news

[global times special correspondent chen yang] the fact that the ukrainian air force f-16 fighter jet crashed in its first combat mission at the end of august dealt a heavy blow to ukraine and the western countries that supported it. the us media later revealed that the biden administration rejected the proposal to send us defense contractors to ukraine to maintain western military equipment including f-16 fighter jets, citing security reasons. at the same time, this also accidentally exposed an important loophole in the logistics maintenance of us military equipment - the increasing reliance on civilian defense contractors.

the pentagon lacks adequate response plans

the wall street journal recently quoted u.s. officials as saying that the f-16 is one of the most iconic jet fighters of the u.s. air force and requires an extremely high level of maintenance. according to relevant data from the u.s. air force, the f-16 requires 7-20 hours of ground maintenance for every hour of flight, and each fighter is equipped with dozens of logistics support personnel. the report said that "all countries, including the united states, rely to some extent on private companies and their personnel to help maintain such complex fighters." without defense contractors to provide maintenance services for the fighters, including repairs and replacement of parts, it will be difficult for ukraine to keep these western-supplied fighters operational.

the maintenance of the f-35 is entirely the responsibility of lockheed martin. (source: u.s. air force website)

the ukrainian air force is not unaware of this problem. in may this year, a ukrainian air force spokesman revealed that the first batch of ukrainian technicians who received f-16 fighter maintenance training had returned home, and "these technicians are expected to spread their new knowledge to other ukrainian counterparts." however, western observers generally believe that compared with the ground crew required for the actual operation of the f-16, the number of people in the ukrainian air force who have received relevant maintenance training is far from enough.

in june this year, cnn broke the news that in order to solve the maintenance problem of aided equipment to ukraine, the biden administration is considering approving us defense contractors to go to ukraine to assist the ukrainian army in maintaining western weapons. in the past two years, the biden administration has insisted that all americans, especially us military personnel, stay away from the front line of the russian-ukrainian conflict. as a result, although the us military and defense contractors can provide assistance to ukraine in daily maintenance and logistics, they can only do so remotely through video chats or phone calls, and cannot directly access weapons and equipment in ukraine. the wall street journal stated that ukraine has been working hard to maintain other weapons assisted by the united states in the past. most of the maintenance work was completed by ukraine and foreign maintenance experts through video conference calls, or the equipment was transported thousands of miles from the front line to poland, romania or other nato countries for maintenance. the relevant arrangements take a long time, resulting in the weapons being delayed in being put back into use.

ukraine's kyiv independent reported that the white house rejected a proposal by the u.s. military to send civilian defense contractors to ukraine to maintain f-16s and other equipment. the u.s. intelligence community believes the plan is too risky and is concerned about the prospect of "russia launching strikes against u.s. contractors in ukraine." the biden administration is concerned that the pentagon lacks adequate response plans if these people are attacked. the wall street journal revealed that the united states currently has only a few diplomats, military personnel and contractors remaining at the u.s. embassy in kiev. "it seems that sending american civilians (to ukraine) to maintain u.s.-made equipment is still a red line for the u.s. department of defense." the biden administration instead hopes that european countries will take partial or even full responsibility for maintaining the f-16 fighter jets recently delivered to ukraine.

bringing in a large number of contractors is counterproductive

the revelation by the us media not only acknowledged the current difficulties faced by the ukrainian army in maintaining advanced western weapons such as the f-16, but also accidentally exposed a major loophole in the us military's logistics - a large amount of maintenance work has been outsourced to civilian defense contractors. the relevant pentagon report admitted that without these defense contractors, the us military itself would not even be able to complete the inspection and maintenance of many key equipment.

it is reported that the history of outsourcing of us defense business can be traced back to before the founding of the united states. as early as during the war of independence, many vendors followed the marching pace of the "continental army" and provided various logistical services. this behavior can be regarded as the prototype of today's us defense business outsourcing. after the war dividends brought by the two world wars and the cold war, the business of us defense contractors has been greatly expanded, from the past logistics material supply field to a wider range of equipment manufacturing and technical support. after the outbreak of the war on terror, us civilian defense contractors not only undertook logistics supply tasks, but also began to take up arms agency including military training, intelligence collection and even some defense business.

due to the lack of maintenance provided by us defense contractors, the us-made helicopters of the former afghan security forces have been abandoned. (source: us "defense express")

with the high technology of modern warfare, the proportion of logistic support personnel in the us military has gradually increased. for example, during the gulf war, of the 500,000 troops sent by the united states to the gulf region to participate in the war, 200,000 to 300,000 were support troops engaged in logistical tasks, and only a small number of us troops directly participated in ground combat. this trend was more obvious in the iraq war and the afghanistan war. for this reason, the pentagon hopes to introduce civilian defense contractors to reduce daily operating costs through market competition, while controlling the scale of the mobilization of troops and reducing the number of casualties of soldiers, thereby covering up the true cost of the war to avoid causing a decline in public support.

but in terms of actual effect, the pentagon's move has backfired. the financial times of the united kingdom said that during the iraq war, the us government paid contractors a total of $138 billion in compensation for private security, logistics support and reconstruction projects. contractors responsible for providing security, electricity and even toilet paper to the us military made a lot of money. the wall street journal said that defense contractors are active on the war stage as "important supplementary forces" in the war on terror. at its peak, the united states deployed 187,900 soldiers in afghanistan and iraq, and the number of defense contractor employees in the same period was as high as 203,660. after then-president obama ordered the us military to withdraw from afghanistan, there were still 26,000 defense contractor employees and 9,800 us soldiers in afghanistan. when trump left office, there were still 18,000 defense contractor employees and only 2,500 us soldiers left in afghanistan. statistics show that since the "9.11" incident, a large number of outsourcing projects have pushed the pentagon's anti-terrorism war spending to a high of $14 trillion. defense contractors pocket 30% to 50% of the profits.

he betrayed his allies and himself

the wall street journal reported in december 2021 that after the u.s. military hastily withdrew from afghanistan that year, the white house conducted a comprehensive reflection on the 20-year war in afghanistan and found that the u.s. defense contractors contracted with the pentagon not only handled war logistics tasks, but also planned war zone fuel and food transportation routes, assisted in the training of afghan security forces, provided weapons and equipment, etc., and over-reliance on these defense contractors was one of the main reasons for the united states' failure in the war on terror. a report from the war costs project and international policy center at brown university in the united states stated that at the time, the afghan security forces preferred russian-made helicopters because they were easier to operate, and the afghans had rich experience in using and maintaining them. they were easier to use and suitable for the country's mountainous environment. however, the pentagon insisted that the afghan security forces use american-made helicopters such as the "black hawk", but except for american defense contractors, almost no one in afghanistan knew how to maintain and repair them. after the u.s. military and defense contractors withdrew one after another, the maintenance knowledge of these sophisticated american-made weapons was also taken away, and the afghan security forces suddenly found that the american-made weapons could not be used because they were not properly maintained. afghan government officials at the time complained to the united states that the loss of air superiority was an important reason why the afghan security forces collapsed when facing the taliban attack.

the practice of over-reliance on defense contractors for logistics issues has also pitted the u.s. military itself. in addition to the fact that these defense contractors find it difficult to keep pace with the u.s. military in front-line deployment during wartime, which affects the timely maintenance of precision equipment, they also cause a lot of trouble to the u.s. military even in peacetime. for example, u.s. air force secretary kendall admitted that in 2010, the pentagon approved lockheed martin to be responsible for the comprehensive maintenance of f-35 fighter jets, but the u.s. military was excluded because it "did not have intellectual property rights." this means that once there is a problem with the f-35 fighter jet, the u.s. military has no right to maintain and guarantee it independently, and only lockheed martin has the right to provide services. the direct result of this outrageous practice is that the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs of the u.s. military's f-35 stealth fighter fleet have now reached 1.58 trillion u.s. dollars, an increase of 44% over the 2018 forecast. moreover, the f-35 series fighter jets have been in service since they were constantly broken down, but lockheed martin said that it lacked sufficient manpower to carry out timely maintenance of the fighter jets that needed repair, and the u.s. air force had "no right to intervene" in this regard, resulting in only 29% of the u.s. air force's f-35a fighter jets having "full mission capability."