When Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently unveiled his new military spending plan, supporters hailed it as “revolutionary.” But others are suggesting that Mr. Gates’ proposal is not only shortsighted; it potentially jeopardizes American security.
With steep cuts in weapons systems—including missile defense—the Gates budget was described as a “break” with long-standing Pentagon procurement and contracting practices, which have produced revolutionary technology, but at a very steep price. Cost overruns and design changes have added billions to the cost of new weapons systems—including many targeted for deep cuts or elimination by Mr. Gates.
:
Programs on the chopping block include five deemed essential for the U.S. Air Force, and its ability to project airpower around the globe. Under the Gates plan, production of the service’s state-of-the-art F-22 fighter would be capped at 187 aircraft, well below what the Air Force requested.
Additionally, the new budget would eliminate funding for the service’s new rescue helicopter, and halt development of the next-generation bomber and the airborne laser, which targets ballistic missiles in their boost phase. Procurement of the C-17 transport would also end.
While the Gates budget also slashes weapons programs in the other services, one respected defense analyst believes it places an undue burden on the Air Force. Dr. Rebecca Grant, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Lexington Institute says the new defense plan “singles out” the USAF for deep cuts, by halting or eliminating key programs needed for joint war plans.
The result, she says, will be an Air Force that finds it more difficult to deal with advanced threats--and meet the needs of combatant commanders.
As an example of the budget’s adverse impact, Grant cited the decision to shut down the F-22 assembly line after producing just four additional Raptors. beyond those now on order. At one point, the Air Force hoped to buy over 700 F-22, but prior budget cuts forced dramatic reductions in that plan. Earlier this year, service leaders made a push for 60 additional Raptors, which would have raised the inventory to just over 240 aircraft. But Mr. Gates rejected that request.
Dr. Grant says halting F-22 procurement will have far-reaching consequences, in a variety of potential contingencies. She expressed doubt that the Air Force will be able to fully equip a Raptor squadron earmarked for the Hawaii Air National Guard, despite the aircraft’s prominent role in Pacific region war planning.
She also faulted the Defense Secretary for his plan to buy more Joint Strike Fighters instead of the F-22. “He accepted the analysis of his own staff over Air Force warfighters, Grant observed. “He said he wants the 75% solution that JSF provides, but JSF can’t do all the F-22 missions. It complements the F-22 but does not replace its speed and survivability.”
Dr. Grant believes that a smaller Raptor inventory will make it more difficult to deal with a variety of crises, ranging from the SA-20 air defense system in Iran, to “worst case” scenarios involving China, or a conflict along Russia’s borders.
She also suggested that the JSF faces a less-than-certain future, despite Gates’ endorsement. “He didn’t significantly accelerate the program,” Grant continued, “and there’s still the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to come. He has given us no vision of future military forces.”
The Air Force’s long-range strike capabilities took an even greater hit under the Gates proposal, which ends development of a new bomber. Dr. Grant said that cancellation of the program would mean an even greater reliance on the B-2 stealth bomber, which entered operational service in the 1990s.
“If the U.S. had to go after a difficult, long distance target like a hostile missile launcher, only 4-5 B-2s would be available on any given day,” she predicted. Without a new bomber, Grant said that U.S. strategic forces face a “tough environment,” particularly after 2020, when the oldest B-2s will enter their fourth decade of service.
She also wondered if “Gates wants to leave airmen behind on the battlefield,” referring to his termination of the next-generation combat search-and-rescue helicopter, or CSAR-X. The defense secretary defended his decision in a recent appearance at the Air War College, claiming that the chopper’s mission requirements—rescuing personnel deep in enemy territory—“made no sense.”
While Gates plans to boost spending for certain systems, including UAVs, Dr. Grant warned that drones are no substitute for aircraft being cancelled, including the F-22 and the new bomber. “UAVs are great,” she said, “but they can’t survive in hostile airspace.” She also noted that one variant of the planned bomber would have been unmanned. Terminating the program “shuts down another key technology path,” Grant said.
