Air Power in the New COIN Era

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

where to begin? First off I do not agree 100% with all of 120’s observations, but he makes a pretty good point when it comes to other’s perceptions of the Air Force.

What systems would you propose cutting (other than all the legacy aircraft the AF wants to retire but Congress won't let them) to pay for buying even minimum numbers of F-35s and F-22s?

What is the "minimum" number of F-35s and F-22s? And why both?

I admit that Congressional meddling does hurt the USAF's attempts to divest itself of platforms and programs (as well as the other services). It would take a SecAF and a CSAF with HUGE cajones (and no future employment prospects) to tell Congress too bad, so sad we're getting rid of the B-52s.

However, if I were the CSAF these are a few things I would do:

Kill NASCAR. Kill Jumbotron. Kill ABL (its a money pit). Stop the Thunderbirds F-16 swap. Stop BAS payments to deployed Airmen. All unmarried E-4 and below live in the dorms, with few exceptions, and also three to a room at that (saves BOS and O&M). No TDY's posing as "deployments" and deployments are minimum 6 months (saves O&M). Eliminate some officer billets and give more authority and responsibility to NCOs (they're cheaper). Eliminate AFSCs by requiring more "multitasking" of personnel (some of this is being done). Scrub acquisition costs with a wire brush (especially Space and AFSOC). Cancel all base maintenance contracts (Airmen can cut grass and paint stuff). Squeeze TDY "perks" to a minimum (if you're TDY or "deployed" to a site and billeted within walking distance of your work site, why do you need a rental car? When you deploy to support Cobra Gold at U-Tapao why do you need to stay in hotels in Pattaya Beach, 40 miles away?).

I could jump onto the DPD Warehouse and find more but those are just for starters. Now some will say “those are mostly small dollar amounts.” True, but start cutting the small stuff and it adds up over the FYDP.

Bump me up to SecDef (which is a truly scary thought, I'd have to wear suits all the time) and I would take a long hard look at all of OSD's programs (excluding the services) and scrub them really hard to eliminate waste and duplication of effort. Plus there'd be greater scrutiny on the COCOMs, which would get less of a free pass to dip into the service POMs for their support. Rather than give that cash back, I would pass those savings to the Services to help fund those programs that do need it.

However, change like that hurts when you’ve become used to certain perks, but it can be done. An AF GO once noted that given the fiscal restraints over the next several years the USAF can either be the best in the world at putting lead on target or be the world’s best base support service, but not both. To be the former while giving up the latter requires a big change in culture.

Granted you could also focus more scrutiny on the other three service’s programs and probably find significant savings. But the Marines seem to pretty much make do with what they get, the Army seems careful in what it pushes hard for (although IMHO I think JIEDDO was a bit pricey for the result), and these days it seems like the Navy just tries to stay under everyone’s radar.

[wm]

Pentagon chief: Getting aircraft to Iraq, Afghanistan 'like pulling teeth'

Article is here

[Van]

I think we're underestimating the degree of internal conflict in the Air Force. The message from the top is "Everything begins and ends with F-22". When was the last time you saw an AF graphic that didn't have an F-22 in it? When you get down to the Majors and Captains, you'll actually hear advocates for real jointness, as opposed to Douhet/H.G. Wells/Billy Mitchell's Air Power for COIN (but at heart, the old school folks' loyalty lies with the fighter community that emerged during Viet Nam).

As an institution, the Air Force does not value what they provide for the greatest value-added in COIN; comm, airlift, and ISR (I'm not denigrating the firepower, but for COIN, firepower in the sky is secondary to comm, airlift, and ISR from above). If we can get a generation of AF generals who don't kowtow irrationally to their own divinity as zipper-suited sungods, the problem will resolve itself. But as it stands, their fantasy of gun kills in dogfights is as rational as the really old school Navy vision of capitol ships duking it out. Dogfighting and battleships trying to cross the T might be relevant someday, but not in the near future given current geopolitics and technology.

