Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Gates' Plan Fails To Meet Our Defense Requirements

After reviewing the statement of Secretary Gates, I have concluded that the Obama Administration is putting forward a plan that it flawed and unbalanced. Two decisions in particular stand out. First, in the aftermath of the test launch of a North Korean missile, the Administration moves to slash the ballistic missile defense program. What sense can be made of that? Certainly the threat from rogue nation’s ballistic missiles has not been diminished. Second, the agenda seems unduly biased against the Air Force. Not only is Gates stopping production of the F-22 fighter, he is also canceling the C-17, the CSAR helicopter, the Airborne Laser, and the new strategic bomber. When viewed in context of last years’ purge of the Air Force leadership one has to ask, are these well founded actions or do they spring in part from some animus toward the Air Force?

It is clear that there is a major disconnect between Secretary Gates’ stated rationale and the decisions that he presented. Secretary Gates says that he wants to avoid over-insuring “against remote or diminishing threats” but then he slashes ballistic missile defense the day after the North Korean missile test. That is hardly a remote or diminishing threat. The combination of the North Korean missile program and the Iranian nuclear weapons program pose a clear challenge in the years ahead.

Similarly, his plan to cancel F-22 production makes little sense in that it would leave the Air Force with seven incomplete squadrons and too few aircraft to maintain these units over a reasonable life-cycle. How does he propose to maintain air superiority with so few aircraft? While his support for the F-35 is laudable, it is an aircraft optimized for ground attack not air superiority. It was always planned that the larger force of F-35s, which will ultimately replace the F-16 in the Air Force inventory, would be supported by a true air dominance fighter, i.e. the F-22. It is a mistake to see these aircraft as alternatives but rather as complementary components of a balanced force. Apparently, we have a Secretary of Defense who fails to understand this.

No comments:

Post a Comment