News here of chatter flowing out of the QDR process indicating a heavier reliance on the expeditionary nature of naval and air forces. Don't know how much trust to put into the reports, but it seems to make sense given the little I know of the team at OSD (P) and their policy inclinations, and the security challenges that face them.
It also seems to point back to something I said in this post about the Fighter-Attack shortfall, and that was advocating a thorough analytical debate within the department about the mix of land and sea-based fighter attack capability. If the department is looking to hedge by beefing up the "expeditionary" portions of naval and air forces, then clearly paying for capability twice doesn't make sense. The "expeditionary" functions of the Air Force that will be in high demand are its tankers, logistics, and C4I--not its fighter attack forces. Like Staples says, "We (the Navy) got that".
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment