CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– DEFENSE
June 17, 2009 – 4:05 p.m.
Top Air Force General Calls Current F-22 Plan ‘High Risk’
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
A top Air Force general says President Obama’s plan to end production of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet puts U.S. military strategy at “high risk.”
Gen. John D.W. Corley, the four-star chief of Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va., wrote a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss , R-Ga., about the impact of Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ’ decision to limit the number of F-22s in the U.S. inventory to 187.
“In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term,” Corley wrote in the June 9 correspondence. “To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.”
Corley’s command organizes, trains and equips the Air Force’s squadrons. His letter represents the clearest rebuke yet from within the military of the administration’s decision to end production of the F-22 and could give some in Congress pause about ratifying one of the highest-profile proposals in Obama’s first defense budget request. There are growing signs that some pivotal lawmakers may be leaning that way.
Gates has argued that 187 F-22s and other combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory, including the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and older models, provide the U.S. military with enough firepower to fight China and engage secondary threats.
Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton A. Schwartz have supported Gates’ decision. In an April 13 Washington Post op-ed, the two Air Force leaders wrote of the F-22, “The time has come to close out production.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday, “We are confident that everybody understands how strongly we feel about ending the F-22 program at 187, as recommended by the president.”
But Corley said 381 F-22s would be the ideal inventory, while about 250 would put U.S. strategy at “moderate risk.”
In recent congressional testimony, Schwartz acknowledged that the official requirement for F-22s is 243, assuming the U.S. military would need to fight two major conventional wars at the same time. But that assumption is changing, he said, adding that procuring more than 187 F-22s would be unaffordable.
With Air Force leaders saluting Gates’ F-22 proposal, private firms working on the program have been slow to fight back. Even Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-22, has shied away from advocating additional F-22s, defense industry executives have said.
Corley’s views could change the equation on Capitol Hill.
“General Corley’s statement is one of the first clear-cut pronouncements from a senior Air Force official regarding the risk inherent with Secretary Gates’ decision to limit F-22 acquisition to 187,” said Douglas A. Birkey, director of Government Relations for the Air Force Association. “This type of insight from a uniformed commander certainly has the potential to change the political dynamics surrounding the F-22. Members of Congress tend to listen to uniformed leaders when they go on record regarding national-security shortfalls.”
Congressional Momentum
Indeed, reports of the F-22’s demise may be premature.
Early Wednesday morning, the House Armed Services Committee shifted $369 million within the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill to authorize the procurement of F-22 parts, enough money to keep the production line alive, according to Rob Bishop , R-Utah, the author of the amendment.
Meanwhile, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye , D-Hawaii, the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said at a June 4 hearing that terminating the F-22 and other programs “may send the wrong signal to our friends and our potential aggressors that we are reducing our capability. It also may have a long-term impact on our defense industrial base. It may diminish our capacity to provide deterrents and reduce our strength that we provide to our allies.”
Corley’s letter was a reply to a letter from Chambliss, a member of the Armed Services Committee who has been a dogged defender of the F-22 program. Although the F-22 is assembled in his state, the senator has said that any defense of the F-22 program first must be made on the basis of national security concerns, not parochial ones, and has added that the jobs his state could lose with the fighter’s cancellation likely would be made up by other military programs.
Obama’s decision to end production of F-22s was not a sharp departure from his predecessor. President Bush did not seek to expand the F-22 inventory, but neither did he shut down the line. Instead, Bush deferred the decision on the fate of the fighter to Obama. Under Obama’s plan, the last four F-22s would be appropriated by the pending supplemental spending bill (
Comments
Apparently General Corley does not understand the chain of command. I would hope that he will "retire" shortly. A difference of opinion is healthy. A letter to a US Senator with clearly parochial interests is inappropriate involvement in the political process by a high ranking member of the military.
Actually, the General's letter to the Senator may likely have been a response to an inquiry by the Senator's office, which the military is legally bound to respond to. Congressional inquiries usually force affected entities to drop everything else to answer very quickly. Additionally, senior military leaders have a duty to provide military opinion to congressional commitees when asked by the Sec Def or by the commitee
Barry, a General Officer is permitted (and in fact obliged) to respond to a direct question from our civilian leadership, regardless if it runs counter to the opinion of superiors. There is absolutely not "chain of command" issue here--General Corley is well within his rights.
Actually no the General is not within his rights. Before coming to conclusion as to what the appropriate number of fighters is, input was solicited from those with a say, such as Gen Corley. Once the analysis was done and the final number arrived at, there is no more discussion. General Corley does not set or dictate what the national strategy is. He commands and set Air Combat Command policy in support of national policy. By choosing to disagree in this manner, he has clearly gone against the final decision of the Secretary of Defense, then he deserves to be cashiered out to whatever civilian job he has lined up and from the looks of it, Lockheed Martin.
Gee, a general wants more toys for his branch of the service. BIG surprise there. Hey, check the generals bank account to. Haven't some Air Force muckity mucks been caught taking bribes from the aerospace giants in the past? That tanker deal seems to come to mind.
In about 20 years, those 187 minus attrition (two wings of aircraft) will comprise the entire USAF arsenal of air combat aircraft. The F-15s/F-16s built during the 1980s will no longer exist and the F-35 is an attack aircraft not a fighter. The Russians plan to reveal their 5th generation fighter in 2010. Once a line is shut down, it's hard to bring back...do some research into the UK Astute class submarines. Just a personal view.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: