Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Request, Future Years Defense Program, and Fiscal Year 2009 Request for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R-OK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first of all say to both of our witnesses I really believe your opening statements were about the best I've ever heard -- very direct, and you got into some areas other people don't want to get into.

Secretary Gates, you, for the first time I ever heard anyone in the last seven years, talked about where we should be in our overall defense system in the future.

It's been seven years since that's really been discussed with this panel. And you talked about percentages of GDP, where we've been in the past, where we are today. I believe I'm accurate when I say that if you go back to a hundred years in the 20th century that it averaged 5.7 percent of GDP. Then, of course, at the end of the drawdowns in the '90s it went down to under 3 percent, about 2.7 percent. Unfortunately, a war came right after that, so you don't know what's going to. That's uncertainty. Another uncertainty is what our needs are going to be in the future, because when I was serving in the House just in 1994, we had a witness that said in 10 years we'll no longer need ground troops. So I think that you'll be surrounded with very brilliant admirals and generals trying to say what are our needs going to be in the distant future, say 10 years from now, and they're going to be wrong.

And so having said that, where we are today, if we include the supplemental spending over this last year, it would be up to 4.7 percent without that 3.4 percent. I know you've probably given some thought looking into the future about where we should be. You want to share any thoughts with us that you've had on that subject?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that -- I used to say during the Cold War that one of -- that if you were to graph the defense budget of the United States over a 30- or 40-year period, it would look like the EKG of a fibrillating heart and there would be deep cuts and then great increases and it would go up and down. It is not an efficient way to do business, and one of the advantages that I believe the Soviets had -- they had many disadvantages -- but one was they had fairly steady growth in their military spending over a protracted period of time. Four times in the 21st century we made the same mistake: We fought a war, thought the world had changed for the better forever and disarmed ourselves, after World War I, World War II, Vietnam and the Cold War. And every time it turned out the world hadn't changed, and so we had to rearm.

Now, it seems to me that if we had a steady state of -- and bipartisan agreement of the investment of America's wealth that are required over the long term to protect the nation, and everybody agreed and pretty much stuck to that figure, then I think we would all be advantaged. And I think, frankly, that when we do have to fight again, we will save both lives and treasure, and I think that number, if you look at it historically, probably ought to be in the 4 percent of GDP range.

SEN. INHOFE: Okay, I appreciate that very much.

You generally agree with his comments, Admiral?

ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir.

SEN. INHOFE: One of the reasons that I bring this up is because there is an expectation of the American people that our kids are over there have the best of everything, and it's just not true, I mean, in terms of equipment. I know that -- Senator Warner's left now, but I can recall when -- when he was chairman of this committee that I said the best Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon or artillery piece that we have for close-air support -- close support is a Paladin, which is World War II technology, where you actually have to swab the breach after every shot.

And that's something people don't understand. There are five countries, including South Africa, that make a better one. And I bring it up at this point because we're making some decisions that I think are very significant. And John Jumper in 1998 had the courage to stand up and say that now the Russians -- and he was referring to their SU-27s and SU-30s -- are making a better strike vehicle than ours. And of course, he was referring to the F-15s and F-16s. In many ways they were better. And that's just -- and during that time frame, China made a very large purchase, and that was unclassified.

But I think that's very significant because until we got into the F-22, we were in a position where we didn't have the best. Yeah, our pilots are better, but the equipment wasn't in some ways as good. Some people say we can get by now with expanding the F-15s, maybe the E models, but they're not stealthy, they don't have -- to me, that wouldn't work.

Now, we're set up right now, we are flying 112 F-22s; six are being accepted by the Air Force, 50 to be built, and ultimately 183, and it's my understanding that's when it stops. And that would mean that the line would start deteriorating around 2009 or 2010.

This is something that does concern me, and I'd like to get your comments as to -- well, and then, of course, it will be another year before you get into Joint Strike Fighter and others.

Do you agree with this level of procurement in F-22s?

SEC. GATES: Yes, sir. We are -- as you say, we are keeping the line open. We will -- there is a buy of 20 F-22s in the base budget. We will probably ask for several more as part of the supplemental. But we do intend to keep the line open.

I'm persuaded that the 183 is probably the right number, or something in that ballpark. I know that the Air Force is up here and around talking about 350 or something on that order. My concern is that the F-22 is $140 million a copy. And the Joint Strike Fighter will be about half that, about $77 million a copy. And so my worry is that if the F-22 production is expanded, that it will come at the expense of the Joint Strike Fighter.

The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater. So it is principally for use against a near peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is. And looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict with one of those near peers over the next four or five years until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along, I think that something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy.

SEN. INHOFE: Well, I'd like to ask Secretary Gates and all of your people to keep an open mind on this, because this is moving, it's not static.

The last question I would ask would be -- just a real quick response, if I could, Admiral Mullen. I've had occasion to spend quite a bit of time in both the CENTCOM and Africa, some 27 trips. The one thing I consistently hear is that we have to enhance our train-and-equip, our 1206, 1207, 1208 and the CERP program. Those are the two most popular programs out there. I would like to know if you agree with that.

ADM. MULLEN: I do, very strongly. General Petraeus and General McNeill in Afghanistan speak literally about CERP money as ammo for making good things happen. And clearly, the 1206 train-and-equip has tremendous leverage far beyond the value of the money that we're actually spending.

SEN. INHOFE: And making it global.

ADM. MULLEN: And making it global.

SEN. INHOFE: Okay. And I agree with that.

I know my time has expired, but just for the record, if you could give us your thoughts about what's happening with AFRICOM now, and particularly as the five African brigades that we've been concerned about, that nothing seems to happen there. And I think of Africa as being a real critical area. So maybe for the record you could do that.

Source