By all accounts, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been a breath of fresh air at the Pentagon, especially considering the veil trail of bureaucratic tears left by his predecessor. Compared to Donald Rumsfeld, Gates has proven much more likely to listen to the advice of the service chiefs, and the new Secretary projects an aura of earnest, professional competence. He’s apparently an easy man to work for.
Which doesn’t make him a pushover, however. When problems with standards of care at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center pointed to leadership failure, he swiftly tubed then Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey. And when the four star commander of the Air Force Material Command recently told industry reporters that the USAF would buy twice as many F-22 Raptors as were in the President’s Budget, the Secretary reacted quickly:
One senior defense official called the remarks by Gen. Bruce Carlson, who heads the Air Force command responsible for testing and developing new weapons, “borderline insubordination,” because they contradicted a decision by the president.
In its 2009 budget submitted to Congress earlier this month, the White House approved multiyear plans to buy 183 of the stealthy new fighters at an estimated $140 million apiece. Many Air Force officials, however, continue to insist they need 381 of the F-22s to deter global threats.
The rebuke by Gates on Thursday, in a telephone call to Carlson’s superior, reflects a deepening debate within the Defense Department over the direction of the military in the post-Iraq era. In particular, the clash over the F-22 — the Air Force’s premier fighter plane — has become a microcosm of the argument over what kind of wars the United States is likely to encounter in the future.
The general – whose command is much more concerned with future acquisition against future threats than current combat operations – is probably very right on his operational analysis. Quantity has a quality all its own in combat, even for world-beaters like the F-22. Two dozen of the fighters will be dedicated to pilot training and therefore probably never leave the US. That leaves about six heavy squadrons worth of airframes, only half of which could be deployed on any kind of sustained rotational basis. It’s difficult to imagine putting all of our advanced fighter eggs in one theater basket even if there is a sudden crisis in the geopol – the USAF intends to be a world-wide presence.
From a cost-as-an-independent-variable perspective, unit costs at acquisition are higher much higher with a smaller production run, since research and development costs – always the pig in the snake of program dollars – are amortized over fewer airframes. Production costs increase because the “learning curve” has less iterations over which to gain manufacturing efficiencies. Smaller production runs also affect lifecycle cost of ownership since usage rates and fatigue life are spread over fewer aircraft. “Red stripes” or groundings, affect greater proportions of smaller production pools, hurting readiness rates even as they increase usage rates for non-grounded aircraft. And production lines – the cheapest way to buy spare parts – are more swiftly shut down on limited runs, leaving the service to buy one-off spares from hideously expensive mom and pop-style operations.
So there are many operational reasons to want 380 or so Raptors vice the 183 in the budget. There is, however, one overriding strategic reason not to do so: Dad said no. There’s a reason why the Constitution enshrines civilian control of the military, and UCMJ statutes against insubordination don’t run out of force when you pin on your fourth star, as Douglas MacArthur discovered in his time.
But the USAF plays the government game as well or better than any of the services, with the possible exception of the Marine Corps, God bless their leathery hearts. And General Carlson – who is coming up on 37 years of service – didn’t manage to pin on his fourth star by navigating through the Pentagon’s bureaucratic minefields by feeling around with his bare feet. The General has tacitly placed his stars on the table, and made a political statement for consumption by the next administration. Whether that was a courageous and principled move or a costly and foolhardy one is something we will soon see, I suspect.
All eyes are on the land forces, as soldiers and Marines continue to gut it out in Afghanistan and Iraq, burning up material that will have to be replaced. Meanwhile, the USAF and USN continue to quietly provide elevated levels of combat support, all the while watching the usage rates increase on aging ships and airplanes. These usage rates lead to higher operations and greatly higher than projected maintenance costs which in turn negatively impact procurement of newer, cheaper to operate replacements.
Vicious cycle.
USAF plays their political games recklessly, in my opinion. They squander their own credibility by stretching the truth in every flag-level brief they give. Personally, I take every USAF pitch with a 1-ton block of salt.
The Corps, on the other hand, has made a science out of putting the right smart Marine (ret) in the right job at key political nodes. The Corps has the best “insider network” of any group anywhere. The whole “dumb Marine” B.S. is a clever ruse.
I’m actually impressed to see this. We’ve been debating recently what happened to officers who put principle before careers. While the later Macarthur incident is of note, in the depths of the depression (1934?) while Army Chief Of Staff, FDR proposed cutting yet again the officer corps to a level McA thought dangerous. Making a comment that when an American boy lay dying with a Japanese bayonet at his throat he wanted his last curse to be Roosevelt not MacArthur. FDR backed off and the Secretary of the Army exclaimed that McA had saved it.
