Air Force Blues

The Air Force is feeling a little unloved these days. Ever since its patron saint SecDef Rumsfeld left, they just aren't the Big Man On Campus anymore. The Air Force Chief of Staff pre-emptively attacked possible suggestions that his service could do with a little less since the ground pounders were pushing for more money - you know, for repaired equipment, fuel, bullets, the little things in life that make combat more successful.

During a Jan. 18 closed-door meeting with the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mosely said the Air Force already is facing a budgetary crisis and needs significantly more money to maintain the force and prepare for future threats. In an 11-page opening statement obtained by CongressDaily, Moseley emphasized that the Air Force is vital to overseas operations and urged that air superiority is crucial to protecting ground troops.

"Those who argue for shortchanging the Air Force to finance a national ground forces 'reset' would, quite literally, risk the lives of soldiers and Marines -- not to mention sailors, Coast Guardsmen and airmen," Moseley said. The Air Force, he added, reassures allies, while deterring and defeating enemies. "Its recapitalization is an urgent national security need, not a discretionary luxury," he said.

Moseley's remarks follow moves by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker to increase his service's share of the defense budget. The technology-heavy Air Force and Navy have traditionally enjoyed the largest share of the basic annual Defense budget -- roughly 30 percent each -- while the manpower-intensive Army typically receives less than 25 percent. But the Army chief, who is expected to retire soon, has argued that he does not want to prompt a battle among the services for defense dollars.

Now far be it for me to suggest that the Air Force doesn't do its share of the heavy lifting. Of course we need a modern and equipped Air Force to maintain air superiority over the battlefield. You can't win a war without the Air Force. On the other hand, I really have to take exception when the pilot mafia decides that their sleek combat systems feature combating WMD and combating terrorism capabilities. Just because you can hit targets on the ground doesn't make you a value-added commodity. I only say this because of this LA Times news article:

The Air Force is preparing for an expanded role in Iraq that could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants, senior Pentagon officials said.

The efforts could include more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran, a senior Pentagon official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing future military plans.

Such missions also could position the Air Force to strike suspected bomb suppliers inside Iraq to deter Iranian agents that U.S. officials say are assisting Iraqi militias, outside military experts said.

Indiscriminate use of air power in Afghanistan and Iraq have already caused considerable "collateral damage" to both the nations' infrastructures and to the civilian populace. The Air Force, in its struggle to maintain relevancy in a combating terrorism situation, refuses to take the example of how the Israeli air strikes really haven't helped solve the Palestinian crisis there. So it's continuing down the path of "we must be seen as relevant" to take shots at suspected Iranian smugglers coming into Iraq with bomb parts (yes, those smugglers that the British military, patrolling that sector, haven't seen).

Now it's bad enough to think that these Iranians will be marked distinctly from the civilian traffic, but what happens when an Air Force pilot hits a target within Iran? You know it's only a matter of time before a pilot, in "hot pursuit" of a bad guy, does exactly that. And I could understand this tactic if the Air Force were using A10 Thunderbolts, the ideal air platform for ground targets, but I somehow don't think that's the case here. I'm sure the Air Force will be using its high-performance fighters to show how it needs the F-22 and F-35 future fighters. Escalating tensions in the Middle East to justify the budget - way to go, zoomies. Way to go.

UPDATE: Rob Farley at LGM agrees.

Comments

[sglover]

"Escalating tensions in the Middle East to justify the budget - way to go, zoomies. Way to go."

But isn't this the essence of aviator mentality?

Y'know, rather than quibbling about its share of the trough, I think we ought to be asking whether an independent Air Force is even a good idea any more. Oh yeah, I know, deep interdiction, air superiority (er, "dominance", nowadays), -- all the old Cold War mantras. The ghost of the sainted Gen. Billy Martin notwithstanding, I see no good reason why we shouldn't go back to something like the old Army Air Corps. But failing that, I'd at least like to see the idea tossed around. I keep hearing how "9/11 changed everything", but so far it only seems to mean that all the same institutions get bigger budgets.

[James]

sqlover: an independent air force was always a mistake. WW2 was riddled with devastating rivalries involving independent air forces and air force generals who obstinately refused to learn anything interesting about any other service. Why the US eagerly replicated the error of both ally and enemy is a mystery.

This new demand isn't really unexpected. The practice of "front-loading" a budget is well-known and studied. In essence, programs are started with overoptimistic budget assumptions that will require Congress, in the future, to either kill the program or increase funding. Of course, they usually increase funding. This is a common peacetime tactic but, this allegedly being wartime, you would think the DoD would feel compelled to play honestly.

The Army can give a list of equipment lost and damaged, personnel killed or wounded, and hours run up on vehicles to explain exactly why they need more money. The Air Force can only hang its head and explain that they didn't do their math right when they planned their future force.

[vincente]

Oh brother.

Rumsfeld? The "patron saint of the AF"?! QDR ring any bells?

Just out of curiosity, since I've heard this "let's break up the AF" routine a few times, who would get what assets? Who gets mobility? Who handles refueling? Tac air? Long range strike?

The Navy and Marines are already trying it with their aviation assets, and from the looks of things, they've got a long way to go.

V

[Robot.Economist]

I'll cop to a groundpounder mentality, but I think an independent Air Force is a good idea. If your goal is to improve military performance through increased competition, having 3 armed services instead of 2 would appear the make sense.

The problem is when you let the zoomboys get away with this putting-all-of-eggs-in-the-F22-and-next-gen-hypersonic-bomber strategy they've been pulling since 2001. The civilians in the SecDef's office need to be willing to put the Air Force (or any service for that matter) in its place when they go off base like that.

As for the zoomies themselves, they need to get out of this pilot and platform-centric mindset. Sure, the B-52 and F-15/16 are old platforms, but the munitions they carry are state-of-the-art. Innovating on the munitions front have yielded huge returns-on-investment (you can't beat the GPS-guided JDAM at $18,000 a pop).

[J.]

Hey V, I'm not advocating an independent AF, just a responsible one. The QDR didn't mean crap, no one is using it to change/direct defense policy. As RE notes, the AF is just too platform specific - do you ever notice that the AF general officer bios always stress how many flying hours they have on each plane? Come on. We have air superiority anywhere we go, can't we build good planes that aren't $250 million a pop?

I understand the need for long-term planning, but if we are ever to get out of the Cold War mindset and given that we need to fix the Army and Marine Corps significant personnel and equipment issues, either one of two things has to happen. Either the AF can reign in its overly-ambitious offensive modernization program, or we can raise the defense budget by another $50-100 billion. Which way you think we ought to go?

[bill_fogarty]

Cut out a dozen of the horrendously expensive flyboy F-22 platforms (which is nothing but corporate welfare to Lockheed Martin) and you could fund quite just about a whole Marine Corps division.

All these goddamn Air Force generals go to work at Lockheed after they retire - hell their buddies are already there, so the F-22 is just another massive transfer of US taxpayer wealth to a private corporation.

[RTO Trainer]

F-35 or F-22.

Pick ONE.

[James]

RTO Trainer: pick the CHEAPER one.

[Andy]

Wow, so much ignorance I have to respond:

"Indiscriminate use of air power in Afghanistan and Iraq have already caused considerable "collateral damage" to both the nations' infrastructures and to the civilian populace."

Evidence please? Keep in mind that we've flown over 10000 sorties in Iraq alone. What percentage of those were "indiscriminate?" Cite your figures please. Also, approximately 25% of sorties were flown by Navy and Marine aircraft - are you including them in your "indiscriminate" category?

"Now it's bad enough to think that these Iranians will be marked distinctly from the civilian traffic, but what happens when an Air Force pilot hits a target within Iran? You know it's only a matter of time before a pilot, in "hot pursuit" of a bad guy, does exactly that."

That won't happen. There are rules, technology and command and control designed to specifically prevent that kind of occurance. When I was in the Navy during 1990's I saw a pilot almost lose his wings for violating the buffer zone around Iranian airspace - a buffer zone put in place to prevent accidental airspace penetrations.

