Abolish the Air Force [Archive] - Small Wars Council

Xenophon

11-02-2007, 09:42 PM

Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post–September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.

In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published a long article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively" about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities.

Surely, this is not the way the United States Air Force had planned to celebrate its 60th anniversary. On Sept. 18, 1947, Congress granted independence to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), the branch of the U.S. Army that had coordinated the air campaigns against Germany and Japan.

But it's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made.

Written by Robert Farley for the American Prospect
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=abolish_the_air_force

Norfolk

11-03-2007, 01:29 AM

It's Air Force Doctrine to use all available force to destroy the enemy, so don't hold back, USMC. Ah, there's nothin' like a good ole' fight between the Grunts and the Flyboys (just how does the Navy usually manage to avoid these sorts of scraps? - oh yeah, they're already out to sea).

Good post Xenophon. Although I'm certain there will be those of the aerial persuasion who may take a rather dimmer view of this, I think that there is much merit to such an argument. Certainly the Army has been rather dissatisfied by the quality of CAS that the Air Force has provided over the last 60 years; on the other hand though, it would also have made sense for the Air Force to have had control of National and Theatre Air Defence rather than the Army.

I'm not completely persuaded that outright abolition of the Air Force is the right way to go, although short of substantial retasking and reorganization (such as the aforementioned changes above), reintegration of the Air Force back into the Army is an attractive idea. I doubt that it would be worth the effort, however.

Gian P Gentile

11-03-2007, 01:58 AM

This article is a great example of how counterinsurgency thinking has become so dominant it has pushed the defense establishment and punditry to the point of absurdity. In effect current American Army operational doctrine, 3-0, is now counterinsurgency doctrine. How else can one explain the conceptual underpinnings of this piece except for the fact that we have become so obsessed with Coin and the koolaide of Surge success that we are now calling for the abolishment of the American Air Force?

And Mr Farley, do you not think the Air Force during the Cold War years had even the slightest thing to do with deterring nuclear war with the Soviet Union?

Oh well heck, while we are at it lets just call for the abolishment of the United States Marine Corps too. Oh no we can’t do that because the Marines are small wars, Coin experts like the Army. And oh yes if we abolished the Marine Corps who would rewrite the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual?

gentile

Ken White

11-03-2007, 02:40 AM

entire Army was saying 'counterinsurgency' every time their left foot hit the ground. You wanted a new desk, the friendly 4 said no way. Just go back in with another requisition and say you needed it for 'counterinsurgency training' and it would appear in less than a week. That was gone by late '66 and the word virtually disappeared from the lexicon for 20 plus years.

We always over react; go too far one way, then bounce back too far the other. seems like equilibrium and balance are not Army Values.

The strategists and pundits don't help, they're always looking for the fad of the month. :(

This too will pass... ;)

Xenophon

11-03-2007, 03:08 AM

Before anyone goes high and to the right, it's just an interesting article. I'm no pundit espousing one way or the other. Abolishing a branch of the military is way out of my pay grade.

But, the more I think about it the more it makes sense. The Marine Corps has its own air assets for CAS, the Army should as well. Marines prefer to work with Marines, and I"m sure soldiers feel the same way. Launching strategic bombing and deep air support missions from Naval platforms nearer the target than CONUS entails much less risk due to shorter flight times and could provide more responsiveness. Is it worth having a branch of service whose functions can easily be accomplished by the other branches? I don't know, I do know the American people would be in an uproar if any serious attempt was made to disband the Air Force.

One thing that just pisses me off is the Air Force's argument that they are essential to counterinsurgency. One just has to look at the Isreali/Hezbollah war of last year to see that strategic bombing is dangerous when applied to an insurgency. Hezbollah surrounded likely bombing targets with civilians, causing an uproar in the press when Israel did bomb those targets. All the expensive, fancy air assets in the world are being marginalized with minimal effort and no cost.

And counterinsurgency is no fad, if the US military had kept a focus on COIN we wouldn't have to be relearning it now.

selil

11-03-2007, 03:13 AM

Rob Thornton

11-03-2007, 03:27 AM

One thing worth doing is to consider why something is (or is not) before passing judgment on why it should or should not be - the world changed, and we created the USAF, I'm not sure the rational for creating it as an independent service has gone away. While I've always admired the ACE and the support it provides the GCE, the Army's requirements and capabilities have led it down a different road. We've gotten pretty good at working with the AF to meet our needs across the spectrum of conflict while not having to worry about the overhead that would go with maintaining the USAF. The USAF has such a distinct role within our military that to subordinate it to another service would probably diminish its capabilities to fulfill that role. As has been pointed out, we assume air superiority, and have not had to live without it for the last few generations - but we'd sure notice it if it were gone. While we've had to be creative in some areas we've managed to make up for any shortfalls in CAS (and on average I think its there when we need it) like fire support by capabilities such as GMLRS and improvements in cannon and mortars - not to mention RW CAS from 58s and 64s. I'm not sure we'd have ever gotten to those capabilities required to project and sustain combat power in both the strategic and operational sense that we enjoy to great extent through the AF if it had remained a subordinate service.

It comes back to having to operate across the full spectrum and against a wide variety of enemies across the globe at the most inopportune times.

Best regards, Rob

Rob Thornton

11-03-2007, 03:36 AM

A friend of mine in the Navy with a bit of whimsy said that the Army should become subordinate to the Air Force the same way that the Marine Corps is subordinate to the Navy. He felt the Air Force was getting the better deal.

Interesting culture piece there Sam - the Marines will be quick to point out there is a difference between the Navy as in the "Department of the Navy", and the Navy as in the Service - so whereas the two services fall under the same department in the DoD - as a service the Marines see the services as having parity in status - even if the Navy retains the larger budget and the sailors don't make the distinction. It may seem like a subtle nuance from the outside, but perspective matters:D

Best, Rob

Rifleman

11-03-2007, 03:39 AM

I've said this before, I'll say it again. The Air Force has been going down hill since they retired the A-1 Skyraider, which was waaaay sexier than that joint strike whatever it is! :p

selil

11-03-2007, 03:54 AM

Interesting culture piece there Sam - the Marines will be quick to point out there is a difference between the Navy as in the "Department of the Navy", and the Navy as in the Service - so whereas the two services fall under the same department in the DoD - as a service the Marines see the services as having parity in status - even if the Navy retains the larger budget and the sailors don't make the distinction. It may seem like a subtle nuance from the outside, but perspective matters:D

As a former Marine (e4) I told the Captain (o6) that both the Navy and the Air Force were great Taxi services as long as you gave directions really slow and loud.

Oh and the Navy has good cooks.

Rob Thornton

11-03-2007, 01:32 PM

Oh and the Navy has good cooks. - If I recall the CPO's mess was the better of the bunch:D - which is how as a young Marine long ago going through the SFCP (NGF spotter course) at Coronado, CA - I learned to distinguish chiefs from officers at a distance.
Best, Rob

carl

11-03-2007, 04:50 PM

Launching strategic bombing and deep air support missions from Naval platforms nearer the target than CONUS entails much less risk due to shorter flight times and could provide more responsiveness.

I don't think it is quite that simple. The ability to land and take off from a carrier impose severe restrictions on what an airplane can do. There has never been a carrier airplane that has even come close to the range/payload capabilities of the B-2, B-1 and B-52. So deliver the same payload on the target you'd need rather more carrier based airplanes.

And you'd need a lot of carriers to haul them, because if i remember correctly, you have to plan for one ship on station, one in port and one in overhaul, or something like that. The ship would be very responsive if it were on station, but it would quite expensive to keep there.

Because of the range/payload restrictions on carrier airplanes, you'd still have to get pretty close to the shoreline to launch good strikes and that might not be so easy against an opponent who had some good cruise missles and airplanes to hang them on. If you stuck with the F/A-18, all things to all people, air group, you'd probably have to sail up the enemy's rivers to do any good.

B-2's are pretty darn useful for some missions.

slapout9

11-03-2007, 05:02 PM

carl

11-03-2007, 05:15 PM

Slapout:

I knew I should have said something about missiles.

The trouble with a ballistic missile is people get real nervous when they see one coming, "is it a nuke or not." Something like the Pershing is not inexpensive also. Cruise missiles are cheaper and probably not as scary but if you need to put a lot of tonnage on a target, then cruise missiles get pretty expensive too. And if they enemy is able to make some kind of tech breakthrough, cruise missiles aren't so easy to radically modify.

Consider a very heavy penetrating warhead designed to goes through meters and meters of concrete and earth to get to the target; I don't think a missile could carry it. But a B-2 could.

slapout9

11-03-2007, 05:29 PM

Hi Carl, I don't think so. I grew up in Orlando, Florida during the Space race so missile warhead lift capability is not much of a problem. Most people don't know that the Saturn 5 booster (we went to the moon in this) was first conceived to launch heavy military payloads. The lift capability has never been surpassed not even by the shuttle:eek: But it came from the Army Redstone Arsenal courtesy of Werner Von Braun so the Air Force had to get rid of that.
In July of 69 when the moon mission was launched windows were broken and the ground shook in Orlando because of the shear power of the Saturn Five booster and that was just the first stage booster.

Also the first American in space Alan Shepard rode an Army rocket not an Air Force one.

Cruise missiles are cool, the Army invented those to.

This is really the source of the Army and seperate Air Force debate. When the Air Force divorced the Army they took all the good technology and then passed laws to prevent the Army form ever getting it back..all so they could keep the so called high ground.:mad:

Stan

11-03-2007, 05:32 PM

Also the first American in space Alan Shepard rode an Army rocket not an Air Force one.

Cruise missiles are cool, the Army invented those to.

Slap and Carl,
I knew those fly jockies were up to somethin' bad from the very start :D

carl

11-03-2007, 05:53 PM

Slapout:

Granted, a Saturn 5 was a mighty machine and it could probably throw a heavy ground penetrator. But it was also mighty complicated and expensive, so much so that it might be as or more expensive than a bomber. Plus it would still be a ballistic missile and it could only do one thing; put a warhead on a point target one time.

A B-2 is just an airplane that can go a long way, carry a lot and penetrate air defenses. An imaginative person can do a lot with a weapon like that.

Norfolk

11-03-2007, 05:59 PM

And a few Internet addicts to remotely pilot their multi-gazillion dollar intercontinental strategic UAV doom doohickies. So, give it 20 or 30 years and somebody will stand up in the Senate and ask "Why are we paying for an Air Force that doesn't actually put combat pilots in the air anymore?" Then the fur will fly...:D

Jones_RE

11-03-2007, 06:20 PM

slapout9

11-03-2007, 06:30 PM

Carl, disagree again. The Saturn 5 is very simple and the costs to develop it pale compared to Aircraft even in adjusted dollars. You can see the actual booster at the Redstone Arsenal at the Huntsville,Al. Space museum. They may still have the prototype at Kennedy Space Center (not sure) but trips to both places are well worth it.

When MIRV technology became available the Saturn 5 would have the ability to hit multiple targets in parallel. Penetration strikes are often multiple hits on the same target...one to break through and one to achieve the final effect on the target...agin missiles can do this very well.

Again their is no need for the delivery system to penetrate hostile air space...so why have a plane to do it? Only the warhead needs to get there.

Because missiles travel so fast there's know need to launch until it is the final option.....Air Planes flying around are far more provocative then missiles for this reason. also our enemies know how cheap and how much better missiles are which is why they are developing their missile technologies instead of wasting their money on black airplanes.

Bombing in any form is an Artillery Strike the plane makes it more complicated and longer to respond unless it on station as opposed to have a missile battery on call by the ground force commander who can hit what he wants to hit in minutes with missile artillery.

Having said this I think the Air Forces main missions should be constant ISR probably with satellites more than anything (not sure just a thought) and leave the bombing to us...Army. A second priority mission is Strategic Airlift get the Army to the AO.

Third and a big one the Air Force is good at coming up war games and Strategic Thinking materials... not a real jazzy job but vital to our national security.

And finally one that is also vitally important is the exploitation of Space.

PS if you ever get to Alabama we will go to Huntsville and see some Army Airpower....some good eatin places up there to.

selil

11-03-2007, 06:38 PM

Adam L

11-03-2007, 06:56 PM

Missiles are great in their place (and we should have and use more of them), but for close air support there is nothing like a human pilot on the scene.

Missiles can have long lead times beween when the decision to fire is made and when the warhead hits the target (or misses completely). Aircraft may have longer lead times to get on scene, but when they do they can react quickly. That means an aircraft has a better shot at a moving or fleeting target than a missile.

An aircraft can make a quick return pass if the weapon misses or malfunctions.

An aircraft can stay on station for a long time - sometimes hours.

Finally, there's nothing like fighters overhead to keep away the enemy's aircraft. That's an advantage that makes the rest of the USAF's money and issues sorta worthwhile.

Yes, an aircraft is much better than a missile in many (most) situations, but the AF beyond any other service is developing aircraft that are obscenely expensive, fragile and costly in money, time and labor to maintain. G-d forbid one of our new f22's gets hit, the composite wing skin is almost impossible to repair. Once you get even a scratch (that penetrates one layer) in most of these new composites it will eventually expand (there goes stealth and the stability of an already unstable aircraft.)

The AF wants to control all fixed wing research including UAV's. If they want to appear as though they are in any way with what’s going on they have to develop a CAS aircraft that meats the following requirements:

1. Alluminium/titanium superstructure
2. The composite skin and aerodynamic surfaces must be able to be removed and replaced quickly (like an F1 car, sort of.)
3. Light weight (hence 1 & 2) with a long loiter time and high payload capacity.
4. Must be highly maneuverable at low altitudes with the capability to maneuver like a dive-bomber.
5. Must be able to take off from improvised runways and have a small wheel base (sort of like the OV10.)
6. Must be a stable airframe flown without computer assist.
[There should be research (or subsidizing of current private sector research) into diesel engines for rotary airplanes. This will greatly increase range as well as economy]
5. Must be CHEAP.

Basically, a more economical a10 combined with and updated OV10.

If they can develop and fund a program like this I think they might demonstrate their importance in COIN operations. Right now instead of just admitting that their primary job is not COIN they are trying to justify using an angle grinder to trim toe nails. LOL! :D

Adam

Adam L

11-03-2007, 06:58 PM

They have the Saturn V at Kennedy... I was recently there and they have the whole enchilada suspended from the ceiling. Monster does not describe it well enough. I've got a picture of the wife and kids standing underneath it...

It is absolutely staggering to stand next to a machine of such immense proportions. Not to mention that the entire thing had less computer power than my calculator.

Adam

Adam L

11-03-2007, 07:01 PM

Slapout:
A B-2 is just an airplane that can go a long way, carry a lot and penetrate air defenses. An imaginative person can do a lot with a weapon like that.

Yes, a creative person can do a lot and overcome enemy air defenses, but the damn things can't get wet. They are spending a fortune upgrading the computers in these planes, but they can't find a way to get rid of this "little" problem.

Adam

carl

11-03-2007, 07:14 PM

Slapout:

I am not so sure the Saturn 5 was either simple or inexpensive. There were a lot of parts to that thing, like thousands and thousands. Plus it was liquid fueled so it took days and days to assemble, transport and fuel. I don't remember but there may have been restrictions on how long you could leave it sitting there fueled and ready to go. And there was a huge infrastructure needed to support it. Liquid fueled rockets make a cumbersome weapon.

Anyway we could go back and forth about relative expense for a long time and not resolve it. I for sure don't know enough to do so.

True our enemies are developing missiles; but the reason those missiles vex us is because they may be used for throwing nukes. For throwing nukes, nothing beats a missile. I don't think we would very worried about North Korean or Iranian missiles if they were only going to deliver h.e. warheads.

The US has a rather different purpose in mind, and airplanes can often fulfill that purpose better that missiles.

As far as arty vs. CAS, people like Cavguy have the experience that makes their opinions really count; but as a civilian who only knows what he's read, CAS has some real value to it.

carl

11-03-2007, 07:20 PM

but the damn things can't get wet.

What do you mean by this? They can't fly in rain? I am not trying to be a smart-aleck, I just never heard of this problem.

Adam L

11-03-2007, 07:26 PM

Slapout:

I am not so sure the Saturn 5 was either simple or inexpensive. There were a lot of parts to that thing, like thousands and thousands. Plus it was liquid fueled so it took days and days to assemble, transport and fuel. I don't remember but there may have been restrictions on how long you could leave it sitting there fueled and ready to go. And there was a huge infrastructure needed to support it. Liquid fueled rockets make a cumbersome weapon.

Anyway we could go back and forth about relative expense for a long time and not resolve it. I for sure don't know enough to do so.

1. Saturn V development was inexpensive in comparison to other programs due to its simplicity in design.
2. Its parts due to thier large size were actually easier to work with. Where it got nuts is with the wiring and sensors.
3. Fueling was not only time consuming and expensive, it was very dangerous.
4. Liquid fueled rockets must be monitored constanlty when fueled. It is unfeasable and dangerous to leave them fueled for long.

In conlcusion I have to say ther is NO way a liquid fueled rocket is practical nor economical. They require an army to maintiain and monitor thier functions. A second army to deal with it if something goes wrong. Modern solid fueled rockets are far more practical.

Adam

Adam

Adam L

11-03-2007, 07:44 PM

What do you mean by this? They can't fly in rain? I am not trying to be a smart-aleck, I just never heard of this problem.

No, the skin coating gets dinged. All they will officially say is they will suffer damage in the rain (it is not easy to strip and replace this stuff.) I thousands of small dings would most likely result in aerodynamic problems, but I am not sure to what extent (if its minor the computers will take care of the instability.) Thousands of little dings would also decrease its stealth capabilities. I am unable to guess to what extent, but it would depend on the amount of damage. Moisture can also develop inside the airframe. This may cause mechanical and electrical problems whether or not it freezes. If it freezes it may take up to 24 hours to thaw. I also would speculate that its low heat signature design prevents it from de-icing itself effectively. Most jets simply use the heat of their engines in order to prevent and/or remove ice from the airframe. Certain planes (normally non-jets) utilize boots or electric heating systems. If it developed ice on its surface, it would greatly if not completley diminish its stealth capabilities. Also, the layer of ice changes the aerodynamics. Many planes (not certified and sometimes even those certified for icing conditions) literally lose all lift while flying in icing conditions due to even thin ice formations greatly effecting the planes aerodynamics.

Beyond this it must be kept in a climate controlled hangar in order to prevent the build up of moisture in side the plane which can lead to mechanical and electrical problems. It would be unfeasable to station them at foreign airbases for this reason.

These are some strong reasons why we stopped at 31. We needed them to deter and/or threaten the Russians (and everybody else), but they are not practical for general use given their limitations.

Adam

Adam L

11-03-2007, 07:51 PM

For anyone who may not have noticed or remember, we discussed this a bit in Air Powers Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3621).

Adam

carl

11-03-2007, 07:57 PM

Adam L

11-03-2007, 09:15 PM

Adam L:

I will read up on the B-2's problems. I don't think airframe and wing icing at cruise speed would be much of a problem though. Jets normally cruise fast enough that aerodynamic heating (or something like that) keeps ice from from forming.

Yes, normal jets do one hell of a job of keeping ice off of them due to both thier engine heat and at higher speeds the heat generated. The B2 is not a highspeed jet. Also, with the airflow so even across such a large surface, I doubt it heats up as much as a normal airframe. My concern about the potential for icing on the B2 is due to its abilty to reflect and not absorb heat. If the airframe is able to stay cool as to not be detected by infared at altitude (which is quite an accomplishemnt) it either is staying very cool or somehow is that effective at absorbing infared.

Adam

MattC86

11-03-2007, 10:44 PM

. . .is the study of the competition for scarce resources. And this is fundamentally a question of economics. The United States, as a hegemonic power (and I mean that in a value-neutral way), has the unfortunate responsibility of having to be prepared to deal with all threats to itself or the supporting international system. I think the services fear that politicians or the public wont swallow the enormous costs of maintaining what amounts to dual forces - unchallengeable conventional forces and forces capable of all sorts of irregular warfare. As a result, there's intense pressure to prove their viability in both arenas (the Air Force in COIN, e.g.). Personally, I think Iraq has/is showing there's enough dual capability (like Army heavy or mechanized brigades have shown) to keep these costs from being prohibitive, but the services feel the budget cuts are coming once Iraq winds down and a new administration (particularly a Democratic one - and I say that as a liberal) comes into office, and thus feel the need to prove their worth.

Ken made the point on the first page that we go through these cycles where everyone gets all hot and bothered over the issue of the moment, and can lose long-term strategic foresight and perspective. I'd take it a step farther, with respect. I see this as the heir to the old American war tradition of being woefully unready, then kicking into enormous overdrive once war finally came. Not that the focus on COIN is unnecessarily overcompensating for our pathetic ignorance of it beforehand, but it is the hot "fad" of the moment, regardless of whether it becomes the mainstay of US operations in the future or not.

Matt

Rob Thornton

11-03-2007, 10:48 PM

Friday we were working a tactical problem where a theoretical BCT (Brigade Combat Team) found itself 72 hours in front of the follow on BCT and had a limited opportunity to seize a bridge head and an enemy center of government. The situation quickly turned bad as we suddenly found out that this BCT had several enemy mechanized divisions between 12 and 24 hours out and the BCT only had 48 hours of ammo and fuel - OK staff make your tactical decisions. BTW the weather is bad and the enemy has relative air parity and their are no TLAMs (Tomahawk Cruise missiles) - you got what you got for 72 hours.

What is wrong with this picture? Well for starters since when did we go to war without our Air Force recently? Where are the all weather strike capabilities that would certainly be there under the conditions (be they from any of our war fighting services)? Who can claim even relative air superiority against us - anywhere? How about the satellites and J-Star type ISR assets that would have told us that a corps sized element was on the move further then 24 hours out - and the JFACC piece that would have ensured that these divisions were at least fixed (as in unable to move or reposition)

Now - I give you the point of the exercise was to stress the influence of logistics during tactical operations - but this is not the first time as a ground guy I've seen us assume away the advantages we know we will have because we have built the world's best air force (and I'd argue- the second and third best as well) for unknown reasons. Why do we do that? Is it because we don't own them and never want to rely or depend on the USAF? Because we believe that such conditions as those stated could happen? I don't know.

However, the USAF provides us (and our allies) an advantage across the spectrum of war that no one else enjoys. It often provides deterrence options just by being on the ground somewhere where the enemy cannot strike. In the past I have not agreed with everything USAF MG Dunlap has written, but I believe it is true that in the aggregate of our capabilities - the USAF as it exists offers us an asymmetric advantage that offers a wide range of possibilities throughout the spectrum of conflict.

One of the hard questions to answer these days for ground force construct/organizational planners is how much of what will we need in the future? One thing worth considering is that during a conventional phase of a war large, amounts of PGMS delivered by air, rocket artillery, cannon and missile fires combined with the means to target enemy C2, armor, artillery, mobility & CSS assets and clusters of ground forces are a sweet advantage that offers up options to ground commanders. While we've proved you need lots of ground forces to help secure a population beyond those required to terminate a regime, we also proved that ground combat power is exponentially enhanced when you combine it with the threat of air superiority. Is it reasonable to assume we will always go to war with our Air Forces and other advantages available? What does this say about the types of ground forces we can develop if we make that assumption?

I think acknowledging that the Air Force as it exists provides us incredible advantages during the high intensity - major combat operations phase of a war, and may offer us flexibility as we look forward in considering how much of what we require by type to meet our ground service commitments in other phases of a war - be it Phase 0 thru Phase 5. These advantages might allow us some flexibility in force design across the DOTLMPF (Doctrine, Organizational, Training, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities) spectrum that allow us to focus limited resources and better achieve our ends.

From a ground perspective - I never want to be without air superiority, and if the USAF can provide options that allow us to consider the future battlefield differently - then I'm all for those options too. We have to be careful about inferring the wrong lessons from the current conflict and applying them to the future - we also need to look at where are real shortfalls were, and how we can address those. Ken had mentioned we don't often consider things like balance and consistency of equal value with other attributes - more wisdom from a guy whose heard this tune a time or two (or 4:D)

Best, Rob

slapout9

11-03-2007, 11:03 PM

General Gavin said it best I think "never send a soldier where you can send a missile."

My personal view is also Gavin's in that in the future the concept of Air Power, Land Power and Sea Power are obsolete. Everybody should be designed to work together as a "System" kinda like the Marine Corps figured out a while back be prepared to fight on the land,sea and air.

Which means let the Air Force keep their planes and give the Army back it's missiles!!!!:wry:

slapout9

11-03-2007, 11:46 PM

Missiles in a COIN environment:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyP-Ub2st6s

Steve Blair

11-05-2007, 01:58 PM

Norfolk

11-05-2007, 04:52 PM

As he was about to step down as AF CoS, McPeak was proposing to hand CAS back to the Army and basically focus both the AF and Naval air on deep strike and air supremacy missions while the Army and Marines did their own CAS. His logic was that the Marines (who do their own CAS) were a "satisfied customer" while the Army (who had to depend on the AF) was not. McPeak came from a CAS background, and I think he understood that it was something the mainline AF didn't really want to do or couldn't necessarily do in the most effective way.

I don't think it's a matter of getting rid of the AF as it is looking at what it does (and perhaps more importantly what it really wants to do) and optimizing it for that mission. They'd have to resign themselves to losing some budget to bring both the Army and USMC up to full capability for CAS, but then they could go 'do' their bomber and fighter thing without worrying about CAS. They may also have to surrender some overall control of the air package in the bargain (which might cause some pain to one of the most centralized, over-controlling of the services), but it could be pitched so that the gains outweighed the losses.

Once again, as in so many discussions, I think we're seeing the "either/or" syndrome. You either have an AF or you don't. We've seen this a time or two (or four), but the constant thread going all the way back to Korea has been CAS and (to a lesser degree) tactical airlift. Maybe it's time we actually DID something about it instead of hiding behind either/or positions on it.

Just my $.02.

In 1961, then Col. Bill Depuy wrote a short article entitled "Unification: How Much More?" in which he dealt with the problems of service role and functions (part of "The Selected Papers of General William E. DePuy - Part I") pp. 33-42.:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/swain3/swain3_pt1.pdf

Gen. DePuy particualry focused on how the Air Force, after its creation, was intent on gaining control of practically everything that flew, and that its fixation on aircraft as and end in themselves led them to seek to control practically every role and function that involved aircraft.

On page 35, Gen. DePuy listed a handful of essential criteria for determining the proper roles and functions of each service, particularly these two (repeating almost verbatim): - "basic functions should be not be split between two services"; and, - "service functions are the basis of service doctrine".

On page 41, General DePuy describes the proper roles and functions of the services, including that of the Air Force:

Quote:

The Air Force would be responsible for providing those forces and weapons systems required for the offensive and defensive aspects of strategic intercontinental air and missile warfare. Specifically, the Air Force would be responsible for providing forces for bombarding the enemy's homeland, and for defending our own against enemy bombardment.

-Unquote

I think Gen. DePuy's treatment of service roles and functions is the best that I have seen on the subject. Obviously, CAS would be transferred to the Army under such circumstances, along with fixed-wing aircraft for the purpose. The Air Force would deal with Strategic Air Defence and Strategic Bombardment (presumably Tactical Bombardment -as opposed to CAS - would also be included), etc.

Van

11-05-2007, 07:21 PM

Steve-
You are refering to the same GEN McPeak that wanted to take Apaches and the MLRS away from the Army as the used the Air Force's airspace? I suppose the change in his tune would reflect the "All or nothing" mentality.

Re: DePuy's thoughts; the break between tactical air and strategic air seemed much more natural that the break between all air power and all ground power in WW II, and even in 1961 when DePuy was writing. But as air defence systems improved, the need to stay above ADA, or engage in a complicated, and resource intensive suppression of eneamy air defenses (SEAD) operation blurred the tac/strat line. Note that even in Viet Nam, B-52s (a SAC airframe) could frequently provide more responsive support to ground forces than conventional CAS aircraft, because of the reduced ADA threat for the high altitude aircraft. In Desert Storm, Apaches were essential to operational/strategic level SEAD because of their ability to fly below the Iraqi integrated air defense system (IADS).

Improvements in the sensor to shooter cycle, sensor technology, communications, combined with a global environment more inclined to Small Wars than maneuver warfare make the distinctions between strat air power, tactical air power, and CAS of limited utility. The distinctions are limiting the way we look at the tools availible to us, and discouraging innovative and flexible application of air power.

