Abolish the Air Force

[Presley Cannady]

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

On top of that, Navy has nuclear power bureaucracy at the ready. Any serious exploitation of near-Earth space is going to demand a lot of reactor experience.

[slapout9]

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



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

I did not understand the question as purely military as you refer to "ownership of space exploitation missions"...which is one of NASA's main missions. In the purley military part other folks here are better at that then me.

[LawVol]

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.

Using my "billion dollar brain," let me tell you that you might want to use yours to open a book about Marine Corps history. It is only recently that the Corps hasn't had to justify its existance. Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one.

Also, you might want to read [B]Stevely's[B] responses to my post. His reasoning was well though out and well written, which has given me some pause to at least consider his arguments. Your post, on the other hand, is so caustic that I can't really take it seriously. Besides, I've never sought to justify the existence of the AF before, so why would I start now?

[Ender]

Using my "billion dollar brain," let me tell you that you might want to use yours to open a book about Marine Corps history. It is only recently that the Corps hasn't had to justify its existance.

I happen to own a book or two about the Marine Corps and have actually managed to open one or two over the years. Lawyers (the bulk of which were probably Dept. of the Navy JAG) may very well have had to fight Congress over the years for appropriations or territorial reasons but justifying oneself to an enemy bureaucrat or a politician is a far cry from doing the same to yourself or to the American people. Smalls Wars may very well mean the employment of pens and lawyers in raids on Congress to some but to me at the end of the day all of our theoretical posturing and postulating on the subject of SW comes down to bullets and bad-guys. Someone is responsible for them and when the E-3 cares more about where big bullets are landing than the 0-3 who launched them, I think something is wrong.

It is my opinion that even "back in the day" Marines have always had a sense that the world needed them, Congress, the money grubbers and popular opinion be damned. Also I feel there is a small difference between:
-"Justifying" yourself officially for what? 232 years now by standing on the birth of a nation, (gently: where were the pilots then?) solidifying your gain against imperial intentions, securing your borders and your interior, stomping the world in war (twice), protecting every seat of diplomacy on the globe and all while simultaneously responding to every hot spot or flare up this planet has produced and....
-"Justifying" the 60 years the United States Air Force has (some would opine) overwhelmingly fought with its officer cadre,* in a linear (top down, bottom up) one-dimensional environment, with weapons systems that have progressively distanced and sterilized the fighter from the fighting, all while devouring an enormous percentage of a vitally critical defense budget on ever increasingly expensive and complicated solutions to extremely difficult but relatively time-worn and simple problems. That's just me though.

(*A practice which by very definition and execution fosters an elitist environment and promotes a mindset where the pilot is "worth" more than a grunt. Eg: Ask any general who the most valuable person in his Corps is and he will show you a 19 year old with a machine gun, would the Air Force general do the same?)

I have asked a few friends to first read and then comment on Xenophon's original post and not one can honestly come up with a solid answer on what the Air Force does that anyone other branch could not...NASA-space, the Army- rockets, everybody- fixed and rotary wing cap. etc... but in deference to your suggestion and in the spirit of objectivity and "anti-parochialism" I will ask these same friends whether the Marine Corps relativity debate should be raised again just to see what they say... I will keep a straight face, I promise.

Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one..

The key here is that they had to "sell" themselves- not a natural state for a creature who is trained from day one that the product sells itself. I am dreaming for a few Airmen to again, stand up and say "this is the product that we have mastered, this is why you need us and please don't forget it you silly, knuckle-dragging ground pounder...." (I would bow in obeisance and shut up, I promise )

Also, you might want to read [B]Stevely's[B] responses to my post. His reasoning was well though out and well written, which has given me some pause to at least consider his arguments. Your post, on the other hand, is so caustic that I can't really take it seriously. Besides, I've never sought to justify the existence of the AF before, so why would I start now?

I mean no disrespect but I read every word in this thread, including all of what Stevely said (nicely) and everything else that was even remotely related to this subject (both on site and off). You are the first airman to directly respond, (it's fair, I get it, I picked your quote) and whether the tone was palatable for you or not, I can promise you I meant no personal offense to you or any airman on here.