Robot Economist said:

"The problem is when you let the zoomboys get away with this putting-all-of-eggs-in-the-F22-and-next-gen-hypersonic-bomber strategy they've been pulling since 2001. The civilians in the SecDef's office need to be willing to put the Air Force (or any service for that matter) in its place when they go off base like that."

The F-22 has actually been in development since the 1980's and the operational requirements for the aircraft have changed significantly since the end of the cold war (which have driven up costs). The fact is, the Air Force does need a replacement for the F-15. If not the F-22 then what aircraft? Should we scrap the billions in development money and start anew? The F-22 as originally designed was going to be just an air superiority fighter. Now, though, it's a multirole aircraft and will excel as a double-digit SAM killer.

As for the F-35, it's a Joint project between the Marine's, Navy and Air Force, so it seems pretty unfair to single-out the F-35 WRT the Air Force.

Finally, missing from this debate altogether is the role of Congress. Who do you think funds all this? How often does Congress buy equipment the services don't want and cancel programs it does want? People can sit and blame the Generals all they want, but it is their job to advocate for their respective service. The ultimate responsibility lies with Congress, which has consistently squandered money and pandered to the interests of the defense industry. Beleive me, no one is more unhappy about the cost overruns of the F-22 than the Air Force since it can't buy as many planes as it says it needs.

It's always interesting how budget priorities change with current events. In the 1990's the ground forces were cut because Congress and "experts" (including many progressives) thought we didn't need as many anymore. I wonder what people who throw criticism now will say about a future war where ground forces are not used and if they'll complain about over-funding the "greedy" Army at the expense of the other services.

Finally, I agree with the characterization that the Air Force is run by a "pilot mafia." It does suck and the Air Force certainly has problems, but let's be fair, ok?

[bill_fogarty]

One of the biggest sources of failure - yes FAILURE - in our modern military, and the generals are pretty much the ones to blame is the obsession with the latest and greatest technological silver bullets. Yeah, we've organized our military as a lean, mean, high-tech force with enormous firepower, lightning mobility....and basically piss-poor for the kind of wars we will actually have to fight.

But no matter, we have flacks from the PR departments of Lockheed and Raytheon to help in this. They recognize that an advanced fighter plane costing two hundred fifty million dollars, invisible to radar, able to cruise at supersonic speed, is exactly the thing for fighting a sniper in shack in Baghdad.

What a crock of sh**. And Congress is to blame for much of it. A Republican Congress, I might add - as they've pretty much been in power since 1994.

[Andy]

Bill do eloquently displays the point I just made about weapon development timelines. Congress, the military or anyone else cannot create the ideal force for a particular war in the middle of it. All this debate and hand-wringing about why we're buying weapons that don't apply to the war we're in now miss the basic fact procurement and R&D investments we make in this budget cycle are not realized for for anywhere from a couple of years to decade or more. Perhaps he doesn't remember the 1990's when few, and particularly not Democrats, either wanted or thought we needed a large Army. Turns out they were wrong, for this war at least. Now the pendulum swings the other way and we try to reorganize the force for the war we're fighting now, but by the time we do it will be over. Who's to say this newly expanded Army will be useful in our next conflict? Given the political conditions in this country and the sentiment of the populace, it will be a very long time indeed before we'll engage in another large ground war (barring existential threats of course).

[tocx]

One LA Times article and you are convinced the AF should play a lesser role. Nice. Personally, I'm for disbanding the military all together. American doesn't put nearly as much money into the military and many other developing nations, like China. 3-4% of the budget...yes, that is alot. But what I want to know is where the rest goes?

Right now, the U.S. Military is at war (.1% of the U.S. population), the government is divided, and the people want us to pull out of a war they haven't really participated in anyway (except for the two minutes per night they watch the news).

And no, the military isn't to blame for this debacle. It is the government and people with their desire to handle this in a politically correct manner. Here's a thought -- Either we take the gloves off and fight this like a war, or learn to like Chinese food.