Results 1 to 20 of 201

Thread: The Never Ending Airpower Versus Groundpower Debate

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default The Never Ending Airpower Versus Groundpower Debate

    Just stumbled onto two studies today;

    The first is a 2006 study by RAND entitled Learning Large Lessons, The Evolving Roles of Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era

    The roles of ground and air power have shifted in U.S. post–Cold War warfighting operations. Furthermore, the two services largely responsible for promulgating the relevant doctrines, creating effective organizations, and procuring equipment for the changing conflict environment in the domains of land and air—the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force—do not appear to be fully incorporating the lessons of post–Cold War operations. Indeed, the Army and the Air Force (and the other services) have tended to view the conflicts of the post–Cold War period through their specific institutional prisms. Additionally, all the U.S. military services have focused the vast majority of their attention on warfighting, to the exclusion of other types of military operations that are increasingly central to achieving national security objectives. These mind-sets must change if the U.S. armed forces are to provide the capabilities most needed to protect and advance national interests in the future.
    The study--done for the Air Force in the interest of "jointness"--is very much a wolf in sheep's clothing in some regards, notably I would say in preserving the need for high dollar AF systems. Still it is a remarkable shift from what we in writing Certain Victory encountered from our Air Force counterparts.


    And in a similar but more historical vein from the Combat Studies Institute:

    Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War

    The historical development of airpower suggests that interservice rivalry is especially prevalent in this particular area of military activity. From the very beginnings of military aviation, armies and navies have argued as to how the new assets should be used, how they should be developed and which service should control them. This was certainly the case in the United States.

    The problem has been compounded, rather than resolved, by the development of independent air forces...

    This study concentrates on tactical airpower in South Vietnam and deals with the air war over North Vietnam only insofar as it influenced interservice issues in the South. In order to fully understand the interservice airpower issues that emerged during the Vietnam War, it is fi rst necessary to look back at the pre-Vietnam doctrinal background that preceded them. In regard to the Vietnam War itself, the study’s starting point is the arrival of the first US combat aircraft in South Vietnam in 1961, and concludes with the pivotal year of 1968. The latter date is of necessity somewhat fluid, but it forms a rough stopping point because rivalry over airpower issues between the US armed forces seems to have been in decline after this date, or at least it seems to have been subject to attenuation by compromise agreements which were in force until the end of United States involvement in Southeast Asia. Expressions of these compromises are to be found in post-1968 documents, but these reflect pre-1968 experience.
    Best

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 06-11-2008 at 03:57 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    The interesting thing with most writing like this is that the Air Force will put it out, but it is rare that it makes a real impact inside the AF...where it needs to. The Interservice Rivalry paper is interesting, but somewhat flawed in my view when it comes to discussing the AF mindset. I haven't read the RAND one yet, but plan to.

    Thanks for posting these, Tom!

    Edit: Just skimmed the RAND report and you called it right. It's got heavy traces of "the AF is the only joint service and should get all the money" pieces. I'm not sure how he can claim that the AF has proven to be adaptable to real-world events...if anything they are the most Stalinist of branches: always spinning and rewriting history to suit their own needs. Still, well worth the read.
    Last edited by Steve Blair; 02-06-2007 at 06:27 PM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    7

    Default This isn't your father's USAF

    Tom/Steve,

    A couple of quick points:
    -You're right on the money that reports like these need to have an impact in the USAF.
    -That being said, I believe there is a new generation of USAF personnel that is not as tainted by the ACTS/Mitchell dogma, and realize that it will always take a joint team. I say that as a 12-year USAF member surrounded by a peer group that truly believes in a JC Wylie-esque "cumulative effects" approach.
    -As far as the call for continued acquisition of expensive aircraft....come on, it IS a USAF sponsored report after all....would you expect anything less from any service-sponsored report? (got to fight the Washington DC-AOR battle)

    TWC

  4. #4
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Good Point...

    Quote Originally Posted by TWC View Post
    Tom/Steve,
    -That being said, I believe there is a new generation of USAF personnel that is not as tainted by the ACTS/Mitchell dogma, and realize that it will always take a joint team. I say that as a 12-year USAF member surrounded by a peer group that truly believes in a JC Wylie-esque "cumulative effects" approach.
    TWC
    Some of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 02-06-2007 at 09:20 PM.

  5. #5
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SWJED View Post
    Some of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.
    I'm not sure where they go either.

    There are a number of smart, visionary officers in the AF. It's a shame they get crushed by the Mitchell Mafia in all too many cases. I think many of them settle into specific communities within the AF or get out.

  6. #6
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Conspiracy on Missing Maxwell Researchers?

    Quote Originally Posted by SWJED View Post
    Some of the best papers I have read on Small Wars related issues were written by students at the Air University. Over the last several years I often wondered where the hell those guys and gals went after graduation.
    Hmmmm

    I figure somewhere in the desert near Nellis AFB there is a mysterious circle of smoke stained rocks and bone fragments where dissidents are sacrificed to to preserve the purity of the clan. Those sacrificed probably had to light the fire with their own research papers...

    Just pulling your leg, TWC. One of my best buddies is now an AF 1-Star (maybe 2) and I even let my Momma know it. He did, however, (or at least his squadron did) try to pancake me in Goma with pallets.

    best

    Tom

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I figure somewhere in the desert near Nellis AFB there is a mysterious circle of smoke stained rocks and bone fragments where dissidents are sacrificed to to preserve the purity of the clan. Those sacrificed probably had to light the fire with their own research papers
    Tom,
    Don't tell that I told you, but you are right about the Nellis-based sacrifices, but you left out the part that death is caused a F-22 in full afterburner

    Why are those men in black standing at my door........OH NO!

  8. #8
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default USAF Counterinsurgency Issues and Trends

    USAF Counterinsurgency Issues and Trends

    With a hat tip to Daniel Troy of the Consortium for Complex Operations - United Press International recently ran a three part series titled Emerging Threats: USAF Counterinsurgency authored by Shaun Watterman....
    Access to all three parts plus an analysis piece are at the SWJ link.

  9. #9
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Air Strike At General Dunlap's COIN Theory

    An alternative Air Force view on Dunlap's critique of the new Army/USMC COIN manual. Go to the link below and scroll down to the section called-IN My Humble Opinion-then look for Short Changing The Joint Fight-An Alternative View by LTC. Buck Eaton USAF.


    http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aunews/

  10. #10
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Didn't seem all that alternative to me, Slap

    Dunlap revisited, more like. While he offers a slightly different approach, the message is essentially the same.

    Not that I totally disagree with what either he or Dunlap have to say; just that I think in both cases they unfortunately come across as a little whiney and "Hey, you left us out..."

  11. #11
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Dunlap revisited, more like. While he offers a slightly different approach, the message is essentially the same.

    Not that I totally disagree with what either he or Dunlap have to say; just that I think in both cases they unfortunately come across as a little whiney and "Hey, you left us out..."
    Agreed. I am not convinced Buck like Dunlap ever read 3-24. He read passages and filled in with what he wanted it to say. More Hap Arnold airmindedness mess.

    Tom

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Anyone know when JP 3-24 is due? It will be interesting to see how the joint vision of COIN ends up.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •