战略与国际研究中心-The-Air-Force-of-the-Future--A-Comparison-of-Alternative-Force-Structures_45页_4mb

The Air Force of the Future: A Comparison of Alternative Force Structures

Core Content

This report, authored by Todd Harrison, compares three independent studies on the future force structure of the U.S. Air Force, conducted in response to the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The studies were carried out by the Air Force itself, the MITRE Corporation (a federally-funded research and development center), and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), an independent think tank. The goal of the report is to evaluate the findings of these studies and provide an independent assessment of the Air Force's current state and future challenges.

Main Points

1. Current State of the Air Force

• Budget Trends: The Air Force budget has followed a cyclical pattern, with four major boom and bust cycles since its creation in 1947. It has reached a post-Cold War high in FY 2020, but the force structure has been in decline.
• Force Structure Decline: Over the past 30 years, the total active inventory (TAI) of aircraft and the active duty end strength have steadily declined. The FY 2020 budget request supports about 5,300 aircraft and 333,000 active duty service members, compared to over 9,400 aircraft and 602,000 personnel in FY 1985.
• Operating Costs: Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs have grown faster than procurement costs, partly due to increased operational tempo during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The average O&M cost per aircraft is 74% higher today than in FY 2001.
• Cost Per Flying Hour: This metric varies significantly by aircraft type and includes both variable and fixed costs. The E-4B airborne command post has the highest cost per flying hour, while the MQ-1B Predator and MQ-9A Reaper have the lowest.
• Total Ownership Cost: This metric includes all costs associated with aircraft, both variable and fixed. The MITRE study found that total ownership cost is inversely correlated with the number of aircraft in the inventory, suggesting that larger fleets can reduce per-unit costs.

2. Acquisition Programs

• Top Priorities: The Air Force's top three acquisition priorities are the F-35A, B-21, and KC-46A programs.
• Other Major Programs: The Air Force also plans to replace ICBMs through the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program and develop the Next-Gen OPIR missile warning satellites.
• Procurement Funding: Classified procurement funding has more than doubled in real terms over the past 20 years. In FY 2020, the Air Force's classified procurement funding reached $18.4 billion, with advanced component development and prototypes reaching $8.5 billion.
• Pass-Through Funding: A significant portion of the Air Force's procurement and RDT&E funding is pass-through, meaning it is allocated to other organizations. The total pass-through funding in FY 2020 was $39 billion, but the specific accounts and uses are not disclosed.

3. Readiness and Operational Tempo

• Readiness Metrics: The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) uses proxy measures to estimate readiness, such as the number of qualified personnel, equipment availability, maintenance, and training. However, these metrics do not assess the quality of inputs or the effectiveness of readiness generation.
• Operational Tempo: The Air Force has faced high operational tempo, which has impacted readiness and increased costs. This is due to the increased demands of current missions and the need to sustain readiness while modernizing the force.

Key Information

• The NDAA did not require the studies to be conducted without resource constraints, meaning the findings are based on realistic budgetary and operational limits.
• The three studies aim to provide alternative visions for the future force structure, helping the Air Force and policymakers make informed decisions.
• The studies highlight the challenges of maintaining readiness and operational capability with a shrinking force and increasing costs.
• The report emphasizes the need for a more sustainable force structure that can adapt to future threats and technological advancements.

Conclusion

• The report identifies areas of agreement, ambiguity, and disagreement among the three studies.
• It points out that the Air Force faces unique budgetary and force structure challenges that are not seen in previous decades.
• The report suggests that the Air Force may benefit from consolidating capabilities into common multi-mission platforms to reduce operating costs.
• It also raises questions about the sustainability of current funding trends and the effectiveness of readiness metrics.

Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

• Areas of Agreement: All studies agree on the need to modernize the Air Force and address future threats.
• Areas of Ambiguity: The exact impact of budget constraints on force structure and readiness is unclear.
• Areas of Disagreement: The studies differ in their recommended force sizes, mixes, and prioritization of capabilities.
• Unanswered Questions: The report highlights the need for further research into the long-term sustainability of the Air Force's budget and force structure.

Final Thoughts

The report underscores the importance of strategic planning and budgeting for the Air Force's future. It suggests that the Air Force must balance modernization, readiness, and cost-effectiveness in a complex and evolving security environment. The findings of the three studies provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities facing the Air Force as it moves toward the 2030 timeframe.