You could say the same thing about United Airlines...Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
You could say the same thing about United Airlines...
I provide the following insights from a fellow member of another discussion group to which I subscribe. The author is Edward M. Van Court, MAJ, MI, USAR
Reflections based on more than a decade of continuous first-hand observation of the Air Force by an Army Officer. Hopefully, this will help Army folks who are working with the USAF to understand some of the (to a Soldier) confusing behaviors. Bear with me, these observations do not apply to every Air Force person you'll meet, but describe common patterns of behavior in the Air Force.
Special thanks to a fellow Army Major currently in a joint assignment and collocated with the Air Force for reviewing this piece
1. From the Air Force perspective - Flying is leadership (I have heard this *exact* statement from a newly comissioned Air Force officer, yes he was rated and an Academy graduate); the smaller the crew of the aircraft, the greater the leadership. Hence; any pilot is defined as being a better leader than any non-rated officer, never mind that the civil engineer or communication captain commands a 100+ member unit and the rated Captain might be in charge of one other person. Note also that an F-16 pilot who flies by himself is a better leader than a C-17 pilot who has a crew of a half dozen or so. This is a serious point of contention between rated and non-rated officers.
2. The Air Force does not understand the Officer/NCO relationship. AF doctrine is written/approved by fighter pilots and fighter pilots seldom work closely with NCOs before they are promoted to field grades. The idea of a LT going to an E-7 or a CPT going to an E-8 for advice or as a sounding board for ideas is utterly alien to them. In the Army, we pretty much take it for granted that we, as officers, will have an experienced NCO working closely with us throughout our career. There are exceptional individuals in the AF who break this mold, but they are just that, the exception and very rarely from the fighter or bomber communities.
3. It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that the Air Force is technology riven rather than people oriented, but give them a break. Since the creation of the independent Air Force in 1947, the Air Force, as an organization, has never had ten consecutive years (seldom had 5 consecutive years) without a radical change in basic technologies. Go back further, and you could argue that this extends all the way back to 1914 with the first Army air elements.
When your organization is being routinely radically changed by technology, when you are trying to cope with technology that feels like it changes hourly, it is easy to get in the habit of focusing on technological solutions rather than human ones.
4. What is an Airman? A Soldier is fundementally a rifleman, regardless of other specialization. A Marine is a rifleman of the littorals. A Sailor is a maritime vessel crewman. An Airman... well, there is no one definition that includes every uniformed member of the Air Force, and this is a profound cohesion issue.
Now here is the bitter pill for Soldiers. Before you complain about your Air Force counterpart, read Air Force history (and refrain from wisecracks about how this is easy as there is so little of it). The Air Force of today is a direct result of policy and doctrine decisions by the Army for the Army Air Corps in the 1930s and '40s. These decisions were necessary, and many of them were driven by the needs of WWII, but they had far reaching consequences.
Don't get me wrong; I respect the Air Force and the capabilities it brings to the fight. Learn the lesson of an Army officer who insisted that he didn't need to worry about that space stuff the Air Force does as long as he had his rifle and his GPS. Our capabilities compliment each other. (BTW; the "as long as I have my rifle and GPS" story has taken on mythic proportions in the Air Force).
It's possibly more correct to note that the AF treats the majority of its NCOs (outside of certain AFSCs) as technicians without any leadership ability until they are promoted to MSgt. At that point they're expected to transform into leaders. And in many ways AF NCOs are technicians. There's nothing wrong with that. But the disconnect between everything below E-6 and everything above it is rather disconcerting to many of them.
Although the AF does worship technology, it's also correct to observe that they are a product of a myriad of systems and checklists (a relic of their SAC and LeMay heritage) which result in a very rigid way of looking at things aside from technological advances. I would also contend that the basic AF culture has remained unchanged by technology. They are still very much addicted at higher levels to the ideal of the fighter pilot and the manned bomber - both fixtures in their organization since the beginning.3. It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that the Air Force is technology riven rather than people oriented, but give them a break. Since the creation of the independent Air Force in 1947, the Air Force, as an organization, has never had ten consecutive years (seldom had 5 consecutive years) without a radical change in basic technologies. Go back further, and you could argue that this extends all the way back to 1914 with the first Army air elements.
When your organization is being routinely radically changed by technology, when you are trying to cope with technology that feels like it changes hourly, it is easy to get in the habit of focusing on technological solutions rather than human ones.
