On another note, I have often wondered if it might not make sense to create a logistics service branch. None of the services like to spend money on transport or other logistics requirements and things get left out. Perhaps a service branch that was only logistics could mitigate that.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
Germany did something like this (albeit not exactly the same).Originally Posted by Uboat509
It could make sense to make the army independent of USAF air-lift (which competes with fighters for funds) and of Navy sea-lift (which competes with fancy combat ships, carriers and fighters for funds).
You could also add the intelligence aircraft (RC-135? E-8) that support more than one service.
I proposed something like this for Europe, on a similar model as the "Luxembourg-registered" NATO AWACS.
That seems to be a common perception. There's another common perception that the desire by some to make the Air Force subordinate to the Army is driven by parochial considerations as well.I honestly believe that parochialism has more to do with the air force desire to control all air assets, than does any overriding belief that they can do a better job.
Ok, so the Air Force will only have some recon and transport aircraft? With the exception of the B-2, the Air Force doesn't have dedicated "strategic bombers" anymore and hasn't for almost two decades. Who provided CAS during the opening stages of OEF? It wasn't the A-10 or any of the fighters. The point being is that such distinctions no longer exist in reality. The Air Force gave up on "strategic bombing" long ago and only maintains a minimal capability in that area.I was simply refering to anything that is not a ground attack aircraft.
Not sure how combining the AF and Army will save money. If it does save money, why not combine the Army and the USMC or combine all the services?1) Reintigrate AF into Army
2) Keep Army big and Marine Corp small
One suggestion I've mentioned before, especially since we all work closely together now, is to better integrate our personnel systems. Why can't we have a common form and evaluation system for all the services for example?
Except that we don't fight as distinct services anymore. As designed, the services provide capabilities for the combatant commanders. For example, I currently work with armed Predators and Reapers and our aircraft are under that tactical control of whatever unit we are supporting (Marines, Army, UK Sof, whatever). We go where they want us to go. We look at what they want us to look at. We shoot at what they want us to shoot at. Manned aircraft operate similarly. Your organic Army units will have (and do have) UAV's, but there are limits to what you can make "organic" and there are tradeoffs as well since there aren't enough assets to go around.The bottom line is that at a time when we are creating (recreating) combined arms formations that have all support, or at least most of it, organic to the unit, it doesn't make much sense to take all of the air assets away and give them to another service.
On the subject of the original post, I think things will definitely have to change. I think there will be cuts all around. A lot depends on when/if we change our foreign policy, which WILF correctly notes often isn't coherent. If we want to keep intervening in third-world sh*t-holes and doing COIN/stabilization ops around the world for another decade or two, then we will need a bigger Army. If we don't and if we reduce our alliance commitments overseas, then we can move most of the Army and Air Force to the reserve. This nation has always needed a significant Navy and I think that will continue regardless, but probably with a much different fleet of ships. The USMC? Who knows.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
That isn't what I said. I was responding to Wilf's suggestion that everything that flies be transfered to the AF. That would include, presumably, all the attack helicopters that the Army now has. Don't focus on the strategic bombing part of the comment I was simply saying that the AF should keep all of the missions that it does now but that it should not be the sole or even primary provider of ground attack capability, ie Army aviation should not be transfered to the AF.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
Ah, I see what you're saying now. I wouldn't advocate that either.
What do you mean by "under U.S. Army command?"Placing a certains number of A-10 squadrons under U.S. Army command seems reasonable.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Squadron assigned to Army CAB which answers to division commander, etc.
Budget paid by the U.S. tax payer - USAF/USA can figure that out. Trust me a know it can be a cluster - I work for the G.
I would not combine the branches of the U.S. military - we don't need group think.
Placing a certains number of A-10 squadrons under U.S. Army command seems reasonable.
The USAF would be our primary transport, space, bomber and fighter service.
The USMC would downsize (this hurts!) to three active MEBs which are organized more like 3 Commando Brigade and the quality training of those U.S. Marines would be more like the Royal Marines. The 4th MEB would the reserve brigade (rein) with three infantry regiments instead of one in the active brigades. The USMC would get rid of its tanks and attach Army armor if needed. I have not decided if the USMC should retain its air assets. If it does then a MAG per active MEB is reasonable. With USMC helos aging, assigning an Army CAB with UH60, CH47, AH64 aircraft to the MAG (under USMC command) might be the way to go.
I have a lot of ideas and will get to the other services later.
That's purely an operational decision. Who's budget do they come out of and who buys the replacement? Army or Air Force?
So a barely viable light infantry brigade, which is under constant threat of being cut and only survives because it's on the Navy's budget?The USMC would downsize (this hurts!) to three active MEBs which are organized more like 3 Commando Brigade and the quality training of those U.S. Marines would be more like the Royal Marines.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
How does 3 Commando survive?
Three regiments, not one.
Three brigades not one. My apology.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks