Home » Air » AF chief forced to defend cuts

AF chief forced to defend cuts

By Michael Hoffman Friday, February 10th, 2012 3:36 pm
Posted in Air

The Air Force’s top man appeared worn out Thursday when he took the podium at a downtown Washington D.C. Hilton. Fighting a cold, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz asked for a throat lozenge from his assistant as he started his speech, hosted by a prominent D.C. think-tank, 30 minutes late.

Schwartz quickly apologized for his tardiness, explaining how his schedule got pushed back due to a blitz from two Congressional delegations wanting an explanation to the cuts the leadership laid out last week to Air Force’s force structure and the Air National Guard.

It’s one of many trips the Air Force four-star will surely make to Capitol Hill in this budget cycle, as the Guard has plenty of Congressional allies. Those champions will want an explanation to why four of the six combat coded tactical air squadrons cut were Guard and Guardsmen made up more than half of the 10,000 airmen chosen for the drawdown.

Schwartz launched into his justification for targeting the Guard for the brunt of the cuts. He said the Guard has grown in recent years when the service’s active component has shrunk. The Guard and Reserve make up 35 percent of the Air Force compared to 25 percent in 1990. Guard and Reserve units also own a larger portion of aircraft growing from 23 percent to 28 percent since 1990.

Schwartz explained to the crowd, still nibbling on remnants of boxed lunches, how he had the support of the Guard and Reserve leadership. He pointed to a column printed in Air Force Times signed by himself, Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Charles Stenner and Air Guard Director Lt. Gen. Harry “Bud” Wyatt, explaining how the three chose the cuts together.

Critiques haven’t fallen on deaf years in Schwartz’s Pentagon office. He’s heard the cries from concerned airmen worried about the death of the A-10. The service will retire 102 of the 348 A-10s in the service’s fleet as part of this round of cuts. Frustration rose into the chief’s voice when he explained how those retirements do not signal a reduction in the service’s commitment to close air support.

“The A-10 is a noble airplane, but one should not accept the hype that the Air Force is moving away from CAS,” he said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Schwartz eagerly spoke about the next generation bomber, a program that looked to be in danger until President Obama released a defense strategy that emphasizes a long strike capacity if China or North Korea start to act up. It was a welcome respite for the special operations pilot with 38 years of service to explain the case he made before about an aging bomber fleet in need of an upgrade.

In his third year as the Air Force chief he was quick to back up and caution that the Air Force can’t slip into the same mistakes it made with the B-2 program and end up with only 21 planes costing $2 billion a piece.

“That’s not in the cards,” Schwartz told the crowd.

On his way out, the Air Force chief made time for the press answering more questions as his aides looked on grimly constantly checking their watches explaining how the general was already late to his next meeting. Heading to the door Schwartz had to make one last defense. This time he had to stand behind a controversial F-22 Accident Investigation Board report the Pentagon’s inspector general announced it would probe for mistakes.

With that, one of Schwartz’s aides boxed out a reporter and the general boarded his black SUV. Next week is sure to bring a stiffer test as Congress gets its chance to dig its teeth into the proposed cuts made by the military on a public stage.

The Air Force chief might need a whole bag of throat lozenges.

Join the Conversation

	Lance February 10th, 2012 at 3:42 pm The only real bad thing about the DoDs budget and probably wont be the final budget that passes later this year that it tries to satisfy every service. Reality should spare the USAF from any cuts to any tactical planes and cut useless Army and Marine programs. Planes are needed in the post war period for deterrence army cant do that nail them for now with cuts and spare the USAF and Navy.
	Tom February 10th, 2012 at 3:47 pm So, after these massive A-10 cuts there will still be 246 A-10’s … that seems like a pretty good size fleet considering the A-10 is about the least flexible aircraft in the air forces combat inventory. In this day and age of the JDAM and SDB a lot of close air support can be provided by a B-52, soldiers call in coordinates and a B-52 flying at 50,000 feet can drop JDAM anywhere within 50 miles of its location. Not saying there’s never a need for something flying low and slow over a target, but on the other hand that’s not always needed either with today’s weaponry.
	Charley A February 10th, 2012 at 8:14 pm Thus so can a B-1, B-2, B-52, and the future assumably stealthy USAF bomber. So the purpose of the F-35A is.…?
	TMB February 10th, 2012 at 9:50 pm Have you ever actually called in close air support? The A-10 isn’t “least flexible.” It’s specialized. If I need missiles, rockets, or a large caliber gun, I’m not going to get it from a B-52.
	major.rod February 10th, 2012 at 10:39 pm TMB — You nailed it not to mention when’s the last time we stationed B52s in theatre. The flight time from the US is a tad long. All these issues fall on deaf ears to airpower enthusiasts that talk “efficiency” while the Army collects dog tags. Another interesting stat is the Air Force is cutting 30% of the A10 frames. No other aircraft is being cut even 5%.
	SMSgt Mac February 10th, 2012 at 11:06 pm .…to either drop the bomb where the B-2 or next gen LRS platform is not, cue other strike assets so that they can drop the bomb, or provide anti-air, SEAD/DEAD for the rest of the fleet in a high threat environment. Do the same for the Buff and Bone in a med-low threat environment. Your point is well taken though. I wish the AF had bought all the F-22s it originally wanted, about 30 more B-2s, and planned for ‘only’ 700+ F-35As (737 to be exact) , the Navy fewer F-18E/Fs and more F-35Cs/F-18Gs to pick up the slack provided by the AF cutting back. That ship sailed years ago though.
	William C. February 11th, 2012 at 4:33 am There is a big difference between any multi-role tactical fighter and any strategic bomber.
	Mike February 11th, 2012 at 9:59 am Schwartz rattles off numbers regarding the Air Guard becoming a greater portion of the force as a bad thing. Why? Did any one ask the question, “Hey maybe this isn’t a bad thing? Maybe we should actually move more forces to the reserve?” I don’t understand why he quotes those numbers as automatically a negative thing.
	major.rod February 11th, 2012 at 5:31 pm You have a point Mike. Instead of rattling off percentages from the “good old days”, he should describe what a reasonable ratio percentage is and why it can satisfy the national defense.
	Leland February 12th, 2012 at 12:07 am I have called in a number of airstrikes (F4, A1E, Gunships, A-7, OV-10, and guys firing .45s and M-16s out of observation planes, etc.) as well as artillery and even some naval gunfire long ago as an infantry officer. There is nothing like good CAS when fecal material hits the fan. That in mind, being concerned about future adventures in foreign lands, The F-35, in all variations, given the astronomical costs associated with the program seem very questionable. Two billion dollar bombers and $150-$200 million fighters seems very questionable to me. The B-2 and F-22 appear to be great stealthy aircraft– since we already own them, aren’t we stealthy enough? Perhaps the vertical take-off version of the F-35 is not really needed. Do we need relative large ground forces, especially heavy maneuver units, to defend out vital interests? In order to defend our vital interests we must have a strong economy and a strong correctly sized, maned and equipped. If we bankrupt the USA we’ll have nothing — nothing includes the enormous social programs beloved by so many.
	fourhundred February 12th, 2012 at 3:49 am The Air Force is losing 17% of their C-130’s, and 34% of their C-5’s.
	jrexilius February 12th, 2012 at 12:30 pm We’re not getting out of the CAS game? Yeah, right. I love the A-10 and am angrier than hell that they are trying to kill it without a real replacement. But I grudgingly have to admit that in the coming strategic cold war model we’ll be in after AFG it’s not the best bang for the buck. I just hope that they keep them in a mothballed state that will allow for them to be brought back into service quickly. Because when that role is needed, you can’t fill it with Fing F-35 or a Fing B-x
	major.rod February 12th, 2012 at 12:37 pm I may stand corrected but that would be par for the course. So the only Close Air specific A/C was cut 30% and startegic airlift A/C between17-34%. Hmmmm, sure the air force is committed to the CAS and airlift missions. (sources & thanks if you’re right)
	jrexilius February 12th, 2012 at 12:49 pm I agree that our economic security is our real source of power and our armed forces are a reflection of that. That being said I think sticking to a defense spend of approximately 20% of income (in the last 4 or 5 decades we’ve generally fluctuated between 19% and 24% at least according to CBO) gives us a lot of room to discuss what the priorities are. If you take out the burn for wars in Iraq and AFG, we still have a budget that we can accomplish things with. Excuse the source but it’s not a bud summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federa… Given that one strategic threat is ensuring that the rest of the world knows that China can’t beat us (this effects all sorts of economic decisions that are important to us) I think a strategic focus on weapons development is important. Anther likely strategic threat is lots of brush fire wars between nation states over resources. Again, strategic involvement is likely to be needed, not nation building or counter-insurgency capability. Given that we can have some form of a budget and the most likely scenarios are cold-war-like or Gulf-war-like (1990 iraq, not 2003) I think shifting spend to some stretch goals makes sense. But, yes I agree with you that we can’t bankrupt ourselves trying to do it all.
	William C. February 12th, 2012 at 3:55 pm Please don’t tell me that includes the newly upgraded C-5Ms? The C-130s I can understand simply because there are many older models still in our inventory, but it’s too much for my liking when you consider how critical air-lift capabilities are.