This having been said... Get rid of the Air Force? Why not take it one step further and return to the intent of the Constitution; only the Navy (and a subordinate Marine Corps under the Navy) as a standing service, and place all the combat power in the AF and Army back under the National Guards. Nope, both schemes are politically untenable despite good reasons for both. More logical and practical would be to legislate that the general officers of the Air Force be distributed consistantly with the distribution of rated (flying and operational officers), intel, and comm officers in the AF. 10% fighter pilots means no more than 10% Generals from the fighter community... Include intel and comm as GEN Jumper (fmr AF CoS) correctly identified these non-rated fields as being central to the future of air power as well as being the non-rated fields of greatest impact on DoD's capabilities.

Steve Blair

11-05-2007, 07:52 PM

Steve-
You are refering to the same GEN McPeak that wanted to take Apaches and the MLRS away from the Army as the used the Air Force's airspace? I suppose the change in his tune would reflect the "All or nothing" mentality.

Yes, it's that McPeak. Not sure what made him change his tune, but he did talk about shifting CAS a fair bit when he was on his way out.

Stevely

11-06-2007, 06:18 AM

So first, a little anecdote. Just last Friday, I was chatting with an office mate of mine who is an Air Force major. He was telling me about the big "force shaping" measures underway in the Air Force, and how he and many of his peers were very worried about being RIF'ed. I joked with him that he should look into Blue to Green Program, and he said he was seriously considering it. A bit later he mentioned that he felt uncertain as to the future viability of the Air Force, that it would both shrink from "force shaping" and from being strapped maintaining extremely high budget items like F-22 in a COIN era where defense budgets would shrink, and thus at some point it would become untenable for the Air Force to support this and maintain all the necessary logistical, administrative, etc. infrastructure and manning that enables it to be an independent service. At that point the Air Force would bow to the inevitable and consent to being folded back into the Army. I was surprised to hear this from an active duty AF officer, but there it is.

There does seem to be a strong tone of desperation, and Dunlap's absurd article about airpower and COIN certainly smacks of it. So maybe this idea is being taken seriously in the Air Force, in some quarters at least?

Of all the services, ISTM that it is the Air Force and only it whose existence as an independent service is not self-evident. People live on the ground; ships can stay at sea for months, even years. But an airplane can stay aloft for a day at most, usually a span of hours? It is entirely logical then to view airpower as an adjunct to the service that controls where it is based: the Navy at sea (and they kept their air force) and the Army on the land. The Air Force's aggressive budgetary behavior and its attempts to poach broad competencies from other services (air and missile defense; UAVs) could be seen as behavior driven by a sense of existential insecurity.

I think Dr. Farley's article has some merit, but unfortunately his proposal is so jarring to the defense status quo that many do not get past the "abolish the Air Force" part and seriously consider what he is saying. He certainly does not advocate fully dispensing with the capabilities that the Air Force brings to the fight, but that they find better homes under the purview of the other services. I think he has a strong analysis of the reasons the independent air force came to be and why those assumptions are no longer valid, if they ever were. And if those assumptions that go right to that service's reason for coming into existence no longer hold, then it is not unreasonable to question its continued independent existence. I don't think his argument should be breezily dismissed, in any case.

I think the existence of an institutional Air Force has had baleful effects on the development of American strategy since WW2 (not to mention the development of the military-congressional-industrial complex) and has whetted an appetite for the ill-advised and ill-considered exercise of military power since its advent. Its outlook does nicely track the popular tendency in our country to believe that at the end of every problem, no matter how profound, there is a gizmo waiting to be invented that will neatly solve it, but that tendency is bad enough without having so great an institution to promote it. Better perhaps to constrain the fly boys in institutions that at least partially look beyond strictly technological approaches to war and peace.

Ken White

11-06-2007, 04:23 PM

last two paragraphs and the last, in particular, is IMO totally correct and an indictment of the way we do business.

We used to ride to work on elephants... :D

LawVol

11-07-2007, 03:53 PM

Of all the services, ISTM that it is the Air Force and only it whose existence as an independent service is not self-evident. People live on the ground; ships can stay at sea for months, even years. But an airplane can stay aloft for a day at most, usually a span of hours? It is entirely logical then to view airpower as an adjunct to the service that controls where it is based: the Navy at sea (and they kept their air force) and the Army on the land. The Air Force's aggressive budgetary behavior and its attempts to poach broad competencies from other services (air and missile defense; UAVs) could be seen as behavior driven by a sense of existential insecurity.

Let me see if I'm tracking here: the Army is land based and the Navy is sea based, so they should control the airspace above them because airplanes can only stay aloft for short periods of time? Is that the argument? How about a slightly different twist? The air and space (don't forget about that) covers the entire earth, land and sea, and Air Force space assets can stay aloft and functioning indefinitely. So therefore the Army and Navy should be folded into the Air Force! Absurd? Exactly. Just as absurd as the previous argument.

Contrary to the thoughts of your AF major, this isn't something that has any traction. One simply has to read AF doctrine and the musing of its leaders to know this. But let's assume for a moment that this actually occurs. What will become of lethal non-CAS airpower? Surely the Army would focus its budgetary efforts on airpower that supports ground forces. Is it possible that capabilities such as strategic attack and SEAD would take a backseat to such an extent that these capabilities would degrade? Of course there are some that subscribe to the thought that strategic attack is now unnecessary. In the near future, perhaps this argument holds water. However, unless someone has a crystal ball I don't want to take any chances. What if the AF party line is correct that China is actually a threat and we do go to war over Tiawan at some point? Do we really think we're going to land ground troops on the mainland? I have over a billion reasons that say this is a bad idea. So what happens? We use airpower to fight and we simply do not have enough ships to support the forces needed. Moreover, we need centralized control and decentralized execution to be effective if such a scenario does occur.

The Air Force's aggressive budgetary behavior and its attempts to poach broad competencies from other services (air and missile defense; UAVs) could be seen as behavior driven by a sense of existential insecurity.

Of course only the AF pursues its budgetary agenda aggressively! :D Seriously though, I fail to understand how the UAV issue is "poaching" a broad Army competency. The UAV is essentially a fixed-wing, pilotless, land-based airplane. Doesn't the AF control fixed-wing, piloted, land-based airplanes? Why should the fact that we've removed a pilot matter? It's still an airplane. I didn't really follow this whole fight closely, but I thought the AF only wanted UAV's over a certain height which would still allow infantry units to deploy the smaller UAVs for recon purposes? Maybe I missed something.

Oh, another thought. Instead of arguing like children over who should get what, maybe we should be talking about how we (the AF) can better serve you (the Army). I've never understood the parochial nature of our armed services; maybe its because I'm a retread. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer...

slapout9

11-07-2007, 05:42 PM

LawVol,
1-the only reason that the air force could stay up there forever is that they re-created the ground (satillite,space station, etc.).

2-If you take the pilot out of the plane it becomes a guided missile!!! just like a TOW missile etc. which is not air force business.

3-the air force wants to be a totally seperate service??? the south tried that during the war of northern aggression....it's illegal.

Rex Brynen

11-07-2007, 05:54 PM

I have absolutely no position on this at all. However, it does occur to me...

The UAV is essentially a fixed-wing, pilotless, land-based airplane.

...that, for the most part--and despite the acronym--they're not really "pilotless" at all--the pilot is simply located at a remote location.

11-07-2007, 07:45 PM

I have absolutely no position on this at all. However, it does occur to me...

...that, for the most part--and despite the acronym--they're not really "pilotless" at all--the pilot is simply located at a remote location.

Interestingly, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) (now known as unmanned aerial systems or UAS) used to be called remotely piloted vehicles (RPV), which they still are--remotely piloted, that is. BTW "unmanned," "unpiloted," and "pilotless" are not synonyms. Even most missiles are piloted after a fashion (since missiles tend to have a guidance system--a pilot is a species of guidance system).

I think it would be instructive to figure out why are we not fighting about Unmanned Underseas Vehicles and Unmanned Ground Vehicles.

Stevely

11-07-2007, 11:36 PM

Let me see if I'm tracking here: the Army is land based and the Navy is sea based, so they should control the airspace above them because airplanes can only stay aloft for short periods of time? Is that the argument? How about a slightly different twist? The air and space (don't forget about that) covers the entire earth, land and sea, and Air Force space assets can stay aloft and functioning indefinitely. So therefore the Army and Navy should be folded into the Air Force! Absurd? Exactly. Just as absurd as the previous argument.

It's not as absurd, as you portray it, but first let me apologize for being unclear. I made a pithy comment that was only pithy in light of a bunch of assumptions I have, and if you don't know them ahead of time, what I said might not make sense. So, here is what I meant. Land power and sea power is force; air power is a force multiplier. The former exist and are valid independent of each other, and they each are means to ends that exist within their respective realms. Land power concerns ultimately the control of dirt, and this is self-evidently important since that's where all the humans live. Nobody (much) lives on the sea, but our lives, our societies are so utterly dependent on it for sustenance, resources and transportation, that control of it is nearly as critical as control of the land. It is important to such a degree that the sea rivals the land in importance. But the air? There is nothing there that is valuable in and of itself, air power is just an extension of land and sea power, and a multiplier thereof (with the possible exception of strategic bombing, but more on that in a moment). The air is simply the third dimension to the land and sea.

To put it even more simply, a land war with only ground forces is entirely conceivable, a sea war with only naval forces is entirely conceivable, but an air war that did not involve land or sea is utterly inconceivable; there would be nothing to fight over. Air war is always in reference to land and sea conflict.

The one possible exception to this is strategic air power. If aerial campaigns conducted directly against the enemy's population and infrastructure could significantly or even solely compel surrender (or even more tactically, destroy his armies outright), then one could legitimately say that the air was on a par with land and sea and deserved its own service. It would be more than a land and sea force multiplier and air campaigns would have their own reasons and ends beyond the support of the land and sea effort.

It seems to me that the fathers of the USAF recognized this, made the strategic force the center of the new USAF, and used the strategic role as the raison d'etre of the independent air force. They probably well knew that tactical air, reconnaissance and transport would never carry any arguments justifying an independent service as they are roles that exist solely as a ground force combat multiplier. And ever since, the Air Force seems hell bent on proving that air power and air power alone can be decisive in winning wars - from the very beginning with SAC and its strategic bombers all the way up to "Shock and Awe."

The original article posits good reasons why the strategic role is no longer prominent, and even why it never should have been in the first place. I won't recount those arguments. It is worth noting however that the Douhet idea that strategic bombing is militarily decisive has been thoroughly disproven by history. The tenacity however with which the dominant service culture in the USAF clings to this idea, even in the wake of the embarrassing farce of Shock and Awe, demonstrates that it is valuable to the Air Force for reasons other than truth. It is the lebenslüge that the Air Force clings to, to maintain its independent identity.

So anyway, if the air is but the third dimension to land and sea conflict -why does this matter and why should then the Air Force cease to be an independent service? When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. All of the above means that the Air Force is properly part of a whole - when it exists as part of a larger organization and serves larger goals and objectives, then it is excellent and strengthens that which it serves. It's fine to see the world as targets you drop bombs on, when a commander with a broader view is going to tell you when, where and upon whom to drop the bombs, but when you're the boss, everything becomes a target and the solution to everything is to drop a bomb on it. This is in fact the ethos of the dominant USAF service culture; examples of this abound, but MajGen Dunlap's letter is a good example, so is "Effects Based Operations" (or EBAO in its latest incarnation).

This belief that military problems are solved with the proper combination of bombs from 30,000 feet is mistaken and has been very counterproductive. I find it hard to believe that we will exorcise this view from its powerful position in US strategy and policy making so long as an institutional air force exists that champions it, as indeed it must to justify its continued existence.

I hope that I am not misunderstood as maligning the courage, skill and professionalism of the members of the US Air Force. I am not, and to the contrary I believe that our pilots and airmen have all that in spades. It's just that I believe that all that talent and ability is better put to use as part of the Army and Navy, and not in a separate service.

You have some other points that I'd like to reply to, but this post has gone long enough so I will address them in a separate post.

Stevely

11-08-2007, 01:18 AM

But let's assume for a moment that this actually occurs. What will become of lethal non-CAS airpower? Surely the Army would focus its budgetary efforts on airpower that supports ground forces. Is it possible that capabilities such as strategic attack and SEAD would take a backseat to such an extent that these capabilities would degrade? Of course there are some that subscribe to the thought that strategic attack is now unnecessary. In the near future, perhaps this argument holds water. However, unless someone has a crystal ball I don't want to take any chances. What if the AF party line is correct that China is actually a threat and we do go to war over Tiawan at some point? Do we really think we're going to land ground troops on the mainland? I have over a billion reasons that say this is a bad idea. So what happens? We use airpower to fight and we simply do not have enough ships to support the forces needed. Moreover, we need centralized control and decentralized execution to be effective if such a scenario does occur.

This is a very good question - if the Air Force is folded back into the Army will one parochialism only be replaced with another? Possibly. However, pre-1947 the Army had its own Air Force and managed to have more roles than CAS. I think the Army would be able to manage functions that weren't CAS fine, provided the resources available to the Army were commensurate with what the Army absorbed from the Air Force. I have no doubt that transport would be treated very seriously and maintained. SEAD would remain important, because air defenses remain a threat to CAS, transport, etc. I think the one mission area that would see a lot of change would be the strategic role - and quite simply, that role (and those assets) should be cut over to the Navy. The Navy is an equal (and more survivable...) partner in the strategic nuclear force, and has plenty of experience in that realm. Why couldn't the Navy take over the ICBMs? Beyond that, I don't see much other use for the strategic force that absolutely demands an independent air force to provide it. Yes strategic bombers can strike infrastructure or even provide CAS, but frankly IMO the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't make it worth it. The advantages of flying a B2 from the middle of CONUS to go drop ordinance on bad guys somewhere isn't worth the expense (where a single B2 costs a significant fraction of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier...).

The day is fast coming where we will not be able to afford every military extravagance we desire, and the $2 billion bombers and $350 million fighter planes are going to come under heavy scrutiny (more on that in the next post).

Your specific example can make my case. If China were to attack Taiwan, it would be primarily a naval conflict. We would likely be loath to strike the mainland under any circumstances - so the main effort would be maritime interdiction in the Straits of Taiwan, obviously a naval role, and secondarily dislodging PLA that made it across the Straits and landed on Taiwan. That would primarily be a ROC mission, we could provide some air and possibly ground troops, which would obviously come from the USMC. An Air Force role would be strictly to augment naval air. No reason an Army Air Force couldn't help, or a beefed up Navy that inherited parts of the USAF. That would be it - no way in hell we'd dare to start striking targets on the mainland, in my opinion, due to the obvious political dangers; even if we did, such strikes would be limited in scope and could be accomplished by naval air as readily as by an air force. The special sauce the USAF might bring to such a fight, as you imply, strategic attack against the mainland, will never happen. Escalating a war to that level would be ruinous suicide for both countries. So, in my opinion, a Taiwan scenario definitely illustrates land-based air as a supporting effort, as a combat multiplier of the main effort, which is from the sea.

