Weekly Recon - Air Force in Crisis?, Zumwalt's Guns, M17 vs. M9

Good Saturday morning and welcome to Weekly Recon. On this day in 1933, The USS Ranger becomes the U.S.’ first purpose built aircraft carrier built. The sixth Ranger (CV 4), the first ship of the Navy to be designed and built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier was laid September 26, 1931, by Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Newport News, Va.; launched February 25, 1933, sponsored by Mrs. Herbert Hoover; and commissioned at the Norfolk Navy Yard June 4, 1934 with Capt. Arthur L. Bristol in command.

The Air Force’s near-term readiness crisis threatens to degrade America's significantly coveted air superiority. A shortage of pilots and the looming budget shortfall pose a greater threat than any enemy according to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General David L. Goldfein.

The Air Force’s pilot deficiency is further complicated by civil aviation’s luring offers of better pay and a more family friendly schedule. According to Ray Bogan at Fox News:

The Air Force was short 750 fighter pilots at the end of the fiscal year 2016, according to a report from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The year before, the Air Force was down 511 pilots.

Under a continuing resolution, [U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David] Goldfein said the Air Force would be unable to hire the number of maintainers, air traffic controllers, and pilots needed to engage successfully in current missions and rebuild readiness.

To counter deficiencies in trained personnel, the Air Force is offering and increasing number of bonuses and incentives. Furthermore, to take pressure off of the commissioned officer cadre, the Air Force last year opened a training program for enlisted unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) pilots, the first of which will likely begin flight operations this year. The Air Force is also working with airlines to find a solution the nation’s inability to train enough pilots to supply both commercial and military demand.

Without budget relief pending in Congress, the Air Force will be severely challenged to maintain an already stressed force, not to mention America’s prized global air superiority.

Zumwalt’s Little Guns?

Zumwalt-class destroyers were slated to be the future of naval warfare at the time of their conception in the 1990s. Designed to have the capacity for land-attack fire support through its Mk 51 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), known as the long range land attack projectile (LRLAP), the innovative ammunition became too expensive. The Navy is down to 90 Mk 51 LRLAP rounds that remain unused due to the lack of a suitable replacement.

The LRLAP was designed to be the ultimate naval artillery round. Developed by Lockheed Martin, the LRLAP provides precision guided naval artillery at distances up to 74 nautical miles. The original, and relatively cost effective rounds were based on the original contract for 32 ships, but momentous cost overruns cut Zumwalt-class fleet to just three ships. The drop to just three Zumwalt destroyers drove per unit costs to a staggering $800,000+ per round, therefore, killing the LRLAP.

Three conventional options have now emerged as potential replacements: Raytheon's 155 mm Excalibur 1b, BAE Systems' Multi-Service Standard Guided Projectile (MS-SGP), and Leonardo’s Vulcano. Jane’s Defense reported last December that the Navy was leaning toward Raytheon’s Excalibur, but Leonardo’s recent entry to competition shows the Navy has yet to settle on a solution.

These less costly options, however, present new dilemmas in capability for the Zumwalt with the conventional options having shorter ranges than the LRLAP. The Excalibur at around 30 miles, the MS-SGP has at around 44 miles and the guided long range variant of the Vulcano with a range of around 50 miles.

The conventional alternatives to the LRLAP would force the Zumwalt to patrol closer to shore, placing the ship in increasingly contested anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) regions threatened by both Russia and China. The Navy’s decision will have significant consequences for America’s future fleet of destroyers.

Why the Army’s New M17 is Beats the M9 - For over the 30 years, the Beretta M9 has been the service pistol for the U.S. Military, replacing the famed .45 caliber M1911, in service since 1911. For those in the service, and even the government accountability office (GAO), a replacement for the battle worn M9 is long overdue.  The M9 served the military well, but the changing battlefield and increased technology to accessorize today’s combat pistols necessitated a change.

In response to the need for an updated service pistol, in 2015 but originated in 2011. The Army and Airforce submitted a request for proposals dubbed the XM17 modular handgun system. The request sought a modular design to meet the needs of a variety of body types, standard field operations, and the military’s increasing role in clandestine missions according to the Heritage Foundation’s Dakota Wood.

So how does the Army’s new service pistol, the Sig Sauer P320 (M17) stack up against the outgoing M9? 

Compared to the heavy metal frame of the M9, the M17 offers a fiberglass-reinforced polymer grip frame surrounding a modular, removable, and variable caliber stainless fire control unit.  The M17 also utilizes a completely new trigger mechanism that produces less recoil and is far lighter than the outgoing M9. An improved safety and tactical Picatinny rails make the M17 adaptable to a variety of tactical situations. While the Army will soon make use of the M17, the Marine Corps will likely have to wait until the mid-2020’s.

For a side-by-side comparison, see the graphic below courtesy of TacticalGear.com: 

TacticalGear.com

SEND RCD YOUR INPUT: Please send your tips, suggestions, and feedback to editors@realcleardefense.com. Make sure to follow us on Twitter at @RCDefense