Engage

T
Logo
T
Logo
T
Logo
T
Logo
F
Logo
T
Logo
T
Logo
T
Logo
T
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
F
Logo
Facebook
1,984,174
Like Us
Twitter
399,920
Follow Us
YouTube Google+ Blog RSS Instagram

SecAF, CSAF testify on Air Force posture

WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The fiscal and security challenges triggered by budgetary constraints are posing problems for Air Force strategy, the service’s secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 10.

Deborah Lee James said tomorrow’s Air Force requires investing in the right technologies and platforms to be prepared to operate in a volatile and unpredictable world, “in which we cannot take for granted that we will continue to command the skies and ... space.”

The fiscal year 2015 budget request calls for fully funding flying hours and other high-priority readiness issues, she said, adding that Air Force readiness has “taken a hit over time,” and today is not where it should be.

“If our proposal is approved, we will see gradual improvements in full-spectrum readiness over time,” she said. “This will put us on the right path, particularly to … operate in a contested environment.”

At the same time, James said, the service must invest now so it isn’t beaten by potential adversaries 10 to 15 years from now, and that every dollar is critical.

“We've got to keep acquisition programs on budget and on schedule, (with) no more terrible cost overruns like we've seen in the past,” she said.

With the department in the midst of reducing service headquarters by 20 percent over the next five years, James said the Air Force would make those cuts in one year.

“And we're looking to do better than 20 percent,” she said, adding, “I do have to join with Secretary of Defense (Chuck) Hagel and ask that you consider another round of (Base Realignment and Closure) in 2017.”

If there is a return to sequestration-level budgeting in fiscal 2016, the Air Force would have to retire about 80 more aircraft, including the KC-10 Extender tanker fleet in addition to what is now proposed, she said.

James said her vision of the Air Force 10 years from now is a smaller but very capable force.

“It will be a good value for the taxpayers and it will be recognized as such,” she added. “Most importantly, we will be powered by the best Airmen on the planet who live our core values of integrity, service and excellence, and cultivate a culture of dignity and respect for all.”

Testifying at the same hearing, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III called the Air Force the finest in the world and said it must remain that way.

“We built this budget to ensure that Air Force combat power remains unequaled, but that does not mean it will remain unaffected,” he said. “Every major decision reflected in our (fiscal) '15 budget proposal hurts. Each of them reduces capability that our combatant commanders would love to have and believe they need.”

Additional “easy cuts” do not exist, Welsh said.

“And we simply can't ignore the fact that the law as currently written returns us to sequestered funding levels in (fiscal) '16," he said. "To prepare for that, the Air Force must cut people and force structure now to create a balanced force that we can afford to train and operate in '16 and beyond."

Air Force budget planning began by making two significant assumptions, Welsh noted.

“First … the Air Force must be capable of winning a full-spectrum fight against a well armed, well trained enemy. Second, ‘ready today’ versus ‘modern tomorrow’ cannot be an either-or decision. We must be both,” he said.

“We also knew the overwhelming majority of reductions in our budget would have to come from readiness, force structure and modernization,” Welsh added.

“The funding levels we can reasonably expect over the next 10 years dictate that for America to have a capable, credible and viable Air Force in the mid-2020s, we must get smaller, now,” he said. “We must modernize parts of our force, but we can't modernize as much as we planned, and we must maintain the proper balance across our five mission areas.”

Using standard Defense Department planning scenarios, results from an operational perspective showed “cutting the A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet was clearly the lowest-risk option,” Welsh said.

“Even if an additional $4 billion became available, I believe the combatant commanders would all tell you that they'd rather have us fund more (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and airborne command-and-control capability than retain the A-10 fleet,” he said.
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