Stevely

11-08-2007, 01:48 AM

Contrary to the thoughts of your AF major, this isn't something that has any traction. One simply has to read AF doctrine and the musing of its leaders to know this.

All things being equal, of course this idea would never gain any traction. Theory is not enough to finish a large institution with a budget larger than the GDP of most countries that has existed for 60 years. Necessity, of the financial kind primarily, could bring this to pass. Not in 5 years, but maybe in 10. My Major friend told me that since he came on active duty in 1991 (enlisted), until the present time, the Air Force has shrunk 12-15,000 servicemembers a year, averaged out over time. If this rate keeps up, and remember, the Air Force is undergoing "force shaping" right now - the Air Force will come to the point where it is too small in terms of manpower to support being a full service. It is getting close in size to the USMC; that service of course is subordinate to the Navy and many of its functions, logistical and administrative, are done by the Navy. It is too small to be independent. The Air Force as currently constituted has more missions than the USMC, and most importantly, relies on vastly more expensive gear to carry it out. Can't remember the source right now, but I believe an Air Force general said publicly that the current round of force shaping was undertaken largely to afford the F-22. Considering that combat aircraft only get more expensive over time (much more, in our case), this problem will just get worse.

These factors taken together paint a very bleak future for the Air Force. The Air Force's reliance on it, its insistence to have the absolute, very best technology, combined with a future of small wars and shrinking defense budgets (and probably shrinking US economy, at some point), is going to put that service into an intolerable squeeze. It won't be able to afford its gizmos and all the bits that go into making it a service.

What happens in the financial world when organizations become too expensive to operate? They get reduced, redundancies get dropped, organizations get merged with others to save money and boost efficiency. I can easily see such a future where the Air Force could face being folded back into the Army on just such financial grounds; perhaps the new USAAF could maintain its identity just as the USMC maintains its own in the Department of the Navy? Maybe not, but it seems a plausible scenario to me.

Of course only the AF pursues its budgetary agenda aggressively! Seriously though, I fail to understand how the UAV issue is "poaching" a broad Army competency. <snip>

Oh, another thought. Instead of arguing like children over who should get what, maybe we should be talking about how we (the AF) can better serve you (the Army). I've never understood the parochial nature of our armed services; maybe its because I'm a retread. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer...

wm addressed the UAV issue more succinctly than I ever could.

On a side note, parochialism will always exist where you have strong institutional identities. It's not always bad, but when budgets and strategy get involved, it is. As annoying as it all can be, I don't think it's really a childish matter, because past the pettiness, you get down to real differences in strategic outlook and military policy that have great consequences for the country and the world. And these issues unfortunately are greatly complicated in that those services and organizations who are competing to have their visions validated, funded and put into practice are playing a multilevel game - the choices made, say in the conduct of a war, have effects beyond their immediate context. Whatever is decided affects the future form, size and sometimes even existence of the contending organizations. Add to that the humans who comprise these organizations have personal ambitions, they have mortgages to pay and families to feed, their personal futures are tied up with the organization they serve, so they will push agendas out of self interest as often as they will out of national interest.

11-08-2007, 12:22 PM

On a side note, parochialism will always exist where you have strong institutional identities. It's not always bad, but when budgets and strategy get involved, it is. As annoying as it all can be, I don't think it's really a childish matter, because past the pettiness, you get down to real differences in strategic outlook and military policy that have great consequences for the country and the world. And these issues unfortunately are greatly complicated in that those services and organizations who are competing to have their visions validated, funded and put into practice are playing a multilevel game - the choices made, say in the conduct of a war, have effects beyond their immediate context. Whatever is decided affects the future form, size and sometimes even existence of the contending organizations. Add to that the humans who comprise these organizations have personal ambitions, they have mortgages to pay and families to feed, their personal futures are tied up with the organization they serve, so they will push agendas out of self interest as often as they will out of national interest.
This point is far from a side note. It explains why the USAF will not be folded into another service. The principle functions of any bureaucratic orgnization are to maintain their life and grow themselves into ever larger organizations.

THe USAF bureaucratic toothpaste got squeezed out of the tube in 1947. I suspect that a close look at the "bureaucratic" history of the USMC will show that it has become less and less a dependent of the Navy Department over its life. However, to date it has not "cut the cord" completely. Were that umbilical to be severed, I suspect that the Marines would cease to use Navy corpsmen to man their aid stations, for example, and perform a host of other support activites with their own personnel. I also think that Marine leadership has been very pragmatic in maintaining its symbiotic relationship with the Navy. Doing so allows the USMC to spend more of its budgeted funds on warfighting functions, which allows it to be a more effective and efficient warfighting force. Sometimes being the client state is better than being the big empire (provided the leadership keeps from becoming too megalomaniacal :eek:).

wm addressed the UAV issue more succinctly than I ever could. Thanks for the props. :)

carl

11-08-2007, 05:08 PM

A few comments:

If the PRC were to attack Taiwan I don't think it likely the mainland would be off limits to air strikes. Maybe, maybe we wouldn't hit it but I think the Taiwanese wouldn't be held back. The straits aren't that wide, I don't see how you could defend Taiwan without hitting ports and airfields on the mainland.

In Korea, there was sort of a tacit deal, they wouldn't come so far south if we didn't go to far north. That wouldn't hold with an all out attack on Taiwan.

With some kinds of weapons, small differences in effectiveness don't make huge differences in the outcomes of fights. The M-1 was a better rifle than the Arisaka (I think that is what it was called) but the Japanese Army did well enough. In air to air fighting, small differences in the effectiveness of fighters make huge differences in the outcome of a fight. For example, if the F-86 hadn't been around, NO UN fighter could have stayed in the sky with the MiG-15.

The F-22 is a remarkable airplane, a generation ahead of anything else out there. I think the USAF generals are so determined to keep the F-22 around because they truly believe that it will quickly destroy any air force we have to fight, any air force. Keeping the other guys air force off your back is the prime function of an air force and with the F-22 the USAF will be able to do its job with alacrity.

The USAF is a vexing institution that has a lot of bad habits. But I think it is worth keeping around because we need an institution that will think primarily about whipping the other guys air force. Human nature being what it is, I don't think an Army or Naval air arm would give that problem enough thought.

I told Slapout the best way to think of an air force is to think of it like a lawyer; it is expensive, causes a lot of trouble and you don't need it very often. But when you need it, you really need it and you had better have the best one available.

slapout9

11-09-2007, 12:32 AM

I told Slapout the best way to think of an air force is to think of it like a lawyer; it is expensive, causes a lot of trouble and you don't need it very often. But when you need it, you really need it and you had better have the best one available.

Hi carl,yeah you did tell me that. I just recently looked at how many people are on the site now:eek: For the new folks here I have to bug carl and LawVol every once in a while about the Air Force.

The truth is the Air Force ain't going no place....but the Army can make a very good case to get back our missiles...might happen to.

The moment this article appeared the Air Force conducted an EBO op against their congressman and all those high paying jobs.....and votes so you will see the F-22 fly for the Air Force, maybe not as many but there will be a fair amount.

Also I have friend in Air Force A2 that says that the Air Force wants air control of anything that flys above 30,000 feet, not 3,500 feet. So I am not sure how correct the article was.

Another prediction is the real breakthrough will be the (UCAV unmanned combat air vehicle) it can laterally fly circles around the F-22. Take the pilot out and there is no worry about g-forces or other pilot problems so they can go zoom zoom...turn on a dime type stuff.

selil

11-09-2007, 12:50 AM

I was talking to an airforce boss type at a seminar tuesday and I asked the question if a UAV could fly CAS. His answer was yes, but not likley. There is a place for pilots who boldly go where few return from.

Ender

11-09-2007, 04:23 AM

Oh, another thought. Instead of arguing like children over who should get what, maybe we should be talking about how we (the AF) can better serve you (the Army). I've never understood the parochial nature of our armed services; maybe its because I'm a retread. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer...

Maybe you are a dreamer, and that is not a bad thing but this is WAR and we need realists. A service-biased example if I may: No Marine, alive or dead would ever feel the need to justify their service... that is they know what they do, they know they do it well and they KNOW (fundamentally and intrinsically) they are indispensable.

I have good friends in all the other branches and while some of my soldier and sailor friends have "issues" with their branch of choice, they would laugh (long and hard) if you asked them whether their entire branch was viable or not (because even a simple soldier sailor can understand what Stevely so elegantly said above).

It is only my Air Force buddies who openly MAKE FUN of their vaunted Force, (in uniform, in front of their senior enlisted!) for being "so lax" and so "chill." These same friends (senior and junior alike) pride themselves on being the smart warriors because they go to war in a perfectly conditioned room... that's how war should be done they say and you know what? That scares me to my core. This is not XBox 360 or Playstation, this business is combat and life and death hangs in the balance. Just because the technology can make the battlefield feel like a game does not mean we should ever forget that we are not that far removed from a martial reality that included swords and horses. The farther removed you are from the killing you are doing the less "real" it is for you. Fact. The enemy is our responsibility as much as we are our own and while we should always try a rock before a fist, we should never forget what a firm fist in the face feels like. From either direction.

You all know the jokes about Air Force Bases, Air Force gyms, Air Force chow, Air Force women... they aren't exaggerations. I only developed the time to post on places like this AFTER I left active service... how many active, air force enlisted guys are on here RIGHT now when they should be hitting the gym?

Who are we kidding? COIN is a threat. It is NOT going away; they (them, those, they that WOULD) will pursue this method because we do not appear to, as a whole, have the will and the resolve to beat COIN. Conventional war is still a threat as well. It is not going away either. Hell that specter never left us folks, let us soberly face this, we are the top dog and one of the things you can fundamentally count on when you sit at the top is that someone, somewhere is gunning for you. It is called envy, jealousy whatever... it is basically human and a basic flaw and its not going anywhere either... There are still standing armies, navies and rocket branches out there with their own GDP's and individual priorities. We are not that far past the point of standing armies and battle lines so let's slow our technological "role" here...

IMO, everything comes back to ground. At the end of the day every commander, whether he be Admiral or Air Marshal is a glorified private. He breathes, eats, sleeps and occupies as much space as the next person. These commanders do not exist in their chosen areas of combat, that is to say the Air Marshal does not command from the sky neither does the Admiral indefinitely from the ocean. They all come back to ground. Destroy all of the planes, all of the ships, and all of the trappings and we are all grunts duking it out with progressively smaller ammunition. By this logic, the Army gets a pass in my book.

Our planet is overwhelmingly covered by water and an Admiral really can command from the sea thanks to our carrier power. These Admirals invariably support the "guy on the ground" and have developed a VERY comfortable relationship with their Marine brethren and (vice versa) which shows me they know where the game is at. I would even go so far to say that if all the ground were destroyed some would still be happy to command from the sea so... the Navy decidedly does not need to come back to ground and they get a pass in my book...

Our nation's very survival depends on the existence of the Corps (if you don't know what I am talking about ask a Marine, they will tell you) so I guess they are in too...

Hey Air Force, what can you do that anyone of us can not? What part of your whole could not be assimilated into another branch and why aren't you guys manning up to this and saying this is what we can do and this is why we are indispensable? I just named some things we can do that you can't... where is your niche? How do you justify all of the immaculate bases, (I have been on) the mulitmillion dollar gyms, (I have worked out in) the blondes, (I have hit on) the lobster tails, (I have eaten in your halls) and billions of dollars we spend on you (that we Marines can only dream about)?

I just want someone from the Air Force to get up and say we rock and this is why. I am tired of hearing you guys make excuses for yourselves and want to see if any of you have some balls to back up these billion dollar brains of yours... any takers? I welcome a measured and detailed response and apologize if this tact has been overly offensive... my post has been crafted to promote a response but I can assure that as someone who has had his life saved by the Air Force, I want nothing more than to hear a championed and well-reasoned retort. Why do we need you?

Presley Cannady

11-13-2007, 06:00 PM

PS if you ever get to Alabama we will go to Huntsville and see some Army Airpower....some good eatin places up there to.

What chance is there Navy will roll over if Air Force goes for a nuclear power in orbit?

slapout9

11-13-2007, 06:05 PM

Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?

Presley Cannady

11-13-2007, 06:10 PM

Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?

My bad. Quoted the wrong sentence. Meant to actually respond to this:

And finally one that is also vitally important is the exploitation of Space.

I'm asking who wins in a pissing contest for ownership of the space exploitation missions: Air Force or Navy?

selil

11-13-2007, 06:21 PM

Navy... They are spaceships. Airforce for Orbit to the ground missions. Navy for outside of orbit. Just my opinion.

Steve Blair

11-13-2007, 06:31 PM

Agreed. Plus they have the self-contained, expeditionary mindset you need for that sort of thing. Again, IMO.

slapout9

11-13-2007, 06:36 PM

I would say NASA usually more than anybody when it comes to space. They can set back and watch AF and Navy fight it out.

selil

11-13-2007, 07:01 PM

I would say NASA usually more than anybody when it comes to space. They can set back and watch AF and Navy fight it out.

NASA is not allowed to act in a military manner. They are civilians.. How many people groaned? Never mind all those military pilots.

Presley Cannady

11-13-2007, 07:16 PM

NASA is not allowed to act in a military manner. They are civilians.. How many people groaned? Never mind all those military pilots.

On top of that, Navy has nuclear power bureaucracy at the ready. Any serious exploitation of near-Earth space is going to demand a lot of reactor experience.

slapout9

11-13-2007, 07:33 PM

My bad. Quoted the wrong sentence. Meant to actually respond to this:

I'm asking who wins in a pissing contest for ownership of the space exploitation missions: Air Force or Navy?

I did not understand the question as purely military as you refer to "ownership of space exploitation missions"...which is one of NASA's main missions. In the purley military part other folks here are better at that then me.:wry:

LawVol

11-14-2007, 06:20 PM

Maybe you are a dreamer, and that is not a bad thing but this is WAR and we need realists. A service-biased example if I may: No Marine, alive or dead would ever feel the need to justify their service... that is they know what they do, they know they do it well and they KNOW (fundamentally and intrinsically) they are indispensable.

