Engage

Twitter
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Twitter
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Twitter
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Twitter
Logo
Twitter
Logo
Twitter
Logo
Twitter
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
Logo
Facebook
2,087,380
Like Us
Twitter
436,866
Follow Us
YouTube Google+ Blog RSS Instagram

CSAF: Budget cuts affect combatant commands

WASHINGTON (AFNS) --

Painful budget reductions will reduce the future capabilities of combatant commanders, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III told Congress here March 26.

 

Testifying alongside Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James at a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, Welsh discussed the difficult decisions budget constraints have presented and will continue to present to the Air Force's role in defending national security.

 

"Every major decision reflected in this budget proposal hurts," he said. "Each of them reduces the capabilities our combatant commanders would love to have

and believe they need. Your Air Force is the finest in the world, and we need to keep it that way. We built this budget to ensure that Air Force combat

power remains unequaled, but that does not mean it will remain unaffected."

 

There are no more easy cuts, the general said.

 

"We simply can't ignore the fact that the law is currently written [to return] us to sequestered funding levels in [fiscal year 2016]," Welsh said. "So that's also considered as part of our plan. To prepare for that, we must cut people and force structure now to create a balanced Air Force that we can afford to train and operate in [fiscal 2016] and beyond."

 

Because the Air Force needed to cut billions rather than millions of dollars out of its budget, "the normal trimming around the edges just wasn't going to

get it done," Welsh said.

 

"So we looked at cutting fleets of aircraft as a way to get to the significant savings that are required," he added.

 

Welsh explained the logic of the "very tough decisions" that had to be made.

 

"In our air superiority mission area, we already have reductions in our proposal," he said. "But eliminating an entire fleet would leave us unable to provide air superiority for an entire theater of operations. We are the only service that can do so."

 

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance constitute the No. 1 shortfall of the combatant commanders year after year, Welsh noted. "They would never

support even more cuts than we already have in our budget proposal," he said.

 

Noting the Air Force has "several aircraft" in the global mobility mission area, Welsh said he spoke with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno during

budget planning to get his thoughts on reducing the airlift fleet.

 

"His view was that a smaller Army would need to be more responsive and able to move quicker," Welsh said. "He did not think that reducing airlift assets

further was a good idea, and the [Air Force] secretary and I agree. We looked at our air refueling fleets and considered divesting the KC-10 as an option.

Just one example, but the analysis showed us that the mission impact was too significant."

 

Welsh echoed testimony from James, who told the panel that a return to sequester funding levels in fiscal 2016 would put the mobility fleet back on

the table.

 

"We looked at the KC-135 fleet, but we would have to cut many more KC-135s than KC-10s to achieve the same savings," he said. "And with that many KC-135s out of the fleet, we simply can't meet our worldwide mission requirement."

 

In the strike mission area, Welsh said, cutting the A-10 fleet would save $3.7 billion across the future-year defense program and another $500 million in

cost avoidance for upgrades that wouldn't be necessary. "To get that same savings would require a much higher number of F-15E's or F-16s [to be cut],

but we also looked at those options," he added.

 

Air Force officials ran a detailed operational analysis, Welsh said, comparing divestiture of the A-10 fleet to divestiture of the B-1 fleet, reduction of the F-16 and F-15E fleet, and to deferring procurement of a large number of F-35s, as well as to decreasing readiness by standing down a number of fighter squadrons and just parking them on the ramp.

 

"We used the standard DOD planning scenarios," Welsh said. "The results very clearly showed that cutting the A-10 fleet was the lowest-risk option, from an

operational perspective, of a bunch of bad options. While no one is happy, from a military perspective, it's the right decision, and it's representative of the extremely difficult choices that we're facing in the budget today."

 

The U.S. military must modernize, Welsh said, but today's declining budgets place limits on modernization.

 

"And we must maintain the proper balance across all our mission areas," he added, "because that's what the combatant commanders expect from us."

 

USAF Comments Policy
If you wish to comment, use the text box below. AF reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.

This is a moderated forum. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect. We will not post comments that contain abusive or vulgar language, spam, hate speech, personal attacks, violate EEO policy, are offensive to other or similar content. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly "off topic", promote services or products, infringe copyright protected material, or contain any links that don't contribute to the discussion. Comments that make unsupported accusations will also not be posted. The AF and the AF alone will make a determination as to which comments will be posted. Any references to commercial entities, products, services, or other non-governmental organizations or individuals that remain on the site are provided solely for the information of individuals using this page. These references are not intended to reflect the opinion of the AF, DoD, the United States, or its officers or employees concerning the significance, priority, or importance to be given the referenced entity, product, service, or organization. Such references are not an official or personal endorsement of any product, person, or service, and may not be quoted or reproduced for the purpose of stating or implying AF endorsement or approval of any product, person, or service.

Any comments that report criminal activity including: suicidal behaviour or sexual assault will be reported to appropriate authorities including OSI. This forum is not:

  • This forum is not to be used to report criminal activity. If you have information for law enforcement, please contact OSI or your local police agency.
  • Do not submit unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or inquiries to this forum. This site is not to be used for contracting or commercial business.
  • This forum may not be used for the submission of any claim, demand, informal or formal complaint, or any other form of legal and/or administrative notice or process, or for the exhaustion of any legal and/or administrative remedy.

AF does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this forum is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. AF may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. AF does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those websites that may be reached through links on our website.

Members of the media are asked to send questions to the public affairs through their normal channels and to refrain from submitting questions here as comments. Reporter questions will not be posted. We recognize that the Web is a 24/7 medium, and your comments are welcome at any time. However, given the need to manage federal resources, moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular business hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible; in most cases, this means the next business day.

For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain "on-topic." This means that comments will be posted only as it relates to the topic that is being discussed within the blog post. The views expressed on the site by non-federal commentators do not necessarily reflect the official views of the AF or the Federal Government.

To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include personally identifiable information, such as name, Social Security number, DoD ID number, OSI Case number, phone numbers or email addresses in the body of your comment. If you do voluntarily include personally identifiable information in your comment, such as your name, that comment may or may not be posted on the page. If your comment is posted, your name will not be redacted or removed. In no circumstances will comments be posted that contain Social Security numbers, DoD ID numbers, OSI case numbers, addresses, email address or phone numbers. The default for the posting of comments is "anonymous", but if you opt not to, any information, including your login name, may be displayed on our site.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.
comments powered by Disqus