Inside James Mattis’ Pentagon
Chief Tango sends us a link to Defense News where Scott Maucione gives a peek at the priorities in the Defense Department of Secretary James Mattis;
If you want to sell something to the Defense Department, make sure it can help kill someone.
That’s what Acting Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology James MacStravic says the Pentagon is prioritizing under the new administration.
[…]
“If I can’t discuss an acquisition issue in the context of lethality, I have immediately lost the secretary’s interest. His first question every time I bring an acquisition question, opportunity, investment decision to him is, ‘Tell me again how this contributes to lethality,’” MacStravic said.
“It doesn’t have to be lethal in and of itself, but he wants to understand how it’s improving the current lethality of the force, not what it will be in five years, because Secretary Mattis works under the supposition that we could go to war at any time … it’s more important to know what will work in the field right now than to be confident about what will work in the field in five years because we don’t know what the threat will be in five years.”
Mattis’ predecessor, Ash Carter, was more interested in the future, evidenced by his support for ending the A-10 Warthog program for some nebulous replacement somewhere down the road, while the troops involved in Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan need air support today. The difference between a war-fighter and a paper-pusher. Carter seemed uncomfortable with admitting that there was a current war he needed to fight.
Mattis has retained the programs begun by Carter while focusing on making his mark on way the Pentagon does business today on the battlefield.
Category: Big Pentagon
I LOVE the way this warrior-monk thinks.
Finally, a real SecDefense.
What will enable the other poor SOB to die for his country?
General Mattis wants to make the grass grow!
I’ve heard that when General Mattis works out he doesn’t get stronger, the machine does.
Makes me long for the days of my military industrial career where I had my choice of jobs and made mucho money. I always argued the point that it could cost lives if it did not perform as required. They listened to me because I was a veteran and argued from the point of the end user. I hope those days are back for todays engineer/veteran.
Good jobs keeping freedom alive for all.
” … because Secretary Mattis works under the supposition that we could go to war at any time.”
Finally! Reality.
“The difference between a war-fighter and a paper-pusher.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! By that very simple truth, Jonn wins the Internet for the day … I remain perplexed as to how so many in America (in particular, the political class) don’t see or understand that.
Give that man a cigar !!!
“Secretary Mattis works under the supposition that we could go to war at any time…”
The first SECDEF in a long time to actually do his job.
Okay, I admit it. I have a crush on GEN – er, SecDef Mattis.
I’m not saying I’m proud of it, but maybe a fan letter…?
Since several people keep mentioning that the A-10 airframes are aging, is there some real-world reason that a new, updated version of that plane can’t be produced?
In regard to aging airframes, I know that there are plenty of people who find and restore old planes, including very old antiques, to working order and keep them flying. That includes WWII German, Brit and US fighter planes that were junked, and are back in working order. Restoring warbirds is a big deal. The National Air and Space Museum is restoring a German Night Fighter.
Think we need something quicker than a painstaking restoration… we need the ability to make new production parts. I have seen restorations take years and thousands of hours (not to mention millions of dollars) for just one plane.
Oh, I’m not denying that, David. My brother has to do a new cover on his 1946 taildragger about once every 10 years, but that gives him an opportunity to check the frame itself, check and overhaul the engine, if needed.
I’m strongly in favor of an updated version of the Warthog, with parts that can be interchangeable with the 1st edition of the plane. That would not only expand that air fleet considerably, and allow it to be included with the Army, Marines and Navy, but would save some costs in the long run, too.
Wish and ye shall receive, Ex:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-machete-the-super-plane-could-replace-the-10-warthog-or-19431
There are some other designs being looked at as well.
At least there is something in the pipeline there.
