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...
Bookmarks