Navy’s Vertical Launch System (VLS), installed on Destroyers and Cruisers, as well as submarines. During the Persian Gulf War, Navy surface combatants struck targets within Kuwait and Iraq throughout the conflict. Superior performance during the Gulf War made TLAM became a preferred stand-off weapon throughout the 1990s, and was utilized during Operations Allied Force and Deliberate Force in the former Yugoslavia.
In the War on Terror, TLAMs have been used to strike al-Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan, as well as during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most recently, over 120 TLAMs were fired by US and UK assets at targets in Libyan territory in 2011.

TLAMs provide the capability to strike deep into hostile territory, eliminating communications, air defense, and command and control from a safe distance, assuring successful secondary strikes by air and ground forces. Further developments have made TLAMs even more versatile – they can be prepped and ready for launch in under an hour, and upgraded models can receive in-flight targeting updates and loiter in-air until ready to strike.

Despite its success, replacement is inevitable. The platform is over 30 years old, and it is only a matter of time before a new system, upgraded with the latest technology and engineered to meet today’s threats, replaces the reliable TLAM. However, the new defense budget is instead stripping the U.S. arsenal of a proven strike capability and leaving it gapped for upwards of ten years.

The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). LRASM is a much-needed weapon to replace the aging Harpoon anti-ship missile and maintain superiority in surface warfare and Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD).  It has also, for some reason, been mentioned as a replacement for the TLAM. This isn’t a viable replacement. LRASM has a range less than half of that of TLAMs, and isn’t designed for deep strike into hostile territory. Even as a stopgap measure, LRASM isn’t an optimal strike weapon and in any case won’t be operationally ready until 2024. As a result, the U.S. will be without a primary strike weapon for the foreseeable future. 

Operating with a tight budget, lawmakers are looking for any way to trim defense spending. Eliminating a weapon that is a proven success and vital for offshore strike demonstrates a complete disregard for warfare requirements and unnecessarily places warfighters in harm’s way, without a vital support weapon. Tomahawk won’t be around forever; but it’s a vital weapon that has pulled its weight for 30 years. The U.S. already has outdated weapons systems and requires upgrades to keep pace with a rising Chinese military. Cutting more weapons systems and eliminating strike options in the name of fiscal restraint is the definition of shortsighted.

Follow me on Twitter @ClearedHotBlog