At a Glance
Wright-Patterson has 13 general officer positions. Here’s a look at where they are assigned at the base.
Air Force Materiel Command commander: 4-star
Air Force Life Cycle Management Center commander: 3-star
AFMC vice commander: 2-star
Air Force Research Lab commander: 2-star
* AFMC director of logistics: 2-star
AFMC director of strategic plans, programs and analyses: 2-star
* AFMC air, space and information operations director: 1-star
AFMC comptroller: 1-star
711th Human Performance Wing commander: 1-star
Air Force Installation Contracting Agency commander: 1-star (Currently, a colonel selected for promotion)
Air Force Security Assistance and Cooperation Directorate director: 1-star
Tankers program executive officer: 1-star
Fighters & Bombers PEO: 1-star
(* Currently filled by reservists awaiting active-duty replacements this year.)
SOURCE: Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB
Air Force cuts have hit the ranks of generals at Wright-Patterson, which counts two fewer since 2011 among its cadre of 13 general officer posts.
And some of the highest-level jobs at the base also have been reduced in rank, Air Force data shows.
In all, since 2011 the Air Force has axed the number of generals to a count of 187 today from 208 four years ago, not including joint staff positions.
Many of the cuts have been driven by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ order in 2011 to cut the number of generals and admirals by 102 positions in the Defense Department to increase efficiency and save money.
Gates further ordered the reduction of 176 civilian senior executives and 33 “highly qualified experts” throughout the military.
Even so, some defense analysts say the Pentagon has not done enough to counter “star creep,” the rise in the number of the highest-ranking officers since the Cold War ended while the number of troops declined.
“The core answer is (general) officers are up, troops are down,” said Ryan Crotty, a fellow with the Center for Security and International Studies. “That’s probably not giving you the balance that you want in the force.”
New areas of warfare like cyber or more focus on areas such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance also sprouted new command positions for the highest-ranking officers, he said.
“I think the military has really struggled with billets (positions) to cover these new and emerging areas and I think that has also played a role in the increasing size of the senior officer corps,” he said.
Fewer stars in rank
A Dec. 31, 2014 count showed 898 admirals and generals compared to 969 on March 31, 2011, the same month Gates’ directive was issued, according to Defense Department data. In September 2001, the beginning of the boost in defense spending after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the military had 871 admirals and generals.
In addition to Gates’ directive, the Air Force restructured some high-level command positions “to better match requirements, given the limited number of general officers allowed by law,” Capt. Erika Yepsen, an Air Force spokeswoman, said in an email.
“In some cases, that is driving grade reductions to ensure billet requirements do not exceed the number of general officers available and better manage progression opportunities,” she said.
At Wright-Patterson, a one-star brigadier general level-post at the Air Force Materiel Command headquarters Staff Judge Advocate was reduced one step lower to a colonel, and a civilian chancellor leads the Air Force Institute of Technology, a role once held by a two-star major general. Today, a colonel serves as vice chancellor and commandant at AFIT.
Most recently in December, a two-star major general became the vice commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, a job that had been held by a three-star lieutenant general. In the future, the AFMC director of operations will be reduced to a one-star post from a two-star general.
The number of senior executive service officials, the civilian equivalent to general-rank officers in the Air Force, has risen by two to 167 since 2011. Wright-Patt has the same number of senior executive positions — 27 — as it had four years ago, according to Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman.
At the same time, a 20 percent reduction in staff headquarters eliminated 372 mostly vacant positions at Wright-Patt last year.
Of Wright-Patterson’s 13 general officer positions, 10 are filled by active-duty generals. Two are held by reservists holding the posts until active-duty officers take over this year, and one is held by a colonel selected for promotion to a one-star general, Air Force spokespersons said. Wright-Patterson’s sole four-star, Gen. Janet Wolfenbarger, is the commander of Air Force Materiel Command. She is the Air Force’s first female officer to attain the highest military rank.
‘Star creep’
While the active duty military has declined more than 30 percent since the end of the Cold War, the number of three -and four-star officers has risen about 20 percent, according to defense analysts.
The total number of three- and four-star officers stood at 193 when Gates issued his directive nearly four years ago. In December, the Pentagon counted 10 fewer three-stars, or 144 total in the Defense Department. The number of four-star generals and admirals remained at 39, Pentagon data shows. Pentagon officials showed a total of 55 three- and four-star Air Force generals in December, or no change from March 2011.
Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project On Government Oversight, said Pentagon officials have “dragged their feet” on carrying out Gates’ efficiency initiatives, particularly with reducing the long-term rise in three- and four-star officers, dubbed “star creep.”
“One of the one reasons we are so concerned about star creep is that it is creating so many levels of management that it slows down combat effectiveness,” Smithberger said. Additional high-level commanders hurt troops morale because it creates demand for more work, she added.
Todd Harrison, a fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C., said the budget savings of fewer generals and admirals is “quite small” compared to the overall defense budget.
“But the secondary effect of reducing these positions could be larger if the cadre of staff that go along with each general and admiral is also eliminated,” he said in an email. “I doubt that has actually happened. I think the effect has been more symbolic—it is politically easier to start reducing the ranks overall once you’ve made reductions at the top to show that the pain is being shared by senior and junior personnel alike.”
About the Author