Air Force Motorized Jaeger Regiment?

[J Wolfsberger]

Distiller, I think you've unintentionally hit on the Air Force's biggest problem: they don't want to understand their role within the full spectrum of warfare, nor do they want to perform the activities that role requires.

Unfortunately, there is a belief in the AF, never clearly articulated unless you can get some of their officers outside enough adult beverages, that the way to win a war is "bomb 'em till the rubble bounces," then send in the infantry to occupy the ruins. Your idea plays right into that viewpoint.

With respect to the Army entering the AF "realm," the AF made it necessary. I won't go through all the history - it's easy enough to find. I'll summarize it by saying that the reason there is so much Army (rotary wing) aviation is because the AF refused to support emerging Army doctrine and the associated required capabilities. In fact, there was almost an Army fixed wing aviation component: when the AF wanted to get rid of the A-10s in the 1980s, the Army said "Fine, we'll take them." At which point the AF "rediscovered" it's CAS mission.

Unfortunately, the AF idea of CAS is to buy fighters that are "dual capable." In practice, that means buying fighters. The Navy and Marines have a justifiable need for dual capable aircraft. The AF doesn't. Their practice of flying over Iraq in F-16s carrying 500 lb. bombs, then landing heavy, adding wear to the airframes that dramatically decreases service life, and whining that they weren't being given their proper role in COIN, all adds up to a group of people without a clue. Your idea would only affirm their cluelessness.

[BayonetBrant]

What Wolf said....

[Steve Blair]

Concur with JW as well. This proposal also ignores the vulnerability of airlift assets as well as any light air-deployed force once it's on the ground.

[William F. Owen]

Concur with JW as well. This proposal also ignores the vulnerability of airlift assets as well as any light air-deployed force once it's on the ground.

You could call it AIR-MECH STRIKE.....

[wm]

You could call it AIR-MECH STRIKE.....

You could also call it DUMB (Doubtlessly Useless Misuse of Bodies)

[J Wolfsberger]

You could also call it DUMB (Doubtlessly Useless Misuse of Bodies)

You win.

[Entropy]

Well, I was kind of hoping this thread would die a quiet death, but I guess it's not to be.

The bottom line is the Air Force doesn't have any interest in developing a ground force, nor should it have any interest (beyond, of course, small specialized units and SoF) in doing so. The closest you will get is forces for air base or air field defense.

Distiller, I think you've unintentionally hit on the Air Force's biggest problem: they don't want to understand their role within the full spectrum of warfare, nor do they want to perform the activities that role requires.

That's a bunch of hooey. The reality is that the Air Force doesn't perfectly conform to what some think the Air Force's role should be within the "full spectrum of warfare." That's a difference of opinion and perception, not fact. The Air Force isn't a subordinate arm of the Army, no matter how much some may wish for it. It therefore has a legitimate say in how best to use air forces in joint operations. It's fine if you disagree with the AF's official view (as many in the AF do), but the sweeping unsubstantiated hyperbole ("whining," "group of people without a clue") gets a little old as do statements of opinion presented as statements of fact.

That the evidence for your point of view is apparently only obtainable from the mouths of a few drunk airmen doesn't help your argument much. Nor does using events that occurred two decades ago. Nor does your completely wrong statements about F-16's landing heavy - that's a serious problem for Marine/Navy aircraft returning to carriers (who often have to jettison ordnance in order to land), not so much for those using airfields.

[Distiller]

The idea is not mine, and certainly not new. Just tried to put it into context with the capabilities of the other branches.

The Russians (Soviet's, that is) had/have a whole bunch of their "VDV" formations designed for just exactly that concept, that's what the BMP vehicle series was/is for. And the fact that they lost the Cold War doesn't change their quite sharp minds in military matters and their tendentially clearer conceptual thinking. And if you look into the late years of the German Wehrmacht, they were also thinking into that direction, with Ar232 and Me323.

[Rifleman]

It there's a second ground army isn't one of them redundant?

Come to think of it, the USMC might want to pay attention to that idea as well. They started life as the Navy's infantry and have more or less morphed into a defacto second ground army. Case in point: SEAL snipers taking out pirates when one of the USMC's historic missions was.....sharpshooters in the rigging.

[J Wolfsberger]

That's a bunch of hooey. The reality is that the Air Force doesn't perfectly conform to what some think the Air Force's role should be within the "full spectrum of warfare." That's a difference of opinion and perception, not fact. The Air Force isn't a subordinate arm of the Army, no matter how much some may wish for it. It therefore has a legitimate say in how best to use air forces in joint operations. It's fine if you disagree with the AF's official view (as many in the AF do), but the sweeping unsubstantiated hyperbole ("whining," "group of people without a clue") gets a little old as do statements of opinion presented as statements of fact.

That the evidence for your point of view is apparently only obtainable from the mouths of a few drunk airmen doesn't help your argument much. Nor does using events that occurred two decades ago. Nor does your completely wrong statements about F-16's landing heavy - that's a serious problem for Marine/Navy aircraft returning to carriers (who often have to jettison ordnance in order to land), not so much for those using airfields.

I'll take the well aimed (and deserved) hit for being blunt and heavy handed in my characterization.