Using my "billion dollar brain," let me tell you that you might want to use yours to open a book about Marine Corps history. It is only recently that the Corps hasn't had to justify its existance. Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one.

Also, you might want to read [B]Stevely's[B] responses to my post. His reasoning was well though out and well written, which has given me some pause to at least consider his arguments. Your post, on the other hand, is so caustic that I can't really take it seriously. Besides, I've never sought to justify the existence of the AF before, so why would I start now?

Ender

11-15-2007, 07:00 AM

Using my "billion dollar brain," let me tell you that you might want to use yours to open a book about Marine Corps history. It is only recently that the Corps hasn't had to justify its existance.

I happen to own a book or two about the Marine Corps and have actually managed to open one or two over the years. Lawyers (the bulk of which were probably Dept. of the Navy JAG) may very well have had to fight Congress over the years for appropriations or territorial reasons but justifying oneself to an enemy bureaucrat or a politician is a far cry from doing the same to yourself or to the American people. Smalls Wars may very well mean the employment of pens and lawyers in raids on Congress to some but to me at the end of the day all of our theoretical posturing and postulating on the subject of SW comes down to bullets and bad-guys. Someone is responsible for them and when the E-3 cares more about where big bullets are landing than the 0-3 who launched them, I think something is wrong.

It is my opinion that even "back in the day" Marines have always had a sense that the world needed them, Congress, the money grubbers and popular opinion be damned. Also I feel there is a small difference between:
-"Justifying" yourself officially for what? 232 years now by standing on the birth of a nation, (gently: where were the pilots then?) solidifying your gain against imperial intentions, securing your borders and your interior, stomping the world in war (twice), protecting every seat of diplomacy on the globe and all while simultaneously responding to every hot spot or flare up this planet has produced and....
-"Justifying" the 60 years the United States Air Force has (some would opine) overwhelmingly fought with its officer cadre,* in a linear (top down, bottom up) one-dimensional environment, with weapons systems that have progressively distanced and sterilized the fighter from the fighting, all while devouring an enormous percentage of a vitally critical defense budget on ever increasingly expensive and complicated solutions to extremely difficult but relatively time-worn and simple problems. That's just me though.

(*A practice which by very definition and execution fosters an elitist environment and promotes a mindset where the pilot is "worth" more than a grunt. Eg: Ask any general who the most valuable person in his Corps is and he will show you a 19 year old with a machine gun, would the Air Force general do the same?)

I have asked a few friends to first read and then comment on Xenophon's original post and not one can honestly come up with a solid answer on what the Air Force does that anyone other branch could not...NASA-space, the Army- rockets, everybody- fixed and rotary wing cap. etc... but in deference to your suggestion and in the spirit of objectivity and "anti-parochialism" I will ask these same friends whether the Marine Corps relativity debate should be raised again just to see what they say... I will keep a straight face, I promise.

Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one..

The key here is that they had to "sell" themselves- not a natural state for a creature who is trained from day one that the product sells itself. I am dreaming for a few Airmen to again, stand up and say "this is the product that we have mastered, this is why you need us and please don't forget it you silly, knuckle-dragging ground pounder...." (I would bow in obeisance and shut up, I promise:) )

Also, you might want to read [B]Stevely's[B] responses to my post. His reasoning was well though out and well written, which has given me some pause to at least consider his arguments. Your post, on the other hand, is so caustic that I can't really take it seriously. Besides, I've never sought to justify the existence of the AF before, so why would I start now?

I mean no disrespect but I read every word in this thread, including all of what Stevely said (nicely) and everything else that was even remotely related to this subject (both on site and off). You are the first airman to directly respond, (it's fair, I get it, I picked your quote) and whether the tone was palatable for you or not, I can promise you I meant no personal offense to you or any airman on here.

However... I feel, as do others, that behind my unpolished delivery are some very salient points and the underlying core of Xenophon's post raises some (at the very least) thought provoking questions. We can choose to avoid the serious questions for the sake of not wanting to mix it up, (Can't we all just get along?) or for the sake of wanting to avoid service oriented parochialism (how many times has that word been used in reference to this topic?) but our desire for a warm, fuzzy, Downy Soft Joint relationship will not become realized by (forgive me man) dreaming or agreeing, it is going to come from us asking hard questions and giving hard answers of and to one another. I believe we NEED to practice on ourselves (as iron strengthens iron) if we are going to take it to the enemy in earnest...I see it as kind of like the Irish with wooden swords or the Mafia with rubber bullets in my mind... so if the intent is to prove what you, the air force can do for us, the guy on the ground then please SELL ME, in spite of my relative acidity level and or generally (mis)directed cynicism.

Now I am not as skilled in the art of euphemistic employment as others and I have never claimed to be as talented with the scalpel as I am with the broadsword, (read: M2, 4, 9, 16, 203, 240G or 249) but I think the SWC's ROEs and our own sense of warrior propriety can see a way to duke this one out in a manner that speaks well to both of our character's. No one has spanked me on here yet (there are enough senior Marines on here and if I were way off base I trust [KNOW] someone would have kicked me back in my lane) and I am not trying to be the flamer but it is my impression, after having read and reread the flow of the thread that the real essence of the debate has been derailed for the sake of pride and everyone wanting to play gently and not stoop to "parochial" tussles... Frankly, I think we are made of tougher stuff than that. I smacked you guys, please don't prove my fears well-founded by at least not politely smacking me back with something of substance.

Frankly, I know I am not the only person who has quite caustically wondered about the United States Air Force, wondered about all of the pools you will neither avow nor disavow, wondered why a tabletop tactical discussion with an Air Force Colonel on the subject of (just) Iraq REALLY comes down to whether or not it would be a good idea "to just turn em all into a giant sheet of irradiated glass." I know I am not the only one who wonders why the higher rank a soldier, salior or Marine becomes, the FEWER weapons he personally wields. Hell, our biggest weapons seem to be operated (responsibly) by our most junior warriors; in the Air Force it seems to be the other way around or as though you don't REALLY get your hands on the big toys until you hit at least 50...

Devil, you know as well as I, all of the rumors about the Marine Corps are true. We fight, drink, swear, are generally ill-tempered and I really just want someone to tell me all the rumors about the Air Force (Air Force is to Lawyer as...) are not true and that there really is a distinct capability or aspect the Big Blue brings to the fight that no other branch could do as well or better with the same monies....

Steve Blair

11-15-2007, 02:46 PM

Personally, I think there are things the AF does quite well, and some things that it does not do well. I'm chiming in with my non-moderator hat on right now.

In terms of coordinating air superiority missions/campaigns and deep strike (read heavy bomber) missions they tend to excel. The planning process tends to be overly controlling (a legacy from SAC that they have yet to totally shake) and not especially responsive to change or different ways of doing things (and the same could be said for many Army/Navy planning processes...it's the nature of large bureaucratic organizations). Still...they are quite good and gaining and maintaining control of the air with air superiority fighters.

I don't think they do CAS all that well...mainly because (rhetoric aside) it's historically been a mission that the AF does not corporately value. Their commitment to airlift has also been flaky. This I think has to do more with the fighter/bomber pilot mentality and the communities that have dominated AF higher command structures for so long. They also do not adjust well to situations other than all-out or total war...possibly because they were created by World War II and have always optimized their thought processes for such a conflict (and again, lest someone misunderstand, I'm talking about the AF as a GROUP, not as individuals).

Could another service master the AF's functions? I would say that the Marines and Army (possibly) could take on CAS. The Navy has some capability to mirror some AF functions, but without the basing system they'd have problems doing longer-range strikes.

LawVol

11-15-2007, 05:18 PM

In your first post you mentioned COIN and then referenced Iraq in your second post. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that, but I get the impression that your argument (and basis for the argument) rests on the current type of war we face. To be sure the AF could adjust fire to better contribute to the COIN fight. I have many ideas on that subject and have shared a few on various threads. However, I think you are perhaps ignoring the big picture.

While our ground forces have retooled themselves for the COIN fight (and have done an admirable job doing so), we cannot forget that the possibility exists that a peer competitor could rise. Yes, I can see the eyes rolling in the backs of some heads now and thinking that this is just AF talking points to justify money. But think about it, do we really want to put all of our eggs in one basket? Can we really afford to ignore even the possibility of a future conventional-style war? I really hope we don't do that because the butcher's bill will be high indeed.

Looking to the conventional fight, no military organization on the face of the earth (present or past) has dominated its sphere of operations better than the USAF. No one can claim the same success. In the roughly 90 years of airpower, the USAF has risen to the top and is not even challenged (although we cannot expect that to last). US seapower has acheived the same dominance but it took considerably more time. Our land forces have not yet acheived that feat (not an insult just fact; there is obviously more at play in the land domain).

In acheiving and maintaining this airpower advantage we offer the expertise that goes with it. While other branches do have pilots and airpower thinkers, complete air dominance is not their raison d'etre. Since it is ours, we've developed faster. Could we train the pilots from other services to do this? Probably, but the AF has the capability now. Moreover, once you remove the single raison d'etre from the equation, the focus changes and capabilities deteriorate as a result.

This leads into unity of command issues. Having an AF allows airpower to be placed under a single command that is an expert in its application. This ensures a concentration of effort so that resources are not wasted by being employed haphazardly or in situations that don't provide the best bang for the buck from a strategic perspective. This becomes etremely important in the strateic attack arena. When or if that peer competitor ever throws down the guantlet, AF strategic attack capabilities will win the day (assuming we stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the development of technologically superior platforms). No one else can do that.

I've reread your two posts several times and am struck by one thing in particular. You referenced a perceived elitist environment within the AF, but have succumbed to this yourself. You obviously think yourself better than Airmen because we "fight in air conditioned rooms" or some other such similar reason. Perhaps if you looked at the situation objectively, you'd realize that there are other aspects to the fight than the grunt with a rifle. After all, since you indicated that an AF guy saved your life, I would think you'd give some credit.

Now, if you want to know about our pools or chow halls, or any rumors about the AF, just ask. I would be more than happy to explain anything within my knowledge to you. I am not ashamed of how the AF takes care of its people. In fact, I think it is a huge selling point. Having grown up around one branch of the military and having served in another before joining the AF, I think I have a pretty good perspective of how people and families are treated. And it gives me a great measure of satisfaction to know that the AF factors the care of troops and family into their planning. I know from the number people from other branches of the service that come to me that other wish this were so in the other services.

I smacked you guys, please don't prove my fears well-founded by at least not politely smacking me back with something of substance.

I didn't realize this was combative. I also didn't realize I had been "smacked." Maybe this is just macho BS, I don't know. Save it for those pretty co-eds at your school.

Devil, you know as well as I, all of the rumors about the Marine Corps are true. We fight, drink, swear, are generally ill-tempered and I really just want someone to tell me all the rumors about the Air Force (Air Force is to Lawyer as...) are not true and that there really is a distinct capability or aspect the Big Blue brings to the fight that no other branch could do as well or better with the same monies....

Again, run those rumors by me, I'd love to hear them. Oh, and finish the quote "Air Force is to Lawyer." Maybe I'll actually get a chuckle. And if your jealousy over the pools, gyms, etc. just gets too much to bear let me know and I'll get you some information to help you cross over into the blue (yeah, it's cliche but I like it:)).

11-15-2007, 05:41 PM

Ender:

No Marine, alive or dead would ever feel the need to justify their service... that is they know what they do, they know they do it well and they KNOW (fundamentally and intrinsically) they are indispensable.

Originally Posted by LawVol
Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one..
The key here is that they had to "sell" themselves

Ender – I tried to resist – honestly, I did try -- but at the end of the day, I cannot. :wry:

Where to start…….?

As a start, you have read Lt. Gen. Victor Krulak’s ‘First to Fight’. The section of the book title ‘The Thinkers’ is worth reading (well, even as a non-Marine the whole book is worth reading; Conway has especially singled out for all Marines to read on the current Commandant’s reading list, I suspect for very specific reasons) .

So my observation/argument in response to your observation, by way of a minor correction to what you said, is that while the general Marine may not feel there is any need to justify the MC, the Marine Corps perennially feels the need to do so. And this is not a case of ‘had to’ sell itself – this persists in this up to and including today.

Ender, I am sure you know most of this, and probaby many other do as well, but for the rest….

To keep this reasonably short, suffice it to say that Krulak in the above mentioned section, points out that through its history the Marine Corps faced five serious attempts, and a number of minor attempts, to disband it, emasculate it, or to fold it, in whole or in part, into one or another of the other US services, (pp 13 and 37) efforts that if successful would have meant the end of the MC at least as a significant military organization. Central in his account, however, is that in the debates over the 1947 National Defense Act there is clear public evidence that both the Army and the Air Force were intent on seeing the MC disbanded so that they could absorb respectively the ground and air elements of the USMC and the attendant roles and missions.

The inherent problem for the USMC is that, as a combined air and ground military force that operates from the sea, from a ‘functional’ perspective its activities overlap with those of the Army and Air Force. Indeed, the Marine Corps arguably is a direct competitor with the Army as they are both ground fighting forces even though the Marine Corps is ostensibly a sea borne force. In 1957 Gen. Randolp McC. Pate, then Commandant, asked Lt. Gen. Krulak, ‘Why does the U.S. need a Marine Corps?’ Krulak’s response was that he ‘would find it most difficult to prove, beyond question, that the United States does truly need a Marine Corps.’(Krulak, pp. xiii and xiv)
He further openly acknowledged that the Army and the Air Force could carry out the roles and missions of the USMC equally well, and more tellingly, that this was true even in the case of amphibious landing operations for which the Marine Corps claim to have, in his words, ‘mystical competence’. (p. xiv) Not to put too fine a point on it, the Marine Corps arguably does not necessarily provide any particularly unique military function and, as a consequence, it is confronted with competition from both the Army and Air Force for roles and missions, as well as for resources.

These perennial efforts to undermine or terminate the USMC, coupled with the understanding that the other services, particularly the Army and Air Force, could fulfill the same functions, is deeply inculcated in the thinking of the Marine Corps. It is shared ‘social knowledge’ that is perceived as fact, and hence it is a core aspect of the organizational culture of the Marine Corps. As Krulak puts it, the MC sees itself with respect to the American military establishment as ‘perennially the smallest kid on the block in a hostile neighborhood.’(p. 3) Past experience has resulted in the Marine Corps being extremely wary of the aspirations of the other services when it comes to its survival. Krulak goes on to opine that, ‘[b]eneficial or not, the continuous struggle for a viable existence fixed clearly one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Corps – a sensitive paranoia, sometimes justified, sometimes not.’ (p. 3) The Marine Corps sense of organizational paranoia is not only firmly fixed in its organizational culture, a critical aspect of its identity, I would argue that it is one of the, if not the, dominant organizational cultural artifact (or personality traits, if you will) that exerts an influence on other key organizational cultural attributes of the Corps.

This organizational paranoia is deeply institutionalized within the Marine Corps, to the point that it furnishes a cornerstone of its self identity. It often works to shape the way Marines define the interests and preferences of their service as well as suggesting what they should do. Inseparable to its organizational paranoia is the cultural artifact of its assertion that it is uniquely a sea-borne, amphibious force, for this role and mission is perceived as being effectively synonymous with the Marine Corps, both in the perceptions of Marines and in the perceptions of the society they serve. And it clearly distinguishes the Corps from the Army.

This organizational cultural trait is still very strong today. There were calls for the MC to be downsized or radically changed in the late 1970s and the continued need for the Marine Corps was questioned in the wake of the First Gulf War. For a very recent expression of this paranoia about institutional survival, Conway at the 18th International Seapower Symposium at the Naval War College (Oct) publicly noted his worry that the MC was becoming ‘a second land army’, that "I'm a little bit concerned about us keeping our expeditionary flavor.’; that ‘We are indeed a naval force and there will come a day, not far I hope, where we are back with the Navy’; and that "We now have a generation of officers who has never stepped aboard a ship, and that concerns us with our naval flavor and ability to launch amphibious support,"
(Defense Daily October 18, 2007 - I only have a copy that was sent to me, so I have no link, but, alternatively, see: http://newsblaze.com/story/20071016162517tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.htmlhttp://newsblaze.com/story/20071016162517tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html) His remarks made me smile, for they sound pretty much the same as what was being said in the immediate aftermath of the MCs withdrawal from Vietnam.

So, to return your observation; does the average Marine feel a need to justify the existence of the Marine Corps - no. We agree there. Does the Marine Corps feel a need to justify its existence – it does, and does so pretty constantly. And it does this by perennially seeking to ensure that it is seen as being unique from the Army (ie amphibious, expeditionary, etc) and by emphasizing that it has unique capabilities that the Army does not have (ie it does ‘windows’, and so on and so forth).

Sorry for babbling on so on a subject that is a digression from the thread topic….but perhaps the difference between the AF and MC is that the former feels, for whatever reason, that it does not need to sell itself, while the latter perceives, rightly or wrongly, that its survival as a institution is a question mark and so persistently sells itself (even when it does not need to do so).

Cheers :)

Terry

Ender

11-16-2007, 02:57 AM

While our ground forces have retooled themselves for the COIN fight (and have done an admirable job doing so), we cannot forget that the possibility exists that a peer competitor could rise... Can we really afford to ignore even the possibility of a future conventional-style war? Peer competitor? This sounds like well the enemy has an air force so we need one too, just in case. I have no question in my mind whether we need bombers and fighters, missiles and rockets just like the enemy, I am just not so sure they need to be organized in the autocratic, me first mentality they are now that is all.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is not our job to mirror the enemy but to preempt them. With China, the Indian sub-continent, Russia and so many others in the picture it is apparent that the globe is shrinking fast... that is to say the pie stays the same size but our pieces may be shrinking. How can we (as a DoD) do the most with the least when it appears that most of the time the United States Air Force (as a whole) does the least with the most and only some of the time does the most with the most, or dominates its "sphere" as you put it. I think the very distinct possibility of a future conventional war is exactly why we should strive to become dollar for dollar and pound for pound the most efficient fighting force on the planet. Say what you will about the Corps apparent relevancy with Congress (TT I am coming brother) but we have, in terms of fiscal efficiency (responsibility?) consistently come in "under budget" compared to the USAF. I am no economist but who's gonna axe good cheap labor?

Looking to the conventional fight, no military organization on the face of the earth (present or past) has dominated its sphere of operations better than the USAF... Our land forces have not yet acheived that feat (not an insult just fact; there is obviously more at play in the land domain). Dominance of the "sphere?" By your own mouth you are confounded... This is exactly what I am talking about and perfectly illustrates a mindset where the battle is an isolated sphere or a separate function and not an all inclusive, simultaneously multi-dimensional maelstrom... a mindset whose logical conclusion sends others to FIGHT (read: push buttons from 5-50 miles out) but does not ACTUALLY do so themselves. Eg: How many airman are taught how to give battle field dressings to their wounded enemies and why does that REALLY matter to a warrior's understanding of the "sphere?" Dominance of the "sphere?" Great man, clear the skies though and no one is up there. You guys can rock the whole freakin sphere and say "we won" but where is your temporal relevance AFTER? The air by itself is just dead space waiting to be passingly and fleetingly influenced , but in battle empty ground is more precious than gold.

As far as the dominance thing, I don't know by what measure you are quantifying "complete" (I hope you meant air to air) dominance... but as long as stealth planes (for example) are being shot down over third world nations and as long as there are still long lists of nations who have anti air capabilities we have not yet tested I would be extremely slow to claim total domination. How many pilots did we lose in Korea? Vietnam?

I am not sure the last 90 years have been entirely "ours" either, and how much of the 90 years that is ours is actually attributed soley to the USAF. I may have as of yet, only been the active participant in one war but that does not mean I have not studied hundreds and just because my posts may sound COIN-centric to you does not in the least mean Iraq encompasses the breadth and depth of where I am coming from with this. My point is that my understanding of the history of air power has as much to do with "one upsmanship" (Germany, Japan, USSR etc..) or today we are dominant, tomorrow they are than it does spherical dominance. I appreciate the bravado and I don't know if this is Air Force macho bs or what but I would personally save it for all those clueless pretty little legal egg-heads.

Could we train the pilots from other services to do this? Probably, but the AF has the capability now.? Translation as I heard it: Could we train other services to think as one dimensionally and unilaterally as this? Absolutely.

I've reread your two posts several times and am struck by one thing in particular. You referenced a perceived elitist environment within the AF, but have succumbed to this yourself. You obviously think yourself better than Airmen because we "fight in air conditioned rooms" or some other such similar reason. How many times over did it take to pick up on that? ( and succumb may be the wrong word here...) I do think I am a better warrior than not just all of the air men, but most of the soldiers and sailors too... let's get it right. I think I am a better warfighter not because of where I fight or where you think you "fight." I am a better warrior because I actually FIGHT and most airmen do not. This debate may not be "combative" to you but these ideas represent an impersonal but very real struggle for me. I have been shot at and I take expcetion to not just what the enemy can do to us but also to what we ACTUALLY do to the other side. So for many years now I have consciously trained my mind and body to take the fight to the enemy on as many levels as I possibly can and I (forgive me) would honestly be willing to step in the ring with anyone from any other branch in a Warfighting Pepsi Challenge. I may lose in survival stapling and combat collating but in the end my kind will have victory.

Perhaps if you looked at the situation objectively, you'd realize that there are other aspects to the fight than the grunt with a rifle. You are right, there are other aspects than the grunt with the rifle (the implication pigeon holes me so neatly!) as well as there are other aspects than the plane in the sky and that is precisely why I would like the Air Force as a whole to get its head out of the clouds and come down to where people actually get hurt. I may very well be "just" a Marine to some but what most people fail to understand is that we have the best of everything. We have the best land warriors, the best Navy and the best pilots (Marine Air Force if you will) on the planet. You want to talk about total domination? I don't know where 232 years of decimating everything in your path, on all spheres fits into your math but it ranks high with mine.

After all, since you indicated that an AF guy saved your life, I would think you'd give some credit. I did indicate that the Air Force saved my life once and I am SOOO glad you mentioned it. I should have added that the Air Force BARELY saved my life... Two teams from my platoon were on one of the last foot patrols near the city of Fallujah before the battle of Al Fajr kicked off. We were ambushed by a group of insurgents and the fight lasted for at least 20 minutes before air (an AC-130) came on station. We did not have comm with the bird, could not get comm with the bird (the AF had changed freq sets last minute) and pretty much just sat back and watched it clean up what we had started.

After the fact, I talked to our Air officer and asked how the bird knew who to fire at down there considering we were in such close proximity... to which I was told I he did not know. I was later able to determine from the pilots that the only two pieces of data they used to open fire on them as opposed to us were the facts that they knew there were troops in contact (read: priority for the MC and "hair trigger" for the AF) and that they were "closer" to the city than us. If the fight had occured twenty minutes earlier than it had, our position relative to the "enemy" would have been the exact opposite. Now I did not know to be pissed about this until I told our pilots about it and asked WTH mate? They were livid for us and to say well it all worked out in the end for the Dominators would be a dangerous examination of what really happened in that dangerous little "sphere" where circles actually overlap.

I do not know how much an AC-130 costs but I can promise you that there are any number of Marine generals out there who would love to put that money into just one of his (combined arms) regiments and any number of Marine pilots out there who would love to have that platform so they could personally support recon teams on the ground just hours before the big show. I don't think it would have been such a close save that night if it had been Harriers instead... I will take a smart pilot and dumb bombs over "unaware" (see I can be diplomatic) pilots and technology any day of the week.

Now, if you want to know about our pools or chow halls, or any rumors about the AF, just ask. I am not ashamed of how the AF takes care of its people. If I want to know anything about the greatest peace time force on the planet I will be sure to ask, once I am done fighting. I am not ashamed that the AF takes care of its own, but I do have beef (steak, lobster whatever) with HOW the AF takes care of its own. I have (only) one pretty little co-ed in my life and she would be ashamed to be eating filet at home while I ate MRE's in the field. I just want to know when does it get overboard for you guys?

Ender

11-16-2007, 02:59 AM

Again, run those rumors by me, I'd love to hear them. The rumors are that the air force is the place for people who want to look serious but don't actually want to get serious. The rumors are that you guys are fat, lazy, out of shape, (relatively) undisciplined and altogether mostly out of touch with what goes down on the ground. The rumors are that you guys want to wage war at arms length and that is great but you guys can't also do it with your eyes closed. The rumors are that the Air Force is openly seeking to fight and win and bloodless wars and can not understand that the collateral realization of an arm's length war makes bloodless and war, forever mutually exclusive.

Oh, and finish the quote "Air Force is to Lawyer." Maybe I'll actually get a chuckle. And if your jealousy over the pools, gyms, etc. just gets too much to bear let me know and I'll get you some information to help you cross over into the blue (yeah, it's cliche but I like it:)). Air Force it to Lawyer as Everyone Else AND their Mother is to Warrior. There I said it... I am not jealous of your amenities and in a brutally stoic manner I am deeply amused that you think they (not in their existence, but in their quantity and EXCESS) would ever be part of a reality I would want for me and mine.

Rex Brynen

11-16-2007, 03:40 AM

...did you once lose a girlfriend to an air force pilot?

I should note at the outset that I have no horses at all in this particular race. However, I'm not sure your rather snarky tone adds any credibility to your arguments.

The "who is the superior warrior" debate seems to be to be entirely irrelevant. There are fights--most of them--where boots on the ground have been fundamentally central to the mission (OIF). There have been fights where AF assured air superiority has enable the strike and CAS missions that kept ground casualties much much lighter than otherwise (Desert Storm). There have been missions where US boots were undeployable, or where their deployment would have been counterproductive (pre-Dayton US/NATO bombing in Bosnia, most of the the pre-stabilization part of Kosovo). There are possible fights where the Army and Marine Corps would largely sit by and watch the USAF and/or USN do their stuff (Iran, Taiwan). There are fights that were deterred--and never happened--because of the threat of USAF (or USN) power projection capabilities.

Unless you happen to know the next 10 combat mission the US will face over the next 25 years, LawVol's point about needing some degree of full spectrum capability remains.

How is this best done, in terms of institutional assignment of capabilities and missions? How will changing threats and technologies change the balance? These ARE interesting topics, and it would be nice to get back to them...

Ender

11-16-2007, 03:48 AM

I know as well as the next person the USAF is going nowhere (no pun intended) and am honestly, all devil's advocate aside, deeply proud of the service of our airmen and women. If I could sum up all of my little complaints here they would (99%) revolve around COST. If I did not perceive the Big Blue to be to over the top expensive I wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place.

This world is not getting any cheaper, we only have a finite sum to work with and the price tags never seem to do anything other than rise exponentially... Justify that cost of doing that (one dimensional, unilateral...) business to me in the face of a a shrinking global economy and all of the domestic issues we are faced with today and I would say, "NEXT." But as long as we are force shaping (read: handing out pink slips) to accomodate the latest multi-BILLION dollar Delta Force, GS15, High Speed, Low Drag Super/Fighter/Bomber Intercepor I am going to take exception.

Penta

11-16-2007, 03:53 AM

Ender

11-16-2007, 04:11 AM

...did you once lose a girlfriend to an air force pilot?I should note at the outset that I have no horses at all in this particular race. However, I'm not sure your rather snarky tone adds any credibility to your arguments.
Gosh no. I almost lost my entire team to the Air Force. In light of that reality (not theory, as so much ever is on places like this) I am questioning and debating the efficacy of a branch that seems to care more about creature comforts than it does Joint operations or battlefield effectiveness. I knew I had a tone but regret that this has come off overly bitter or personal...

Over the years I have often wondered what the heck was going on with the USAF and the original post by Xenophon only served as catalyst and sparked so much for me upstairs... I thought WHY do we need an Air Force?? WHAT do they actually do?

I do have different opinions on how business should be done but that does not give me license to abuse. Forgive my indiscretion.

Ender

11-16-2007, 04:20 AM

Ender...You would do well to show the intelligence of your namesake.

Look at acquisition programs for the other services.

None of the services can seem to do acquisition competently. At all.

The US military's research, development & acquisition system is a complete mess.

What is your point? Everyone stinks at the money/gear game and this somehow makes the USAF less culpable for their training dollar to training airman ratio... (more money on things and less on us) or any other branch for that matter that cares more about pork than it does its own people? Please elaborate.

Ender

11-16-2007, 04:47 AM

Unless you happen to know the next 10 combat mission the US will face over the next 25 years, LawVol's point about needing some degree of full spectrum capability remains.
I don't happen to know what the next 10 missions in 25 years or 25 missions in 10 years will look like and it is with that reasoning that I am so willing to throw out LawVol's "point" (theory) about needing some degree of full spectrum capability when the realization (application) of that point means single spectrum specialization to the detriment of the guy on the ground. IMO the Air Force is really, really good at one or two things and those two things aren't always NECESSARY. Every other branch has a distinct role, not a chosen realm of battle, a ROLE that is viable rain or shine, day or night. The soldiers role is to handle broad spectrum land, the navy sea and the Marines don't share with anyone, they bridge the two. Powerful nations have had armies, navies and marines for thousands of years and just because we see sailors and Marines on the sea, and soldiers and Marines on the ground does not mean that we have a geospatial conflict of interest. IF however I perceived that Air Force to be actively trying to bridge its role with any single other instead of solidifying its singular choke hold on technology, air and space I would say welcome to the team.

