WASHINGTON, Feb. 18, 2008
Air Force: We're At The Breaking Point
Officials Seeks Billions To Upgrade Military's Aging Aircraft
-
Photo
The Pentagon plans to spend $62 billion to purchase a total of 183 F-22 Raptor fighters, built jointly by Lockheed Martin and Boeing. (AP)
-
Interactive
Military 101
Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
After more than six years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air Force's aging jet fighters, bombers, cargo aircraft and gunships are at the breaking point, they say, and expensive, ultramodern replacements are needed fast.
"What we've done is put the requirement on the table that says, 'If we're going to do the missions you're going to ask us to do, it will require this kind of investment,"' Maj. Gen. Paul Selva, the Air Force's director of strategic planning, said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"Failing that, we take what is already a geriatric Air Force," Selva said, "and we drive it for another 20 years into an area of uncertainty."
An extra $20 billion each year over the next five - beginning with an Air Force budget of about $137 billion in 2009 instead of the $117 billion proposed by the Bush administration - would solve that problem, according to Selva and other senior Air Force officers.
Yet the prospects for huge infusions of cash seem dim. Congress is expected to boost the 2009 budget, but not to the level urged by the Air Force. In the years that follow, a possible recession, a rising federal deficit and a distaste for higher taxes all portend a decline in defense spending regardless of which party wins the White House in November.
"The Air Force is going to be confronting a major procurement crisis because it can't buy all the things that it absolutely needs," said Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller. "It's going to force us to rethink, yet again, what is the strategy we want? What can we give up?"
The Air Force's distress is partly self-inflicted, says Steve Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, the new jet fighters that will supplant the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon, have drastically higher price tags than their predecessors and require a bigger chunk of the defense budget.
"One of the reasons their equipment has aged so much is because they continue to move ahead with the development and presumed acquisition of new weapon systems that cost two to three times as much as the systems they are replacing," Kosiak said. "It's like replacing a Toyota with a Mercedes."
It is not as if the Air Force has gone without any new airplanes. The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, the C-17 Globemaster airlifter and the CV-22 tilt-rotor, which flies like a helicopter or an airplane, have all been added since the mid-1990s.
The Air Force also is planning to spend between $30 billion and $40 billion over the next 15 years for new refueling tankers. A contract is expected to be awarded soon. Those new tankers, however, will not be flying until 2013.
Quote
The Air Force is not alone in wanting more money, but its appetite is far greater than the other military branches. Shortly after President George W. Bush submitted his defense plan for the 2009 budget year, which begins Oct. 1, each service outlined for Congress what it felt was left out. The Air Force's "wish list" totaled $18.8 billion, almost twice as much as the other three services combined.Al Qaeda doesn't exactly have an advanced aerial defense system.
David Small, Air Force spokesman"There's no justification for it. Period. End of story," said Gordon Adams, a former Clinton administration budget official who specializes in defense issues. "Until someone constrains these budget requests, the hunger for more will charge ahead unchecked."
Current F-15s and F-16s are on average more than 20 years old and have reached a point where spending more money on extensive repairs is a poor investment, Selva said. Originally designed to last 4,000 flying hours, both have been extended beyond 8,000.
An F-15 with a comparatively low 5,000 flying hours disintegrated during a routine training flight over Missouri in early November. For the Air Force, that crash has become a touchstone event that demonstrates the precarious state of a fleet collectively older than any in the service's 60-year history.
Following the Missouri accident, more than 400 F-15s were grounded as Air Force mechanics scoured them for defects that might cause a similar accident. The F-15, a twin-engine jet with a top speed of 1,875 miles per hour, is the anchor of the nation's air defense network.
As aircraft age, corrosion eats away at metal parts. Wiring and sealing begin to deteriorate. The fatigue, which can be hard to detect, is most acute in fighters that make turns while going at incredible speeds.
"An hour is not an hour" to an aircraft constantly under the strain of G-forces, Gen. John D.W. Corley, head of Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va., said at a news conference last month. "It's like dog years."
