The Quadrennial Defense Review (Qdr)

The after taking 25 years to develop the F22 Raptor from conception to operational certification the United States Air Force (USAF) produced the world’s first 5th Generation air superiority fighter. (site) This revolutionary fighter plane leveraged its very low observable stealth (VLO) and thrust-vectoring and digital fly by wire technology, to produce an extremely fast, agile and deadly air to air combatant. (GEO P 2) However, in 2009 Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, (SECDEF) convinced the President (POTUS) and Congress to truncate the F22 program, leaving the USAF with less than 187 operational F22 Raptors, this number was well short of the 381 the USAF estimated they needed to meet their mission requirements. (AWC 1/ site) Gates made his controversial decision based on three factors. This essay will explore these factors and explain how the 2009 U.S strategic environment, the overall cost of the F22 and Secretary Gates’ desire to change the Department of Defense (DOD) all lead to the decision to limit the production of the F22 Raptor at 187 aircraft.

The past decade has witnessed fundamental changes in the information environment, which makes availability and access to information more prevalent than in the past. For this reason, we must develop and maintain the ability to influence the content and flow of information to potential adversaries, as well as foreign civilian audiences in the area of operations.

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

With Trump’s election this year, his rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” and therefore revitalizing our military will soon become a reality. Trump has formally requested a reappropriation of funds; around $54 Billion, towards the US military. Part of Trump’s campaign promises had to do with making the military more robust; ensuring America’s title of militarily strongest in the world. In order to achieve this goal. Trump’s federal government has the option of many different aspects of the military to focus on. Of these, funding weapons of mass destruction, cyber security, and further military research and development prove themselves as most relevant in the contemporary military.

The threat environment has expanded from a strategic, nuclear, symmetrical threat from bombers, ICBMs, and air-or-sea-launched cruise missiles, to a continuing symmetrical threat in addition to an emergent asymmetric threat, focused across all domains, borders and agencies. Accordingly, our political leaders recognized a need to transform the military for a new ‘home game’. United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established to assume responsibility for the defence of the US homeland, and this new Command was tasked to provide military assistance to civil authorities (MACA).

The Armed Forces of the United States stand at an inflection point. Fourteen years of sustained combat forged a seasoned force capable of success across the range of military operations from military engagement to joint and multinational major combat operations. Today, this seasoned force is tasked to reset from a decade plus of counterinsurgency operations and evolve capability and capacity to defend the Nation from an increasingly complex security environment. Furthermore, this transformation must be completed in the face of a stark fiscal federal budget.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2014 outlines the details regarding the current and future security environment. The QDR uses current lessons in order to list the most significant threats, challenges, and opportunities.

Strategic guidance on the general attributes of JF25 is provided in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and National Military Strategy (NMS). An important attribute is the ability to rapidly project military power to deter challengers and win decisively. Rapid force projection is central

safety, security, changing economy, and universal values especially as it pertains to nuclear weapons) leaders face to assess planning risk, as well as adapt and overcome the changing operational environments both stateside and overseas. For example, I better understand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) role in the combat against terror as well as how the U.S. will use NATO to form coalitions to defeat ISIS and protect U.S. interests. Additionally, the course introduced the Presidents National Security Strategy on mobilizing and leading Global efforts with reason to lead with purpose, strength, by example, as well as with capable partners using all instruments of power that affect long-term global economy and rapid technological changes. This course empathizes the value of every Airmen role as well as reinforces mine in the importance of cybersecurity of our critical infrastructures, the use of deterrence, and how other nations might threaten the U.S. Finally, there are DoD level plans that I was unaware and this helped me understand our leaders plans to carry out military actions swiftly (e.g. deterrence using nuclear operations) to execute their missions within the Congressional budget

The article, “Race to the Future. How America’s missile defense initiative blossomed into an international coalition,” was featured in The American Legion, a center-right publication, in August of 2015. The author of the piece is Alan Dowd. Dowd is a frequent author and head of the Center for America’s Purpose, a center-right organization. Regarding the critical eye, the article is accurate with a few pieces of misleading information. Throughout the article numerous solutions are presented and a discussion of different points of view is presented. Although the article is in favor of a national missile defense system, the author remains objective throughout the piece, and a large quantity of background information is provided, which helps the reader come to their own conclusions about a national missile defense.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is a multifaceted organization, providing expertise to America and our allies in order to reduce the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. This organization was developed to mitigate the potential threat, providing reach-back capabilities, eliminate, and reduce the usage of any chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high yield explosives. We will discuss the creation of the organization, the Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization (JIDO), and the DTRA reach back capabilities.

Following over a decade of irregular war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is attempting to reset towards a conventional, regular type of warfare. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review describes a U.S. military shift to the Pacific and the supremacy of capability against near peer nations rather than support irregular of and counterinsurgency operations. As the QDR points out the U.S. military must “be prepared to battle increasingly sophisticated adversaries who could employ advanced warfighting capabilities while simultaneously attempting to deny U.S. forces the advantages they currently enjoy in space and cyberspace.” This is balanced against the reality that “our forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale prolonged

In 2009, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) convinced the President (POTUS) and Congress to truncate the F22 program, leaving the U.S. Air Force (USAF) with less than 190 operational 5th Generation air to air and air to ground combatants, this number of operational F22 was well short of the 381 the USAF estimated they needed to meet mission requirements. (AWC 1/ site) Robert Gates terminated the F22 production because of its low return on investments (ROI) for the U.S. taxpayer caused by the change in the U.S. Security and Strategic Environments and the obsolescent nature of the U.S. Department of Defense acquisition and development process leading to very expensive and marginally effective aircraft, which simply was not worth the investment. This essay will explore how the actual cost, including opportunity cost, of F22 capabilities were too expensive and unnecessary in today’s security and strategic environments. It will also expose the obsolete and probably corrupt nature of the Department of Defense weapons procurement process and Secretary Gates attempts to change this process.

The concept of airpower and its effectiveness against the enemy’s fielded military forces is well documented in a number of literatures. In the history of American military, airpower has been considered not only as the sharpest military sword but also a highly versatile set of tools used to effectively promote national strategy. Airpower’s effectiveness in support of national strategy has significantly improved since 1945. The study of airpower exposed certain consistencies which have affected its effectiveness. The theory and practice of airpower filled the past century with frequently persuasive victories coupled with a historical documentation packed with arguable failures. It is important to note that the effectiveness of airpower, as a military operational strategy, has triggered a debate among proponents and non-proponents. Some airpower theorists have debated its effectiveness. Throughout history, the many claims about airpower’s decisiveness to independently win wars or conflicts have hindered the notional and real application of this instrument of power. This essay highlights factors which consider the scope of the strengths and limitations of airpower that has been and will continue to be effective throughout the 21st century.

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review is in line with the National Security Strategy when it states, "U.S. ground forces will remain capable of full-spectrum operations, with continued focus on capabilities to conduct effective and sustained counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorist operations alone and in concert with partners." Irregular threats are therefore the focus of US strategic guidance and are in line with global trends for the most likely type of military action.