As the defense chief makes the rounds of media appearances and war colleges to sell his proposal, there has been little criticism from the service chiefs and other senior, uniformed officers. Grant believes the lack of pushback is hardly a coincidence.
“He’s fired a service chief, two service secretaries and a combatant commander. Generals and admirals are afraid to speak in the climate created by Gates.” Dr. Grant also noted that Secretary Gates has required senior service officials to sign non-disclosure agreements, stifling dissent in the senior ranks.
The Gates plan faces stiffer opposition on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are maneuvering to preserve programs targeted for elimination. “No way will the Senate go along with all of his recommendations,” predicted one Republican staffer.
But it’s still unclear which weapons systems—if any—will survive the process. Earlier this year, a bi-partisan group of Senators sent Mr. Gates a letter, asking him to continue F-22 production. But the defense secretary ignored their advice, and a plea from the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz, and the service secretary, Michael Donley, for 60 additional aircraft.
An early showdown on the secretary’s proposal is expected on April 30th, when the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a scheduled hearing on airpower. Supporters of the next-generation bomber are expected to raise that issue during the hearing, and the Senate aide says that continued development of that aircraft is a “high priority” for members of the subcommittee.
Comments
Maybe they can find the money to adapt a new standard battle rifle... perhaps with an improved ammo. Or would that just save American soldiers' and marines' lives, without making a bunch of Pentagon insiders rich?
Just asking.
USMC 68-71, Sgt
Dr. Grand an expert, I totally disagree with that characterization. Terminally guided munitions negates much of the fear factor being exploited and ignores other stealth assets in the inventory and the limited use to date in battle. The development of stealth UAV's is a far better investment, takes the person out of the loop and would represent a true leap ahead at reduced cost.
He fired the 2 most senior air force officials for mismanagement of nuclear weapons, and a Sec of the Army for mismanagement of Army personnel. These were not disagreements over policy but bluntly incompetence that could not be ignored.
Dr. Grant is spinning a story and does not sound like a pragmatic analyst and more like an advocate for the status quo.
It's obvious who pays Dr Grant's salary - fat cat defense contractors hoping to engorge themselves off of taxpayer money. The claim that prior budget cuts led to less than 700 F-22s being ordered is absurd. What reduced the number of F-22s being ordered was absurd, bloated, insane Cody overruns. If the Air Force wants to get more whiz bang fighter jets next time, then maybe it should exhibit a little more self discipline than an obese first grader in a candy store and actually supervise its contracts in a responsible manner to make sure they come in on time and on budget. The AF has no one to blame but itself.
"Cody" = "cost". Even iPhone auto-correct doesn't always work perfectly...
The M-16 is really old ya. There are south american and asian countries with newer battle rifles.
Mike: What are you talking about?!!! OF COURSE reducing the number of buys raised the cost... $28 Billion to develop the Raptor divided by the number of units built (187) gives one number, and increasing the buy gives a lower per-unit cost... What you are referring to (McCurdy, not Cody) was a result of the numbers being slashed and the Air Force then being forced to increase the capabilities of the F-22 to compensate... Come on, this is common sense (and math)! Guys like you and Mr. Gates slashed the program and then immediately pointed to the per-unit-cost and then slashed again...If you took the time to look at the Raptor contract, then the target price was $80Million per plane, for a 750-plane build, and since Raptors are delivered ON TIME and ON BUDGET (< $140Mil each, and expected with another 100-copy buy to drop an additional $20Mil per copy), they would be hitting that mark!... Now as for the F-35 that Mr. Gates jerks off to -Just wait 'til THAT pig shows off its fat! It's already over-budget and its engine, avionics, and radar set were derived from the Raptor Program...
Will S, has better watch it. Them defense fat cats dont like little truths like that to spread. The truth is bad for business.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!