Abolish the Air Force

[Ken White]

last two paragraphs and the last, in particular, is IMO totally correct and an indictment of the way we do business.

We used to ride to work on elephants...

[LawVol]

Of all the services, ISTM that it is the Air Force and only it whose existence as an independent service is not self-evident. People live on the ground; ships can stay at sea for months, even years. But an airplane can stay aloft for a day at most, usually a span of hours? It is entirely logical then to view airpower as an adjunct to the service that controls where it is based: the Navy at sea (and they kept their air force) and the Army on the land. The Air Force's aggressive budgetary behavior and its attempts to poach broad competencies from other services (air and missile defense; UAVs) could be seen as behavior driven by a sense of existential insecurity.

Let me see if I'm tracking here: the Army is land based and the Navy is sea based, so they should control the airspace above them because airplanes can only stay aloft for short periods of time? Is that the argument? How about a slightly different twist? The air and space (don't forget about that) covers the entire earth, land and sea, and Air Force space assets can stay aloft and functioning indefinitely. So therefore the Army and Navy should be folded into the Air Force! Absurd? Exactly. Just as absurd as the previous argument.

Contrary to the thoughts of your AF major, this isn't something that has any traction. One simply has to read AF doctrine and the musing of its leaders to know this. But let's assume for a moment that this actually occurs. What will become of lethal non-CAS airpower? Surely the Army would focus its budgetary efforts on airpower that supports ground forces. Is it possible that capabilities such as strategic attack and SEAD would take a backseat to such an extent that these capabilities would degrade? Of course there are some that subscribe to the thought that strategic attack is now unnecessary. In the near future, perhaps this argument holds water. However, unless someone has a crystal ball I don't want to take any chances. What if the AF party line is correct that China is actually a threat and we do go to war over Tiawan at some point? Do we really think we're going to land ground troops on the mainland? I have over a billion reasons that say this is a bad idea. So what happens? We use airpower to fight and we simply do not have enough ships to support the forces needed. Moreover, we need centralized control and decentralized execution to be effective if such a scenario does occur.

The Air Force's aggressive budgetary behavior and its attempts to poach broad competencies from other services (air and missile defense; UAVs) could be seen as behavior driven by a sense of existential insecurity.

Of course only the AF pursues its budgetary agenda aggressively! Seriously though, I fail to understand how the UAV issue is "poaching" a broad Army competency. The UAV is essentially a fixed-wing, pilotless, land-based airplane. Doesn't the AF control fixed-wing, piloted, land-based airplanes? Why should the fact that we've removed a pilot matter? It's still an airplane. I didn't really follow this whole fight closely, but I thought the AF only wanted UAV's over a certain height which would still allow infantry units to deploy the smaller UAVs for recon purposes? Maybe I missed something.

Oh, another thought. Instead of arguing like children over who should get what, maybe we should be talking about how we (the AF) can better serve you (the Army). I've never understood the parochial nature of our armed services; maybe its because I'm a retread. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer...

[slapout9]

LawVol,
1-the only reason that the air force could stay up there forever is that they re-created the ground (satillite,space station, etc.).

2-If you take the pilot out of the plane it becomes a guided missile!!! just like a TOW missile etc. which is not air force business.

3-the air force wants to be a totally seperate service??? the south tried that during the war of northern aggression....it's illegal.

[Rex Brynen]

I have absolutely no position on this at all. However, it does occur to me...

The UAV is essentially a fixed-wing, pilotless, land-based airplane.

...that, for the most part--and despite the acronym--they're not really "pilotless" at all--the pilot is simply located at a remote location.

[wm]

I have absolutely no position on this at all. However, it does occur to me...



...that, for the most part--and despite the acronym--they're not really "pilotless" at all--the pilot is simply located at a remote location.

Interestingly, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) (now known as unmanned aerial systems or UAS) used to be called remotely piloted vehicles (RPV), which they still are--remotely piloted, that is. BTW "unmanned," "unpiloted," and "pilotless" are not synonyms. Even most missiles are piloted after a fashion (since missiles tend to have a guidance system--a pilot is a species of guidance system).

