In Washington, playing favorites is an old pastime. But the very skilled don’t talk about it, and all attempt to be seen as above it. Yet when it comes to service “favorites” inside the Beltway, the U.S. Navy is the winner and the Air Force the loser.
Just as a parent would never admit having a favorite child, no politician would ever actually admit they have favorites when it comes to the budget. But they don’t have to — the numbers speak for themselves. Overwhelmingly, the Navy is the service with the most political capital, the most potent caucus of supportive Congress members, and the greatest amount of shiny new equipment.
America’s airmen (and to a lesser extent, its soldiers) have had a difficult time making their case to stakeholders for years and for many reasons, principally the service’s leadership culture and draconian guidance from budget bosses. A recent survey of journalists about which defense players they trust most saw the Air Force place last in every category. It’s no surprise, then, that airmen find Capitol Hill a most unwelcome place.
Let’s look at a few examples from this year’s defense policy bills, which elucidate these observations.
As in recent years, Congress will again prevent the Air Force’s attempt to retire the A-10 attack aircraft to pay for more F-35s, despite the fact that congressional budgeteers have given the Air Force no choice. Instead of living with its own “hard choices,” Congress will instead further hamstring the F-35 program, already 149 planes behind schedule for lack of funding.
Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz., unwarranted crusade against the crucial and under-cost B-21 bomber program now also seems likely to succeed. Nuclear weapons skeptic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, R-Ore., passed an amendment that would bring the House into agreement with McCain’s push to force the Air Force to disclose the total cost of the bomber to the defense committees, thereby likely disclosing its capabilities to adversaries shortly thereafter. McCain’s quest to unwisely change the contract type used for the new bomber may also end in victory, and both chambers will place new onerous reporting requirements upon a program largely successful precisely because it has been left alone.
Similarly, the Senate will again try to prevent the Air Force from purchasing further RD-180 rocket engines from Russia, which could increase costs or lead to a gap in which the Air Force is unable to launch national security satellites. Congress will also place numerous restrictions on the replacement program, micromanaging how the new funding is spent rather than allowing the Air Force to build a seriously competitive space launch industry.
Nor, apparently, can the Air Force be trusted to buy even the most basic of helicopters — a replacement of the geriatric UH-1N Hueys used to guard and maintain intercontinental ballistic missile sites. Congress has gone back and forth several times between forcing the Air Force to buy Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawks to fill the role immediately or holding a full and open completion that would result in a longer but cheaper program.
Still other examples in this year alone include congressional action to require the Air Force’s Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System plane replacement use a fixed-price contact for development, transfer the Air Force’s weather satellite programs to the National Reconnaissance Office, and withhold funding for its commercial communications satellites. Last year, appropriators killed the 20th Air Force weather satellite. In March, the 19th satellite went dark, meaning that the Air Force will need to either launch the now-scrapped 20th satellite or face gaps in providing warfighters with crucial weather data. Thanks, Congress, for the prescient foresight.
Compare the congressional cold shoulder toward the Air Force with its warm embrace of the Navy. For starters, the Navy is close to getting the Air Force and Army to essentially pay for its new and very expensive ballistic missile subs, also thanks to Congress. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Navy received $3.2 and $3.5 billion free and clear out of the $4.2 and $4 billion of extra procurement dollars added above the president’s requests.
A stroll through acquisition documents shows almost every large Navy program under coveted multi-year procurement authority, which Congress can bestow upon programs to lock in future funding and cost savings — and most importantly, program stability. Also, the main (if unstated) immediate focus of Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s vaunted third offset technology investment is new naval missiles and munitions, alongside billions in undersea warfare spending.
Of the extra procurement funding planned by the House and McCain’s amendment this year, the Navy receives more than the Air Force and Army combined. The Senate Appropriations defense bill favors Navy aircraft procurement, and all committees agree to some extent with the House plan to bump up shipbuilding by $2 billion over this year’s request.
The pivot to Asia and aggression by Russia brought renewed purpose and funding to the Navy and Army, but not the Air Force. Despite its unheralded role in supporting the joint force and its crucial role in establishing air superiority, the service continues to bear the brunt of reduced funding and constant meddling by Congress that goes beyond helpful oversight.
The first step toward better relations is to admit there is a problem. Hopefully, Congress will get the message that they must be a partner, and not just a parent, to the U.S. Air Force.
Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where Rick Berger is a research assistant.