However... I feel, as do others, that behind my unpolished delivery are some very salient points and the underlying core of Xenophon's post raises some (at the very least) thought provoking questions. We can choose to avoid the serious questions for the sake of not wanting to mix it up, (Can't we all just get along?) or for the sake of wanting to avoid service oriented parochialism (how many times has that word been used in reference to this topic?) but our desire for a warm, fuzzy, Downy Soft Joint relationship will not become realized by (forgive me man) dreaming or agreeing, it is going to come from us asking hard questions and giving hard answers of and to one another. I believe we NEED to practice on ourselves (as iron strengthens iron) if we are going to take it to the enemy in earnest...I see it as kind of like the Irish with wooden swords or the Mafia with rubber bullets in my mind... so if the intent is to prove what you, the air force can do for us, the guy on the ground then please SELL ME, in spite of my relative acidity level and or generally (mis)directed cynicism.

Now I am not as skilled in the art of euphemistic employment as others and I have never claimed to be as talented with the scalpel as I am with the broadsword, (read: M2, 4, 9, 16, 203, 240G or 249) but I think the SWC's ROEs and our own sense of warrior propriety can see a way to duke this one out in a manner that speaks well to both of our character's. No one has spanked me on here yet (there are enough senior Marines on here and if I were way off base I trust [KNOW] someone would have kicked me back in my lane) and I am not trying to be the flamer but it is my impression, after having read and reread the flow of the thread that the real essence of the debate has been derailed for the sake of pride and everyone wanting to play gently and not stoop to "parochial" tussles... Frankly, I think we are made of tougher stuff than that. I smacked you guys, please don't prove my fears well-founded by at least not politely smacking me back with something of substance.

Frankly, I know I am not the only person who has quite caustically wondered about the United States Air Force, wondered about all of the pools you will neither avow nor disavow, wondered why a tabletop tactical discussion with an Air Force Colonel on the subject of (just) Iraq REALLY comes down to whether or not it would be a good idea "to just turn em all into a giant sheet of irradiated glass." I know I am not the only one who wonders why the higher rank a soldier, salior or Marine becomes, the FEWER weapons he personally wields. Hell, our biggest weapons seem to be operated (responsibly) by our most junior warriors; in the Air Force it seems to be the other way around or as though you don't REALLY get your hands on the big toys until you hit at least 50...

Devil, you know as well as I, all of the rumors about the Marine Corps are true. We fight, drink, swear, are generally ill-tempered and I really just want someone to tell me all the rumors about the Air Force (Air Force is to Lawyer as...) are not true and that there really is a distinct capability or aspect the Big Blue brings to the fight that no other branch could do as well or better with the same monies....

[Steve Blair]

Personally, I think there are things the AF does quite well, and some things that it does not do well. I'm chiming in with my non-moderator hat on right now.

In terms of coordinating air superiority missions/campaigns and deep strike (read heavy bomber) missions they tend to excel. The planning process tends to be overly controlling (a legacy from SAC that they have yet to totally shake) and not especially responsive to change or different ways of doing things (and the same could be said for many Army/Navy planning processes...it's the nature of large bureaucratic organizations). Still...they are quite good and gaining and maintaining control of the air with air superiority fighters.

I don't think they do CAS all that well...mainly because (rhetoric aside) it's historically been a mission that the AF does not corporately value. Their commitment to airlift has also been flaky. This I think has to do more with the fighter/bomber pilot mentality and the communities that have dominated AF higher command structures for so long. They also do not adjust well to situations other than all-out or total war...possibly because they were created by World War II and have always optimized their thought processes for such a conflict (and again, lest someone misunderstand, I'm talking about the AF as a GROUP, not as individuals).

Could another service master the AF's functions? I would say that the Marines and Army (possibly) could take on CAS. The Navy has some capability to mirror some AF functions, but without the basing system they'd have problems doing longer-range strikes.

[LawVol]

In your first post you mentioned COIN and then referenced Iraq in your second post. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that, but I get the impression that your argument (and basis for the argument) rests on the current type of war we face. To be sure the AF could adjust fire to better contribute to the COIN fight. I have many ideas on that subject and have shared a few on various threads. However, I think you are perhaps ignoring the big picture.

