Abolish the Air Force

[Xenophon]

Before anyone goes high and to the right, it's just an interesting article. I'm no pundit espousing one way or the other. Abolishing a branch of the military is way out of my pay grade.

But, the more I think about it the more it makes sense. The Marine Corps has its own air assets for CAS, the Army should as well. Marines prefer to work with Marines, and I"m sure soldiers feel the same way. Launching strategic bombing and deep air support missions from Naval platforms nearer the target than CONUS entails much less risk due to shorter flight times and could provide more responsiveness. Is it worth having a branch of service whose functions can easily be accomplished by the other branches? I don't know, I do know the American people would be in an uproar if any serious attempt was made to disband the Air Force.

One thing that just pisses me off is the Air Force's argument that they are essential to counterinsurgency. One just has to look at the Isreali/Hezbollah war of last year to see that strategic bombing is dangerous when applied to an insurgency. Hezbollah surrounded likely bombing targets with civilians, causing an uproar in the press when Israel did bomb those targets. All the expensive, fancy air assets in the world are being marginalized with minimal effort and no cost.

And counterinsurgency is no fad, if the US military had kept a focus on COIN we wouldn't have to be relearning it now.

[selil]

A friend of mine in the Navy with a bit of whimsy said that the Army should become subordinate to the Air Force the same way that the Marine Corps is subordinate to the Navy. He felt the Air Force was getting the better deal.

[Rob Thornton]

One thing worth doing is to consider why something is (or is not) before passing judgment on why it should or should not be - the world changed, and we created the USAF, I'm not sure the rational for creating it as an independent service has gone away. While I've always admired the ACE and the support it provides the GCE, the Army's requirements and capabilities have led it down a different road. We've gotten pretty good at working with the AF to meet our needs across the spectrum of conflict while not having to worry about the overhead that would go with maintaining the USAF. The USAF has such a distinct role within our military that to subordinate it to another service would probably diminish its capabilities to fulfill that role. As has been pointed out, we assume air superiority, and have not had to live without it for the last few generations - but we'd sure notice it if it were gone. While we've had to be creative in some areas we've managed to make up for any shortfalls in CAS (and on average I think its there when we need it) like fire support by capabilities such as GMLRS and improvements in cannon and mortars - not to mention RW CAS from 58s and 64s. I'm not sure we'd have ever gotten to those capabilities required to project and sustain combat power in both the strategic and operational sense that we enjoy to great extent through the AF if it had remained a subordinate service.

It comes back to having to operate across the full spectrum and against a wide variety of enemies across the globe at the most inopportune times.

Best regards, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

A friend of mine in the Navy with a bit of whimsy said that the Army should become subordinate to the Air Force the same way that the Marine Corps is subordinate to the Navy. He felt the Air Force was getting the better deal.

Interesting culture piece there Sam - the Marines will be quick to point out there is a difference between the Navy as in the "Department of the Navy", and the Navy as in the Service - so whereas the two services fall under the same department in the DoD - as a service the Marines see the services as having parity in status - even if the Navy retains the larger budget and the sailors don't make the distinction. It may seem like a subtle nuance from the outside, but perspective matters

Best, Rob

[selil]

Interesting culture piece there Sam - the Marines will be quick to point out there is a difference between the Navy as in the "Department of the Navy", and the Navy as in the Service - so whereas the two services fall under the same department in the DoD - as a service the Marines see the services as having parity in status - even if the Navy retains the larger budget and the sailors don't make the distinction. It may seem like a subtle nuance from the outside, but perspective matters

As a former Marine (e4) I told the Captain (o6) that both the Navy and the Air Force were great Taxi services as long as you gave directions really slow and loud.

Oh and the Navy has good cooks.

[Rob Thornton]

Oh and the Navy has good cooks.

- If I recall the CPO's mess was the better of the bunch - which is how as a young Marine long ago going through the SFCP (NGF spotter course) at Coronado, CA - I learned to distinguish chiefs from officers at a distance.
Best, Rob

[Rifleman]

I've said this before, I'll say it again. The Air Force has been going down hill since they retired the A-1 Skyraider, which was waaaay sexier than that joint strike whatever it is!

[carl]

Launching strategic bombing and deep air support missions from Naval platforms nearer the target than CONUS entails much less risk due to shorter flight times and could provide more responsiveness.

I don't think it is quite that simple. The ability to land and take off from a carrier impose severe restrictions on what an airplane can do. There has never been a carrier airplane that has even come close to the range/payload capabilities of the B-2, B-1 and B-52. So deliver the same payload on the target you'd need rather more carrier based airplanes.

