Well played, Secretary Gates

SPEECH: Air Force Association Convention, By Robert M. Gates, September 16, 2009

Excerpts:

IRREGULAR WARFARE
As you know, institutionalizing these kinds of capabilities was what drove many of my budget recommendations earlier this year. The goal was to give these critical capabilities a seat at the table when priorities are set and budget decisions were being made. But, contrary to what some have alleged, the purpose was not to reorganize and rearm the entire U.S. military to hunt insurgents and do nation-building or to fight wars just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Program specific to these kinds of missions will continue to
make up a small fraction of overall defense spending. For example, over the next few years, the Air Force is planning to devote an extra $175 million annually on programs dedicated exclusively to irregular warfare - a significant commitment at a time of tight budgets, but not exactly an existential threat to overall modernization accounts, which, in the case of the Air Force's, will total some $64 billion requested for the next fiscal
year.

"FIGHTER GAP"
the Air Force's modernization program includes accelerating the retirement of more than 230 of its oldest fighters - just under 13 percent of the total fighter inventory - leading some to allege a looming "fighter gap." In my view, such a conclusion is based on dated assumptions about requirements and risk - assumptions that also pervade thinking about some of our land, sea, and amphibious forces as well. The definition of the requirement should be un-tethered from the current force structure and instead be defined by what is needed to defeat potential adversaries in plausible scenarios. What we then find is that the more compelling gap is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations. For example, the United States is projected to have more than 1,000 F-22s and F-35s before China fields its first fully operational fifth-generation fighter - a gap that will grow well into the 2020s.

The disparity with other countries is even greater when it comes to pilot quality and logistics. Last year the United States Air Force devoted one-and-a-half million hours to flight training - not counting ongoing operations - and conducted roughly 35,000 aerial refueling missions. The Russian Air Force, by comparison, conducted about 30 refueling sorties.

UAV POTENTIAL
A key additional - and yet untapped - part of this mix of capabilities is unmanned aerial vehicles. Today, because of their effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan, these systems are mostly thought of as counterinsurgency platforms. But they have enormous game-changing implications for conventional conflict as well.

In future years, these remotely piloted aircraft will get more numerous and more advanced, with greater range and the ability to fight as well as survive. The director of the Air Force's unmanned task force has compared judging UAV potential based on today's systems to judging manned aircraft based on the Wright Brothers Flyer. Large numbers of increasingly capable UAVs - when integrated with our fifth-generation fighters - potentially give the United States the ability to disrupt and overwhelm an adversary using mass and swarming tactics, adding a new dimension to the American way of war.

At this point it is not clear what the full strategic impact could be - whether, for example, it could be comparable to the impact of carrier aviation on naval warfare. We certainly do not want to engage in the kind of techno-optimism that has muddled strategic thinking in the past. But we cannot ignore the wider implications of this profound shift in battlefield technology, especially since their low cost and high utility make UAVs very
attractive to other nations.

LONG RANGE STRIKE -- BOMBER
I am committed to seeing that the United States has an airborne long-range strike capability - one of several areas being examined in the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review. What we must not do is repeat what happened with our last manned bomber. By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive - $2 billion each in the case of the B-2 - that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever
built.

Looking ahead, it makes little sense to pursue a future bomber - a prospective B-3, if you will - in a way that repeats this history. We must avoid a situation in which the loss of even one aircraft - by accident, or in combat - results in a loss of a significant portion of the fleet, a national disaster akin to the sinking of a capital ship. This scenario raises our costs of action and shrinks our strategic options, when we should be looking to the kind of weapons systems that limit the costs of action and expand our options.

Whatever system is chosen to meet this requirement - be it manned, unmanned, or some combination of the two - it should be one that can realistically be produced and deployed in the numbers originally envisioned. That is why it is so important that with aircraft - as with all of our major weapons systems - schedules are met, costs are controlled, and requirements are brought into line with reality.

REFUELING TANKER
I am pleased to announce that source selection authority is returning to the Air Force for the KC-X refueling tanker, with a draft Request for Proposals to follow. I don't need to belabor the importance of getting this done soon and done right, and my office will continue to have a robust oversight role. We are committed to the integrity of the selection process, and cannot afford the kind of letdowns, parochial squabbles, and corporate food-fights that have bedeviled this effort over the last number of years

Gates continues to play this game very well, knowing time (meaning, current contingencies) is most definitely on his side. All very sensible stuff that shows he will not be suckered into stupid arguments.

I especially like the "existential threat" comment on modernization. The guy's got a wonderful bit of smart-ass in him.

(Thanks: Thayer Scott)

Comments

[Joe Michels]

I don't understand all the implications of bomber procurement, but if the B-2 is so advanced and the issue is we don't have enough of them, why not just start of the assembly line and build more? Assuming we would save money doing that if we didn't have to pay for all the R&D of a B-3 program before we even start building them.

I take Tom's view that China is not a great threat. I believe that another 20 years of America influence will eventually convert their political environment from a single party system to a multi party democracy. It would helpful if that was our foreign policy objective. Our current ruling class admires the abilities of autocracies to command domestic rule, so they don't have a strategic policy to bring China into the democratic fold as far as I can tell.

[large]

Gates represents the capable executive, unbothered by politics . . A good choice by Bush, and even better choice by Obama.

It's just too damned bad he's the only capable and responsible cabinet member either administration has had in about 20 years. The rest have been (or seemed to be) no more than political hacks and yes men!