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. Yes, I can see the eyes rolling in the backs of some heads now and thinking that this is just AF talking points to justify money. But think about it, do we really want to put all of our eggs in one basket? Can we really afford to ignore even the possibility of a future conventional-style war? I really hope we don't do that because the butcher's bill will be high indeed.

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. No one can claim the same success. In the roughly 90 years of airpower, the USAF has risen to the top and is not even challenged (although we cannot expect that to last). US seapower has acheived the same dominance but it took considerably more time. Our land forces have not yet acheived that feat (not an insult just fact; there is obviously more at play in the land domain).

In acheiving and maintaining this airpower advantage we offer the expertise that goes with it. While other branches do have pilots and airpower thinkers, complete air dominance is not their raison d'etre. Since it is ours, we've developed faster. Could we train the pilots from other services to do this? Probably, but the AF has the capability now. Moreover, once you remove the single raison d'etre from the equation, the focus changes and capabilities deteriorate as a result.

This leads into unity of command issues. Having an AF allows airpower to be placed under a single command that is an expert in its application. This ensures a concentration of effort so that resources are not wasted by being employed haphazardly or in situations that don't provide the best bang for the buck from a strategic perspective. This becomes etremely important in the strateic attack arena. When or if that peer competitor ever throws down the guantlet, AF strategic attack capabilities will win the day (assuming we stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the development of technologically superior platforms). No one else can do that.

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

Now, if you want to know about our pools or chow halls, or any rumors about the AF, just ask. I would be more than happy to explain anything within my knowledge to you. I am not ashamed of how the AF takes care of its people. In fact, I think it is a huge selling point. Having grown up around one branch of the military and having served in another before joining the AF, I think I have a pretty good perspective of how people and families are treated. And it gives me a great measure of satisfaction to know that the AF factors the care of troops and family into their planning. I know from the number people from other branches of the service that come to me that other wish this were so in the other services.

I smacked you guys, please don't prove my fears well-founded by at least not politely smacking me back with something of substance.

I didn't realize this was combative. I also didn't realize I had been "smacked." Maybe this is just macho BS, I don't know. Save it for those pretty co-eds at your school.

Devil, you know as well as I, all of the rumors about the Marine Corps are true. We fight, drink, swear, are generally ill-tempered and I really just want someone to tell me all the rumors about the Air Force (Air Force is to Lawyer as...) are not true and that there really is a distinct capability or aspect the Big Blue brings to the fight that no other branch could do as well or better with the same monies....

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

[TT]

Ender:

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.

Originally Posted by LawVol
Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one..

The key here is that they had to "sell" themselves

Ender – I tried to resist – honestly, I did try -- but at the end of the day, I cannot.

Where to start…….?

As a start, you have read Lt. Gen. Victor Krulak’s ‘First to Fight’. The section of the book title ‘The Thinkers’ is worth reading (well, even as a non-Marine the whole book is worth reading; Conway has especially singled out for all Marines to read on the current Commandant’s reading list, I suspect for very specific reasons) .

So my observation/argument in response to your observation, by way of a minor correction to what you said, is that while the general Marine may not feel there is any need to justify the MC, the Marine Corps perennially feels the need to do so. And this is not a case of ‘had to’ sell itself – this persists in this up to and including today.

Ender, I am sure you know most of this, and probaby many other do as well, but for the rest….

To keep this reasonably short, suffice it to say that Krulak in the above mentioned section, points out that through its history the Marine Corps faced five serious attempts, and a number of minor attempts, to disband it, emasculate it, or to fold it, in whole or in part, into one or another of the other US services, (pp 13 and 37) efforts that if successful would have meant the end of the MC at least as a significant military organization. Central in his account, however, is that in the debates over the 1947 National Defense Act there is clear public evidence that both the Army and the Air Force were intent on seeing the MC disbanded so that they could absorb respectively the ground and air elements of the USMC and the attendant roles and missions.

