Posted on 04/14/2005 5:15:57 PM PDT by Lysandru
CLASHING MILITARY CULTURES
By RALPH PETERS
April 13, 2005 -- LAST month, I sat in the of fice of Col. Jon "Dog" Davis, a veteran Marine aviator. While at war, the Corps' pilots had seen a rise in their accident rate. Davis was determined to do something about it. I wanted to be sympathetic, so I said, "Well, you're flying some very old aircraft."
Davis, a taut, no-nonsense Marine, looked me in the eye and said, "They may be old, but they're good. That's no excuse."
snip
Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters. With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Sure we do. The Air Force simply has a different attitude about things. I have two good friends that are Air Force officers. One a KC-135 pilot, the other a B-52 navigator. They would be the first to tell you that joint duty with another service is considered hell. You should have heard the horror stories about a two week TDY (TAD to me) on a Navy carrier.
I LIVED on one for 5 years.
I think that Peters has a point and its one that many grunts have been thinking of late, but have not committed to print. Tough words, indeed, for what is unquestionably the finest air force that the world has ever seen and manned by the highest quality people ever to serve in uniform. Its not these great pilots and groundcrew who are to blame, but the culture of the service that has sadly gone astray.
The Army loves the Air Force, thanks to them, we haven't been attacked by an enemy aircraft since the Korean War. But, when we see the boys in blue handing out Silver Stars and Distinguished Flying Crosses to aircrew that haven't even been exposed to enemy fire, and we see their behavior in the budget wars - well, it just sticks in our craw.
Well, the article was in the early bird yesterday or the day before. Look it up.
Tell that to the Iraqis who died during the sandstorm phase of GW2, or the Taliban who ran away after a few nights of B-52 visits, or the Iraqis who begged to surrender in GW1...
Damn! but there are a lot of stupid people! When I flew F-4s, we didn't make excuses for accidents - or anything else - but we didn't think it was a good idea to keep the F-4 until 2010.
And this Lt Col living in a dorm pays $90/month for phone & DSL...would have basic cable thrown in if I had a TV. If I want DSL, 90 is the lowest rate possible.
And budget cuts are why I've got 30% manning, and why we got 0 of 6 augmentees in our last exercise.
And the F-22 isn't 300 million a copy, and...
Your point?
I won't defend the USAF policy on medals - my own theory is that there should only be 2 - the Purple Heart & CMOH - but surely you aren't suggesting the Army has never handed medals out like candy? In fact, the Army Commendation Medal I recieved in '92 took less work than any other medal I've received.
That would be "Peace is our Profession." And, it was the Strategic Air Command--you know--the guys that won the Cold War. Do a little research.
Describe to me the set of circumstances under which we will go to war with the Chinese in the next ten years
It's a boogyman, guy. The Chinese aren't going to invade Taiwan. Nor are they going to expand into the pacific (militarily that is - they're already all over the place commercially) No reason for them too, what does it get them? (That they're already not achieving through aggressive mercantilism)?
Peters is exactly right. A bit vitrolic in this case, but exactly right.
Defense budgets are tight and this war isn't going to end as soon as we'd like. The GWOT in the future will most likely have us fighting people who either don't have air forces or only ill trained obsolete ones.
Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the F-22 when we are haemoraging defense budget in two wars and are driving our ground forces into the dirt is obscene
If the AF leadership really wanted to contribute to the fight better they'd buy another squadron of AC-130s and a whole lot more JDAMs.
For what we are most likely to face in the next 10-15 years the present platforms will do fine
The boast that 300 F-22s can do the work of many times more AC proves Peter's point exquisitely. The thing is so expensive we won't be able to afford to lose one
We already see tactics that are tailored to avoid exposure of AC now. This will only get worse with the F-22
And even a supergold plated miricle plane can't be in two places at once. 2 F-16s can
It all comes down to money and budget wise, it's nut cuttin time.
Like it or no, it is your fate in the AF to fly patterns over some urban area where me and my friends are having an interesting time up close and personal.
When we ask, you drop the bomb where we want it.
You will be spending most of your time over the next 10-15 years doing some variation of this someplace.
And you don't need an F-22 to do it
No one doubts your patritiotism, but Peter's is dead right. The AF leadership has lost the bubble. They're so focused on a system they can't see the world's changed.
I reckon the mission of Marine Air is close combat support; the Air Force has counter aircraft combat, etc.
It's not just SF...it's Logistics, Transporters, & POL guys....
Army's award policy is way too liberal, as you have learned. Marine Corps is too stringent. But, the Air Force Recognition Program is beyond the pale. Even the Army insists that you actually have to have been under fire before you are eligible for a valor award.
Has anyone ever heard the saying about the Marine Corps' CH-46 "Frog"?
"The last Frog pilot is yet to be born!"
I think there is also a difference in how medals are perceived. In the USAF, a DFC is not a always a'valor' medal - think my Dad received one for being the first to do something in the 60s (how is THAT for vagueness!). Believe that is also true of the Silver Star. I'll try to check out the requirements - but I think the USAF views those medals very differently than the Army does. I'm certain the Bronze Star is that way - it specifically does NOT require valor.
Hate to break this to you, but we're buying the F-22 for the next 30-40 years...just as we have with the F-15/16s, which will remain the primary fighters for the next 10-15 years.
Jesus, what a bargain!
None. I link, you decide.
Oh I'm so sorry, I didn't realize that it was actually a bunch of those heroic Air Force Managers that single-handedly won the Cold War.
I guess all that Armor and Infantry we kept on the Fulda Gap for 50 years were just there for parades.
Silly little uninformed me.
Yes, it will be quite a bargain - if it helps keep the PEACE that long!
I would also dispute the idea that Iraq is the model of war for the next 10, 20, 40 years. I'm stationed in Korea - the Chonger up north isn't known for his stability. The Chinese are busy upgrading - and they've developed an ugly nationalism that could well propel them into a fight that isn't in their economic interests.
I don't think very many people in 1980 predicted a war in Iraq within a dozen years, or the fall of the soviet empire in the same time frame. Maybe you, in your infinite wisdom, KNOW what threats we will face for the next 40 years. Me? I prefer being prepared.
And with a son in the Army and a daughter in the Marine Corps, I take issue with the article's claim that the USAF has betrayed the folks on the ground. Neither my son nor daughter have complained about their equipment in Iraq. They deploy a lot - but they grew up with me gone 4-5 months/year, so they expected it.
And why would you WANT to expose aircraft needlessly - the fun of it?
Amphibious Assault forces do not sit 100 yards off the coast, but they do have to be relatively close to the shore to accomplish their mission. They are weak in long range escort and must rely on naval gun fire support, 130 Kt Cobras with limited fire power and the ever popular, one bomb, 10 minute on station Harrier in the overhead for CAS. They would have the Navy/Marine Corps Carrier Air Group in the overhead as well, but that can not necessarily be counted upon.
The MV-22 is an exceptional aircraft, and was touted as a vehicle that would extending the Amphibious Operating Area to beyond the horizon, but it has nothing that can keep up with it in the inventory to escort it to shore. They certainly don't have anything that can stay on station around the LZ to keep the troops covered if the ARG is over the horizon. Try keeping a Harrier in the CAS stack for more than 10 minutes without it needing to refuel. And the way the carrier operates, the aircraft in the stack from those can stick around for maybe 20 minutes on a good day.
I'd hate to be in the first stick dropped off on shore and told to wait an hour or so for the next stick without any air cover.
Additionally, the V-22 is very large and not that maneuverable. Much like the CH-53, it takes an enormous amount of airspace to slow down and a large chunk of real estate to land. It is a sitting duck for small arms fire in a hot, or semi hot LZ. At least the CH-46 used to be able to decelerate and accelerate quickly and had a footprint that was too large.
The Marines could have done a lot better by finding a less expensive, more maneuverable replacement for the Ch-46, which was supposed to be retired in 1989 timeframe. But, they were stubborn until the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.