But I'll stand by the substance of my criticism (restated in a more professional manner):

1. AF commitment to CAS is less than whole hearted.
2. The prevailing attitude within the AF is that air power alone can win wars.
3. There was (and I think, still is) an attitude that the AF was not being allowed to bring its full capability to bear in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
3.a. There was (and I think, still is) an attitude that civilian casualties aren't a negative factor, and may be a positive factor, in COIN.
4. There was (and I think, still is) an attitude that the conflict in Iraq would have ended sooner if the AF had been allowed to inflict more damage and casualties.

I may be wrong in my understanding - would certainly not be the first time. At present, I have a poor opinion of their doctrine and attitude. If you can point me to publications or articles that prove me wrong, I'd like to follow up. Regardless of my opinion of doctrine and attitude, the men and women wearing the AF uniform are still our comrades.

[Cliff]

this subject returns every 6 months or so.

But I'll stand by the substance of my criticism (restated in a more professional manner):

1. AF commitment to CAS is less than whole hearted.

What do you base this assertation on? The AF developed the JDAM and GPS, both of which have arguably been the biggest revolution in fire support for troops in the field since the airplane. Currently CAS is probably the highest priority mission in the AF, with numerous squadrons training at CAS over their supposed primary missions. Red Flags train extensively on CAS, SCAR, and BAI. The AF is trying to increase the number of JTACs. I am sure there will be a Desert Storm/eliminating the A-10 example given... Much has been made of this. Regardless, the focus of TAC and the tactical AF in the '80s was AirLand Battle... which was the Army's idea. AF doctrine was written with TRADOC... for both services. If TAC had had its way, Desert Storm would have had almost 0 strategic attack and just attempted to pound the Iraqi Army into dust. Didn't happen due to Gen Schwarzkopf choosing a different plan... kinda hard to blame the AF for that and say that CAS isn't a focus. This notion is 20 years behind the times.

2. The prevailing attitude within the AF is that air power alone can win wars.

The AF attitude is that Airpower is an essential part of the joint force. Air power is a key enabler... without Air Superiority, the Joint Force would have a very difficult time winning any war. You wouldn't be able to get to the fight, you wouldn't be able to use your helos, no CAS, no medevac, no resupply by air. No UAVs... Oh by the way all your lightly armored vehicles would be toast vs. a real air threat...

This doesn't mean airpower can't win a war... some wars it can. Just as Land Power and Sea Power can win some wars. Guess what... we usually do best when we all work together - usually that will mean air power gaining air superiority first, then supporting the other components.

Why folks insist that we shouldn't be allowed to protect them from enemy air is completely beyond me - sometimes it seems like maybe we should go ahead and just do what folks think we do and go play golf rather than trying to keep everyone on the ground safe. I would be curious to see an NTC rotation with realistic red air and no air superiority... once you run out of Patriots, good luck!

3. There was (and I think, still is) an attitude that the AF was not being allowed to bring its full capability to bear in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

What are you basing this on? Arguably the AF didn't bring everything to bear in Iraq... during OIF, due to the FSCL being moved too far. But that wasn't a huge issue... since then I haven't heard anyone arguing we're not being allowed to bring capability to bear. Maybe that some UAV/ISR capability is being wasted by being diluted... but never that we are holding back.

3.a. There was (and I think, still is) an attitude that civilian casualties aren't a negative factor, and may be a positive factor, in COIN.

What do you mean by this? Are you really accusing the AF of thinking that civilian casualties are OK? If so this is absolutely ludicrous... The AF arguably goes to greater lengths than any other service to avoid civilian casualties. Do Army folks have to use a computer model of their ordnance effects and consult a JAG before using artillery, mortars, or rockets? The AF does... before EVERY use of kinetic weapons.

4. There was (and I think, still is) an attitude that the conflict in Iraq would have ended sooner if the AF had been allowed to inflict more damage and casualties.

This is also ridiculous. No one I know of in the AF thinks this. OIF is a great example of how to MINIMIZE the damage and casualties to make postwar reconstruction better... show me any other armed service in history that went to the lengths the AF did in OIF to minimize unneccessary damage.

I may be wrong in my understanding - would certainly not be the first time. At present, I have a poor opinion of their doctrine and attitude. If you can point me to publications or articles that prove me wrong, I'd like to follow up. Regardless of my opinion of doctrine and attitude, the men and women wearing the AF uniform are still our comrades.

From AF Doctrine Document 2-3, Irregular Warfare:

"Large applications of US military force in COIN operations should be limited when possible and forces should perform such roles as restoring order orseizing the initiative."

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/ser...bs/afdd2_3.pdf

I'm not sure where your sour opinion of AF attitudes and doctrine comes from. The AF is fully comitted to being a part of the joint team across the spectrum of warfare. In addition, the AF is is still trying to maintain some small shred of deterrence against a high-intensity war along with the USN. This allows the USMC and USA to focus a little more on the low intensity conflicts currrently going on while keeping risk low.

I know this forum is fairly ground-centric due to the subject matter, but it seems like there is a sort of group-think when it comes to the Air Force in particular. Every time this topic comes up the same mantra of "the Air Force doesn't care" comes up...

I'd be curious to hear what folks in/recently returned from OIF and OEF think of the current AF attitudes mentioned above.

V/R,

Cliff

[Rifleman]

You could call it AIR-MECH STRIKE.....

I was waiting for that little bit of sarcasm.

And with the M113A whatever model number it's up to now as the striking vehicle of choice, right?