	fourhundred February 12th, 2012 at 11:56 pm @major.rod — Airlift itself isn’t being cut to that extent, just certain A/C. We have not touched our C-17 fleet, as well as the cargo capabilities of the KC-135/KC-10. So yes, in that sense, CAS as a whole is taking a greater cut than Airlift. And I agree, CAS is extremely important, as is airlift. Our Army should depend on the Air Force for quick airlift and reliable CAS. Not only as an Airman, but as an American tax payer, I believe if our ground troops need to call in a gun run it should be there at their disposal. ____
	fourhundred February 12th, 2012 at 11:57 pm @ William C. No the C-5A’s are being cut, mainly from Lackland and a few reserve bases. One of those bases is being augmented with C-17s, while the other isn’t getting anything in return. The Mikes are staying where they are.
	Buke February 13th, 2012 at 8:39 am If you read the Air-Sea Battle papers reducing A-10 force structure is the right thing to do (fiscally)—The Army is being reduced in numbers…what force on force protracted conflicts (requiring AF CAS vice organic) do we anticipate.…
	Thinking_ExUSAF February 13th, 2012 at 8:48 am But there is another angle on your own argument. If the Army is reducing its force structure, it is going to be even less able to realistically face the scenarios WITHOUT reactive, functional CAS. Take those boots off of the ground and realistically you will need to beef up the supporting capabilities to make up for the losses. Here, we cut indiscriminately! The bottom line is that you may not need all that much CAS to fight insurgency, particularly when you are very concerned about “collateral damage”. On the other hand, if we skinny up our capability to go face-to-face against a conventional military challenge, and anyone notices, CAS will become VERY important as those emboldened enemies mount a “Fulda Gap” run on our outnumbered, and outgunned, and now unsupported, ground forces. NEVER assume that the bad guys are inherently stupid. Ignore CAS, and the bad guys will present you with a scenario requiring CAS. Ignore armor, and they send armor intensive scenarios. Ignore infantry, and you will see scenarios that require infantry. In other words, “predict” a scenario, scale your force structure for that scenario, and as a bare minimum you insure that no intelligent enemy will present you with that scenario (at least not of their own accord!).
	Zak February 13th, 2012 at 1:00 pm We should show some restraint in getting involved in wars to avoid spending our military capital on relatively meaningless conflicts. Trying to build a nation in AFG where they just don’t have the culture to support it is a good example. The people whi live in AFG aren’t a nation and we can’t make them become one.
	Zak February 13th, 2012 at 1:02 pm Have they mothballed all of the B-1s yet? Talk about a cold war aircraft and something that is no longer useful. I have serious doubts about the F-35 as I don’t think the swiss army knife approach is a good idea for designing aircraft. The tool that tries to do everything ends up doing nohting well.
	Zak February 13th, 2012 at 1:05 pm I agree with your point about not assuming things. Some folks think we’ll never be involved in another conventional war which is not a wise assumption. That will only happen if we maintain our superiority in waging such a war. As soon as we lose that edge we will be challenged as historically there is never a shortage of challengers.
	Thinking_ExUSAF February 13th, 2012 at 1:30 pm Let us hope that the smart challengers evalute the capabilities and just decide to “stand down”. Ideally, that will leave us only the rather dull challengers to actually meet in battle, and THAT in itself is a pretty good result to be sought! Still, lets just hope that none of the smart challengers find the “angle” around the capabilities that we retain courtesy of our most “insightful” analyses and distressingly frugal finances.
	JRT February 13th, 2012 at 6:21 pm The Air Force should cut out 1/3 of the general officer billets and downgrade another 1/3 of the billets by one rank. That not only chops the generals, but also their staffs and their perks, and it also whittles down the huge bureaucracy supporting it all.
	Ace February 14th, 2012 at 10:02 am Although I knew it would happen eventually, it pains me to see the A10 starting to get the axe. As a ground troop, it’s good to know a “Hog” is in your AO, just in case.
	Thinking_ExUSAF February 14th, 2012 at 10:33 am ROTGLMAO! I sense another person who appreciates a “different” era! Did you appreciate the effects of a fragmentation grenade, stuffed in a mason jar, spade and all, and dropped out the window, sans bombsight and any software ballistic corrections, from 100 ft and 120 knots? Beats a .45 any day, at least in terms of getting the attention of the intended target and drawing fire! I still like mindset behind the twin 88’s strapped onto the struts, just inboard of the willie pete pods! LOL!
	R.Hannah February 14th, 2012 at 11:53 am The older C-130s need go, “Giant Money Pits”, use todays tech to meet the mission requiments…
	Erik February 16th, 2012 at 10:45 am As much as I know our US Forces are still top of the line, countries like China and Russia are salivating because FINALLY the US Military is getting stepped on by military puppets of the Obama/Pinetta administrations and all these drastic cuts will make it a dream come true for China and Russia that they really dont worry much about the US.…… we are within 2 years of being a second rate military force. China and Russia will love this because now the balance has flipped and we look like China and Russia 5–10 years ago. No ownder countries would rather deal with them and finger us.
	Erik February 16th, 2012 at 11:00 am Cutting the A-10.….. the ONLY kind of CAS aircraft in the world that no one can match in both longevity, survivability and power projection.….…. it is cheaper to modernize the A-10 fleet then to operate 1 B-2 bomber. Wow, what will our military look like in 3–5 years.… a shell of it’s once mighty self. I understand budget constraints but proven weapons systems that are either unmatched or are equally as good as anything our adversaries can field should be kept ongoing and/or if you need to cut it then spread out when certain programs need upgrading. Wow our leadership both military and politically suck!
	alejandro carpio February 28th, 2012 at 9:05 pm american air force and air national guard to need ( i a 63 and ia 59 pucara ) versatil and polivalent

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

AF chief forced to defend cuts

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments