{"id":58057,"date":"2020-01-27T20:03:32","date_gmt":"2020-01-27T20:03:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2020\/01\/27\/air-forces-top-general-doesnt-want-to-get-mired-in-budget-paranoia\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T00:19:21","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T00:19:21","slug":"air-forces-top-general-doesnt-want-to-get-mired-in-budget-paranoia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/air\/2020\/01\/27\/air-forces-top-general-doesnt-want-to-get-mired-in-budget-paranoia\/","title":{"rendered":"Air Force\u2019s top general doesn\u2019t want to get mired in \u2018budget paranoia\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 As Navy and Army leaders <\/a>jostle for a bigger piece of the Defense Department budget<\/a>, the Air Force\u2019s top general doesn\u2019t want to get sucked in the drama.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Defense Department is weeks before the unveiling of its fiscal year 2021 budget<\/a>, tentatively set for Feb. 10. But while other military officials are making the case for increased spending on their service, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein seemed resigned to the fact that the Air Force will have to make sacrifices in order to have the money for investments the service sees as critical for maintaining its technological edge against China and Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBudget paranoia is a service core competency,\u201d joked Air Force Gen. Dave Goldfein during a Center for a New American Security event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDo we need more resources than we have? Absolutely yes. Would I be offering the legacy capabilities to buy the future if I didn\u2019t have to [in order] to balance the books? No. I wouldn\u2019t be asking combatant commanders to take a real-time, near-term risk if we had the resources to do it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goldfein\u2019s comments follow statements by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who argued earlier this month that the Navy and Army needed to have larger percentages of the Defense Department\u2019s budget to meet the demands set forth by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two-year budget deal<\/a> from last summer called for $740 billion in defense spending for FY21, but the Defense Department has not disclosed whether it will mold its budget to that topline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gilday said that while the Pentagon usually divides its funding roughly equally among the departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Navy needs a greater share to meet its obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHere\u2019s the deal: We need more money,\u201d Gilday said<\/a> Jan. 14 at the Surface Navy Association\u2019s annual conference. \u201cIf you believe that we require overmatch in the maritime domain, if you believe that in order to execute distributed maritime operations and to operate forward in numbers now that we need more iron, then, yes, we need more top line.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A day later, McCarthy shot back, saying that the Army actually gets a smaller portion of the budget than the other services despite handling 60 percent of combatant commanders\u2019 requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe actual math is the Army gets 24 percent [of the budget], and we [actually] have less than 24 percent \u2014 it\u2019s really 22 percent because 2 percent of our margin is [spent] to finance operations in the Middle East,” McCarthy said at a Jan. 15 Defense Writers Group breakfast, according to Military.com.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But asked why the Air Force needed a bigger share, Goldfein said he preferred not to jump into the debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019ve been in the business too long to see that when you start going after each other, it rarely produces much value,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goldfein acknowledged that there was a \u201ctension\u201d to budget negotiations as the Air Force finalizes its proposal. Service leaders have been clear that the Air Force is prepared to divest legacy aircraft to make investments in key priorities like joint all domain command and control (JADC2), even though such changes could raise the ire of members of Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\t