Agree, but you'd have an easier time fighting a land war in Asia. I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but I recall when I was with a defense contractor a brainstorming session we had, during QDR 01, of ideas to present to the AF on other areas to push. I, not being a member of the "faith," foolishly suggested that we might come up with new ways to use extant systems to support the ground element. If looks could kill.... Needless to say, the idea did not fly.
I would argue the cultural problem comes down to service survival. USAF does not believe it can maintain itself as an independent branch if its mission is to support the other services -- at some point, they could just assume the missions themselves. Therefore, there must be something that makes the service unique and special. And unfortunately, strategic airlift and the like just aren't sexy enough either.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between the need to have and the nice to have. I think that far too many in the defense establishment, government, and public either never learned or have forgotten this rule. Same thing that happened to "no plan survives first contact."“..you may have to accept that if you would like the US and its forces to be able to operate, you might need Air Superiority as a prerequisite.” That depends on where we operate. Air Superiority in not a prerequisite for us to operate, it is something very, very nice to have. When was the last time US ground forces were subjected to sustained air attack? Not that it couldn’t happen in the future.
Cheers,
Jill
Bookmarks