By Joseph E. Sutter
Chairman of the Board
Air Force Association

Unorthodox. That was the word Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used when he recently announced his key decisions on the 2010 defense budget. By "unorthodox," he was referring to the fact that his decisions were released before the White House submitted its budget to Congress. His decisions had three principal objectives: to reaffirm the commitment to the all-volunteer force; rebalance programs to institutionalize and enhance the capabilities to fight today’s wars, while hedging against other risks and uncertainties; and reforming how and what we buy.

Hard to be against any of them. I agree with the Secretary that our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen – and coast guardsmen – are our most important asset. We certainly must do all we can to win today’s fight. And who could argue that we need to do a better job in the acquisition area? There were many positive aspects to the decisions, including reaffirming the importance of the replacement tanker/refueling aircraft and bolstering intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

But in addition to being unorthodox, the impact of the decisions could also be described as bringing us "One day closer…" Some of the cuts could bring us closer to the day when the U.S. Air Force cannot provide the unique capabilities the nation needs and the war fighting commanders rely on.

Are we one day closer… to the day when the US loses air dominance, one of our asymmetric advantages in any conflict – irregular warfare or major conventional-strategic combat operations?  Every plan, every contingency, assumes we will control the skies. One of the first tasks of Operation Desert Storm was to wipe out Iraqi air defenses. Today, our unmanned air vehicles operate freely in Iraq and Afghanistan because we are unchallenged. Ending the production of the F-22 fighter at 187 places at risk our ability to meet known threats. We know others are producing highly capable systems to challenge our current F-15s and the F-22. And they will not stop at 187. As recently as last year, reducing the F-22 buy from 381 to around 250 was described by some as a "medium risk" maneuver. What does capping it at 187 mean? The F-35 will be a wonderful addition and complement, but it is not optimized for air superiority nor does it have the stealthy characteristics of the F-22. We must continue the F-22 production, and pursue equipping our closest allies with a few squadrons of this essential element of our defense.

Are we one day closer… to the day when we cannot rescue a downed airman, our solemn, moral obligation to aircrews of all services? Cancelling the combat search and rescue –X (CSAR-X) helicopter program leaves us with the current force that is nearing the end of its service life and is operationally limited. We are at the verge of a go-ahead decision on the CSAR-X, yet we are terminating it now and taking yet another "…fresh look at the requirement." According to former USAF Chief of Staff, General Mike Ryan: "It is imperative that the Defense Department move swiftly to bring … the CSAR helicopter competition to a satisfactory conclusion that provides our rescue forces with the best equipment for their dangerous mission. Lives depend on it. Just as in a rescue mission, time is of the essence." General Ryan is absolutely right.

Are we one day closer… to the day when we cannot project strategic power, another asymmetric advantage that the USAF provides to our nation? Foregoing the follow-on bomber leaves us dependent on B-52s that are more than 40 years old, around 60 B-1Bs from the 1980s, and only 20 of our "new" B-2s (which came into service about 15 years ago). The bomber force has proven far more flexible and important than most imagined. B-1s are in the air over Afghanistan ready to deliver prompt, precision strikes in today’s fight. In fact, more insurgents are being killed by B-1s and other air assets than by our ground forces. We must move forward with a replacement for our long range strike force.

Are we one day closer… to the day when we are at risk to a ballistic missile attack against the US or our allies? The decisions reduce the Missile Defense Agency program by $1.4 billion, including cancelation of the second airborne laser prototype aircraft. Despite some increases to existing missile defense programs, the overall missile defense effort is being reduced at a time when future threats are quickly becoming a reality. This must be reversed.

On the White House web site, the President is quoted as saying that he will "…ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission." It’s no accident the Combatant Commanders currently possess the most decisive suite of air and space capabilities ever. Congress must carefully consider: Are we one day closer to the day this will no longer be the case?

Joseph E. Sutter is the Chairman of the Board of the Air Force Association, an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation. He is retired from the Air Force, having served more than twenty eight years on active duty.