Talk is cheap and everyone is saying the same thing, Joint this and Joint that "Joint Capability Strike FIGHTER" lol and I am sure we all intend to support the guy on the ground but when the Pentagon, the White House the Military Channel, Discovery etc... and everyone and their neighbor is talking about the new unmanned airforce, the pilotless angels guarding the soldier of tomorrow I just get SCARED. Tone aside, the full spectrum capabilities of the Air Force may sound jazzy and some may want everyone to adopt a similar model but if that is us at full spectrum I would hate to see how flat our capabilities would be at less than...

120mm

11-16-2007, 01:52 PM

LawVol

11-16-2007, 02:35 PM

Do you feel better now? Surely, you'll gain some respect from most for your combat experience (myself included). Respect, but not awe. Get over yourself. You are rapidly losing capital through your ranting and raving. Slow down, detach a little and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

Its all about the air stupid.

How many times over did it take to pick up on that? ( and succumb may be the wrong word here...)

BTW, on this forum we try to maintain some degree of civility. Intelligent debate is the order of the day. I didn't call you stupid for your opinions or otherwise question your intellect so I don't see the need for you to question mine. Maybe while you're in college you should take a philosophy course where you'll learn that a fallacy of logic is attacking your opponent rather than his argument (argumentum ad hominum). It is a sure sign that you've turned to emotion rather than fact. You also incorrectly restated a few of my points to fit your argument and I'm sure it's an identified fallacy as well, but college was a long time ago for me.

I may very well be "just" a Marine to some

One more thing before I go: I never said you were "just" a Marine. I earned that title when you were still peeing in the bed, so don't try to paint me as being anti-USMC. I've tried to have a spirited debate without getting personal or creating ill feelings, but you are apparently looking for something else. Maybe once you've gained control of your emotions we can have a more civil discourse. Good luck with your education.

Norfolk

11-16-2007, 05:22 PM

I'm very much in support of what the Air Force COULD BE. But for the last year and a few months, we've had Air Force officers, and Air Force retirees as military contractors, pushing CAS like a drug dealer pushing crack to schoolkids in a COIN fight.

The current line is to "use CAS first" to prevent casualties, even if it means killing everyone on the objective, women, kids, whatever. Maneuver Commanders are being ripped apart in AARs by a [] retired Air Force Colonel/General if they take a casualty on the objective, attempting to lessen civilian casualties, ILO dropping a JDAMS on the house.

As a long-time fan and critic of the USAF, this bugs me more than a little.

Much agreed 120mm. Six months or more of on-the-ground pain, suffering, fighting, losses, and slowly achieving an understanding with the local population by the Army or the Marines, and one bad Air Force CAS strike undoes it all in an instant. A great way to conduct COIN.:wry:

I very much hold to the view that CAS is a necessary function for the Army (just as it is for the Marines), and therefore its should devolve in its entirety from the Air Force to the Army. Let the Air Force concentrate on what it does better than anyone else - Air Superiority, Strategic Aerospace Defence, Strategic and Tactical Bombing, etc.

Strategic Airlift is debatable, and may be better off with the Army than the Air Force. Unless of course, the Air Force discerns a Navy-like requirement for ground forces of its own to seize and hold bases (as well as a strategic/operational role for the Airborne - as it has with the Army, just as the Marines have with amphibious operations), in which case the Airborne theoretically might be better suited to Air Force rather than Army requirements, and then Strategic Airlift may be better off with the Air Force.

I'm not in favour of abolishing the Air Force, but I do think that if the functions and roles of the Air Force were not substantially revised along the lines of what I have written here, it would have been better for the Air Force to have remained a part of the Army in the first place.

SWJED

11-17-2007, 12:21 AM

...good discussion, but that said - LV is spot-on about how we handle ourselves around these parts. Keep civil, no personal attacks and don't assume. That is directed at all - myself included - as a reminder never hurts.

slapout9

11-17-2007, 01:18 AM

Hi Ender, just got this in an email and I know this is gonna make your day.

Tater's Guide to Airpower:eek: Remember I am just the messenger.

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aunews/archive/0221/Articles/Tater_AirpowerStrategistGuide_2003V2.pdf

Norfolk

11-17-2007, 02:51 AM

Tater's Guide to Airpower:eek: Remember I am just the messenger.

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aunews/archive/0221/Articles/Tater_AirpowerStrategistGuide_2003V2.pdf

And the Air Force makes it publicly available on-line at Maxwell...hmmm. Well, I guess all it needs is an authorization letter attached, and it's official Air Force Doctrine...hehe;)

120mm

11-17-2007, 09:00 AM

Much agreed 120mm. Six months or more of on-the-ground pain, suffering, fighting, losses, and slowly achieving an understanding with the local population by the Army or the Marines, and one bad Air Force CAS strike undoes it all in an instant. A great way to conduct COIN.:wry:

I very much hold to the view that CAS is a necessary function for the Army (just as it is for the Marines), and therefore its should devolve in its entirety from the Air Force to the Army. Let the Air Force concentrate on what it does better than anyone else - Air Superiority, Strategic Aerospace Defence, Strategic and Tactical Bombing, etc.

Strategic Airlift is debatable, and may be better off with the Army than the Air Force. Unless of course, the Air Force discerns a Navy-like requirement for ground forces of its own to seize and hold bases (as well as a strategic/operational role for the Airborne - as it has with the Army, just as the Marines have with amphibious operations), in which case the Airborne theoretically might be better suited to Air Force rather than Army requirements, and then Strategic Airlift may be better off with the Air Force.

I'm not in favour of abolishing the Air Force, but I do think that if the functions and roles of the Air Force were not substantially revised along the lines of what I have written here, it would have been better for the Air Force to have remained a part of the Army in the first place.

I am very much opposed to allowing the Army to control StratAirLift. As a Terminal Ops Officer, I've had to expend enormous amount of energy talking Army GOs out of trying to "take control" of StratAirLift assets, rather than accepting the Air Force's asset availability schedules.

The Army's corporate culture which "control assets" conflicts directly with the Air Forces corporate culture which "services customers". And the Air Force is absolutely correct in this particular issue.

carl

11-17-2007, 03:23 PM

The primary purpose of our Air Force is to keep the other guys air force off our backs. The best way to do this is to destroy the other guys air force (profound, ain't I). The Air Force is best suited for this because it is human nature to oppose your opposite number. To very broadly generalize, the Army thinks about destroying opposing armies, as do the Marines and the Navy thinks about destroying other Navies. These services would tend to think about destroying opposing air forces only to the point where they wouldn't hinder their eliminating the opposing navy or army.

Our Air Force is the only service that thinks about destroying the opposing air force more than anything else. Since they think about it more than anybody else they will probably be better at it and will develop equipment better suited to the task. Now this can be a disadvantage at times when there is no opposing air force. But that disadvantage, in my view, is outweighed by the advantage of having an Air Force that can expediently destroy its opposition when and if the time comes.

But sometimes the USAF is its own worst enemy; consider this story from Stars and Stripes.

U.S. forces destroy targets near base in Iraq

By Erik Slavin, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, November 14, 2007

COMBAT OUTPOST CAHILL, Iraq — A barrage of heavy bombs and rockets obliterated five homes and targets as close as 500 yards from Combat Outpost Cahill shortly after midnight Monday.

A B-1 bomber dropped 2,000-pound bombs on some structures and four 500-pound bombs on another, 3rd Infantry Division soldiers said. A Multiple Launch Rocket System took out other targets, they added.

The abandoned homes and an observation tower were being used to stage attacks and watch Cahill, say soldiers from Company B, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade.

“In three months, we had three complex attacks … and they were getting progressively longer,” said Sgt. Paul Bates, a forward observer from Knoxville, Tenn.

The last such attack on the outpost came Nov. 6. Another attack came a month ago, when insurgent fire put a hole through an Apache helicopter rotor and forced an emergency landing, said the Company B commander, Capt. Richard Thompson.

Soldiers searched houses in the nearby area along the Tigris River and found shell casings, personal effects and other evidence of activity, but not permanent residence, Bates said.

They also used surveillance from unmanned aerial vehicles and Iraqi sources to choose targets before seeking mission approval, he said.

Before the bombing, soldiers checked the homes and nearby area to make sure no one was in the blast zone, Bates said.

The attacks destroyed both abandoned homes and a lookout tower at five target locations. A sixth target was dropped because it was within 15 feet of a $12,000 pumping station providing water to nearby Salman Pak, a city of roughly 25,000 people.

The bombing’s proximity to the base shook walls at Combat Outpost Cahill, but did no damage to the base.

Following the bombing, Cahill’s soldiers said they hoped the big bomb drop sent a message.

“It should have a significant effect on the bad guys when they see something like that,” Thompson said.

There may be a very valid military reason a B-1 was used to demolish some abandoned buildings instead of a bulldozer, but to a civilian like me it looks like very expensive make work. And that makes the Air Force look sort of pathetic, silly even. That makes it hard for people to spend the money that will be needed to enable the Air Force to do its job in the next war comin'.

Rob Thornton

11-17-2007, 09:02 PM

There may be a very valid military reason a B-1 was used to demolish some abandoned buildings instead of a bulldozer, but to a civilian like me it looks like very expensive make work. And that makes the Air Force look sort of pathetic, silly even. That makes it hard for people to spend the money that will be needed to enable the Air Force to do its job in the next war comin'.

I can agree that having some big D9 dozers (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/D9R_rpg-armor06.jpg/300px-D9R_rpg-armor06.jpg) are real handy at reducing built up terrain are real handy, but they are often hard to come by because they are elsewhere in theater, cannot be transported out to site, or the environment is non-permissive and forces cannot be spared to secure them or their movement- having been on the wanting end of heavy equipment to do things for me - you might end up at the back of a long line. Contracting locals might be an option - provided they will come to your neighborhood - even if the money is good, it may not be enough to convince them their will be no reprisals.

I suppose sappers might be employed - but then your going to get allot of rubble that might be just as well used as the original structures - but you'll have some happy sappers:D

On the use of air and rocket delivered munitions - I think there are some benefits that go beyond straight justification of support:

1) You demonstrate a capability that nobody else possesses to your enemies, friends and uncommitted neighbors that hopefully provides a perception that with little coordination or risk to the good guys or civilians, you can reach out and deny the enemy cover and concealment and make another attack on the COP/FOB a much riskier venture.

2) Air ground coordination takes practice for when you may really need it - if we were not doing under those conditions, we'd still need to drop real bombs (or inert blue ones) somewhere to maintain that proficiency for when we do need it.

I think in this case we got a two-fer.

I agree with your rational as to why we need an Air Force, but as a typical knuckle dragger I'd like to expand it -

Nobody will think about "Air Superiority" quite like an Air Force - so not just about destroying the other guy's AF, but denying the other guy air superiority, and providing the CDR (be they a Regional COCOM, JTF, sub-unified command type, etc.) the advantages and options that gaining and retaining air superiority can provide. The trick is to get everybody to understand the problem and conditions at hand in order to make the most of resources available.

Best Regards, Rob

slapout9

11-17-2007, 11:02 PM

In general I think the terms Army,Navy,Air Force are obsolete. I think it was CavGuy that said it best or rather our Constitution said it. We need a National guard with air,land,coastal and space branches deigned to work together. And we need an International guard again with an air,land,sea,space branches designed to work together. Systems designed to accomplish a purpose not organizations dedicated to operate in one of the specific elements of our earth. For human life to exist we need air, land and sea and that is how nature works. Wouldn't we be better off if this was our model?? Nature is pretty smart and so were the guys that wrote the Constitution.

VMI_Marine

11-18-2007, 03:39 AM

Our nation's very survival depends on the existence of the Corps (if you don't know what I am talking about ask a Marine, they will tell you) so I guess they are in too...

OK, I'll bite. How do you justify this statement? Because I see absolutely no factual basis for it.

You know, I just finished LTC Nagl's book, and although one of the main thrusts is that the British military's historical legacy made them better able to adapt to COIN in Malaya, there was something near the end of the book that could be easily overlooked. LTC Nagl also pointed out that the British were decidedly not as successful as the United States at the large scale conventional warfare of the two world wars. I'm not just talking from a matter of pure logistics, but tactically they did not perform as well as the US Army in conventional ground combat, for some of the same reasons that they later performed well in Malaya.

I believe that some of his conclusions could be applied, after a fashion, to the differences between the Marine Corps and the Air Force. The Marine Corps has a history of being intellectually agile, and well suited to small wars and expeditionary operations. However, if the Red Army had ever stormed the Fulda Gap, our utility would have been decidedly limited. The Air Force would have been essential to winning that one. There are still plenty of scenarios that call for a strong Air Force, enough that throwing them away because of their lack of relevance to a COIN fight would be extremely short-sighted.

Ender

11-18-2007, 04:22 AM

There is a great deal that has been added over the last few days that has "formed" my thinking a bit more (which is great). I have to admit a number of these more recent posts have given me a great deal to think about. I will abate my seeming assault on all things Blue and concede that there are any number of things official and unofficial that the USAF brings to the fight (here we go) that no one else can. (Give me a sec...)

I have lived in a pretty Air Force centric part of the world for awhile now and it has not been hard of late, to find an airman (of any rank or rate) around here who has had any difficulty telling me why I (we) need them. I have to admit most of what they have said and what has been posted here re: strategic deterrent, evils of force parity, ICBM's, space, the "long bomb" etc... is pretty convincing. But what is most convincing for me and what has sealed it over the last couple days is not so much what I have been told, but what I haven't. Ask a senior air force person questions about popular subjects long enough and there is just a certain point where the conversation has to end because they really can't talk about the very basics of what they do. I now loosely understand that the USAF has their hands in many (important and vital) pies that are not fit for public (or my specific) consumption and just because I don't either like, understand or appreciate the importance of those "pies" does not mean we should take an axe to one of our own.