The more an aircraft is flown, the more expensive and more extensive maintenance becomes, Corley and Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee during a Feb. 6 hearing.
The bottom line, the generals said, is older aircraft are in the shop more often and cost more to fly when they are available.
It is not just the fighters that are elderly.
Selva, who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1980, said he remembers hearing about the first flight of the mammoth C-5 transport when he was in first grade. B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers, which refuel airplanes in flight, have been in the inventory for more than four decades.
By Richard Lardner
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
Getting High in School
-
Video
Birthday Brunch Gone Wrong
-
Video
Bus Travel On The Rise
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 404 CommentsIt''s plain. It''s simple. It''s no more Republicans.
Posted by tbweb at 10:44 PM : Feb 18, 2008
It has stuff they''ve never told about.
The Navy is building new aircraft carriers that can take fighters any where in the world without a need for airfields and transporting support staff there and housing them.
If I was a a young person seeking a career in the military, I would not pick the Air Farce.It won''t be around in 20 years.
Our Government wouldn''t turn their back on the armed forces that they''ve committed (at great expense to the tax payers) to defending the right of corporations like Halliburton to rape and destroy Iraq.
Would they?
The cold war was over 20 years ago, yet we still spend 500 BILLION per year on our military-industrial-congressional complex. We need to End the Imperial Empire! We spend more on War than all other nations combined!
Want to make us SAFE?? Start dismantling our thousands of Nuclear Warheads, and get the Russians to control and reduce their stockpiles NOW. Retire the needless Nuclear Subs, star war projects.
End the Oil Wars, use the money from the defense cuts to fund alternative engergy solutions. Force Israel to the peace table with the Palestines and hammer out an agreement. Get us OUT of the MiddleEast.
We need to CHANGE the paradigm of fear, hate, exploitation, empire, war... and move to sustainable economy, PEACE, negotiations, end poverty, stop raping 3rd world country natural resources.
Our military should not be used as enforcers for corporations wishing to subjugate populations, as this is not the defense of the US.
With this approach, our military budget could be halved, and still be more than enough to meet any challenges. All the rest is simple corruption.
I''m not certain which is scarier. The fact that we spend so much on our armed forces, or the fact that people like this actually exist in our country.
Nuclear bombs can never be used again. They exist because of an arms race, and because other countries have them. They are an anachronism and their function is not to blow up, but to prevent other countries from using theirs.
There can never be a war waged with nuclear weapons. Ever. If there is, it will be the last war and our species and our planet will pay the price for hundreds of generations to come.
OR - better yet - Tax the Lower and Middle Classes - they don''t have the clout to do anything about it.
Anyone who owns a car knows that a 20 year old car takes far more time and money for maintenance than a new one.
Prior to 20001 this current administration cut back military spending even more to balance the tax cuts to the rich.
All the more reason that anyone thinking about launching military hostilities against the US should determine absolutely whether their decision is the only one that might achieve their goal.
Ground wars have no place anymore in the world, what is gained by a long protracted campaign of genocide? In the case of Bush, he attempts to gain control of oil in the Middle east, which only serves the interest of private oil companies, and the war profiteers that seek to steal money from our treasury, and our future.
Are either of these reasons justification for what we are doing in the Middle East? I posit that they are absolutely not, that the only justification for our military should be to defend our land and domestic citizens against hostile military forces, and to this end, we take a "try, and you fry" attitude.
In the end, they will have made us spend over $1 trillion to fight them, and not win.
Pentagon planning continues to revolve around a superpower conflict scenario from the Cold War. Yet, too many Pentagon contracts carry appalling cost, take longer to deliver, are more subject to cost overruns and simply don''t work as planned. While we spend ourselves blind (too late?), post-Cold War potential adversaries spend a small portion of the US military budget.
Despite the pork thrown at Pentagon contractors, the perennial cry is "Not nearly enough!" Defense contractors, of course, are the very people who screw up a multibillion contract, and go on to the next without missing a beat. It''s good business, if you can make the right contacts in Washington.
What the Pentagon and its contractors really want is taxpayers to continue their military-industrial welfare system-- it works so well for them. Why spoil a good thing?
---
Newsflash, Gen. Selva-- Who said you will be asked to do any more missions in the Bush-uber-alles style?
Do the words "national debt doubled, economy in recession, infrastructure in decay" mean anything to the general beyond a delayed promotion? You may have to sell your townhouse...
And has it ever occurred to the general that the Project for a New American Century", so beloved by american neocons as manifesto and call to arms, is fundamentally wrong?
Neocons in Washington still want America to run the world-- a non-starter if there ever were one. Somehow, in the face of their repeated debacles, they persist in the delusion they need just a little more time, a little more money, a little more luck.
Sorry. Game over.
anyway the surge is working so all is well.
knyghtwolf, foolish person, rewriting history because you know some uninformed dolt will believe it. Do something nice for someone. Become an ethical person. Gain some meqasure of honor.
Peace and Love
Knyghtwolf is correct, check your history, the Japanese agreed to the terms of surrender before the bomb was detonated. The signing of the document was delayed until after the "test", because the monsters who built it wanted to find out if it would work, and what the human casualty toll would be like.
Lars008 (terrorislam9) is unfortunately the not the only death worshiper breathing undeserved air.
The ironic part is that any continuation of the current agenda will result in the collapse of the US economy, so the mil boys will be stealing billions of worthless dollars, the paper it is printed on will be more valuable than the currency it represents.
With Hillary in charge, we won''t need any military at all - she''ll just roll over and sell our technology to the Saudi''s for a tidy profit while 19 members from their country bomb the casino''s in Vegas...
Who could have guessed?
We need someone with some smarts to run the country. That leaves McCain and Obama out.
Posted by mistered9 at 07:39 AM : Feb 19, 2008
You apparently missed Hillary''s excellent management of her campaign resources which resulted in her having to pony up 5 million out of her own pocket.
Fine administrative skills, indeed.....
Posted by mistered9 at 07:39 AM : Feb 19, 2008
You apparently missed Hillary''''s excellent management of her campaign resources which resulted in her having to pony up 5 million out of her own pocket.
Fine administrative skills, indeed.....
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 07:47 AM : Feb 19, 2008
She didn''t need to get life insurance to cover the loan like McCain...
Does this mean you''re finally going to start dealing in fact rather than fiction, lars?
It seems Halliburton''s accounting systems were a little OFF for several years. But of course they backed off the investigations into accounting fraud.
We could pro''bly build at least half a new fleet with just their fraud.
What''s more, China isn''t likely to launch a campaign to challenge our military industrial air superiority complex. The vast majority of China''s fighter jets are Jian-7s and -8s, aircraft patterned after the Mig-17 Fishbed which the Soviets introduced in 1956.
You may not be shocked to learn that the boards of directors and advisers of Gaffney''s Center for Security Policy are typically populated with executive officers of Lockheed Martin, the primary contractor for the F-22 project. The CSP boards also include executives from defense companies involved with the Star Wars missile defense system that doesn''t work, a system that Gaffney also aggressively advocates.
Don''t jump to the conclusion that we have a conflict of interests going on here. Gaffney and his cronies, all loyal patriots, are merely concerned for our country''s security.
And the F-22 Raptor and Star Wars will be, after all, America''s first, last and only line of defense when the Borg invade.
Jeff''s novel Bathtub Admirals (Kunati Books, ISBN: 9781601640192) will be available April 1, 2008.
In a December 2007 Times piece, Gaffney asserted that if we don''t continue to feed the Pentagon''s insatiable appetite, we''ll "leave the armed forces fighting today''s wars with yesterday''s weapons."
Following this line of logic, Gaffney urged additional funding for the F-22 Raptor, which by a gentlemanly margin is the most expensive air-to-air fighter ever built and a weapon platform as vital to today''s global security environment as the blunderbuss.