The inherent problem for the USMC is that, as a combined air and ground military force that operates from the sea, from a ‘functional’ perspective its activities overlap with those of the Army and Air Force. Indeed, the Marine Corps arguably is a direct competitor with the Army as they are both ground fighting forces even though the Marine Corps is ostensibly a sea borne force. In 1957 Gen. Randolp McC. Pate, then Commandant, asked Lt. Gen. Krulak, ‘Why does the U.S. need a Marine Corps?’ Krulak’s response was that he ‘would find it most difficult to prove, beyond question, that the United States does truly need a Marine Corps.’(Krulak, pp. xiii and xiv)
He further openly acknowledged that the Army and the Air Force could carry out the roles and missions of the USMC equally well, and more tellingly, that this was true even in the case of amphibious landing operations for which the Marine Corps claim to have, in his words, ‘mystical competence’. (p. xiv) Not to put too fine a point on it, the Marine Corps arguably does not necessarily provide any particularly unique military function and, as a consequence, it is confronted with competition from both the Army and Air Force for roles and missions, as well as for resources.

These perennial efforts to undermine or terminate the USMC, coupled with the understanding that the other services, particularly the Army and Air Force, could fulfill the same functions, is deeply inculcated in the thinking of the Marine Corps. It is shared ‘social knowledge’ that is perceived as fact, and hence it is a core aspect of the organizational culture of the Marine Corps. As Krulak puts it, the MC sees itself with respect to the American military establishment as ‘perennially the smallest kid on the block in a hostile neighborhood.’(p. 3) Past experience has resulted in the Marine Corps being extremely wary of the aspirations of the other services when it comes to its survival. Krulak goes on to opine that, ‘[b]eneficial or not, the continuous struggle for a viable existence fixed clearly one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Corps – a sensitive paranoia, sometimes justified, sometimes not.’ (p. 3) The Marine Corps sense of organizational paranoia is not only firmly fixed in its organizational culture, a critical aspect of its identity, I would argue that it is one of the, if not the, dominant organizational cultural artifact (or personality traits, if you will) that exerts an influence on other key organizational cultural attributes of the Corps.

This organizational paranoia is deeply institutionalized within the Marine Corps, to the point that it furnishes a cornerstone of its self identity. It often works to shape the way Marines define the interests and preferences of their service as well as suggesting what they should do. Inseparable to its organizational paranoia is the cultural artifact of its assertion that it is uniquely a sea-borne, amphibious force, for this role and mission is perceived as being effectively synonymous with the Marine Corps, both in the perceptions of Marines and in the perceptions of the society they serve. And it clearly distinguishes the Corps from the Army.

This organizational cultural trait is still very strong today. There were calls for the MC to be downsized or radically changed in the late 1970s and the continued need for the Marine Corps was questioned in the wake of the First Gulf War. For a very recent expression of this paranoia about institutional survival, Conway at the 18th International Seapower Symposium at the Naval War College (Oct) publicly noted his worry that the MC was becoming ‘a second land army’, that "I'm a little bit concerned about us keeping our expeditionary flavor.’; that ‘We are indeed a naval force and there will come a day, not far I hope, where we are back with the Navy’; and that "We now have a generation of officers who has never stepped aboard a ship, and that concerns us with our naval flavor and ability to launch amphibious support,"
(Defense Daily October 18, 2007 - I only have a copy that was sent to me, so I have no link, but, alternatively, see: http://newsblaze.com/story/200710161...p-Stories.htmlhttp://newsblaze.com/story/200710161...p-Stories.html) His remarks made me smile, for they sound pretty much the same as what was being said in the immediate aftermath of the MCs withdrawal from Vietnam.

So, to return your observation; does the average Marine feel a need to justify the existence of the Marine Corps - no. We agree there. Does the Marine Corps feel a need to justify its existence – it does, and does so pretty constantly. And it does this by perennially seeking to ensure that it is seen as being unique from the Army (ie amphibious, expeditionary, etc) and by emphasizing that it has unique capabilities that the Army does not have (ie it does ‘windows’, and so on and so forth).

Sorry for babbling on so on a subject that is a digression from the thread topic….but perhaps the difference between the AF and MC is that the former feels, for whatever reason, that it does not need to sell itself, while the latter perceives, rightly or wrongly, that its survival as a institution is a question mark and so persistently sells itself (even when it does not need to do so).

Cheers

Terry

[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]

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]

...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]

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.

[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.

[slapout9]

Hi Ender, just got this in an email and I know this is gonna make your day.

Tater's Guide to Airpower Remember I am just the messenger.


http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aunews/...ide_2003V2.pdf