First question: What advantage do ICBMs have over SLBMs? Answer: They ensure vast stretches your homeland is targeted by enemy missiles. Even the Mitchell report says if we could only retain one portion of the Triad it would be the SLBMs. Therefore, why not get rid of the ICBMs and keep the bombers? Because, as the Mitchell report points out, the bomber force has been neglected for two generations and a replacement is far off.

Second question: Are we ready to use a sea launched or intercontinental ballistic missile against a small-scale nuclear power?  How would Russia react to ICBMs or SLBMs rising out of Midwest or Atlantic, with only the President’s words over a red phone saying, “Don’t worry, those aren’t for you.” Answer: No, because we’re in a pickle if the Russians say, “If you launch, then we launch on you.” 

Third question: Without a manned strategic (i.e. nuclear) capability, what does that officially make the US Air Force? Answer: An expensive appendix to three entities – Naval Aviation, Army Aviation, and the airlines. This policy has been formalized by the current chief of staff. Re-aligning your entire force structure to be “good helpers” to the other service’s missions at the expense of “Global Reach/Global Power” is no way to ensure the future.

In the Vietnam-era movie Apocalypse Now, the flamboyant character Colonel Kilgore profoundly states, “One day, this war is going to end.”

Our current wars will end, too. When the dust settles, we will find ourselves with an air arm only capable of fighting bush wars, but unable to strike globally at will. This wasn’t the truth twenty years ago, but it’s the truth now. Since sitting on its laurels at the end of Desert Storm the U.S. Air Force has brilliantly succeeded in self-destructing and ceding its mission to the other services. Walking away from a manned, long range strategic and nuclear bomber is the final nail in the coffin.

This morning’s DOD Buzz over at Military.com hints the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will recommend slashing the carrier force from 11 to 9, killing the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, reducing the Joint Strike Fighter pro­gram buy, and chopping two Air Force wings.

The EFV is the centerpiece of the Marines’ future conventional warfare capability. Will the Marines fight for this one? According to DOD Buzz, “Reports are that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway will come out swing­ing to pre­serve the abil­ity to kick down the door and ensure forcible entry from the sea.”  Will Gates fire him? Nope.

After the demise of the F-22 program, the F-35 is the last active production fighter program in the US. The Air Force (after having its n*ts cut off and handed to it by Gates) gently rolled over on the F-22, handed over majority on control of tactical UAVs to the Army, rolled over on CSARX, and got bi*ch-slapped on the tanker. This service will mutter some weak-kneed platitude about “jointness,” meekly cut even more from it’s F-35 program (I’m sure the Navy and Marines will adequately defend their F-35 purchases) as well as a couple of combat wings. Afterwards, to make themselves feel better, the Air Force will issue a new policy about wearing reflective belts.

…Now, sources tell us that OSD may actually chop an additional carrier from the Navy’s battle fleet, a move that would take the force down to nine carriers from the current total of 11…Skipping a future carrier purchase doesn’t save money now. Cutting one flattop from the existing force would.

…For one, the Navy is required by law to maintain 11 carriers… when former CSBA naval analyst and now Navy under secretary, Bob Work, gave his shipbuilding brief earlier this year, he said that if forced by a constrained shipbuilding budget to trim the planned build, he would cut the carrier force to 9.

Work’s former boss at CSBA, the influential Andrew Krepinevich, wrote in the July issue of Foreign Affairs in an article…carriers risk “operational irrelevance” as nations develop improved submarines and increasingly accurate, long-range anti-ship missiles that put the big flattops at risk. (emphasis mine)

Krepinevich’s argument missile technology and submarine proliferation makes flattops irrelevant are the same arguments from the 1970s, when the left tried to kill America’s super carrier programs. How does this make any sense? Aren’t these conventional capabilities the very threats the modern carrier is designed to combat? A third world fleet with a few electric diesels and some shore-to-ship missiles are a pale reflection of the Soviet Fleet at its height (which dared not directly engage a super carrier task force).

The simliar arguments are now turned against the F-22, like in this article from this morning’s Time.com by Mark Thompson:

The Air Force spent years fighting to keep building the $350 million F-22 fighter, an airplane crammed with so much gee-whiz technology there's a law barring it from being sold to any other nation. But since no other nation is building such a plane to challenge it, the F-22 has become a costly investment with an uncertain payoff...now the service is seeking 100 slower, lower-flying and far cheaper airplanes — most likely prop-driven — that it can use to kill insurgents today and use to train local pilots — such as Afghans or Iraqis — tomorrow.

The list of requirements for what the Air Force is calling its Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance plane is fairly basic, and ... must be capable of flying 900-mile missions at up to 200 miles per hour (compared with up to 1500 mph for the F-22), including at night and poor weather. It will carry guns and rockets, along with a pair of 500-pound bombs, according to an Air Force solicitation issued last month. It will have to fly to and from dirt airfields where the only ground support is fuel...

