How the Air Force Justifies The New Planes It Wants You to Buy

How some in the Air Force view the F-16 / Wikimedia

Buying military gear is complicated, expensive and dangerous — it’s dangerous because every dollar you spend on an unneeded weapon means you’ve lost a dollar that could have been spent on a needed weapon.

That’s what makes Thursday’s report from the Government Accountability Office so interesting. While the government auditors won’t come right out and say it, they outline the roadmap driven by the Air Force to get to where it wants to go — all new airplanes, costing you $230 billion over the next four years.

To get there, they had to commit a fair amount of aerial sleight-of-hand, all with a single aimpoint: current aircraft, like the F-15 and F-16, are bad (although they remain the best in the world). New ones — so-called “5th generation,” including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — are good. The Air Force wants to require that every fighter it buys be able to perform every fighter mission the Air Force takes on, even if it’s just patrolling the skies looking for wayward Cessnas or hijacked airliners. And get this: in their calculation justifying their warplane-buying scheme, the Air Force left something out: the impact unmanned aircraft might have on their future buys of manned aircraft.

The following excerpts from the 13-page GAO report are signposts along the highway that gets the Air Force where it wants to go. Hang on, dear taxpayer. You’re just along for the ride:

– Despite this large [$230 billion] investment, the Air Force continues to project that its inventory of fighter and attack aircraft will drop below required levels and that those shortfalls will persist through at least 2030.

– In 2009, Congress directed the Air Force to provide three reports addressing the service’s fighter force structure plans in light of its projected fighter aircraft shortfall.

– …the conclusions reflected previously established service plans and strategic level guidance that was dated by the time the reports were issued.

– The reports presented limited new analyses and primarily summarized the Air Force’s long-standing plan to transition to an all-stealth 5th generation fighter force and the desire therefore to avoid large investments in legacy, non-stealth fighters that could divert funds from this plan.

– Air Force officials acknowledge that many things have changed since their analyses were completed, but note that they used the best data available to them at the time and, based on more recent analyses, they are confident that 5th generation aircraft will continue to be essential to the Air Force’s future success.

– For many years, defense threat assessments and capability analyses have led the Air Force to believe that 5th generation capabilities, including stealth characteristics, fused sensor data, and advanced radars, will be essential to counter the increasingly sophisticated air defense systems of potential future adversaries.

– The Air Force’s overarching force management approach requires that all of the aircraft in the service’s inventory, including Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve aircraft, be capable of integrating with each other. Air Force officials note that this force management concept does not support having “niche” legacy forces that are dedicated to specific missions that do not require stealth capability, such as homeland defense, and are incapable of participating in more difficult anti-access scenarios. Therefore, the Air Force believes that all future fighter and attack aircraft have to be capable of operating in both anti-access and uncontested airspace.

– The Air Force acknowledges that various alternatives, such as purchasing new upgraded legacy aircraft or modernizing existing aircraft, could mitigate some of the projected force structure shortfall.

– Officials noted that the Air Force views alternatives that would reduce JSF funding or quantities as unacceptable…

– …buying new upgraded legacy aircraft was determined to be undesirable because the Air Force believed that the upfront acquisition cost would negatively impact JSF procurement funding…

– The analyses supporting the Air Force’s conclusions…were conducted in 2007 and 2008 and thus reflected the assumptions and force planning construct in place at that time. That [now abandoned] construct largely focused on fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous major combat operations against adversaries possessing high-end, anti-access air defense capabilities.

– Air Force officials note that they intentionally excluded certain types of systems when they ran their computer models to formulate their 2010 budget. They emphasized that in some cases this had to be done because those systems had been identified as high-priority items, but they would not be recognized by the computer models as having adequate capabilities to address the high-end threat scenarios. Unmanned aircraft were among those systems.

– In the end, the Air Force reaffirmed its plans to acquire all 5th generation fighter aircraft.

– Air Force officials agree that much has changed since the reports were prepared but are confident that the changes will not obviate the need for 5th generation aircraft. In fact, they believe that 5th generation aircraft might actually be needed sooner than previously projected.

Surprise!

Related Topics: Air force, gao, joint strike fighter, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • afguy

    Why do they still need all of the new stuff when the threat’s changed?
    .
    Well, they COULD tell us…. but then they’d have to kill us.

  • deconstructiva

    Mark, I wonder how easy or hard it was for the Wright Bros. and early peers to sell planes to the military. No doubt WWI was a HUGE boost to the future MIC (let alone WWII, but I digress) and not just a career boost to Snoopy and the Red Baron.
    .
    Also, I hope you blog about the Air Force’s pending air tanker decision. I think today’s the big day between EADS and Boeing. If you’re busy or TIME won’t cover this, CNBC will since it’s a big biz contract for the MIC. They’ve covered that long-running drama since day one. Jane Wells did most of the original reporting. But I’d like to see you post the story here too as it unfolds, thanks.

  • jeriv

    I wonder if anyone will ever have the guts to end the DoD spending spigot. Deficit this, deficit that, but no one touches the incredibly wasteful Defense spending.
    .
    Is it really that hard for a politician to say: “There is too much wasteful spending in defense, we shouldn’t pay for obsolete weapon systems”?

  • deconstructiva

    Ron Paul might, maybe his son. Anyone else from either party? Not so sure.