And you'd need a lot of carriers to haul them, because if i remember correctly, you have to plan for one ship on station, one in port and one in overhaul, or something like that. The ship would be very responsive if it were on station, but it would quite expensive to keep there.

Because of the range/payload restrictions on carrier airplanes, you'd still have to get pretty close to the shoreline to launch good strikes and that might not be so easy against an opponent who had some good cruise missles and airplanes to hang them on. If you stuck with the F/A-18, all things to all people, air group, you'd probably have to sail up the enemy's rivers to do any good.

B-2's are pretty darn useful for some missions.

[slapout9]

I have said this before. With our current technology there is nothing that cannot be hit with a guided missile! Long range,medium range or short range. Once you have this capability it doesn't make any sense to send in aircraft for so called strike missions. The delivery system does not need to penetrate enemy air space only the warhead needs to do this. Missiles are cheaper and better because you never have to have a return to base capability. One way delivery is all you need.

The Pershing II missile could hit a target the size of a tractor trailer truck since the mid 1970's within it's 1500 mile range. All this without GPS satellites. But we gave it away as part of the SALT 2 treaty. But it was an Army Missile and very strong threat to the Air Force so we had to get rid of it....very bad move on our part.

[carl]

Slapout:

I knew I should have said something about missiles.

The trouble with a ballistic missile is people get real nervous when they see one coming, "is it a nuke or not." Something like the Pershing is not inexpensive also. Cruise missiles are cheaper and probably not as scary but if you need to put a lot of tonnage on a target, then cruise missiles get pretty expensive too. And if they enemy is able to make some kind of tech breakthrough, cruise missiles aren't so easy to radically modify.

Consider a very heavy penetrating warhead designed to goes through meters and meters of concrete and earth to get to the target; I don't think a missile could carry it. But a B-2 could.

[slapout9]

Hi Carl, I don't think so. I grew up in Orlando, Florida during the Space race so missile warhead lift capability is not much of a problem. Most people don't know that the Saturn 5 booster (we went to the moon in this) was first conceived to launch heavy military payloads. The lift capability has never been surpassed not even by the shuttle But it came from the Army Redstone Arsenal courtesy of Werner Von Braun so the Air Force had to get rid of that.
In July of 69 when the moon mission was launched windows were broken and the ground shook in Orlando because of the shear power of the Saturn Five booster and that was just the first stage booster.

Also the first American in space Alan Shepard rode an Army rocket not an Air Force one.

Cruise missiles are cool, the Army invented those to.

This is really the source of the Army and seperate Air Force debate. When the Air Force divorced the Army they took all the good technology and then passed laws to prevent the Army form ever getting it back..all so they could keep the so called high ground.

[Stan]

Also the first American in space Alan Shepard rode an Army rocket not an Air Force one.

Cruise missiles are cool, the Army invented those to.

Slap and Carl,
I knew those fly jockies were up to somethin' bad from the very start

[carl]

Slapout:

Granted, a Saturn 5 was a mighty machine and it could probably throw a heavy ground penetrator. But it was also mighty complicated and expensive, so much so that it might be as or more expensive than a bomber. Plus it would still be a ballistic missile and it could only do one thing; put a warhead on a point target one time.

A B-2 is just an airplane that can go a long way, carry a lot and penetrate air defenses. An imaginative person can do a lot with a weapon like that.

[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.

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.

[Adam L]

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.

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!

Adam

[Abu Suleyman]

I have said this before. With our current technology there is nothing that cannot be hit with a guided missile! Long range,medium range or short range. Once you have this capability it doesn't make any sense to send in aircraft for so called strike missions. The delivery system does not need to penetrate enemy air space only the warhead needs to do this. Missiles are cheaper and better because you never have to have a return to base capability. One way delivery is all you need.

The Pershing II missile could hit a target the size of a tractor trailer truck since the mid 1970's within it's 1500 mile range. All this without GPS satellites. But we gave it away as part of the SALT 2 treaty. But it was an Army Missile and very strong threat to the Air Force so we had to get rid of it....very bad move on our part.

This is actually a far more accurate assessment of an existential threat to the Air Force, which is unmanned vehicles. You could look at the Pershing missle as a huge unmanned Kamikaze plane. Now we have unmanned "U-2's" (I know they aren't actually U-2's). Soon we will likely have unmanned fighters.

The Air Force made a lot of sense when it took a large training and support staff to operate in the air, because people's lives were at risk. Soon a fighter or bomber may just be another piece of expendable equipment. Then less time and care will likely be taken in the training of those pilots, who are increasingly young enlisted soldiers instead of hundreds of hours of flight time Academy officers. When that happens the Air Force will face an existential threat, and it knows it. That is why it is trying to consolidate all high flying UAV's under its command, and that unsuccessfully. It wants to ensure a long term raison d'etre.