Planes likely to vie for the contract — slated to begin flying in 2012 —include the Kansas-built Hawker Beechcraft T-6, currently the Air Force's basic trainer... This emphasis on down-and-dirty warfare is a real change for the Air Force, which for years has been hyper-focused on building the most sophisticated fighter planes in the world. The military blog Danger Room recently quoted from Air Force studies dating back to 2005 that spoke of the service's "pre-occupation with procurement of the F-22" at the expense of counter-insurgency missions, and its "nasty habit of forgetting the hard-learned lessons of irregular operations..."

The Air Force's new top officer has said this low-tech aircraft "is really consistent with Secretary Gates' thinking" in favor of simple weapons that can be bought quickly and perform more than one mission. A rugged and simple warplane that can be flown against insurgents by U.S. pilots who also train foreign pilots in their own language "is a very attractive way to approach this problem," General Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, said in April.

His civilian boss concurs. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley recently said that such a plane "will help build up the security capabilities of partners facing counter-terrorist operations, counter-insurgency operations." Nations like Afghanistan and Iraq "are not going to be able to — and do not have a need to — operate at that higher end of the conflict spectrum," he added. Nor can they afford to — the $350 million used to buy each of the 187 F-22s will pay for a fleet of about 50 of these planned counter-insurgency warplanes.

First, Mr. Thompson’s assertion that “no other nation is building such a plane to challenge(the F-22)” is dead wrong. How can someone write for a major magazine and blatantly get such a basic fact wrong?About 2 minutes on Google turned up these facts on a challenger to the F-22:

“The PAK FA (or PAK-FA) is a Russian fifth-generation fighter jet ...intended to replace the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian Air Force...”

“On 07 July 2008 Air Force commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said "We will begin test flights [of the new fighter] in 2009, and hope to receive the aircraft in 2013".

The left made the same arguments in the 1970s when they tried to kill the F-15 as “too expensive and too complex.” Thirty years later the mighty F-15 is considered by most has the most successful fighter plane in history. Now the left wants the Air Force to get rid of its premiere fighter capability because there are no peer competitors and it wants the Navy to cut back on its premiere surface capability because there are peer competitors. This is laughable.

The Air Force must make every dollar it spends count. This means pursuing multi-role platforms, like the F-35 and F/A-22 (yes, it was once called the “F/A” for both fighter and attack). These can be used for both air defense and close air support. A little modified T-6 cannot perform ANY other mission than light counter insurgency ops. In this role it will be fodder for AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) and MANPAD (man portable air defense) missiles in any theater of war. The Air Force already has counter-insurgency capabilities it can expand on in the form of the venerable A-10 and the new Reaper UAV. Why not buy more of these?

These arguments are simply smoke screens for cutting weapon systems to fund domestic initiatives. We are repeating the Hollow Force concept under the Carter Administration in the wake of LBJ’s massive “Great Society” domestic programs. In the wake of these decisions we are stripping America of its ability to project strategic power and defend our nation from afar.

Secretary of Defense Gates recently discussed the cancellation of the CSAR-X rescue helicopter program with a group of Air Force officers.

“Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles behind enemy lines by itself to rescue somebody didn’t seem like a realistic op-con,” he said.

If it wasn’t realistic for a helicopter to go alone 250 miles behind enemy lines then US Special Operations Command would have shutdown years ago. Since Vietnam, both special operations and rescue helicopter crews have perfected the art of flying alone and unafraid into enemy territory. Even if it was unrealistic, combat rescue helicopters seldom go alone, but instead operate as part of a combat search and rescue task force, which may include platforms such as unmanned systems, A-10s, and AC-130s.

The secretary also stated the Defense Department would continue to look to improve CSAR, but as a joint operation.  

CSAR, however, is already a joint operation. Because Air Force CSAR assets are low density and high demand they must lean heavily on other services for support. It’s not uncommon for Air Forced HH-60Gs to fight in conjunction with Army Apaches or Marine Corp Cobras or F/A-18s. This joint emphasis is one reason the other services often choose Air Force assets as their first choice for personnel recovery.  If the other services wanted a bigger piece of CSAR it would have happened before now.

The Army, Navy and Marine Corps pour billions into aviation programs they deem important, and vigorously engage in political turf battles to protect them.  The other services have far more helicopters than the Air Force and each, to some extent, dabble in personnel recovery. If they determined CSAR was critical to their operations they could have easily invested more resources and made a serious push to take CSAR from the Air Force. Instead, they’ve been willing to let the Air Force do the heavy lifting for personnel recovery for the same fundamental reason the Secretary of Defense is willing to axe it.