This goes back to the separation of the enlisted force as technicians and the split between pilots and all other AF officers. There is so little common ground between the flying and non-flying segments of the AF that the term 'Airman' is meaningless aside from rank (E-1 through E-3 or so).4. What is an Airman? A Soldier is fundementally a rifleman, regardless of other specialization. A Marine is a rifleman of the littorals. A Sailor is a maritime vessel crewman. An Airman... well, there is no one definition that includes every uniformed member of the Air Force, and this is a profound cohesion issue.
I grew up around the AF, and work with them every day, so I've seen most of this stuff up close and personal. I've also worked with the Army, and seen their ups and downs. The AF can be very flexible when it comes to adapting and implementing technology, but they tend to stumble in many other areas. They will have the most to overcome in the culture area if they are to adapt to the new realities we face in the military sphere.
Steve,
As the author of the comments quoted by WM (and new SWJ member), I wanted to briefly address your reply and the underlying assumption of the thread.
Re: your reply - I agree with you. I don't see any contradictions between what you said and what I said, just different perspectives. Please note that my remarks were originally authored for a different audience as part of a different discussion. The only thing I would add at this point is that the Air Force is not monolithic (hence the "what is an Airman?"). Even within the rated community there is intense factionalization between fighter, bomber, airlift, helicopter etc. communities. When you try to look for common trends across the entire Air Force including civil engineers, security forces, communications, space operations etc. a small brain like mine starts to hurt.
Re: the underlying assumption of the thread - Airpower Versus Groundpower. "Versus"? I am as well aware as any that the discussion is usually couched this way, but isn't this the pinnacle of foolishness? Look at an Armored Cavalry Regiment or a MEF, air and ground forces compliment each other and to try to drive a wedge between them is doing the opponent's work for them. Ahhh yes, the challenge of a military in a democratic society; services have to compete for budget... As a citizen and a taxpayer, it is profoundly disturbing when the service cultures are so caught up in the great budget game that they fail to see that each element is only a part of the whole.
"You should not have a favorite weapon." Miyamoto Musashi in Go Rin No Sho
Van,
Good reply! I understood that your comments were for a different audience and thus possibly slightly out of context. I tossed my comments out more to amplify your remarks or add things that non-AF types might not understand.
Agree 100% with your remarks about the ACR and MEF/MEUs. Those are outstanding examples of how the system should work. One comment along those lines that I used with some cadets the other day was that all branches and services are actually supporting services in that they all support national goals and policy. I think sometimes they lose track of that in all the dogmatic saber rattling.
What got me going on the subject were some comments made by an AF JAG general some weeks back in Armed Forces Journal about how the AF could still win any situation, including a low-intensity conflict. It's all interesting stuff, and kind of disheartening when you look at the problems we face in the world today.
Oh, and welcome to the Council! We look forward to hearing more of your thoughts!
Last edited by Steve Blair; 02-09-2007 at 03:03 PM. Reason: Added the welcome. Hit 'post' too bloody soon.
Hard to defend sometimes
The Air Force brings a great capability to the nation versus nation fight, and that threat hasn't disappeared. As for ever better fighters, I would hate to see out matched technologically, because with the emerging economies in some developing nations, it is possible they will put more on the aircraft in the sky than we do. Once you stand down that infrastructure that develops our new planes, you'll lose that talent to other industries, and it will be hard to get that collective pool of talent back again.
Should the Air Force change to adapt to COIN? I'm not sure they need to change much. The C17 crews are working long hours and doing a tremendous job supporting the logistics of this fight. The A10's play a key role in the close fight today with their new capabilities, so they should probably throw more money at that capability.
The part about the Air Force that hard to defend is their civilian culture. Where do the weakest kids go? Of course they join the Air Force because they think it is easier than the other services (I'm talking enlisted). That mentality permeates the Air Force through and through, and the maturity of these kids will let you know when their 8 hour shift is up, and they don't play that dedication to mission like the Army and Marines. I want to apologize to the professionals in the AF that this doesn't apply to, but the professionals in the AF will tell you the same thing.
That is the lower end of the Air Force, unfortunately the highest end of the AF has a record of being corrupt, anti-joint, and have incomplete understanding of strategy. They'll sell their brother services out in a heart beat. They have a lot of pull in Congress because their projects bring a lot of money into specific districts, unlike standing up an Bde or two, or standing up a school that teaches cultural awareness, etc. That is nickel and dime, and won't buy congressmen a lot of support on in their district.
That is just the way it is.
In Defense of the USAF
I checked out this thread in the hopes of reading some interesting comments on the use of airpower and groundpower in a COIN environment. I had hoped to read how they could compliment each other. However, the discussion quickly turned into a dinigration of the Air Force. One would think this was a transcript from DC as the Army went begging for dollars.
As a current USAF officer (non-rated), I feel compelled to address your comments. Everytime I hear something negative about the USAF it usually includes some comment about how we're always asking for too much money for a next generation fighter or whatever. However, you must remember that our mission is to defend the US in the air and space. To do this, we must not remain short-sighted and defend only against current, known enemies. We must anticipate the unknown and ensure our air capabilities are unmatched. I am quite sure that the Marines and Army are thrilled with our air and space dominance as it ensures close air support, medevac and the like. While our current war is not conventional, we cannot ignore the potential for one. If we did and got bitten in the rear as a result, I'm sure some of the same folks that disparage the USAF now would blame us then too. Sure, we need to adapt to the small wars environment and some of us are looking past the Mitchell view of airpower as solely lethal. Give us some time. We've forgotten some lessons encountered from small wars just like the other branches.
I especially enjoyed the "weakest kids" comment. True enough, we don't have alot of folks that could take a hill (or run up it for that matter), but that isn't our mission. Of course we do have some career fields that require top physical fitness (pararescue, combat controller, etc.) and I'd stack those guys up against any from the other branches. The point is that the USAF trains its folks to the mission; the same as the Army and the Marines.
As for an absence of dedication, you should really rethink your statement. The next time you're at an airbase downrange, take a walk down to the flightline. Get someone to show you how our maintainers live and work. These guys are the grunts of the Air Force. They routinely work very long hours (just like the Army/Marines), in austere conditions (just like the Army/Marines), and sometimes lack food and other necessities (just like, you get it). They just do a different job.
I won't attempt to generalize the entire USAF by generalizing the rationale for joining the USAF rather than another branch of the service, but I would imagine that not everyone joined simply because it was easier. Some join because they want to acquire a technical skill they believe is better acquired through the USAF. It doesn't mean they believe that the other branches are inferior or less patriotic than the USAF. They just made a choice that was best for them. Questioning their dedication and professionalism because of that choice seems unfair.
It amazes me to see people criticize the USAF for having an Air Force first mentality and then listen as they criticize everything about the USAF that isn't like their particular branch. Having served as a USMC grunt and grown up as an Army brat, I've seen a little of them all. They each have a culture that is compatible with their mission. And each could learn a little from the other. There are a great number of former Marines and Soldiers in the USAF and the ones I have spoken to agree with me. Is the Air Force different than the other branches? Sure. Are we less dedicated and less professional? Hell no! Maybe if other branches realize that, jointness could mean something.
We may put on a different uniform and perform a different job, but we're every bit as patriotic, dedicated, and professional as the other branches and recognize that we're all on the same team. And that's just the way it is.
My Uncle, who is a hero of mine, is an AF BG(ret). He flew before WWII, almost became AVG (taken out with malaria and some other disease before he got the chance) Came back to fly in the China-Burma-India theater for a couple of years (In P-400s, believe it or not), flew F-51s in Korea, F-105s in Viet Nam and became a mathematician for the Air Force prior to retirement.
Myself, I am a former Armor/CAV guy who currently serves in the Reserves as a Terminal Operations Officer, (I work with TALCE and ADACG on the Army side) and I've also done contract work for the Air Force, rebuilding C-130s down in Florida. I know a little about the Air Force, in other words. So I feel qualified to level some criticism at them from time to time.
1. The Air Force has a history of burning through taxpayer's dollars on "luxury items" like officers' clubs, golf courses and whatnot, so that they run out of money prior to completing their "core competencies" like runways. As a taxpayer, as well as the member of a competing service, I feel qualified to be p.o.d about this.
2. The Air Force doesn't have a remote clue as to what "leadership" consists of. See the comments about "flying" being "leadership". Or about the non-use of NCOs as lower level leaders.
3. The Air Forces' personnel system is run by even drunker monkeys than the Army's. They are currently forcibly reclassifying some specialities and ignoring airmen who are volunteering to reclassify.
4. The Air Force is run by a checklist mentality that doesn't necessarily have a "what is right?" check the block. The reflector belt issue and the way that the SFs are treated when it comes to training come to mind right away.
5. And finally, what appears to be the a large part of the Air Force senior leadership really, really thinks that ground forces are a waste of time. Despite historic study after historic study showing the ineffectiveness of air campaigns. In fact, I would suggest that air power is a subractor in COIN. It is an admission that friendly forces aren't strong enough, so they must wreck someone's house in order to accomplish the mission. This, in my opinion, is the most dangerous problem of all.
One last, interesting point. I notice that Air Force personnel are much more apt to take offense at criticism of their branch. Perhaps this is a symptom of criticism being pretty close to the mark for comfort?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks