Are civilian contractors more cost-effective than uniformed personnel?

There are a number of functions that contractors can perform, often at less cost than uniformed personnel, but not all tasks. And I think … where we get it wrong is because of force management levels or other factors we seek contractors to perform inherently military tasks.

One example is aviation maintainers, especially in the Army and Air Force. The Air Force has hired temporary contractors to offset its 4,000 airmen maintainer shortage, even as the force will up its end strength from around 265,000 to 290,000 airmen.

Military contractors have played a critical role in building infrastructure, maintaining aircraft, and providing security or medical care in combat zones over the past decade and a half but some members of Congress say the time has come to give those jobs back to military personnel ...and some retired generals agree.

Troops' skill sets and training time are waning because of the "complex and costly approach" to keeping contractors in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan, while military assets are shuffled to other locations for a quick temporary duty assignment with no gain.

It takes about 500 to 600 civilian contract personnel to maintain "a brigade's worth of aircraft" at about $100 million a year.

Between 2001 and 2021 the U.S. spent around $5 trillion on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan with proved to provide strategic gains. The missions contractors' support became a lot more difficult to measure "at the granular level,".

Military contractors have had a great reputation in terms of responsiveness, but some have had some bad experiences in terms of flexibility.

The contractor issue is one that deserves lots of studies… and in my view, there is an absolutely appropriate role for contractors in combat theaters" in lieu of a uniform capability. I would not discount their role in a wide variety of functions.

Most recent contract jobs openings overseas →