Abolish the Air Force

[Ender]

While our ground forces have retooled themselves for the COIN fight (and have done an admirable job doing so), we cannot forget that the possibility exists that a peer competitor could rise... Can we really afford to ignore even the possibility of a future conventional-style war?

Peer competitor? This sounds like well the enemy has an air force so we need one too, just in case. I have no question in my mind whether we need bombers and fighters, missiles and rockets just like the enemy, I am just not so sure they need to be organized in the autocratic, me first mentality they are now that is all.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is not our job to mirror the enemy but to preempt them. With China, the Indian sub-continent, Russia and so many others in the picture it is apparent that the globe is shrinking fast... that is to say the pie stays the same size but our pieces may be shrinking. How can we (as a DoD) do the most with the least when it appears that most of the time the United States Air Force (as a whole) does the least with the most and only some of the time does the most with the most, or dominates its "sphere" as you put it. I think the very distinct possibility of a future conventional war is exactly why we should strive to become dollar for dollar and pound for pound the most efficient fighting force on the planet. Say what you will about the Corps apparent relevancy with Congress (TT I am coming brother) but we have, in terms of fiscal efficiency (responsibility?) consistently come in "under budget" compared to the USAF. I am no economist but who's gonna axe good cheap labor?

Looking to the conventional fight, no military organization on the face of the earth (present or past) has dominated its sphere of operations better than the USAF... Our land forces have not yet acheived that feat (not an insult just fact; there is obviously more at play in the land domain).

Dominance of the "sphere?" By your own mouth you are confounded... This is exactly what I am talking about and perfectly illustrates a mindset where the battle is an isolated sphere or a separate function and not an all inclusive, simultaneously multi-dimensional maelstrom... a mindset whose logical conclusion sends others to FIGHT (read: push buttons from 5-50 miles out) but does not ACTUALLY do so themselves. Eg: How many airman are taught how to give battle field dressings to their wounded enemies and why does that REALLY matter to a warrior's understanding of the "sphere?" Dominance of the "sphere?" Great man, clear the skies though and no one is up there. You guys can rock the whole freakin sphere and say "we won" but where is your temporal relevance AFTER? The air by itself is just dead space waiting to be passingly and fleetingly influenced , but in battle empty ground is more precious than gold.

As far as the dominance thing, I don't know by what measure you are quantifying "complete" (I hope you meant air to air) dominance... but as long as stealth planes (for example) are being shot down over third world nations and as long as there are still long lists of nations who have anti air capabilities we have not yet tested I would be extremely slow to claim total domination. How many pilots did we lose in Korea? Vietnam?

I am not sure the last 90 years have been entirely "ours" either, and how much of the 90 years that is ours is actually attributed soley to the USAF. I may have as of yet, only been the active participant in one war but that does not mean I have not studied hundreds and just because my posts may sound COIN-centric to you does not in the least mean Iraq encompasses the breadth and depth of where I am coming from with this. My point is that my understanding of the history of air power has as much to do with "one upsmanship" (Germany, Japan, USSR etc..) or today we are dominant, tomorrow they are than it does spherical dominance. I appreciate the bravado and I don't know if this is Air Force macho bs or what but I would personally save it for all those clueless pretty little legal egg-heads.

Could we train the pilots from other services to do this? Probably, but the AF has the capability now.?

Translation as I heard it: Could we train other services to think as one dimensionally and unilaterally as this? Absolutely.

I've reread your two posts several times and am struck by one thing in particular. You referenced a perceived elitist environment within the AF, but have succumbed to this yourself. You obviously think yourself better than Airmen because we "fight in air conditioned rooms" or some other such similar reason.

How many times over did it take to pick up on that? ( and succumb may be the wrong word here...) I do think I am a better warrior than not just all of the air men, but most of the soldiers and sailors too... let's get it right. I think I am a better warfighter not because of where I fight or where you think you "fight." I am a better warrior because I actually FIGHT and most airmen do not. This debate may not be "combative" to you but these ideas represent an impersonal but very real struggle for me. I have been shot at and I take expcetion to not just what the enemy can do to us but also to what we ACTUALLY do to the other side. So for many years now I have consciously trained my mind and body to take the fight to the enemy on as many levels as I possibly can and I (forgive me) would honestly be willing to step in the ring with anyone from any other branch in a Warfighting Pepsi Challenge. I may lose in survival stapling and combat collating but in the end my kind will have victory.

Perhaps if you looked at the situation objectively, you'd realize that there are other aspects to the fight than the grunt with a rifle.