  • ohiolibb

    And people wonder why liberals (some of us, anyway) think the defense budget needs trimmed…

  • pintortwo

    Buying military gear is complicated, expensive and dangerous — it’s dangerous because every dollar you spend on an unneeded weapon means you’ve lost a dollar that could have been spent on a needed weapon.
    .
    This sickens me. (Not your fault MT, I’m not killing the messenger) Needed weapons my foot. We’re fighting farmers- their most lethal weapon is fertilizer bombs (link) – we’re supposedly safe-guarding against the possibility that evil-doers, who’ve been hiding in caves for ten years now, won’t be able to re-claim Afghanistan’s… caves?.. rubble? (not sure what they have worth claiming).
    .
    Or maybe these new state-of-the-art-no-one-comes-close generation of fighters, which replace the last generation of state-of-the-art-no-one-comes-close fighters, are not supposed to defend against our horse-sh!t wielding enemies, but someone else..
    .
    It must be to defend US shores.. in Taiwan from Chinese invasion.. No? It must be in case weakling Iran, with its rusty coast-guard of a Navy and 1979 jets we sold them, decides to attack our shores in nuclear-sub possessing, very well-equipped Israel.
    .
    I must be frakin’ dumb because I can’t understand Conventional Wisdom no matter how many times I hear it. Let me try one more time…
    .
    …5th generation capabilities, including stealth characteristics, fused sensor data, and advanced radars, will be essential to counter the increasingly sophisticated air defense systems of potential future adversaries… In fact, they believe that 5th generation aircraft might actually be needed sooner than previously projected.
    .
    Invaders from outer space!!!
    No? Um, Somali pirates?!

  • http://tisias.wordpress.com tisias

    The irony is that the next big surprise attack will be from a totally unexpected direction, and we’ll be like, oh my god, since when did japanese pilots go on full scale bombing attacks against harbors when we were supposedly at peace? Or, since when does the Middle East have huge sects of people who despise us and want to hijack our airplanes and suicide crash them into our buildings?

  • ohiolibb

    You’re missing the point, tisias. The point is that we have already invested huge sums of money to get the best possible air force, yet the AF is dropping the old stuff like a kid after a new toy because, hey, if it’s newer, it’s gotta be better. We could invest far less (especially now) and still maintain an armed forces that is far and away the best in world.
    -
    These new weapons also beg the question: why? There’s no one even close to our military capacity out there now, and no chance of a major world power managing to catch up to us anytime soon. the bombs arom an F-15 are just as good as those from anywhere else when it comes to bombing Afghani caves.

  • pintortwo

    people who despise us and want to hijack our airplanes
    .
    ..and the irony of that is “5th generation capabilities” can’t stop people from hijacking our airplanes.

  • pintortwo

    every dollar you spend on an unneeded weapon means you’ve lost a dollar that could have been spent on a needed weapon.
    .
    ..how about we evaluate each weapon system to eliminate “unneeded” programs and deduct every dollar we would have spent from the defense budget.

  • shepherdwong

    …eventually, they did return to work and constructed the first American military airplane. The plane had a wingspan of 36.5 feet (11 meters), was just under 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 7.9 feet (2.4 meters) high, and weighed 740 pounds (336 kilograms). A four-cylinder Wright 30.6-horsepower (4.5-kilowatt) engine powered it. When it was finished, and after a brief delay for a parade in their honor on June 17, the brothers headed for Fort Myer, Virginia, where they would demonstrate the Military Flyer for the U.S. Army.
    .
    The plane was ready to demonstrate on June 24, but the brothers waited until they were certain everything was just right in spite of the crowd that had come to watch. They were not even rushed when the entire U.S. Senate came. Even Glenn Curtiss paid a visit.
    .
    Orville finally took to the air on June 29. He had a shaky start and flew into a tree, damaging the plane. But he repaired it and regained his composure. On July 12, he began to make trouble-free flights. On July 27, he set a new duration record, flying for one hour and 12 minutes with Lieutenant Frank Lahm on board. This exceeded one of the Army’s requirements—remaining aloft for one hour with a passenger on board.
    .
    Orville flew the speed trial on July 30 with Lieutenant Benjamin Foulois on board. He climbed steadily to 400 feet (122 meters)—another record. As soon as he saw the Fort Myer parade ground, he nosed the aircraft down slightly and began to increase his speed. Foulois stopped his watch as Orville shot past the launching derrick. He flew a victory circle around Arlington Cemetery and landed. He had averaged 42.583 miles per hour (68.5 kilometers per hour)—surpassing the Army’s 40 mile per hour (64.4 kilometer-per-hour) requirement and breaking yet another record. The Wrights qualified for a $5,000 bonus by flying two miles per hour (3.2 kilometers per hour) over the necessary speed. The first military flyer would cost the U.S. Army $30,000.

    http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/Military_Flyer/WR11.htm

  • shepherdwong

    Hang on, dear taxpayer. You’re just along for the ride:
    .
    Excellent, Mark.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks for the excellent link, shepherd. Great history there.
    .
    …and Boeing won the air tanker bid, though EADS can file a protest.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1816050930&play=1

  • shepherdwong

    You’re most welcome, decon. The history of early flight is simply amazing, even more so on the private/engineering side. Someone gave me a copy of Ryan the Aviator when I was a kid and I was hooked.
    .
    http://www.amazon.com/Ryan-aviator-adventures-ventures-businessman/dp/0070676704

blog comments powered by Disqus