CSAR doesn’t put bombs on target, conquer enemy territory or sink enemy ships. It doesn’t directly add to combat capability, but is an insurance policy for those who do. The Air Force has been willing to foot this expensive bill since Vietnam and the other services have been more than willing to let them do it. Times are tough and the Pentagon is looking for ways to save money, lowering this insurance coverage is one way to do it.

If the rest of the military wasn’t willing to spend the money to bring their assets up to full CSAR capability in the good times, why would they allocate precious resources in the hard times? Just calling CSAR “a joint mission” won’t guarantee one more dime for this most critical of missions.

Gates made his statement to Congress yesterday on his plan for defense spending with few surprises. Let’s revisit my predictions:

1. Some defense spending will remain strong, even as the budget shrinks. This will only be for certain mature programs and only in key democratic districts. 

Defense spending will increase by 4% in real dollars. That’s about par with inflation (depending on whose inflation numbers one uses), though smaller than the service chiefs asked for.

The F-35 program will increase. The tanker program survives. The Navy can keep its 11-carrier fleet and buy more F/A-18s. Its new destroy will be scaled back, not cut, and it can resume building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Army’s future combat system will also be scaled back. The Marines will lose the new presidential helicopter program but, with the Army, will boost force strength. Special operations and intelligence assets also get a big boost.

Now its congresses turn. In the end they have the final say. I think they will go along with most (but not all) of Gates’ recommendations due to tremendous pressure from the White House. Any changes will be to align spending and programs with districts of the democratic majority. We will know for sure by fall of this year.

2. 'Big programs, small programs, nothing will be sacred. Expect early retirement for various weapon systems. This will not impact democratic districts. Don’t hold your breath on a new rescue helicopter unless the HH-47 wins. Parts of it are made in Murtha’s state of PA.

Murtha was out with knee surgery and the entire Air Force rescue helicopter went down in flames. In fact, only the Air Force took major force-wide hits. Only its tanker program made it out unscathed (the F-35 is a joint program with Navy, Marines and U.K.). The F-22 was terminated – no more will be built. The C-17 was terminated – no more will be built. Missile defense – gutted. The new bomber – scrapped. New transformational satellite program – scrapped. Over 200 front line fighters – retired. It was another bad day for the Air Force.

3. Rep. Barney Frank’s comment about a 25% cut in overall defense spending will come true, but not in the baseline budget. Expect the wartime supplemental spending to plummet as troops come home from Iraq.

Supplemental spending debate doesn’t begin in earnest until later this spring…more to follow here.

What do I think about all these changes Sec. Gates is making? I’m still digesting his proposals, but I don’t think he had much choice. I’ll discuss this in more detail later.

This weekend and over the next month they’ll send their high-powered lobbyist to gain assurances from their pet senators and congressmen that their key programs will remain safe from any future cuts.  Our legislators will try to put on their best face and tell them all is well. All the while they’ll quietly send their staffers to the Pentagon...Those staffers will tell the Pentagon budget planners…to start planning deep cuts. They’ll give these planners draconian bottom lines and tell them to meet them - period...Over the next few months rumors of the deep budget cuts will seep outside the Pentagon. Small programs, big programs – nothing will be sacred...The Air Force will get hit hardest since it’s currently the least favored branch among the political elites.... Don’t hold your breath on a new replacement rescue helicopter...Expect early retirement for various weapons systems...

Let’s see where we stand one month and over a trillion dollars later:

(Leaders) will assure defense contractors defense spending will remain strong: According to Rueters, "U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gateson Tuesday struck an upbeat note about the future outlook for U.S. defense spending, citing strong bipartisan support for U.S. national security goals." 

Deep defense cuts: I guess Sec. Gates hasn't been talking to the movers and shakers in the upcoming Democratic congressional super-majority. Two weeks ago this story hit the papers:  "After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday...(He) also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs..."

Congress is already looking for offsets to pay for the bailout and stimulus packages.

 'Big programs, small programs, nothing will be sacred'…expect early retirement for various weapon systems’: According to Inside Defense and the Air Force Times, the service will cut over 300 frontline fighter aircraft by 2010, almost a decade ahead of schedule. This is about 15% of the services fighter force, significant by any standard.

Don’t hold your breath on a new rescue helicopter:  On 23 October the Washington Times reported the Air Force postponed awarding the CSAR-X helicopter until sometime next year, leaving it for the next presidential administration. The tanker is also now delayed until the next administration is seated.