Nonetheless, this is the Small Wars Council, and not the Grand Strategy Council. We need to remember that we are currently fighting a very small war, in the scheme of things. Restructuring our entire military around a small war would be very unwise. And, as long as there are aerial threats, the Air Force remains important.

[Ender]

And, as long as there are aerial threats, the Air Force remains important.

I agree and am more sure of it now than I was a week ago. The F-22/35 combo may both appear to be very pricey but what they offer in terms of apparent effectiveness far outweigh their cost.

Nonetheless, this is the Small Wars Council, and not the Grand Strategy Council. We need to remember that we are currently fighting a very small war, in the scheme of things. Restructuring our entire military around a small war would be very unwise.

Some would say Grand Strategy is but a series of Small Wars nonetheless, I agree if we were to restructure our entire force composition only on the basis of this apparent "small war, in the scheme of things," we would be very unwise. If however, this Small War were not so small, and if in the scheme of things, these things: Small Wars, Big Wars and the varying shades of strategy that float in between both, were not separate entities but in fact directly diluted with one another I would say perhaps we could (and should) armchair this one. What does theory cost here? No one loses anything with bad ideas and we stand to gain so much with fresh, good ones.

China is gonna be big and it appears as though their two new national sports are cyber warfare and reverse engineering...and where the hell is Russia going these days? These are just a few of my favorite things that make me remember Great Big Wars have started from much smaller factors than we are talking about now. (Where's the Archduke FF when you need him?)

Nothing should be sacred. Nothing should be safe and nothing should be off the table as it were. Not any of our branches, doctrines, not the Air Force or the Marines, not COIN or conventional warfare...We should be mentally laying in the weeds on everything we think and do if we seriously want to poise ourselves for success in the next 100 years. The more lines we draw in the sand, the more we define, the more there is that separates this from that, only means we are the more fractured and divided and harder to unite for it. I think it is our business to make sure these wars stay small and that they are fought and won on our terms if we want to avoid (or fight?) the big ones on our terms. If the whole WWIII, Apocalypse as We Know it thingy didnt look so, I don't know, POSSIBLE these days I would say let's march on. If avoiding that reality requires (theoretically) smashing the status quo and REALLY thinking outside the box then lets do it... we live in a reality where a soldier and a sailor (for example) with the same jobs, could not talk to one another, face to face, about their jobs without the need of a translator or some serious time and patience. How does that work out on the radio when your encryption is one second off (and slipping), 50 miles away and under fire? This is not a "Blue Deck vs. Green Floor" debate...

We need to face it. This is a brand new world and the game is changing faster than we are. Not one of us has a handle on this and as a very junior member of this community who has (at least) another 40 good years to give I have to admit that when I look at the threats I am going to have to face in my distant career and then compare it to the force structure many "wiser and older" are handing me to combat those same threats I only see disaster. If it were not for the fact that we are now playing for very serious stakes (Read: ALL IN) these future conditions would make me really not wanna play. There is a great big thundercloud out there on the horizon gentlemen and you smell it as well as I do or we would not be here.

I had not posted on here for some time because I thought that more would be served (on both sides) by my listening and learning instead of talking and teaching but that does not mean I haven't been here. After months of ah... "lurking" I am convinced, more than ever of two things. The first is that SWC is one the hottest and most relevant things going and the second is it seems as though we tend to confuse massive educations, egos, or perceived age and experience with actual experience, or serious practical contribution to the discussion of "fighting small wars." I am all for sharing ideas and giving equal weight to all but certain concepts have to take precedence. I think the higher up we go, the more impressed we become with minutiae. I agree, "God is in the details" but our capacity to humanly process and rationalize even a fraction of the information we have been handed in the last 200 years or so has not increased nearly as quickly as the data has. I will say it again, we need to go back to basics. There are laws, they are written in blood and I firmly believe a great number of us, myself included have forsaken some of those basic laws for the complexly sexy. Carving a niche and becoming a specialist may ensure job/contract security but the corporate mindset has to stop when it comes to National Defense.

Not one thing is separate from the other here and there are no boxes. I would guess that there is only one degree of separation between any one of our Small War concepts and any of the Grand Strategy ah.."concepts." <-(my addition and how many can there be and if we have more than one "Grand Strategy" can we please make the G lower case or call them Grand Strategies??)

Signed,

Not On the NSC (Yet)