Air Force pleas for bigger procurement budgets so far have fallen on deaf ears. But the service can rest assured that virtually none of its major weapon acquisition programs appears to be in financial jeopardy.
“We are holding our own” in modernization funding, said Lt. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition.
“In aggregate, our programs are OK,” Hoffman said.
In that context, it is hard to comprehend why the Air Force says it needs a $100 billion boost to its current budget during the next five years to modernize the fleet.
In 2008, the Air Force is projected to spend nearly $43 billion on new weapon systems — $34 billion in its base budget and about $9 billion that is being sought in the Pentagon’s war emergency funding request, which has not yet been approved by Congress. The entire Air Force’s budget will be about $115 billion — plus $22 billion in war supplemental requests.
Officials acknowledge that while the service is not in crisis today, there are enough warning signals that point to trouble in the future. Of concern is that the service’s purchasing power over time will decline as funds get diverted to pay for larger fuel bills, war operations, health care and aging aircraft maintenance, said Sue C. Payton, the Air Force’s top acquisition executive.
Even though budgets have increased, “there’s more pressure on the dollars,” Hoffman said. “We don’t see enough money to address all the needs.” A reduction of 40,000 airmen was expected to free up funds for procurement programs, but the savings mostly were reallocated to war operations, he noted.
These arguments for the most part have been met with skepticism on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers repeatedly have lectured Air Force officials over the escalating costs of its weapons systems, and have asked for further reforms in acquisition programs.
Service leaders also have been accused of fixating on narrow budget issues while failing to clearly communicate their long-term strategic needs.
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., recently chided Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Secretary Michael Wynne for not imparting “strategic thought” in their presentations to lawmakers.
“I know the gnawing pressure on you is budgetary, but it would help for us to get a picture as to why you are making these decisions based upon solid strategy,” Skelton told them. “Don’t you think we ought to have a basic understanding as to why you need fighters, and how many, why you need tankers, ICBMs, bombers, etcetera, and fit it into the whole picture, and then talk about the budgets?”
One reason why it has been difficult for Air Force officials to articulate their needs is that they do not know what threats they may face in the future.
“They are preparing for the unknown,” said Shaun McDougall, a military budget analyst at Forecast International in Newtown, Conn.
Members of Congress are unconvinced that the Air Force needs $20 billion more per year because they have serious doubts about what the Air Force is trying to prepare for, McDougall said. “Some lawmakers think the current fleet is just fine.”
The Air Force lists as its “top five acquisition priorities” an aerial-refueling tanker, a combat search-and-rescue helicopter, space systems, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a next-generation long-range bomber.
McDougall believes that the Air Force will have no trouble securing funds for the tanker and the helicopter — despite a series of snags and disruptions in both programs — because everyone can see how critical they are in current combat operations. “That’s a very obvious requirement,” he said. Fighters and bombers are a tougher sell and will remain so until a potential peer competitor emerges to challenge U.S. air dominance. “There are still doubts about the needs for next generation systems,” McDougall said.
The KC-X tanker program calls for 179 aircraft, or about one-third of the existing KC-135 fleet. The service is planning to spend about $3 billion per year for 12 to 18 new tankers. Several years from now, a second competition will begin for the acquisition of another 180 to 200 aircraft. The combat search-and-rescue helicopter competition currently under way will result in the procurement of up to 141 aircraft to replace aging HH-60 Pave Hawks.
Airlift programs, also as a result of growing war demands, have moved into the spotlight. In 2007, Congress had approved the production of 10 additional C-17 transports over the 180 aircraft the Air Force was planning to buy, a move that the Air Force had publicly opposed but privately approved.
“We expect Congress to add 10 more aircraft to prevent the production line from shutting down,” McDougall said. “But any additional purchases beyond that depend heavily on the status of the Air Force’s C-5 modernization.” The cost of the upgrades has swelled by at least 50 percent, and the Air Force is trying to figure out whether it should salvage the program.
When the C-5 upgrade effort started, the estimated cost per aircraft was $65 million, Payton said. “That seemed affordable compared to a new C-17,” which costs about $250 million. She blamed the rising costs to engine prices — doubled since 2005 — and the skyrocketing price of titanium, which has shot up 503 percent since 2004.
Payton said the Air Force would like to continue the C-5 upgrades at least to ensure that there is more than one production line for heavy-lift cargo aircraft. “I need competition,” she said. “If the C-5 is cancelled there’s a possibility that the C-17 price will go up.”
Other airlift programs also face challenges. Fiscal 2008 represents the final year of the Air Force’s multiyear C-130J buy, and the future of the program beyond that point remains uncertain, said McDougall.
The Air Force has also had to cut back on its C-130 avionics modernization program. At one time, the Air Force had planned to upgrade more than 400 C-130s — including more than 100 C-130Es, but in early 2007 the service decided to remove the C-130Es from the modernization effort. Upgrades for a number of C-130Hs were also cancelled, to the point that now only 222 C-130Hs are expected to undergo the improvements, he said. As a result, the C-130Es will be retired earlier than previously expected. It remains to be seen whether the Air Force will replace the C-130Es with new C-130Js or C-27 Spartans, said McDougall.
In June 2007, the C-27 was picked as the winner of the Joint Cargo Aircraft competition for the Army and Air Force. “A mix of C-130s and C-27s may be the best option for the Air Force to bolster its tactical airlift fleet,” said McDougall.
The Air Force is continuing procurement of F-22 Raptors, though is still limited to buying 183 aircraft instead of the 381 it said it wants. “The Air Force is already struggling to find funding for its current procurement efforts, so the possibility of convincing lawmakers to allow the purchase of 381 is essentially non-existent,” he said. “There may be a chance for the Air Force to get 50 or so additional aircraft, however, for fears of F-22 production ending before full-rate production of the F-35 Lightning II is able to begin.”
The Air Force is scheduled to buy 1,763 F-35s, though that number could well be reduced by some 300 to 400 aircraft, he suggested. Upgrades and refurbishment of the Air Force’s “legacy” fleet, including its huge inventory of F-15s and F-16s, and A-10 attack aircraft, remain a priority, said McDougall. “These programs compete for dollars with the Air Force’s acquisition budget, but they tend to offer increases in capabilities at a relatively low cost.”
As for the next-generation bomber, the Air Force said it plans to unveil a new design by 2018. “This is a very tight schedule, and the Air Force will have to keep the design fairly simple if it wishes to stick to it,” McDougall said.
In discussions about Air Force modernization plans, military officials and outside experts have called attention to a memo written by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, where he proposes a seven-step get-well program for the Air Force. His comments were part of an “after action report” prepared after visiting air bases and talking with airmen in Iraq.
“The U.S. Air Force is badly under-funded,” he wrote. “Its modernization program is anemic — and its aging strike, lift, and tanker fleets are being ground down by non-stop global operations with an inadequate air fleet and maintenance capabilities.”
Please email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org