1. After the election the Pentagon likely faces an openly hostile congress and administration in time of active war. Rep. Barney Frank’s 25% cut comment is a clear message of things to come.
2. Never has the Pentagon had to maintain a sustained forward force posture and active combat operations while America was so deep in debt (public and private).
3. Never has so much of that debt been held by potential hostile powers. He who holds the debt makes the rules.
4. Never has America experienced a deep recession as a consumer, not manufacturing or farming, economy. The Pentagon keeps many of America’s remaining heavy industry on life support, what happens to them in a shrinking economy and lower defense spending is uncertain.
5. The Pentagon has yet to factor in the new realities of global free trade into its acquisitions or defense posture. Its current budgeting and acquisitions framework hasn’t fundamentally changed since America was a creditor nation and General Motors ruled the world.
6. Never has the Pentagon had to rely of foreign sources, many potentially hostile for three critical items: funding (via investment in US debt), energy, and critical technologies. This is the true national security issue of our time.
7. What happens if we enter a period of increased inflation due to our current massive bailout and stimulus spending? This is a real possibility. A severely weakened dollar will discourage foreign (i.e. Chinese) investment in the debt & dollar. Inflation makes everything more expensive – like fuel for fighter jets or computer chips for guidance systems. A defense budget passed one year may assume a 5% inflation rate, but face 10% inflation when executed. Though the government doesn’t officially factor it in, energy is one of the biggest drivers for actual inflation.
8. Never has the Pentagon had to rely on an all-volunteer force during times of sustained combat operations. This has resulted in enormous personnel costs for a relatively small force. The only good news here is a poor economy makes for good recruiting and gives the Pentagon more flexibility in reigning in benefits.

All of these factors will come into play in the next 24 months and beyond to reshape how America defends herself and her global interests. I won’t venture anymore predictions other than hold on…its going to be a bumpy ride.

REGARDING MANPOWER & ACCOUNTABLITY…

Congress just announced its new defense budget and guess what’s missing? About 11,500 Airmen. The Air Force is only authorized 317,050 manpower positions, not the 328,600 promised by Secretary of Defense Gates. This is because someone sort of ‘forgot’ to ask congress for the additional cash. Really, someone actually forgot to ask.

No big deal, at least according to service officials. In time of war there isn’t an ‘end strength’ cap, so they can keep to positions…if they can find the money. I doubt congress will be very generous after dropping over $700 billion on bad loans this weekend. Many not know this, but even before the massive bailout plan the defense budget was already slated to shrink. According to InsideDefense.com the White House “assumed the base budget -- adjusted for inflation -- will decline in FY-10 and continue to shrink through FY-13…projected ‘negative growth’ in defense spending.” No, the only way we’ll get cash for bodies is to take it out of hide. This means cutting other programs, but what’s left to cut? 

In what is being hailed as ‘great leadership’ Gen Schwartz spoke at the 2008 Air & Space Conference demanding greater accountability in ‘all matters large and small.’ I think someone forgetting to ask for money for 11,500 bodies qualifies as a large matter.

REGARDING ACQUISITIONS…

In the same Air Force Time article there was a little blurb at the end stating congress is directing the service to keep 74 retired KC-135 tankers ‘ready to fly.’ The Shreveport Times reported on 16 September the service is considering starting the new tanker bidding process anew.  These two items, in technical terms, are known as ‘Bad Ju Ju.’ They mean don’t hold you breath on a new tanker.

The CSAR-X Air Force Helicopter program continues to flounder. This is from the 18 September Wall Street Journal:

The Pentagon may hold off on awarding a $15 billion U.S. Air Force rescue-helicopter contract this fall if it is likely that the losing bidders could successfully protest the decision for a third time, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer said Wednesday.

During an interview, John Young, the Defense Department's top weapons buyer, said he had no reason right now to believe the selection won't pass muster, but his office isn't taking any chances. "If we think there's risk there, it won't go forward," he said.

The Air Force can’t buy satellites either. According to the 22 September Bloomberg.com the awarding of the Transformational Communications Satellite has been delayed again. It was originally slated for launch in 2009. They’ll be lucky for a 2015 launch date now. According to Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions John Young, “(The Air Force is) playing budget games'' … ``We are letting budget processes deter efficient execution of acquisition programs that are trying to meet (valid needs).”

No tanker, no helicopter, no satellites. No future?

REGARDING COMBAT OPERATIONS…

A few days ago I predicted the bailout plan would have dire implications for defense spending, including sustaining combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently, I’m not alone in that assessment. This comes from the 27 September San Diego Union-Tribune:

In an interview, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said a precipitous withdrawal could have consequences for the country and the region that everyone would regret afterward.

China just successfully completed its first spacewalk mission. NASA will retire the space shuttle in about 36 months. The US will have no manned space launch vehicle for the foreseeable future and will hitch rides with our dear friends the Russians.

PARTING THOUGHTS…

Is anyone paying attention? Does anyone get it?  I don’t think so. At the recent Air and Space Conference all the service’s 4-star generals held an open forum. You can read the transcript here. To summarize, they said their systems are old and they need more money. Agreed. Then moderator asked them ‘if you had one more dollar to spend, what would you spend it on?” Each general responded with an item important to his command. 

It seems to me they are unable to spend the money they have right now. Literally unable. What good are billions of dollars if you can’t successfully bid a contract?