Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Air Force Chief: Time to Stop Talking and Start Making Strategy, Budget Choices
Air Force Chief: Time to Stop Talking and Start Making Strategy, Budget Choices
By Sandra I. Erwin

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh

The topic has been discussed ad nauseam: How should the nation’s armed forces be sized and shaped for a post-war future of shrinking budgets?

Washington is happy to keep the debate going, but the military would like policy makers to make up their minds and stop playing political football with the Pentagon’s budget.

“Most of us in the business are tired of talking about this,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh. “Let's just figure out where we are going, and get moving,” he said June 17 at a breakfast meeting organized by the Air Force Association.

As the Obama administration and Congress remain at loggerheads over next year’s spending levels for the entire federal government, the Pentagon is headed into its third year of fiscal uncertainty. And it is scrambling to comply with mandatory spending cuts that Congress approved in August 2011 but the Defense Department ignored until December 2012.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered a “strategic choices and management review” that will influence the Pentagon’s 2014 budget request, but is not likely to result in any sweeping recommendations on how to retool the military in the long term.

For now, the Air Force and the other services are stuck in strategic paralysis. “Hopefully [we’ll know] what the joint force should look like in the future,” Welsh said.

The longer decisions are postponed, the more difficult it will be for the military to figure out how to resize and invest for the future, Welsh said. “It'll take a while to turn the ship.”

The budget stalemate of the past three years has been especially damaging to military combat readiness, he said. Congress has blocked Air Force proposals to shut down unneeded bases and retire aging airplanes. To comply with the automatic sequester cuts in 2013, the Air Force has grounded combat squadrons and furloughed civilian employees. The consequences of not being able to train are going to become more pronounced in the next year or two, as more pilots see their skills erode, said Welsh. “If you're going to do a no-fly zone anywhere, you probably want your air force ready to go,” he said, alluding to the possibility that U.S. forces might be ordered to set up a no-fly zone over Syria to help rebels who are trying to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

“The big impact [on force readiness] will be next year and the year after if we don't fix this soon,” Welsh said. These training cuts also are putting the Air Force in a deeper financial hope, he said, as the cost to retrain a squadron is two-and-a-half times higher than to keep it trained.

Air Force leaders have kicked off their own management review, called “Air Force 2023” that is looking at how the service would adapt to 10 years of sequester cuts. That means making budgetary tradeoffs, Welsh said. “If you turn up the modernization dial, you get smaller,” he said. “If you shift [more missions] to the reserves, you can keep capacity.” These are complex decisions, he said, because even though reservists and Air National Guard forces cost less than active-duty troops, they impose other expenses such as bases and infrastructure. “Anyone who claims to know the answer to these cost [issues] doesn't know what they're talking about,” said Welsh.

“We have a lot of money,” he said. But not every program will survive. “We are looking at everything,” said Welsh.

Outside experts predict that perpetual indecision about funding levels and future missions will stir up more turf battles among the services. In the current environment, the military services are in competition with each other, rather than working as a team to accomplish national security goals, said an industry insider in an off-the-record discussion. That is partly because “We, as a nation, are unable to bring into focus just what are the threats in response to which we are to build a force structure,” he said. “The Air Force continues to spend an irrational amount of its 'portion' of the defense pie on 5th and 6th generation high technology, manned airborne weapons the utility of which in this century is highly doubtful. Meanwhile, it has an urgent need to replenish its inventory after two decades and after two wars,” he said. “It cannot accomplish any of those objectives if, literally, it does not 'know what it is doing.’ … The default posture for the Air Force is to continue to do almost precisely what it has been doing for the last 20 years.”

In his speech to the Air Force Association, Welsh did suggest that he is ready to fight those turf battles if need be. “We hear comments all the time from people [who point out that] 70 percent of the world is covered by water,” said Welsh, citing a statistic oft mentioned by Navy and Marine Corps leaders. “That’s interesting … but 100 percent [of the planet] is covered by air and space, and now cyber,” he said. “That's important to us. … Only the Air Force can provide air superiority, space superiority, only the Air Force can hold any target on Earth at risk,” said Welsh. “The other services bring other things, but they don't bring this.”

Mark Gunzinger, a retired Air Force colonel and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the Pentagon no longer has the luxury of indulging in institutional inertia as generals and admirals seek to preserve their programs.

The Defense Department’s strategic reviews that Congress mandates every four years mostly have preserved the status quo. There is a “reluctance to address controversial roles and missions issues, Gunzinger said last week during a presentation on Capitol Hill.

This year, the Pentagon will conduct yet another Quadrennial Defense Review that is expected to produce guidance for how the military should size and shape its future forces. “Much of this debate has been focused on the ‘how many wars’ question,” he said, such as whether the United States ought to be prepared to fight two major regional contingencies.

Gunzinger said a fresh thinking is needed this time. “Almost 60 years ago, Samuel P. Huntington warned that services lacking compelling strategic concepts risk losing their purpose and may end up wallowing about amid a variety of conflicting and confusing goals,” he said. A novel approach to the QDR, he said, “would provide the services with opportunities to assess where they have excessive overlap in forces and capabilities [and make decisions that] will shape the U.S. military for the future, rather than for the past.”

The Air Force, for example, “could create a new strategic concept that explains how it intends to … strike the full range of fixed, mobile, hardened, or deeply buried targets in the increasingly contested airspace of the Western Pacific,” Gunzinger wrote in a CSBA study. “Together, the Navy and Air Force might flesh out how they could act as a global swing force capable of rapidly deploying across overseas theaters of operation.”

Photo Credit: National Guard


Re: Air Force Chief: Time to Stop Talking and Start Making Strategy, Budget Choices

Future DoD needs to drop active Army into the US National Guard.  Army is a legacy OrgOps system that is better used for domestic contingency/disaster missions.  Cavalry is part of history, now the Army is a very expensive legacy system looking for a modern mission.  USAF and USN should split the global power projection mission on land from USA States and Territories / Islands.  USAF air dominance and lift should cover land missions with appropriate US National Guard units in areas without ocean deep-water port access.  USN sea dominance and lift should cover land missions with the USMC in areas with ocean deep-water port access.  Close all US Active Army installations, except training facilities.  Close all USAF bases globally, except the 50 States and Territories / Islands.  Close all USN and USMC globally, except the 50 States and Territories / Islands.  DoD needs to make the DLA the one and only global logistics sustainment department for USAF and USN.  Move all DoD, USAF, and USN information / data technology application requirements under DoD CIO.  Retain program management, sustainment, and training under DoD, USAF, and USN weapon systems developers.  Move RDEC and mission requirements development and design under DARPA and US Academia special projects.  Allow industry / manufacturing production relationships only for DLA, DoD CIO, and DARPA.  The DoD budget could be cut by half and The USA Military (IMO) will still be the best in the world.  DoS and DoD together could determine all military assistance grants and annual budget.
Adelo Vant at 6/17/2013 3:34 PM

Re: Air Force Chief: Time to Stop Talking and Start Making Strategy, Budget Choices

Let me clarify his remark that reserve units should cost less, but often cost more. My recent blog post:

"A great example of an unneeded base is the one for the Delaware Air National Guard, yes I'm picking on that state again. It was founded in 1946 at the New Castle Army Airfield with the 142nd Fighter Squadron, and an authorized strength of 49 officers and 263 enlisted men. It converted to an airlift wing after the Korean war, and now operates eight C-130 aircraft with a crew of five each. These 166th Airlift Wing aircraft have a total of 40 crewmen, and along with maintenance and headquarters personnel, perhaps some 200 airmen are needed for this squadron.

So why does it have 1100 airmen assigned, and 294 are full-time personnel, more than the manning requirements for an active duty C-130 squadron! Most fat exists because this small squadron has it's own base adjacent to the New Castle Airport, even though the huge Dover AFB is 40 miles down the road and has space to accommodate eight C-130s. Dover's an Air Mobility Command base too, and includes two Air Force Reserve airlift squadrons. It would be easy to move the 166th down to Dover to utilize its base support. More than half the 166th's personnel slots could be eliminated at its base at New Castle shuts down. There are a dozen of other examples around the nation, as shown on this official USAF map. One can also see clusters of Air Guard bases in some states that could be consolidated, which is important because it costs more to operate these bases than the tenant (operational) unit itself."
Carlton Meyer at 6/19/2013 10:50 PM

Re: Air Force Chief: Time to Stop Talking and Start Making Strategy, Budget Choices

Post, Camp, Base clusters should be consolidated into Joint mega-installations.  Foot print reduction has many benefits.  I would also recommend moving the many installations and agencies in the DC, VA, MD, TX, and CA regions to places outside the bias/nepotism/cronyism of politics and lobbyist when possible.  Distribution of infrastructure, payroll, money, and capabilities outside of the target area for ABC asymmetric and traditional warfare is (IMO) in the national defense interest.  Technology infrastructure and information sciences will allow the equal distribution of joint-military facilities OrgOps across the United States and globally.
Adelo Vant at 6/24/2013 2:16 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share