Editorial: Justify two-war budget

Editorial: Justify two-war budget

In a tacit admission that the Air Force has failed to articulate a clear strategy for the future, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Dec. 3 the service is developing a budget for what leaders are calling the “required force.”

This “required force” will include more C-17s and F-22s, F-35s, a new tanker, a new combat search-and-rescue helicopter, a new long-range bomber, more UAVs and more space assets. The cost: $10-20 billion a year more than what the Air Force expects to get now — for at least five years.

That it will take a year to come up with this new budget plan is an indication of just how far out of line the service’s budget is with its ambitions.

At a meeting with reporters, Wynne disclosed that the Air Force is basing its plans — including its part of the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review — on the thesis that the Air Force must be prepared to fight two major wars at the same time, rather than the prevailing Pentagon standard of one major war and one smaller conflict — the model used for the 2005 QDR. The two-war scenario was the standard across the services until former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld changed the requirement.

Plenty of observers think the QDR has it wrong and the two-war scenario is exactly what the services should be planning for. But cynics will point out that the two-war scenario can only help the service’s argument that it needs many more F-22s than it has.


Rest of article at: http://www.airforcetimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_editorial_budget_071224/



uhc comment: Preemptive strike --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=259&topic_id=5912

An oldie, but a goodie --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=259&topic_id=5055

Speaking for myself, I don't think we need more C-17s at $202,000,000 a pop in 1998 dollars, F-22s at $330,000,000 a pop, and F-35s at $233,000,000 a pop.