Man the Air Defences at Lejeune!
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.
Goes in cycles. From mid 1961 through 1965, the
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... ;)
Pretty soon the Air Force might need only ground crews...
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
Angle Grinder On Toe Nails!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jones_RE
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jones_RE
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
The Ghost of General Gavin
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:
Another "What If" of History
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
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/downlo...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.
Excellent comment. Strongly agree with your
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