Would any senior officer repeat this (the world wonders)
Kinda reminds me of the “revolt of the Admirals”.
God knows we need at least 380 Raptors. If we choose to buy them now, even over a fairly long period, that would greatly drive down the unit cost. Unfortunatley, what they might do is wait till the last damn second, then decide to stretch the line by dribs and drabs. That uncertainty will end up causing small suppliers to close their lines or otherwise have inefficiencies. The unit price will actually increase in real dollars. Leave it to DOD and the Congress to find the most expensive way to do business.
From what I’ve read in the open press, it sounds like Gordon England has an agenda in shutting down the Raptor, and it may not be one based on the best interests of the service. You are right that once the boss speaks, the generals have to toe the line, but I also think they have a duty to call ‘em as they see ‘em. If the general says 183 isn’t enough, I’m pretty willing to listen.
The big thing with the Raptor buy is the question of how many Eagles are going to remain flying for any length of time.
The problem with everything forward of the intakes falling off the aircraft has been dealt with – a subcontractor oh-so-many years ago simply didn’t make the part to spec and it’s finally started failing.
But that doesn’t mean that they still aren’t getting any younger.
You got “Raptor on your mind”…..
Look what’s #1 on the USN “trail o’tears”:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/navy_unfunded_080214w/
“Unprogrammed”, “unmitigated” and unlikely to get better- any time soon. Open the .pdf and view the “details”, “teamate”. Serious stuff.
re Gates: I’ll bet he’s easier to work for than Rummy o’course but he should of worn those those funky old man shoes Rummy does with the rubber soles! ..He fell in the Pentagon parking lot a couple days ago during the local ice storm. Betcha someone lost their job over not getting the salt out early! Same injury my wife got 7 weeks ago…ouch.
b2
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 02/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
The General placed his stars on the table? Puh-leeze. He’s going to retire anyway, and no one is going to take any of those stars away from him. Yes, the AF could probably use a much larger production run of F-22s, but they also have a screaming requirement for airlift and tankers that’s still being shorted, as well as everything else all the other services need. Tell the general to take a number, he’s in the same lottery as the rest of the four stars out there.
Well said, Lex, on all counts… procurement issues, the need, economy-0f-scale, and the General’s “brass” for contradicting his superiors. Thanks for this!
That said, I remain ever the pedant.
I dunno, Zane, your man isn’t exactly walking the tightrope with a net underneath him. There’s big difference between retiring as a four star and being eased out with one or two on your collar.
Pour encourager les autres, that sort of thing.
Lex, you seriously think he’s in any danger of losing a star? Or follow-on contractor job? Good for him for standing up for what he sees as the best interest of his service and his nation, but I just don’t see any real risks on his part. The only thing anyone loses stars over is wimmin, aka witches, and there don’t seem to be any involved in this story. Yet.
badbob – What’s really interesting on that list is the data CNO blanked out prior to its release. Also, all of the items proposed by the services that didn’t make the list. (saw several drafts of said list)
BT
Re: the F-22s and the AF. For the last few years our AF has been trading endstrength to pay for some of those expensive birds.
There’s also a very good debate going on about KC-767 (Boeing) vs. KC-30 (Airbus). For a later date though.
Well, the staffer was not too bright. Left the total and only blanked out one value. Oops!
Looks like the SSBN offshore support vessels are $64M.
What is realy kind of sad in a way is that Gates is only here till the end of the Bush administration IMHO. Even if McCain wins the election, I think he has decided, that he will be through with his role as fireman by then.
Gates is definately better than his predecessor. All he would have to do is fire Dr Chu and he would qualify for sainthood in my book.
I noticed with interest that one of the items was 8 C-130J’s for the Naval Reserve.
I have a better idea-get the USAF to stop charging the other services for airlift and use the Navy money for more pressing aircraft needs.
The Navy’s problem is not lack of available airlift-it is because the reserves don’t allow it to be used effciently because there masters have turned it into a jobs program for the Naval reserve.
The whole explanation takes longer than I have here-but on this, I know I am right.
Budgets have to go up to keep things at the level they are now, let alone improve. If we cheat and string things out or do only half-measures, we’re going to get hurt – and that will probably mean loosing people; doing it right and doing it soon means we only risk money.
Amen! If the Democrats weren’t complicit in the affair, they could obliterate Bush with what has been done to the armed services. We’ve got 20 years of neglect to repair.