Don't get me wrong, we'd have a lot more trouble with the current conflict without the capabilities the Air Force brings to the fight, I just wish their COLs and BGs would see that.

Oh, and Umar- for cost cutting, why do general officers in the air force maintain their flight status? Just the flight hours so they can fly is hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, it keeps them from doing the things Generals really should be doing, and it keeps the Lieutenants and Captains out of the airframes they should be current on. Put 'em in Cessnas from the Aeroclubs and Civil Air Patrol if they want flight hours.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

I think I hurt myself laughing at that.

I really do not know why rated GOs keep their flight pay (although it is at a reduced rate). Hell, rated pilots still draw flight pay even when they're not in flying billets. Ask a chairborne USAF guy wearing a bag when the last time he clocked any stick time.

On another note (caution snarky remark coming): Why do Air Force officers in the space AFSC wear flight suits? What exactly is it they fly in? Do we still have manned ICBMs?

Good time for a movie quote, paraphrased: "No, I like all you Air Force boys. Every time we've gotta go someplace and fight, you fellas always give us a ride."

There is a huge chasm between the Air Force culture and the Marines, and I speak not of yogurt.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

"These new realities and missions should be reflected in our training and doctrine. The Air Force will be increasingly called upon to conduct civil-military or humanitarian operations with interagency and nongovernmental organizations and partners and deal directly with local populations."

"All this may require rethinking long-standing service assumptions and priorities about which missions require certified pilots and which do not."

Who knows, perhaps our next air-to-air combat ace will be a senior airman (the horror!).

[Cliff]

What is the "minimum" number of F-35s and F-22s? And why both?

Why do you need enough armor/troops to be able to fight on the Korean peninsula and in another conflict at the same time?

Why do you need both Bradleys and M-1s? Or both MRAPs and Strykers?

The F-22 and F-35 are different airplanes, with different capabilities. You need the F-22 because it has capabilities that the F-35 doesn't have. And not just for shooting down Flankers. It is not an either-or option - the F-35 is not viable without the F-22, just like the F-16 was not viable without the F-15 to provide air superiority.

You need a minimum number of them so that you can support the National Military Strategy and cover more than one conflict at the same time while still doing your everyday homeland defense missions.

Put another way, which AOR would you prefer your Army and USMC folks be open to air attack in?

Eliminate some officer billets and give more authority and responsibility to NCOs (they're cheaper). Eliminate AFSCs by requiring more "multitasking" of personnel (some of this is being done).

These are all already in the works. In many cases it isn't working out - there's only so many jobs you can have folks do. For example, they have combined all the life support folks into one AFSC. Problem is that now you don't have the folks with the specalized knowledge... there's only so far you can go in being a jack of all trades before you become a master of none.

Scrub acquisition costs with a wire brush (especially Space and AFSOC).

Agree with this!

Cancel all base maintenance contracts (Airmen can cut grass and paint stuff).

Contractors are cheaper than airmen in many cases - when you include the medical benefits and the retirement, it's much cheaper to have a contractor do it. Better to save your money for the jobs only military folks can do - or at least that's the rationale.

Granted you could also focus more scrutiny on the other three service’s programs and probably find significant savings. But the Marines seem to pretty much make do with what they get, the Army seems careful in what it pushes hard for (although IMHO I think JIEDDO was a bit pricey for the result), and these days it seems like the Navy just tries to stay under everyone’s radar.

The Marines and Navy are a fundamental part of the F-35... so if you're arguing the AF doesn't need the F-35, why do the USMC and USN need it? And by the way, if the F-35 is so horrible for CAS, why is the USMC fighting so hard to get them?

Again, I am not trying to start arguements, but at some point you may have to accept that if you would like the US and its forces to be able to operate, you might need Air Superiority as a prerequisite.

What level of risk are you willing to accept in this area? What AOR should the risk be accepted in? Or will you attempt to use another system to achieve the same effects as the F-22? If so what system?