welcome to this weekend in defense news. few u.s. air force chiefs of staff have experienced the more challenging tenure than our next guest, general norton schwartz thrust into office in 2008 after then defense secretary robert gates dismissed the service's top civilian and military leaders over a range of concerns, including the stewardship of the air force's nuclear officer. he was the first pilot to become the air force chief. he has strif ton reinstill d.o.d.'s confidence in the air force, firing and disciplining leadsers when their performance failed to meet expectations. he improved battlefield surveillance and close air support and helped craft the pivot to asia and a closer

strategic partnership with the navy. even as he prepares to retire after 34 years in uniform, cofnts versey continues to cling to the surface. they have failed to confirm his relief. now joining us for his fourth time on this program and his last as the chief of staff of the world's most capable air force, general norton schwartz. welcome to the program. >> good morning. good to be with you. >> let's start out with the top concern concerning the entire pentagon leadership in all of washington which is sequestration. congress has passed legislation to give the administration 30 days to detail its sequestration plans. i know that this is an issue that you have been thinking about long before it's been a popular topic to discuss. >> fundamentally we offer the 13 program which was targeted against the anticipated

financial impacts. we know that sequestration is possible. i think we as well as the secretary of defense and secretary mike donnelly have articulated very clearly what the consequences would be. we chose to get smaller in order to maintain quality. if we have to get yet smaller still, this will be an issue for the strategy that we prepared in january that the president announced. will we be able to execute that strategy? that is a fundamental question and one of great import of america state craft. >> there's one enter immediate step some are proposing. our sources are telling us it's actually gaining traction within the pentagon leadership which is to do what senator lindsay graham has suggested, $109 billion mini sequestration to kick the bigger ball downstream by a year.

what sort of impact would that have? >> clearly less than a trillion dollar hit were sequestration to be fully implemented. we're not privy to those conversations. if our target is an additional hundred billion dollars, we will make choices based on the priority of our capabilities. those that are in demand from the combatant commanders and so on. the only thing that is very important here is maintaining balance. balance between readiness of a smaller force and making sure that we don't completely mortgage the future which we need to continue to do research development and acquisition. >> you've often talked about balance. the plan that you guys forwarded in 2013 budget had a little bit of grief for everybody, but in part was to shrink the force in order to be able to preserve some of the capabilities. but congress has blocked you from cutting that $9 billion that you guys had planned to

because they're angry about the cuts to the active guard and to the reserve force. but you're still required in order to reduce spending under the budget control act. what does that mean? what's next and how do you convince congress to change its mind? >> the fundamental part of this is if the congress decides to retain force structure, what we have said is that you have to provide the resources to operate that force structure. there's nothing worse -- some of us who have been around a little while have seen this picture before where you have too much structure and not enough money. that is the path to a hollow force. that is not where we want to go. our young people who have been in the fight here for more than ten years know the difference between saying you're good and being good. and we definitely want to be the ladder, not the -- the latter, not the former. >> almost everybody admits no matter who wins the election,

there will be a couple billion more cuts in this drawdown which will follow sort of a classical cycle. air force sources have told me when those cuts were made, they were done in consultation with both the guard and the states and the reserve component. if lawmakers don't let you cut the reserves, even in the future or just cut personnel levels entirely, what path do future cuts take? how hoard does your acquisition account, for example? >> here's the point. we have to make the case to the congress that we cannot unbalance this air force. if they want to have the world's best and most feared air force, we need to have balance. and that involves balance amongst the components that's the active duty, the guard and reserve, balance between personnel costs which are high and increasing, acquisition, in other words procurement,

modernization as well as readiness. we have to get that as close to right as possible. it's controversial. there are a thousand views on how to do it right, but the bottom line is i would argue that it is the air force and the department of defense that has the best overall view of how this should be done. and i would just commend again to the leadership in the congress that we need to take a broader view, not so much the tactical view, delegation by delegation or district by district, as difficult as that is, but the broader package, it's important to the nation's defense. >> is there one -- a good friend says one of the problems the air force sometimes has is it does necessary things even with facts on its side but sometimes end up on the wrong political side of the argument. is there a lesson to be learned here in terms of how better to try to do this kind of the thing in the future?

>> i think among other things is not to surprise either the members of congress or the state delegations. in the process we followed last year after seeing the passing of the budget control act in august and we were pressed to get to a budget in the fall of last year, we didn't do all of the interaction perhaps that we might have done. and the bottom line is we know very well that surprising people does not increase your chances of success. >> more with general norton schwartz, chief of staff of the united states air force in just a moment. you're watching this week

better' back with general norton schwartz. sir, the biggest change in u.s. strategy is the refocus and the pacific. the united states -- as itself united states works to reengage with allies, particularly in that region, what does that mean for the u.s. air force? what are you doing to deepen the coordination, training with the folks out in that region but also fundamentally change your equipment mix? >> i think clearly the rebalance to asia for us has meant the absence of reduction. in other words, as we get smaller as an air force, others should note that we have not taken reductions in the standing force in the pacific area, in the pacific commander

area of responsibility. that is the reflection of the priority we are assigning to that undertaking. clearly we have a number of long-term allies. obviously the republic of career, our japanese air self- defense force counterparts, the australians and so on. these are very close relationships, very important. and others, thailand, developing activities with indonesia and others. the point is part of this is structure. part of this is a network of relationships with like minded aviators and air forces. and we will continue to pursue that. clearly there's also a place for navy and air force collaboration as well given the breadth and the terrain involved in the theater.

>> you brought me to my next question which is air-sea battle. that's one of the hottest ideas that exists in military service to get into these antiaccess areas, where foes are erecting defenses to push american forces out of them. there is an office at the pentagon to coordinate and develop doctrine and coordination. but aside from that, there hasn't been a lot of discussion and it's prompted critics to say it's just a fad or just sort of play a head game with the chinese or iranians. where is the program now? what's next and how important is it? >> it's vitally important. the united states navy and the united states air force are the two power projection services of the american armed forces. and it is our services that will enable the army and the marine corps to operate should that be required. i think the key thing here is that there is a proliferation of technology. certainly it is true in the

western pacific. it is likewise true in other areas, including the persian gulf. if we did not respond to these developments, we would be pushed further away from our objective areas with all the attendant disadvantages that would entail. so the cooperation between the navy and the air force is simply what one would expect operators to do. that is to maximize each other's capabilities to support one another and projecting power into areas where adversaries want to limit that access or foreclose our opportunities to maneuver within the theater. >> one thing which seems a little bit discordant, the united states air force has long been both the pioneer and advocate of stealth and the value of stealth in order to be able to operate in any antiaccess situation. it's used that to great effect in almost every conflict we've had in the past 20 years, but the chief of naval operations recently wrote an article that

appeared to question the value of stealth which some people thought was even more interesting for a submariner to be making that kind of a case. basically he questioned the viability of future technologies. how important is stealth and do you agree that advances in computing power helps defend or defeat our stealth advantage and we should be investing more in sort of standoff weapons. >> you have three questions there. first of all if he were sitting here, he would tell you what his point was, is that there is a place for stealth. he's not denying that he's a partner on joint strike fighter. he's a partner on the x47. the bottom line what he was saying is that what we want to be able to do is to calibrate our ambition so that, yes, you will have some of the high end, most sophisticated capabilities, but where that's not required, you can have

something less compelling, like literal combat ship or something along those lines. he wasn't dismissing stealth. what he was saying is we need balances we discussed earlier. >> let me take you then to space. one of the great advantages and something you spend an enormous amount of time on, even though people see wings and think aviator, you're chief of the backbone of logistics intel, you name it. there is increasing concern there's counterspace weaponry that's being developed. what are the systems that you worry about and are we doing enough to defend those constellations that's in space that are absolutely integral to our war fight something. >> they all are important. clearly those that collect imagery and/or signals, those that allow us to observe the weather, those that enable communications in precision navigation and timing as well as warning. bottom line it's vitally important and the key thing here in the environment we're entering which is a contested,

congested space environment, unlike it was certainly when the until and itself the u.s. -- and the u.s. air force had complete dominance. we need to be able to know what's occurring with our space platforms, whether there's interference, whether there's struptions that are caused -- interruptions that are caused by other than natural occurrences. and importantly to be able to attribute who or what or what the source of that interference is. because you cannot deter if you cannot attribute. >> are we doing enough in order to be able to do that? >> probably not enough, but the reality is given the resource constraints we have, we're doing as much as we can, and we clearly understand the necessity for improving space

situation awareness to make sure we retain the resilience of all those constellations you mentioned. >> there's one thing i want to quickly ask you. you told congress recently the air force hasn't distinguished itself with acquisition success. what's the problem and what's the solution? >> it's a complicated business. the bottom line is we need expertise, that is, program managers, cost estimators, contract expertise and so on. we are building that work force. but the reality is that it requires constant attention and vij handles. we did -- and vij rational. we did well with the kc46 program. we didn't do so well with the light aircraft for the afghanistans. the bottom line is it requires constant vigilance on the details every day. more with the chief of staff general norton schwartz.

k, and i was trapped.

no way out. my usualt ransport was nowhere to be found. i knew, then and there, that i needed wheels asap. thats alpha, sierra, alpha...pickle. ahem! sis here's in the military, so i can join navy federal too. he's getting a great rate - so now he can drive himself to laser tag. it's a real sport. no, its not. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

welcome back for more of our talk with general norton schwartz, the u.s. air force chief of staff. before we get to these other questions, i want to ask you about the f-22. where are we on the program? there was some concern buzz r because of the loss of the airmen -- because of the loss of the airmen and something wrong with the aircraft that kept it grounded. are we past these problems? >> we're not past problems. we certainly have a path ahead to correct those problems. we've been with the secretary of defense within the last week. we know what the problem is. it is not a contaminated oxygen supply. it is the quantity of oxygen. we have mechanical fixes and they will begin to roll out in the fall and the months to follow. >> let me take you to the beginning of your tenure. your predecessor's tenure was abruptly ended. there were those who said you were talking about retirement homes in that point in your

career and was suddenly throughout into this situation. what was that day like for you? >> it was a hard day for our air force. the amazing thing was to watch the leadership team come together both because we were sad for buzz mosley but importantly to say okay, this is the situation and now it is time for us to stand up and to carry our air force. and that is exactly what the whole team did, both military and civilian. >> what are the accomplishments you're most proud of? what do you wish you had to do over? >> a couple things on the accomplishment side, cleemplely i think we -- clearly i think we righted the nuclear side and it's important to both to deterrence and the important work of all the people that operate our nuclear enterprise and perform on a daily basis. the remotely piloted aircraft, institutionalizing that, normalizing the career path for

remotely piloted aircraft was important. we emphasized families and their importance to accomplishing the mission. then i'd say finally i think bringing into record the long- range strike bomber was another significant accomplishment that will pay dividends years from now. >> regrets? >> one perhaps and that is that maybe we deemphasized innovation more than we should have. we had some things to do early on and we never really came back to pushing that innovative culture. and i have a good feeling that mark welsh, should he -- welch, should he be confirmed will recover that spirit of innovation. >> on taking office, you drew praise for being tough, especially to leaders that you felt were falling short. but there's also been script civil, -- criticism, for example, the dover mort area case and the military training instructor case where recruits were abused by their

instructors as not moving quickly now to discipline some of those involved in that. what are the lasting lessons here when it comes to the issue of discipline? does the air force need to be tougher on discipline? >> the issue is standards. and that all of us, both at the lower end and the higher levels of supervision have to maintain standards. and if we have to pull the trigger in order to get that done, that is an obligation to the institution. reputations are hard to earn and easy to lose. we know that. and the bottom line is due process is a factor in all of these matters. it certainly was in dover. and it has been at lackland but you cannot dispute the outcome of the most recent court marshal at lackland. >> let me take you to kind of a broader service issue. you flew some of the last missions in the vietnam war. i don't want to date you, sir.

and general mcchrystal suggested that we need to go back to a draft military, spread service around. do you feel that that's the right approach for us in the future to keep those same units from deploying over and over again and to bridge that gap between american military? >> i agree with stan that we need a program of national service but i do not agree we should reinstitute the draft. in other words, have an involuntary work force for the armed forces. we are more sophisticated today. we need a different array of skills than we needed in 1975. and so the bottom line is that the volunteer forces, the right thing for the department of defense if we can manage it in a way that doesn't drive out other things in the department. >> after 43 years of service, you and mrs. schwartz are getting a well deserved rest. what's next? >> hawaii for vacation and then we'll come back and

sir, thanks very much for spending as muscle time as you have -- much time as you have over the years. coming up, my notebook.

uk defense secretary philip hammond came to america this month to pick up britain's first f35 lightning 2 fighter and left behind advice. he called america's position global to security commerce and britain would remain america's closest ally but help europe boost its security role as america dials back its presence. he urged alliance wide cooperation to preserve core skills gained during a decade of war in afghan tan an -- afghanistan and arook, to ensure officers remain effective as rapid reaction forces in the future. he advocated for more

collaborative programs like the joint strike fighter program where allies share a risk to fulfill mutual capability needs. hammond is right. the alliance must preserve hard one counterinsurgency skills through training. europe will benefit from a more active security role in its own neighborhood, africa, the middle east and beyond. and europe must coordinate more closely with washington on asia policy to minimize or eliminate discord. cooperation on requirements, weapon, operations or policy is always challenging, especially as police at a timing nations increase. but it's increasingly vital as budgets shrink. success depends on realistic expectations, genuine commitment and requirements shaped by core needs, not national came please. thanks for join -- caprice. thanks for joining us for "this week in defense news." a happy birthday to the united states coast guard. i'm be back next week at the same time. until then, have a great week.

they were coming. we knew it. there's only so much you can do to prepare for an all-out assault like that. we hunkered down, we braced ourselves... we just didn't have the numbers on the ground. what did we do? we used our navy federal cashrewards card to fly in reinforcements. nana. hoooaah! alright nana!

4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.