I think it would be instructive to figure out why are we not fighting about Unmanned Underseas Vehicles and Unmanned Ground Vehicles.

[Stevely]

Let me see if I'm tracking here: the Army is land based and the Navy is sea based, so they should control the airspace above them because airplanes can only stay aloft for short periods of time? Is that the argument? How about a slightly different twist? The air and space (don't forget about that) covers the entire earth, land and sea, and Air Force space assets can stay aloft and functioning indefinitely. So therefore the Army and Navy should be folded into the Air Force! Absurd? Exactly. Just as absurd as the previous argument.

It's not as absurd, as you portray it, but first let me apologize for being unclear. I made a pithy comment that was only pithy in light of a bunch of assumptions I have, and if you don't know them ahead of time, what I said might not make sense. So, here is what I meant. Land power and sea power is force; air power is a force multiplier. The former exist and are valid independent of each other, and they each are means to ends that exist within their respective realms. Land power concerns ultimately the control of dirt, and this is self-evidently important since that's where all the humans live. Nobody (much) lives on the sea, but our lives, our societies are so utterly dependent on it for sustenance, resources and transportation, that control of it is nearly as critical as control of the land. It is important to such a degree that the sea rivals the land in importance. But the air? There is nothing there that is valuable in and of itself, air power is just an extension of land and sea power, and a multiplier thereof (with the possible exception of strategic bombing, but more on that in a moment). The air is simply the third dimension to the land and sea.

To put it even more simply, a land war with only ground forces is entirely conceivable, a sea war with only naval forces is entirely conceivable, but an air war that did not involve land or sea is utterly inconceivable; there would be nothing to fight over. Air war is always in reference to land and sea conflict.

The one possible exception to this is strategic air power. If aerial campaigns conducted directly against the enemy's population and infrastructure could significantly or even solely compel surrender (or even more tactically, destroy his armies outright), then one could legitimately say that the air was on a par with land and sea and deserved its own service. It would be more than a land and sea force multiplier and air campaigns would have their own reasons and ends beyond the support of the land and sea effort.

It seems to me that the fathers of the USAF recognized this, made the strategic force the center of the new USAF, and used the strategic role as the raison d'etre of the independent air force. They probably well knew that tactical air, reconnaissance and transport would never carry any arguments justifying an independent service as they are roles that exist solely as a ground force combat multiplier. And ever since, the Air Force seems hell bent on proving that air power and air power alone can be decisive in winning wars - from the very beginning with SAC and its strategic bombers all the way up to "Shock and Awe."

The original article posits good reasons why the strategic role is no longer prominent, and even why it never should have been in the first place. I won't recount those arguments. It is worth noting however that the Douhet idea that strategic bombing is militarily decisive has been thoroughly disproven by history. The tenacity however with which the dominant service culture in the USAF clings to this idea, even in the wake of the embarrassing farce of Shock and Awe, demonstrates that it is valuable to the Air Force for reasons other than truth. It is the lebenslüge that the Air Force clings to, to maintain its independent identity.

So anyway, if the air is but the third dimension to land and sea conflict -why does this matter and why should then the Air Force cease to be an independent service? When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. All of the above means that the Air Force is properly part of a whole - when it exists as part of a larger organization and serves larger goals and objectives, then it is excellent and strengthens that which it serves. It's fine to see the world as targets you drop bombs on, when a commander with a broader view is going to tell you when, where and upon whom to drop the bombs, but when you're the boss, everything becomes a target and the solution to everything is to drop a bomb on it. This is in fact the ethos of the dominant USAF service culture; examples of this abound, but MajGen Dunlap's letter is a good example, so is "Effects Based Operations" (or EBAO in its latest incarnation).

This belief that military problems are solved with the proper combination of bombs from 30,000 feet is mistaken and has been very counterproductive. I find it hard to believe that we will exorcise this view from its powerful position in US strategy and policy making so long as an institutional air force exists that champions it, as indeed it must to justify its continued existence.

I hope that I am not misunderstood as maligning the courage, skill and professionalism of the members of the US Air Force. I am not, and to the contrary I believe that our pilots and airmen have all that in spades. It's just that I believe that all that talent and ability is better put to use as part of the Army and Navy, and not in a separate service.

You have some other points that I'd like to reply to, but this post has gone long enough so I will address them in a separate post.

[Stevely]

But let's assume for a moment that this actually occurs. What will become of lethal non-CAS airpower? Surely the Army would focus its budgetary efforts on airpower that supports ground forces. Is it possible that capabilities such as strategic attack and SEAD would take a backseat to such an extent that these capabilities would degrade? Of course there are some that subscribe to the thought that strategic attack is now unnecessary. In the near future, perhaps this argument holds water. However, unless someone has a crystal ball I don't want to take any chances. What if the AF party line is correct that China is actually a threat and we do go to war over Tiawan at some point? Do we really think we're going to land ground troops on the mainland? I have over a billion reasons that say this is a bad idea. So what happens? We use airpower to fight and we simply do not have enough ships to support the forces needed. Moreover, we need centralized control and decentralized execution to be effective if such a scenario does occur.

This is a very good question - if the Air Force is folded back into the Army will one parochialism only be replaced with another? Possibly. However, pre-1947 the Army had its own Air Force and managed to have more roles than CAS. I think the Army would be able to manage functions that weren't CAS fine, provided the resources available to the Army were commensurate with what the Army absorbed from the Air Force. I have no doubt that transport would be treated very seriously and maintained. SEAD would remain important, because air defenses remain a threat to CAS, transport, etc. I think the one mission area that would see a lot of change would be the strategic role - and quite simply, that role (and those assets) should be cut over to the Navy. The Navy is an equal (and more survivable...) partner in the strategic nuclear force, and has plenty of experience in that realm. Why couldn't the Navy take over the ICBMs? Beyond that, I don't see much other use for the strategic force that absolutely demands an independent air force to provide it. Yes strategic bombers can strike infrastructure or even provide CAS, but frankly IMO the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't make it worth it. The advantages of flying a B2 from the middle of CONUS to go drop ordinance on bad guys somewhere isn't worth the expense (where a single B2 costs a significant fraction of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier...).

The day is fast coming where we will not be able to afford every military extravagance we desire, and the $2 billion bombers and $350 million fighter planes are going to come under heavy scrutiny (more on that in the next post).

Your specific example can make my case. If China were to attack Taiwan, it would be primarily a naval conflict. We would likely be loath to strike the mainland under any circumstances - so the main effort would be maritime interdiction in the Straits of Taiwan, obviously a naval role, and secondarily dislodging PLA that made it across the Straits and landed on Taiwan. That would primarily be a ROC mission, we could provide some air and possibly ground troops, which would obviously come from the USMC. An Air Force role would be strictly to augment naval air. No reason an Army Air Force couldn't help, or a beefed up Navy that inherited parts of the USAF. That would be it - no way in hell we'd dare to start striking targets on the mainland, in my opinion, due to the obvious political dangers; even if we did, such strikes would be limited in scope and could be accomplished by naval air as readily as by an air force. The special sauce the USAF might bring to such a fight, as you imply, strategic attack against the mainland, will never happen. Escalating a war to that level would be ruinous suicide for both countries. So, in my opinion, a Taiwan scenario definitely illustrates land-based air as a supporting effort, as a combat multiplier of the main effort, which is from the sea.

[Stevely]

Contrary to the thoughts of your AF major, this isn't something that has any traction. One simply has to read AF doctrine and the musing of its leaders to know this.

All things being equal, of course this idea would never gain any traction. Theory is not enough to finish a large institution with a budget larger than the GDP of most countries that has existed for 60 years. Necessity, of the financial kind primarily, could bring this to pass. Not in 5 years, but maybe in 10. My Major friend told me that since he came on active duty in 1991 (enlisted), until the present time, the Air Force has shrunk 12-15,000 servicemembers a year, averaged out over time. If this rate keeps up, and remember, the Air Force is undergoing "force shaping" right now - the Air Force will come to the point where it is too small in terms of manpower to support being a full service. It is getting close in size to the USMC; that service of course is subordinate to the Navy and many of its functions, logistical and administrative, are done by the Navy. It is too small to be independent. The Air Force as currently constituted has more missions than the USMC, and most importantly, relies on vastly more expensive gear to carry it out. Can't remember the source right now, but I believe an Air Force general said publicly that the current round of force shaping was undertaken largely to afford the F-22. Considering that combat aircraft only get more expensive over time (much more, in our case), this problem will just get worse.

These factors taken together paint a very bleak future for the Air Force. The Air Force's reliance on it, its insistence to have the absolute, very best technology, combined with a future of small wars and shrinking defense budgets (and probably shrinking US economy, at some point), is going to put that service into an intolerable squeeze. It won't be able to afford its gizmos and all the bits that go into making it a service.

What happens in the financial world when organizations become too expensive to operate? They get reduced, redundancies get dropped, organizations get merged with others to save money and boost efficiency. I can easily see such a future where the Air Force could face being folded back into the Army on just such financial grounds; perhaps the new USAAF could maintain its identity just as the USMC maintains its own in the Department of the Navy? Maybe not, but it seems a plausible scenario to me.

Of course only the AF pursues its budgetary agenda aggressively! Seriously though, I fail to understand how the UAV issue is "poaching" a broad Army competency. <snip>

Oh, another thought. Instead of arguing like children over who should get what, maybe we should be talking about how we (the AF) can better serve you (the Army). I've never understood the parochial nature of our armed services; maybe its because I'm a retread. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer...

wm addressed the UAV issue more succinctly than I ever could.

On a side note, parochialism will always exist where you have strong institutional identities. It's not always bad, but when budgets and strategy get involved, it is. As annoying as it all can be, I don't think it's really a childish matter, because past the pettiness, you get down to real differences in strategic outlook and military policy that have great consequences for the country and the world. And these issues unfortunately are greatly complicated in that those services and organizations who are competing to have their visions validated, funded and put into practice are playing a multilevel game - the choices made, say in the conduct of a war, have effects beyond their immediate context. Whatever is decided affects the future form, size and sometimes even existence of the contending organizations. Add to that the humans who comprise these organizations have personal ambitions, they have mortgages to pay and families to feed, their personal futures are tied up with the organization they serve, so they will push agendas out of self interest as often as they will out of national interest.

[wm]

On a side note, parochialism will always exist where you have strong institutional identities. It's not always bad, but when budgets and strategy get involved, it is. As annoying as it all can be, I don't think it's really a childish matter, because past the pettiness, you get down to real differences in strategic outlook and military policy that have great consequences for the country and the world. And these issues unfortunately are greatly complicated in that those services and organizations who are competing to have their visions validated, funded and put into practice are playing a multilevel game - the choices made, say in the conduct of a war, have effects beyond their immediate context. Whatever is decided affects the future form, size and sometimes even existence of the contending organizations. Add to that the humans who comprise these organizations have personal ambitions, they have mortgages to pay and families to feed, their personal futures are tied up with the organization they serve, so they will push agendas out of self interest as often as they will out of national interest.

This point is far from a side note. It explains why the USAF will not be folded into another service. The principle functions of any bureaucratic orgnization are to maintain their life and grow themselves into ever larger organizations.

THe USAF bureaucratic toothpaste got squeezed out of the tube in 1947. I suspect that a close look at the "bureaucratic" history of the USMC will show that it has become less and less a dependent of the Navy Department over its life. However, to date it has not "cut the cord" completely. Were that umbilical to be severed, I suspect that the Marines would cease to use Navy corpsmen to man their aid stations, for example, and perform a host of other support activites with their own personnel. I also think that Marine leadership has been very pragmatic in maintaining its symbiotic relationship with the Navy. Doing so allows the USMC to spend more of its budgeted funds on warfighting functions, which allows it to be a more effective and efficient warfighting force. Sometimes being the client state is better than being the big empire (provided the leadership keeps from becoming too megalomaniacal ).

wm addressed the UAV issue more succinctly than I ever could.

Thanks for the props.

