An observation of some incoherent USAF thinking at the AFA

As I was reading the reports from this past week's conference of the Air Force Association conference in Maryland, I was struck by four comments by USAF generals that might make sense taken individually, but taken together, really don't. As this is one team making pronouncements, and in some cases one person, the incoherence is rather notable. I list them here with the references to the press reports:

The government will not, Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz stated flatly, fund programs just to keep certain companies in business. "We're not going to pay for something without any return on investment," for that "isn't the American way of doing things."
— Sandra Erwin, "Air Force Chief: No Corporate Welfare for the Defense Industry," National Defense, 21 September 2011

The chief also stated that the Next-Generation Bomber is the only manned military aircraft in development today, and as such, it's crucial to the industrial base.
— Dave Majumdar, "AFA: Bomber Program Vital to Industrial Base," Defense News, 21 September 2011

The USAF also wants new air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for its B-52Hs, but doesn't foresee getting them into production before the mid-2020s.
— Dave Majumdar, "AFA: Service to Replace ALCMs on B-52s," Defense News, 21 September 2011

"Land-based aviators" (drone pilots) will eventually outnumber cockpit aviators in the USAF, according to Chief of Air Education & Training General Edward Rice.
— Dave Majumdar, "AFA: UAV Pilots Will Outnumber Those of Manned Aircraft," Defense News, 19 September 2001

Kudos to both Sandra and Dave in the choice of the titles for their articles: one doesn't need to read the actual text to get the point. And that glaringly points to how the underlying plan isn't quite holding together:

(1) We're not going to pay contractors just to keep them around
(2) Unless they're building a big bomber, which is really, really important
(3) Except that it's not so important, because we can do much of that now with our existing cruise missiles
(4) And drones.

We could all have a little more faith in the USAF's sense of strategic planning if it didn't inadvertently expose contradictions like this.

By the way, whatever my enthusiasm for robotic aircraft, I must say that the term "land-based aviator" has the ring of "shore-based sailor". It will induce giggles initially, but there's some sense behind it all the same.

Comments

[Dave Foster]

Tell it to the Marines (and Squids)
Gen Rice; you blue-suiters are all, exclusively, "land-based aviators."

I also liked this implied comic point about Air Force modernization out of the AFA: "...the other services will have to help foot the bill" ( http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/air-force-modernization-needs-will-require-support-of-other-services?a=1&c=1171)

[James Hasik]

I particularly liked this line from Dan Gouré:

"In view of the fact that it has been nearly thirty years—in the case of bombers around fifty—since many capability areas were modernized, the Air Force would seem to have a strong case."

Uh, I count the F(B)-111 in the '60s and '70s, the B-1B in the '80s, and the B-2 in the '90s. So, negative, Ghostrider, that pattern looks pretty full. At least a lot fuller than anyone else's.