No, Gaffney''s not concerned that the Red Sultan and his Flying Carpet Air Shieks will wrest control of the skies from us. He''s worried because "countries like Russia and China are demonstrating a determination to field militaries comparable to and capable of inflicting great harm on the best of our armed forces."
Sure, Frank. By and large, what''s left of Russia''s mighty Cold War arsenal is either leaking radioactivity in the silo, rusting on the flight line, sinking at the pier or burning in Chechnya. The Russians already got their hats handed to them in one arms race with the U.S. They aren''t inclined to take up another one.
(cont)
The reason war hawks typically give for the need to increase military spending is that our Iraq experience shows we need a bigger Army and Marine Corps. But the Iraq experience really shows that we don''t need to fight any more wars like the one we''re fighting in Iraq, and wars like the one in Iraq are the only reason we would need a bigger Army and Marine Corps.
Frank Gaffney, on the other hand, believes in security through high tech, high dollar solutions.
Clutching Forks and Knives
Gaffney''s name appears on 1997 Statement of Principles of the infamous Project for the New American Century that says "we need to increase defense spending significantly." His name also appears on the PNAC''s September 20, 2001 letter to George W. Bush that encouraged the president to remove Saddam Hussein from power by force "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack." %u2028These days, Gaffney is president of the Center for Security Policy which he founded in 1988 and a columnist for the slightly right of Generalissimo Francisco Franco Washington Times.
(cont)
What will we get security wise for some indeterminate amount over $1 trillion? According to William Lind, defense analyst and co-author of The Case for Military Reform, "Most of what we''re buying is a military museum."
Bringing Home the Bacon
The military we had on 9/11/2001 was the best-trained, best-equipped force in the world. Yet, it did not defend us against the attacks on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Some time in 2006, U.S. defense spending exceeded that of the rest of the world combined. Today, the best-funded military in history is failing to achieve its country''s goals overseas. Though we have battled toe-to-toe with al Qaeda for over six years, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell says the organization "remains the pre-eminent terrorist threat against the United States" and it is "improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: the identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the homeland."
And all this time you thought we were fighting them over there so we wouldn''t have to fight them over here.
(cont)
"Isn''t it odd that after a terrorist attack that relied on $2 box-cutters, we are redoubling our pursuit of fantastical weaponry?"
%u2014Robert Scheer
On February 4, largely evading the media radar like a B-2 (Billion) stealth bomber, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a 2009 Defense budget of $515.4 billion. If approved, this amount, adjusting for inflation, will be the highest defense appropriation since World War II.
This is just the tab for "standard operations." Non-standard operations like the business in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere cost extra, as do defense related activities in departments like Homeland Security, State, Transportation, Energy, Justice and so forth. We can''t calculate an exact figure for the total security tab. Doctor Robert Higgs , Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute, said in 2004 that "a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon''s (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it."
(cont)
when will you???
Posted by terrorislam9 at 08:30 AM : Feb 19, 2008
Hilarious...
In light of these developments, one wonders how FDR was able to fight a war in Europe and Asia at the same time for 4 years, able to build THOUSANDS of fighters, bombers, tanks, hundreds of naval ships, as well as manufacture hundreds of thousands of guns, bombs, and millions of rounds of ammunition AND ALL WITH A PREDOMINENTLY FEMALE WORKFORCE (all the men were in the military!)!!!!
This is the same FDR who "great" neocon historical analysts like Rush Limbaugh say "the days of FDR are dead and buried like he is!"!
Perhaps the Great Emperor Bush II should have stayed awake during his history classes in high school and college and actually learned something, instead of thinking of how to send amphibians to the moon without a rocket ship!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
you mean the halliburton wee willy kkklowntoon gave so much money to during the 90s???
i guess you forgot about that LOL
hahaha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by terrorislam9 at 08:33 AM : Feb 19, 2008
No, dear, I''m talking about the $50 billion that''s been given to them since 2002 and postwar, that they''ve abscounded with. Read up sometime, you might learn something.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 404 Comments