Slapout, your most recent post and the one before it "Tater's Guide" really clarified the issue for me, Carl you had a major impact as well. We are really all in this together, no one of us wants to win this (ALL) more than the other. The debate for me intellectually when distilled, is not whether I think the USAF should really be abolished (I don't) but much deeper than that, whether or not our entire force structure is aligned in a manner that is oriented towards flexible, efficient lethality. Are the branches, all of them, defunct? By that I mean do we really need to divide here and there, on every little nickel and dime, issue, program and initiative? We have enough enemies on the outside without creating them on the inside and a Divided We Stand, United We Fall DoD just does not make sense to me. What does make sense though is to have a completely functional, completely flexible unified fighting force...standardize all of the gear, (AND I MEAN EVERYTHING) so that any one single fighting component is interchangeable with any other comparable platform anywhere across the spectrum. I am thinking of a model "parallel" to the US Army's Stryker vehicle concept but only on a macro scale an not just with gear and guns but also and more importantly with applications and capabilities. Make our systems stackable and train everyone to a common standard under a unified banner. Sit everyone down and make them sing the same music. Make sure no one other team member is playing a tune that any other team member can not either play himself or appreciate and there will be a serious decline in not only our blue on blue but also our collateral damage as well. Team A vs Team B bull#### sucks and I know it as well as anyone.

All of my studies outside of martial academia end up revolving around two "roles," domestic and foreign policies. In essence we ideally (try to) handle those outside differently than we do those inside (neither better nor worse, just differently.) The questions a National Defense Force (of sorts) with separate foreign and domestic arms and applications raise a few questions for me:
-How would we strip our separate identities without actually stripping our separate identities?
-How would we reconfigure everything to a semi standardized model, divide the wealth so to speak to one mouth and still maintain that capitalist competitive edge while not looking like the socialist bastards we just beat? If any bunch is the anti individualist it is the DoD and that is okay...
-Slapout is right, nature is pretty friggin infinitely smart, and elegantly simple too. Why can't we combine the basics (martial nature) with technology (martial nurture) and simplify everything? My junior read on the favored passtime of the typically elderly, experienced and powerful, warfare- with most of us serving pawn to the General participant, is one that holds strategy, operations and tactics, at their core have remained relatively unchanged over the centuries.

Information Age or not, we are not so different or developed now than our ancestors were then. Until someone can conclusively tell me how they did certain things back in the day (like build the pyramids etc..) my "We're So Cool and sooo Smart Jury" is still out. In almost every aspect the essence is still the same but our application, or all of the details have shifted over the years. An example: Our warrior forbears studied the hunting methods and techniques of falcons as well as lions (two prime predator examples that may have some bearing to this current topic) as much then as we study them now and while our specific purposes for doing so were not completely parallel, they are strikingly similar. Are we forsaking the "old" for the "new" and how do we marry those worlds without either further entrenching ourselves in an antiquated force structure model ORRRR...losing our traditions and values by forgetting where we come from, what we have been through (collectively and individually) and why all that matters and makes us right at the end of the day?

(As an aside: The only way I would be okay with realizing any of the scandalous thoughts of standardization I have in my head now would be, if by scrapping even the USMC, we were able to at least keep all of and only the Marine drill instructors and Boot Camp experiences- call everyone whatever you want after the fact but at least they would start off on the right foot! :D )

Ender

11-18-2007, 05:14 AM

OK, I'll bite. How do you justify this statement? I have recently been accused of indulging in pith, vinegar and general snarkiness of which I am wholly and completely guilty (mea culpa) so I am going to try to pitch softly here.

I am going to assume from your handle and first posting that you are still a Marine in the making... (if this is untrue forgive me for the ASS-U-ME sequence) If AFTER serving as a Fleet Marine you would like me to justify the statement for you I would more than happy to revisit the topic and detail, at great length and ad nauseum anything you may not have learned. If my assumption is correct and you are a future Marine you will learn the answer well enough without my help.

If I have read you wrong, and you are in fact an active duty, or prior service Marine who is posting from or around VMI my reply is: How well do you know your Marine Corps history? Wars are, in function a series of struggles and conflicts (read: BATTLES.) It is my humble opinion that it really helps (if you want to win) that you need to win these battles in order to win the war. Believe it or not, but the fate of our nation, our reality as we know it today, is really, truly, honest to God only what it is because of a couple of wars and a few decisive battles. A handful of those critical struggles were fought and solely won by U.S. Marines. Fact. Take away the Corps, and I know this is a theoretical exercise here, but I would argue the very face of the world would be different than it is now...eg: the Kaiser would have won and who knows what then would have become of young Adolph, the Jews, Israel or any other number of associated factors that derived from the just First World War setting the stage it did... Want to fast forward? Let's not forget the whole Pacific Theater thing and the Japanese, that would be what without the Marines? Beating Germany without simultaneously (or as closed to) taking the Japanese tiger out would have only been a partial beating and a war undone...

I was not saying, in that reference, that we owe our singular existence to the efforts of ONLY the USMC. The comment you bit upon was pushed with the spirit of brevity and my not wanting to (appear to be) defend(ing) that which I thought (and still think) needs no defense. If you are not satisfied, fall into another category or would like elaboration I would be happy to tell you why I think we owe our lives to the Marines in another thread or offline.

Best

carl

11-18-2007, 05:22 AM

On the use of air and rocket delivered munitions - I think there are some benefits that go beyond straight justification of support:

Ahhh Soo.

Thank you for the explanation Rob. The training benefits sorta occurred to me but the rest I never would have thought of.

Stars and Stripes should add a paragraph explaining these things so those of us not fully knowledgeable (ignorant) will understand.

Cavguy

11-19-2007, 02:02 AM

Ahhh Soo.

Thank you for the explanation Rob. The training benefits sorta occurred to me but the rest I never would have thought of.

Stars and Stripes should add a paragraph explaining these things so those of us not fully knowledgeable (ignorant) will understand.

Rob fleshed out my opinion somewhat, having employed ordnance to send a message as well as create a tactical effect.

That said, awfully expensive way to do it. $2 mil of ordnance for $50k of mudbrick.

We used dozers to clear the rubble around the Government Center in Ramadi. But we also cratered a dirt causeway. The first 1000lb missed, the second missed, and finally they dropped a 2000lb bomb that did the trick. They were using LGB's rather than JDAM's, though.

Abu Suleyman

11-19-2007, 06:56 PM

I have said this before. With our current technology there is nothing that cannot be hit with a guided missile! Long range,medium range or short range. Once you have this capability it doesn't make any sense to send in aircraft for so called strike missions. The delivery system does not need to penetrate enemy air space only the warhead needs to do this. Missiles are cheaper and better because you never have to have a return to base capability. One way delivery is all you need.

The Pershing II missile could hit a target the size of a tractor trailer truck since the mid 1970's within it's 1500 mile range. All this without GPS satellites. But we gave it away as part of the SALT 2 treaty. But it was an Army Missile and very strong threat to the Air Force so we had to get rid of it....very bad move on our part.

This is actually a far more accurate assessment of an existential threat to the Air Force, which is unmanned vehicles. You could look at the Pershing missle as a huge unmanned Kamikaze plane. Now we have unmanned "U-2's" (I know they aren't actually U-2's). Soon we will likely have unmanned fighters.

The Air Force made a lot of sense when it took a large training and support staff to operate in the air, because people's lives were at risk. Soon a fighter or bomber may just be another piece of expendable equipment. Then less time and care will likely be taken in the training of those pilots, who are increasingly young enlisted soldiers instead of hundreds of hours of flight time Academy officers. When that happens the Air Force will face an existential threat, and it knows it. That is why it is trying to consolidate all high flying UAV's (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/air-force-army-clash-again-on-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-2007-10-30.html) under its command, and that unsuccessfully. It wants to ensure a long term raison d'etre.

Nonetheless, this is the Small Wars Council, and not the Grand Strategy Council. We need to remember that we are currently fighting a very small war, in the scheme of things. Restructuring our entire military around a small war would be very unwise. And, as long as there are aerial threats, the Air Force remains important.

VMI_Marine

11-20-2007, 06:10 PM

I have recently been accused of indulging in pith, vinegar and general snarkiness of which I am wholly and completely guilty (mea culpa) so I am going to try to pitch softly here.

Unlike an ideal professional discussion, we can't hold these over beers, so some snarkiness is needed, IMO, to keep it from getting too dry and haughty.

Believe it or not, but the fate of our nation, our reality as we know it today, is really, truly, honest to God only what it is because of a couple of wars and a few decisive battles. A handful of those critical struggles were fought and solely won by U.S. Marines. Fact.

Well, your first assumption was wrong, but no offense taken. I am an active duty Marine, on my 5th deployment to the CENTCOM AOR since 2003. I simply don't buy the line that the Marine Corps is essential to national survival. I'm as proud of my chosen branch of service as the next Marine, but I think we have a tendency to delude ourselves and exaggerate our own "greatness". We've had some great tactical and operational victories, but there have been very few instances where the Marine Corps was strategically decisive in American history. As a retired SgtMaj at the Institute once put it, "America doesn't need a Marine Corps, America wants a Marine Corps." I'd ask you to expound on your statements, but I think we've hijacked this thread enough.

Ender

11-22-2007, 03:18 AM

And, as long as there are aerial threats, the Air Force remains important.
I agree and am more sure of it now than I was a week ago. The F-22/35 combo may both appear to be very pricey but what they offer in terms of apparent effectiveness far outweigh their cost.

Nonetheless, this is the Small Wars Council, and not the Grand Strategy Council. We need to remember that we are currently fighting a very small war, in the scheme of things. Restructuring our entire military around a small war would be very unwise. Some would say Grand Strategy is but a series of Small Wars nonetheless, I agree if we were to restructure our entire force composition only on the basis of this apparent "small war, in the scheme of things," we would be very unwise. If however, this Small War were not so small, and if in the scheme of things, these things: Small Wars, Big Wars and the varying shades of strategy that float in between both, were not separate entities but in fact directly diluted with one another I would say perhaps we could (and should) armchair this one. What does theory cost here? No one loses anything with bad ideas and we stand to gain so much with fresh, good ones.

China is gonna be big and it appears as though their two new national sports are cyber warfare and reverse engineering...and where the hell is Russia going these days? These are just a few of my favorite things that make me remember Great Big Wars have started from much smaller factors than we are talking about now. (Where's the Archduke FF when you need him?)

Nothing should be sacred. Nothing should be safe and nothing should be off the table as it were. Not any of our branches, doctrines, not the Air Force or the Marines, not COIN or conventional warfare...We should be mentally laying in the weeds on everything we think and do if we seriously want to poise ourselves for success in the next 100 years. The more lines we draw in the sand, the more we define, the more there is that separates this from that, only means we are the more fractured and divided and harder to unite for it. I think it is our business to make sure these wars stay small and that they are fought and won on our terms if we want to avoid (or fight?) the big ones on our terms. If the whole WWIII, Apocalypse as We Know it thingy didnt look so, I don't know, POSSIBLE these days I would say let's march on. If avoiding that reality requires (theoretically) smashing the status quo and REALLY thinking outside the box then lets do it... we live in a reality where a soldier and a sailor (for example) with the same jobs, could not talk to one another, face to face, about their jobs without the need of a translator or some serious time and patience. How does that work out on the radio when your encryption is one second off (and slipping), 50 miles away and under fire? This is not a "Blue Deck vs. Green Floor" debate...

We need to face it. This is a brand new world and the game is changing faster than we are. Not one of us has a handle on this and as a very junior member of this community who has (at least) another 40 good years to give I have to admit that when I look at the threats I am going to have to face in my distant career and then compare it to the force structure many "wiser and older" are handing me to combat those same threats I only see disaster. If it were not for the fact that we are now playing for very serious stakes (Read: ALL IN) these future conditions would make me really not wanna play. There is a great big thundercloud out there on the horizon gentlemen and you smell it as well as I do or we would not be here.

I had not posted on here for some time because I thought that more would be served (on both sides) by my listening and learning instead of talking and teaching but that does not mean I haven't been here. After months of ah... "lurking" I am convinced, more than ever of two things. The first is that SWC is one the hottest and most relevant things going and the second is it seems as though we tend to confuse massive educations, egos, or perceived age and experience with actual experience, or serious practical contribution to the discussion of "fighting small wars." I am all for sharing ideas and giving equal weight to all but certain concepts have to take precedence. I think the higher up we go, the more impressed we become with minutiae. I agree, "God is in the details" but our capacity to humanly process and rationalize even a fraction of the information we have been handed in the last 200 years or so has not increased nearly as quickly as the data has. I will say it again, we need to go back to basics. There are laws, they are written in blood and I firmly believe a great number of us, myself included have forsaken some of those basic laws for the complexly sexy. Carving a niche and becoming a specialist may ensure job/contract security but the corporate mindset has to stop when it comes to National Defense.

Not one thing is separate from the other here and there are no boxes. I would guess that there is only one degree of separation between any one of our Small War concepts and any of the Grand Strategy ah.."concepts." <-(my addition and how many can there be and if we have more than one "Grand Strategy" can we please make the G lower case or call them Grand Strategies??) ;)

Signed,

Not On the NSC (Yet)

Ender

11-22-2007, 03:52 AM

Unlike an ideal professional discussion, we can't hold these over beers, so some snarkiness is needed, IMO, to keep it from getting too dry and haughty. Well said, top to bottom.

Well, your first assumption was wrong, but no offense taken. I knew I was doomed as soon as "assume" hit my screen.

I'm as proud of my chosen branch of service as the next Marine, but I think we have a tendency to delude ourselves and exaggerate our own "greatness." Boasting does not help and I agree there is a great bit more Yut with the Corps than there needs to be.

We've had some great tactical and operational victories, but there have been very few instances where the Marine Corps was strategically decisive in American history. Agreed, but how many times does one have to be singularly, strategically decisive before you become vital?

As a retired SgtMaj at the Institute once put it, "America doesn't need a Marine Corps, America wants a Marine Corps." I'd ask you to expound on your statements, but I think we've hijacked this thread enough. I would consider this more of an indictment on a me-centered "I want what I want, forget what I need generation" and an astute sociological compliment to the Corps than a slam on our viability. Sounds like the SMaj knew his audience... I agree on the digression and our need to come back to center but as First Digressor (er?) I would be more than willing to elaborate some of my opinions for you offline. I think I can back this one up historically and would welcome getting slapped down if I can't... I have to confess many of my opinions re: this subject center on not what happened, but what almost happened or the "near misses" so at the end of the day your conversion to my point of view would be largely dependent on accepting certain (factually based) hypotheticals and us running from there...