You are right, there are other aspects than the grunt with the rifle (the implication pigeon holes me so neatly!) as well as there are other aspects than the plane in the sky and that is precisely why I would like the Air Force as a whole to get its head out of the clouds and come down to where people actually get hurt. I may very well be "just" a Marine to some but what most people fail to understand is that we have the best of everything. We have the best land warriors, the best Navy and the best pilots (Marine Air Force if you will) on the planet. You want to talk about total domination? I don't know where 232 years of decimating everything in your path, on all spheres fits into your math but it ranks high with mine.

After all, since you indicated that an AF guy saved your life, I would think you'd give some credit.

I did indicate that the Air Force saved my life once and I am SOOO glad you mentioned it. I should have added that the Air Force BARELY saved my life... Two teams from my platoon were on one of the last foot patrols near the city of Fallujah before the battle of Al Fajr kicked off. We were ambushed by a group of insurgents and the fight lasted for at least 20 minutes before air (an AC-130) came on station. We did not have comm with the bird, could not get comm with the bird (the AF had changed freq sets last minute) and pretty much just sat back and watched it clean up what we had started.

After the fact, I talked to our Air officer and asked how the bird knew who to fire at down there considering we were in such close proximity... to which I was told I he did not know. I was later able to determine from the pilots that the only two pieces of data they used to open fire on them as opposed to us were the facts that they knew there were troops in contact (read: priority for the MC and "hair trigger" for the AF) and that they were "closer" to the city than us. If the fight had occured twenty minutes earlier than it had, our position relative to the "enemy" would have been the exact opposite. Now I did not know to be pissed about this until I told our pilots about it and asked WTH mate? They were livid for us and to say well it all worked out in the end for the Dominators would be a dangerous examination of what really happened in that dangerous little "sphere" where circles actually overlap.

I do not know how much an AC-130 costs but I can promise you that there are any number of Marine generals out there who would love to put that money into just one of his (combined arms) regiments and any number of Marine pilots out there who would love to have that platform so they could personally support recon teams on the ground just hours before the big show. I don't think it would have been such a close save that night if it had been Harriers instead... I will take a smart pilot and dumb bombs over "unaware" (see I can be diplomatic) pilots and technology any day of the week.

Now, if you want to know about our pools or chow halls, or any rumors about the AF, just ask. I am not ashamed of how the AF takes care of its people.

If I want to know anything about the greatest peace time force on the planet I will be sure to ask, once I am done fighting. I am not ashamed that the AF takes care of its own, but I do have beef (steak, lobster whatever) with HOW the AF takes care of its own. I have (only) one pretty little co-ed in my life and she would be ashamed to be eating filet at home while I ate MRE's in the field. I just want to know when does it get overboard for you guys?

[Ender]

Again, run those rumors by me, I'd love to hear them.

The rumors are that the air force is the place for people who want to look serious but don't actually want to get serious. The rumors are that you guys are fat, lazy, out of shape, (relatively) undisciplined and altogether mostly out of touch with what goes down on the ground. The rumors are that you guys want to wage war at arms length and that is great but you guys can't also do it with your eyes closed. The rumors are that the Air Force is openly seeking to fight and win and bloodless wars and can not understand that the collateral realization of an arm's length war makes bloodless and war, forever mutually exclusive.

Oh, and finish the quote "Air Force is to Lawyer." Maybe I'll actually get a chuckle. And if your jealousy over the pools, gyms, etc. just gets too much to bear let me know and I'll get you some information to help you cross over into the blue (yeah, it's cliche but I like it).

Air Force it to Lawyer as Everyone Else AND their Mother is to Warrior. There I said it... I am not jealous of your amenities and in a brutally stoic manner I am deeply amused that you think they (not in their existence, but in their quantity and EXCESS) would ever be part of a reality I would want for me and mine.

[Rex Brynen]

...did you once lose a girlfriend to an air force pilot?

I should note at the outset that I have no horses at all in this particular race. However, I'm not sure your rather snarky tone adds any credibility to your arguments.

The "who is the superior warrior" debate seems to be to be entirely irrelevant. There are fights--most of them--where boots on the ground have been fundamentally central to the mission (OIF). There have been fights where AF assured air superiority has enable the strike and CAS missions that kept ground casualties much much lighter than otherwise (Desert Storm). There have been missions where US boots were undeployable, or where their deployment would have been counterproductive (pre-Dayton US/NATO bombing in Bosnia, most of the the pre-stabilization part of Kosovo). There are possible fights where the Army and Marine Corps would largely sit by and watch the USAF and/or USN do their stuff (Iran, Taiwan). There are fights that were deterred--and never happened--because of the threat of USAF (or USN) power projection capabilities.

Unless you happen to know the next 10 combat mission the US will face over the next 25 years, LawVol's point about needing some degree of full spectrum capability remains.

How is this best done, in terms of institutional assignment of capabilities and missions? How will changing threats and technologies change the balance? These ARE interesting topics, and it would be nice to get back to them...

[Ender]

...did you once lose a girlfriend to an air force pilot?I should note at the outset that I have no horses at all in this particular race. However, I'm not sure your rather snarky tone adds any credibility to your arguments.

Gosh no. I almost lost my entire team to the Air Force. In light of that reality (not theory, as so much ever is on places like this) I am questioning and debating the efficacy of a branch that seems to care more about creature comforts than it does Joint operations or battlefield effectiveness. I knew I had a tone but regret that this has come off overly bitter or personal...

Over the years I have often wondered what the heck was going on with the USAF and the original post by Xenophon only served as catalyst and sparked so much for me upstairs... I thought WHY do we need an Air Force?? WHAT do they actually do?

I do have different opinions on how business should be done but that does not give me license to abuse. Forgive my indiscretion.

[Ender]

Unless you happen to know the next 10 combat mission the US will face over the next 25 years, LawVol's point about needing some degree of full spectrum capability remains.

I don't happen to know what the next 10 missions in 25 years or 25 missions in 10 years will look like and it is with that reasoning that I am so willing to throw out LawVol's "point" (theory) about needing some degree of full spectrum capability when the realization (application) of that point means single spectrum specialization to the detriment of the guy on the ground. IMO the Air Force is really, really good at one or two things and those two things aren't always NECESSARY. Every other branch has a distinct role, not a chosen realm of battle, a ROLE that is viable rain or shine, day or night. The soldiers role is to handle broad spectrum land, the navy sea and the Marines don't share with anyone, they bridge the two. Powerful nations have had armies, navies and marines for thousands of years and just because we see sailors and Marines on the sea, and soldiers and Marines on the ground does not mean that we have a geospatial conflict of interest. IF however I perceived that Air Force to be actively trying to bridge its role with any single other instead of solidifying its singular choke hold on technology, air and space I would say welcome to the team.

Talk is cheap and everyone is saying the same thing, Joint this and Joint that "Joint Capability Strike FIGHTER" lol and I am sure we all intend to support the guy on the ground but when the Pentagon, the White House the Military Channel, Discovery etc... and everyone and their neighbor is talking about the new unmanned airforce, the pilotless angels guarding the soldier of tomorrow I just get SCARED. Tone aside, the full spectrum capabilities of the Air Force may sound jazzy and some may want everyone to adopt a similar model but if that is us at full spectrum I would hate to see how flat our capabilities would be at less than...

[120mm]

I'm very much in support of what the Air Force COULD BE. But for the last year and a few months, we've had Air Force officers, and Air Force retirees as military contractors, pushing CAS like a drug dealer pushing crack to schoolkids in a COIN fight.

The current line is to "use CAS first" to prevent casualties, even if it means killing everyone on the objective, women, kids, whatever. Maneuver Commanders are being ripped apart in AARs by a jackass retired Air Force Colonel/General if they take a casualty on the objective, attempting to lessen civilian casualties, ILO dropping a JDAMS on the house.

As a long-time fan and critic of the USAF, this bugs me more than a little.

[LawVol]

Do you feel better now? Surely, you'll gain some respect from most for your combat experience (myself included). Respect, but not awe. Get over yourself. You are rapidly losing capital through your ranting and raving. Slow down, detach a little and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

Its all about the air stupid.

How many times over did it take to pick up on that? ( and succumb may be the wrong word here...)

BTW, on this forum we try to maintain some degree of civility. Intelligent debate is the order of the day. I didn't call you stupid for your opinions or otherwise question your intellect so I don't see the need for you to question mine. Maybe while you're in college you should take a philosophy course where you'll learn that a fallacy of logic is attacking your opponent rather than his argument (argumentum ad hominum). It is a sure sign that you've turned to emotion rather than fact. You also incorrectly restated a few of my points to fit your argument and I'm sure it's an identified fallacy as well, but college was a long time ago for me.

I may very well be "just" a Marine to some

One more thing before I go: I never said you were "just" a Marine. I earned that title when you were still peeing in the bed, so don't try to paint me as being anti-USMC. I've tried to have a spirited debate without getting personal or creating ill feelings, but you are apparently looking for something else. Maybe once you've gained control of your emotions we can have a more civil discourse. Good luck with your education.

[Norfolk]

I'm very much in support of what the Air Force COULD BE. But for the last year and a few months, we've had Air Force officers, and Air Force retirees as military contractors, pushing CAS like a drug dealer pushing crack to schoolkids in a COIN fight.

The current line is to "use CAS first" to prevent casualties, even if it means killing everyone on the objective, women, kids, whatever. Maneuver Commanders are being ripped apart in AARs by a [] retired Air Force Colonel/General if they take a casualty on the objective, attempting to lessen civilian casualties, ILO dropping a JDAMS on the house.

As a long-time fan and critic of the USAF, this bugs me more than a little.

Much agreed 120mm. Six months or more of on-the-ground pain, suffering, fighting, losses, and slowly achieving an understanding with the local population by the Army or the Marines, and one bad Air Force CAS strike undoes it all in an instant. A great way to conduct COIN.

I very much hold to the view that CAS is a necessary function for the Army (just as it is for the Marines), and therefore its should devolve in its entirety from the Air Force to the Army. Let the Air Force concentrate on what it does better than anyone else - Air Superiority, Strategic Aerospace Defence, Strategic and Tactical Bombing, etc.

Strategic Airlift is debatable, and may be better off with the Army than the Air Force. Unless of course, the Air Force discerns a Navy-like requirement for ground forces of its own to seize and hold bases (as well as a strategic/operational role for the Airborne - as it has with the Army, just as the Marines have with amphibious operations), in which case the Airborne theoretically might be better suited to Air Force rather than Army requirements, and then Strategic Airlift may be better off with the Air Force.

I'm not in favour of abolishing the Air Force, but I do think that if the functions and roles of the Air Force were not substantially revised along the lines of what I have written here, it would have been better for the Air Force to have remained a part of the Army in the first place.

[SWJED]

...good discussion, but that said - LV is spot-on about how we handle ourselves around these parts. Keep civil, no personal attacks and don't assume. That is directed at all - myself included - as a reminder never hurts.

[120mm]

Much agreed 120mm. Six months or more of on-the-ground pain, suffering, fighting, losses, and slowly achieving an understanding with the local population by the Army or the Marines, and one bad Air Force CAS strike undoes it all in an instant. A great way to conduct COIN.

I very much hold to the view that CAS is a necessary function for the Army (just as it is for the Marines), and therefore its should devolve in its entirety from the Air Force to the Army. Let the Air Force concentrate on what it does better than anyone else - Air Superiority, Strategic Aerospace Defence, Strategic and Tactical Bombing, etc.

Strategic Airlift is debatable, and may be better off with the Army than the Air Force. Unless of course, the Air Force discerns a Navy-like requirement for ground forces of its own to seize and hold bases (as well as a strategic/operational role for the Airborne - as it has with the Army, just as the Marines have with amphibious operations), in which case the Airborne theoretically might be better suited to Air Force rather than Army requirements, and then Strategic Airlift may be better off with the Air Force.

I'm not in favour of abolishing the Air Force, but I do think that if the functions and roles of the Air Force were not substantially revised along the lines of what I have written here, it would have been better for the Air Force to have remained a part of the Army in the first place.

I am very much opposed to allowing the Army to control StratAirLift. As a Terminal Ops Officer, I've had to expend enormous amount of energy talking Army GOs out of trying to "take control" of StratAirLift assets, rather than accepting the Air Force's asset availability schedules.

The Army's corporate culture which "control assets" conflicts directly with the Air Forces corporate culture which "services customers". And the Air Force is absolutely correct in this particular issue.

[Ender]

I know as well as the next person the USAF is going nowhere (no pun intended) and am honestly, all devil's advocate aside, deeply proud of the service of our airmen and women. If I could sum up all of my little complaints here they would (99%) revolve around COST. If I did not perceive the Big Blue to be to over the top expensive I wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place.

This world is not getting any cheaper, we only have a finite sum to work with and the price tags never seem to do anything other than rise exponentially... Justify that cost of doing that (one dimensional, unilateral...) business to me in the face of a a shrinking global economy and all of the domestic issues we are faced with today and I would say, "NEXT." But as long as we are force shaping (read: handing out pink slips) to accomodate the latest multi-BILLION dollar Delta Force, GS15, High Speed, Low Drag Super/Fighter/Bomber Intercepor I am going to take exception.

[Penta]

Ender...You would do well to show the intelligence of your namesake.

Look at acquisition programs for the other services.

None of the services can seem to do acquisition competently. At all.

The US military's research, development & acquisition system is a complete mess.

[Ender]

Ender...You would do well to show the intelligence of your namesake.

Look at acquisition programs for the other services.

None of the services can seem to do acquisition competently. At all.

The US military's research, development & acquisition system is a complete mess.

What is your point? Everyone stinks at the money/gear game and this somehow makes the USAF less culpable for their training dollar to training airman ratio... (more money on things and less on us) or any other branch for that matter that cares more about pork than it does its own people? Please elaborate.