This briefs well, but there are a lot of problems. Mostly it’s all about the Benjamins. What program will go away so the Army, Navy, and Marines can field A-10s? Should the Army cancel the Apache, or upgrades to the M1 or not field the next fighting vehicle? One of the reasons for the F35 project cost overruns was the different service variants, which are necessitated by different service doctrine and warfighting concepts (in other words, the Marines, Navy, and Air Force will use the for different things). That’s why the Marines stuck with Cobras and Harriers and F18s for CAS and didn’t buy the A10 in the first place. Second, it definitely won’t happen for the Army. The Army is prohibited by law and Joint agreement (look up the Key West agreement) from having armed fixed wing aircraft AND from doing CAS. That’s why we use helicopters. Contrary to popular belief, the Apache does not do CAS, it does Close Combat Attack (CCA). Finally, we’ve looked at this before and said ‘no thanks’. At least twice since DS/DS the Air Force has asked the Army to take the A10, and the Army said ‘no’. Here’s then AF Chief of Staff McPeak (everybody’s favorite) talking about it: “A decade ago, while serving as Air Force chief of staff, I went quietly to my Army counterpart, Gordy Sullivan, and proposed that we make a trade: swap the Air Force’s primary close air support aircraft, the A-10, for the Army’s theater air defense missile, the Patriot. Had he agreed, Sullivan and I would have faced bitter opposition from within our own services and probably could not have pulled it off.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/06/05/leave-the-flying-to-us/4ab40e23-5038-4749-9b2a-d58977b8a33a/?utm_term=.5a2351bc5e27 The reason is essentially cost: The Army would have to build new airfields, create and train a whole new flavor of pilots and mechanics, build units from scratch, and start an entirely new collective training program, all to give us CAS, something the Air Force is required to give us for free. To an Army guy, we don’t care what is providing CAS as long as it’s there when we need it.… Read more »
It’s a cost/benefit issue, Ex. Older aircraft just plain cost more in parts and man-hours to maintain. You reach a point where it’s no longer smart to field that particular type of bird. Smart folks will have a suitable replacement in the pipeline. The F-35 was not suitable to replace the A-10 by any stretch.
Thanks, AW1Ed.
Whatever it is that we end up with in the hangar, I hope it’s as versatile and economical as the A-10 has proven itself to be.
You ask a good question. I’m sure the duty of an A-10 is rougher than it would be for a cargo plane or a heavy bomber. However, it is worth remembering that our fleet of B-52’s is well over 50 years old and expected to serve until 2040! The youngest 52 has a tail number that starts with 63, the year of its procurement.
The USAF loves their nuke mission though. My time in during the war on terror was terribly frustrating for me cause we were still practicing/preparing for the war with Russia than we were for the wars we were actually fighting. So I’m sure the 52 has received considerably more planning and preparation for its intended century of service than the lowly Warthogs.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2012-10-26-Youngest-Boeing-B-52-Stratofortress-Achieves-50-Years-of-Service
That’s really something. The oldest 747-400 passenger liner was built in 1988. I do remember the first time I saw one. It was circling for a landing approach to Dulles Airport in 1969, just ahead of a coming storm. I was on top of a hill in Fairfax County, VA with some friends when that thing went overhead. It looked like it was flying low enough to touch it, but then when I saw one of them in a photo next to a car, I realized just how big they really were.
What we need is reliable machinery that can last a long time, despite the wear and tear.
Ex PH2,
The answer to your question about restoring the A-10 may seem simple, but there is more to it than one may think. First and foremost, the A-10 is a ferocious war beast that escorted me on several missions so I have bias. However, the plane is no longer in mass production. The factories shutdown, components are harder to find, and the overall design limits expansion with newer technology. Sadly, due to the flux over the past years, the A-10 has been in sustainment and pretty soon, it will go into sunset which means no more money will be spent on it. It is not so easy to grab the design from 1970’s, retool the factories, and start mass producing the A-10. It has gone through numerous upgrades to get to the point of where it is, currently. Furthermore, should a new A-10 be built, it will still need to go through the basic test protocols to ensure it was built correctly. The process will be lengthy either way. The question becomes whether to spend time on building an old design or redesign a similar and more capable platform. If it were up to me, and it never will be, I’d redesign a more capable A-10 to have similar components to what is currently uses (specifically the GAU-8 avenger). I love the warthog, and I am friends with many of the pilots, but they admit they have problems.
The A-10 production line was closed in 1984.
A few years ago Boeing won a $1.7 billion contract to re-wing the A-10 fleet. That in theory extends their lifetime to 2040.
The biggest advantage to the A-10 is the insane number of rounds it carries. 20mm is essentially equivalent to the GAU-8 30mm round in terms of CAS, but a Hog carries over 1,100 rounds, compared to the 511 rounds for an F-16 or 182 (internal) / 220 (external) for an F-35.
On the other hand, the A-10 is very expensive to operate, even if it is much cheaper per hour than an F-16 or F-15.
While the Super Tucano has gotten some ink, as well as the Texan II, most folks have ignored UAV designs. I suspect the next CAS platform will be unmanned.
Casey,
You are exactly correct regarding the A-10 wings, but the contract also converted them to the A-10C with key upgrades, such as the weapons it carries and better radios. The sad fact of the matter is during the previous administration, the budgets were cut using the sequester which was a 10% across the board. Instead of giving the service chiefs the ability to shift funds from personnel, R&D, military construction to procurement or operations/maintenance, the USAF had to take drastic measures. If you look at the mission of the USAF, the A-10 is an air interdiction/CAS king, but other platforms can do that mission. In case of a near peer adversary, the USAF needs to be ready to dominate the air, use precision strike capabilities, provide rapid mobility of troops and equipment. The choice facing then Chief of Staff General Welsh was slash future capabilities of the F-35 and delay its fielding or end the A-10 knowing other airframes can do the mission, not as well, but it will be covered. I do not envy the weight of decisions the Generals make.
Jigging machinery is jigging machinery. Henry Ford’s Willow Run plant was turning out B-24 Liberator bombers at the rate of ONE per hour in the 1940s, with no robot machinery. ALL production was human mechanics. No robots existed back then. When Kaiser-Willys produced the design for the Willys jeep, Ford’s assembly plants took over production of it for the war. Ford’s engine plant in England turned out 30,000 V-12 engines, more than the Rolls Royce plant produced. By the end of the war, Ford had built 86,865 complete aircraft, plus 57,851 airplane engines, tanks, armored vehicles, thousands of engine superchargers and generators, and 4,291 military gliders. All planes built on production lines are plans-built. Anyone who wants to build a Waco CG4 3 glider can get the plans from the National Air and Space Museum. My brother built two Pietenpol air campers from plans. People do this all the time. The difference between the EAA plane builders and restorers is that those people are doing it in their spare time, not on assembly lines. They spend long hours at it, and since their lives depend on accuracy in following those plans, they are very attentive to detail. There are assembly plants going to waste in Detroit. Restoring production of military aircraft to those plants for platforms such as an upgraded model of the A-10 would certainly provide employment in a city that needs it badly. Call it A-10NEXT If the Marinette Corporation can build Navy ships up near Milwaukee (yes, it does) then there is no reason a versatile military plane similar to the A-10 can’t be built in Detroit. There is also no reason that the plans for the current A-10 cannot be used (because that platform works) with minor upgrades. In any new design, tools have to be designed and built, so the objection to ‘more of the A-10, more with upgrades’ doesn’t hold water. A sleek, shiny F-fighter that can’t turn, land or even fly without danger of crashing is a waste of taxpayers’ money. When planes are put into production that threaten the lives of the… Read more »
Ex PH2, If you think building a glider , a 1940’s bomber, or refitting a ship is the equivalent of a modern stealth fighter, then you do not have the competence to continue the argument. You have no knowledge the construction of modern aircraft nor flight/test experience . Furthermore, based upon your screen name, Ex PH2 (E-5) rank, you never had to make multi-million/billion dollar decisions affecting the Department of Defense. General Welsh was put in a difficult situation, and the best answer all of his staff could conclude was to put into sunset the A-10. Since you probably did not research his background, that was his first jet flown, and he had an affinity for it. Personally, I hate the decision, but I understand the reasoning. If it were up to me, I’d eliminate every nicety band in the AF, protocol agency, worthless GS employee rat-holed in a corner taking up time and space (similar to Ex PH2 when you were enlisted), and provide key incentives for commanders who increased cost savings without skimping on mission readiness. However, that is not how budgets are made and funds appropriated. We do programming of money (POM) years in advance. The sequester removed many resources, and the Generals were left to decide what they can cut without removing the USAF’s core competency. So Ex PH2, if it is so easy to retool a factory and get American workers back to work, why hasn’t GM, Ford, or any other car dealer doing so? Why are the airlines not using this same abandoned factories to rebuild civilian airliners? The answer is simple. The American work force does not have the necessary skills to build on a mass level like the 1940s. The are not as many welders and machinists as you believe. Training would take time. It would be cost prohibitive, and contracts for the rebuilding the A-10 would be inflated for the work force costs alone. The work force problem affects most in my generation and younger (snowflakes) since they would rather live in their mother’s basement playing video games because they can’t… Read more »
I love the fact we finally have someone in the chair who is thinking about how to fight and win the NEXT war, not the last one.
And THAT, my little snowflake flavored cupcakes, is how you prepare for, and prosecute a WAR.
AAAAAHhhh, life with adults in charge…
Bingo. Nice, ain’t it?
The military doing military stuff?
Alert The Hague!
So I guess that means updating uniforms & accessories to meet current fashion trends is out? Oh, dear.
Well, if the fashion trend yields a new camo that increases lethality of our combatants…..
But the smart one also knows when “good enough” is good enough for now.