[carl]

A few comments:

If the PRC were to attack Taiwan I don't think it likely the mainland would be off limits to air strikes. Maybe, maybe we wouldn't hit it but I think the Taiwanese wouldn't be held back. The straits aren't that wide, I don't see how you could defend Taiwan without hitting ports and airfields on the mainland.

In Korea, there was sort of a tacit deal, they wouldn't come so far south if we didn't go to far north. That wouldn't hold with an all out attack on Taiwan.

With some kinds of weapons, small differences in effectiveness don't make huge differences in the outcomes of fights. The M-1 was a better rifle than the Arisaka (I think that is what it was called) but the Japanese Army did well enough. In air to air fighting, small differences in the effectiveness of fighters make huge differences in the outcome of a fight. For example, if the F-86 hadn't been around, NO UN fighter could have stayed in the sky with the MiG-15.

The F-22 is a remarkable airplane, a generation ahead of anything else out there. I think the USAF generals are so determined to keep the F-22 around because they truly believe that it will quickly destroy any air force we have to fight, any air force. Keeping the other guys air force off your back is the prime function of an air force and with the F-22 the USAF will be able to do its job with alacrity.

The USAF is a vexing institution that has a lot of bad habits. But I think it is worth keeping around because we need an institution that will think primarily about whipping the other guys air force. Human nature being what it is, I don't think an Army or Naval air arm would give that problem enough thought.

I told Slapout the best way to think of an air force is to think of it like a lawyer; it is expensive, causes a lot of trouble and you don't need it very often. But when you need it, you really need it and you had better have the best one available.

[slapout9]

I told Slapout the best way to think of an air force is to think of it like a lawyer; it is expensive, causes a lot of trouble and you don't need it very often. But when you need it, you really need it and you had better have the best one available.

Hi carl,yeah you did tell me that. I just recently looked at how many people are on the site now For the new folks here I have to bug carl and LawVol every once in a while about the Air Force.

The truth is the Air Force ain't going no place....but the Army can make a very good case to get back our missiles...might happen to.

The moment this article appeared the Air Force conducted an EBO op against their congressman and all those high paying jobs.....and votes so you will see the F-22 fly for the Air Force, maybe not as many but there will be a fair amount.

Also I have friend in Air Force A2 that says that the Air Force wants air control of anything that flys above 30,000 feet, not 3,500 feet. So I am not sure how correct the article was.

Another prediction is the real breakthrough will be the (UCAV unmanned combat air vehicle) it can laterally fly circles around the F-22. Take the pilot out and there is no worry about g-forces or other pilot problems so they can go zoom zoom...turn on a dime type stuff.

[selil]

I was talking to an airforce boss type at a seminar tuesday and I asked the question if a UAV could fly CAS. His answer was yes, but not likley. There is a place for pilots who boldly go where few return from.

[Ender]

Oh, another thought. Instead of arguing like children over who should get what, maybe we should be talking about how we (the AF) can better serve you (the Army). I've never understood the parochial nature of our armed services; maybe its because I'm a retread. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer...

Maybe you are a dreamer, and that is not a bad thing but this is WAR and we need realists. A service-biased example if I may: No Marine, alive or dead would ever feel the need to justify their service... that is they know what they do, they know they do it well and they KNOW (fundamentally and intrinsically) they are indispensable.

I have good friends in all the other branches and while some of my soldier and sailor friends have "issues" with their branch of choice, they would laugh (long and hard) if you asked them whether their entire branch was viable or not (because even a simple soldier sailor can understand what Stevely so elegantly said above).

It is only my Air Force buddies who openly MAKE FUN of their vaunted Force, (in uniform, in front of their senior enlisted!) for being "so lax" and so "chill." These same friends (senior and junior alike) pride themselves on being the smart warriors because they go to war in a perfectly conditioned room... that's how war should be done they say and you know what? That scares me to my core. This is not XBox 360 or Playstation, this business is combat and life and death hangs in the balance. Just because the technology can make the battlefield feel like a game does not mean we should ever forget that we are not that far removed from a martial reality that included swords and horses. The farther removed you are from the killing you are doing the less "real" it is for you. Fact. The enemy is our responsibility as much as we are our own and while we should always try a rock before a fist, we should never forget what a firm fist in the face feels like. From either direction.

You all know the jokes about Air Force Bases, Air Force gyms, Air Force chow, Air Force women... they aren't exaggerations. I only developed the time to post on places like this AFTER I left active service... how many active, air force enlisted guys are on here RIGHT now when they should be hitting the gym?

Who are we kidding? COIN is a threat. It is NOT going away; they (them, those, they that WOULD) will pursue this method because we do not appear to, as a whole, have the will and the resolve to beat COIN. Conventional war is still a threat as well. It is not going away either. Hell that specter never left us folks, let us soberly face this, we are the top dog and one of the things you can fundamentally count on when you sit at the top is that someone, somewhere is gunning for you. It is called envy, jealousy whatever... it is basically human and a basic flaw and its not going anywhere either... There are still standing armies, navies and rocket branches out there with their own GDP's and individual priorities. We are not that far past the point of standing armies and battle lines so let's slow our technological "role" here...

IMO, everything comes back to ground. At the end of the day every commander, whether he be Admiral or Air Marshal is a glorified private. He breathes, eats, sleeps and occupies as much space as the next person. These commanders do not exist in their chosen areas of combat, that is to say the Air Marshal does not command from the sky neither does the Admiral indefinitely from the ocean. They all come back to ground. Destroy all of the planes, all of the ships, and all of the trappings and we are all grunts duking it out with progressively smaller ammunition. By this logic, the Army gets a pass in my book.

Our planet is overwhelmingly covered by water and an Admiral really can command from the sea thanks to our carrier power. These Admirals invariably support the "guy on the ground" and have developed a VERY comfortable relationship with their Marine brethren and (vice versa) which shows me they know where the game is at. I would even go so far to say that if all the ground were destroyed some would still be happy to command from the sea so... the Navy decidedly does not need to come back to ground and they get a pass in my book...

Our nation's very survival depends on the existence of the Corps (if you don't know what I am talking about ask a Marine, they will tell you) so I guess they are in too...

Hey Air Force, what can you do that anyone of us can not? What part of your whole could not be assimilated into another branch and why aren't you guys manning up to this and saying this is what we can do and this is why we are indispensable? I just named some things we can do that you can't... where is your niche? How do you justify all of the immaculate bases, (I have been on) the mulitmillion dollar gyms, (I have worked out in) the blondes, (I have hit on) the lobster tails, (I have eaten in your halls) and billions of dollars we spend on you (that we Marines can only dream about)?

I just want someone from the Air Force to get up and say we rock and this is why. I am tired of hearing you guys make excuses for yourselves and want to see if any of you have some balls to back up these billion dollar brains of yours... any takers? I welcome a measured and detailed response and apologize if this tact has been overly offensive... my post has been crafted to promote a response but I can assure that as someone who has had his life saved by the Air Force, I want nothing more than to hear a championed and well-reasoned retort. Why do we need you?

[Presley Cannady]

PS if you ever get to Alabama we will go to Huntsville and see some Army Airpower....some good eatin places up there to.

What chance is there Navy will roll over if Air Force goes for a nuclear power in orbit?

[slapout9]

Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?

[Presley Cannady]

Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?

My bad. Quoted the wrong sentence. Meant to actually respond to this:

And finally one that is also vitally important is the exploitation of Space.

I'm asking who wins in a pissing contest for ownership of the space exploitation missions: Air Force or Navy?

[selil]

Navy... They are spaceships. Airforce for Orbit to the ground missions. Navy for outside of orbit. Just my opinion.

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. Plus they have the self-contained, expeditionary mindset you need for that sort of thing. Again, IMO.

[slapout9]

I would say NASA usually more than anybody when it comes to space. They can set back and watch AF and Navy fight it out.

[selil]

I would say NASA usually more than anybody when it comes to space. They can set back and watch AF and Navy fight it out.

NASA is not allowed to act in a military manner. They are civilians.. How many people groaned? Never mind all those military pilots.