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 ...
Hogs eat Phrogs!
So long as you recognize you error now. Keep studying.
When your weapons systems are so valuable that reducing risk to them BECOMES the mission and you don't do things that would risk your systems - it's a problem.
For what we are doing now we don't need the F-22 - anything can drop JDAMs
For the future war that you envision - (but will likely never see) the fact that there are only 300 of them (Probably 275-280 given operational attrition) will cause the AF to beg out of missions.
You're in a mind set where anything other that absolute technological dominance is the equivilant of disaster
Sorry, I just don't buy it.
If it's such a 40 year wonder weapon we can continue to improve it and buy F-22E's 15 years down the road.
Buying it now is the DOD equivilant of putting a pool in your house when every room in the building has a leaky roof.
It's a nice to have - not a have to have.
And do some historical research and show me a period in history under any government or dynasty when the Chinese were expansionist outside of their immediate environs.
That the AF leadership continues to push this system under the present circumstances borders on criminal - you are being ill served by your greybeards.
Peters is right.
The two of us have swapped these arguements on many past threads. Rather than replicate them, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You are willing to bet the Iraq model of war is the only conceivable one for years to come - I disagree. In fact, you are willing to bet everything on it - and I am not.
You believe the USAF is robbing the Army of needed resources. I disagree. My son, daughter & son-in-law have not complained once about not having needed equipment in war.
I think you are near-sighted. I'm not concerned with the NKAF - but I am concerned with the trends in the west Pacific. I can also remember when the arguements you are using now were used to try to stop the F-15, F-16 and C-17.
Here's my theory. Part 1 - the leaders of our services - USAF, Army, USMC and Navy - are intelligent men who sincerely want to do what is right for their country. It would be inappropriate for the CSAF to tell the CS of the Army how the Army should structure & train for the future - and vice-versa. That's like asking a heart surgeon his opinion on knee surgery...you'd be better off to ask a real expert.
Part 2 - our defense spending in terms of percentage of GDP is at near record lows. Our real problem isn't the Army growing too large, or the Marines asking for Ospreys or the USAF wanting a new fighter - it is politicians who want a world-class military on a regional power budget. We have DoD fighting with Congress to GET A SMALLER MILITARY - YGBSM! Our civilian 'leadership' thinks we can fight the GWOT and build for a 2020 or 2030 threat with shrinking budgets!
The problem isn't the F-22, Osprey, too many carriers or to many troops on the ground - it is political leadership that refuses to make the tough choices, even when the civilian populace would support a larger military budget.
Since the R&D is already paid for, we could add additional Raptors for little more than the price of an F-15E - won't swear to its accuracy, but the last figure I saw was around 80-85 million a copy. Suppose it was 100 million - an additional 200 would run 20 billion - over a 20 year run. With a 2 Trillion/year budget, that equates to 5/10,000 of the budget. The same boost in budget given to the Army, Navy & Marines would be 2/1,000 of the budget - and I'm supposed to believe that the USA cannot afford a modernized military?
The Raptor and the Osprey and other attempts to modernize our forces isn't like trying to add a bunch of pools - it is more like adding a toaster.
Peters does not know his ass from a coat rack. There is a damn good reason that no Air Force pilots have died in Iraq. It is because there stuff is too good to mess with. Why would we want that to be any different?
The Army is undergoing modernization at a faster rate than any of the other Services. It is still slow-going because the Army was allowed to deteriorate to a piss-poor standard under Clinton and Shinseki. The new Army is being designed to take the best of what the Marines do, but with less motivated individuals. It is a huge challenge, but it is happening. The new Army will be one that does not have to call in the Marines to do the really hard stuff, like they do today.
Anyone who thinks the F-22 is worthless, is a simple idiot. You cannot win a modern war without controlling the skies. I don't care how capable your Army is. If I can drop a few CBUs on it and turn it into hamburger in 2 seconds, what the hell good is it?
You can have your bad-ass tank column all day long, three Maverick-laden A-10s will turn it into scrap metal before it can advance on anyone. This country has a romantic fantasy going with the Infantry. The Infantry is important, but it is AIR POWER that allows the Infantry to do it's job against a worthy opponent without taking unacceptable losses.
These stupid arguments have been around since the Air Force was forced to accept the Navy's F-4 Phantom. When they wanted their precious Eagle, there was nothing but noise about how much the damn thing was going to cost. Now, when we have an aircraft that has NEVER LOST A FIGHT IN COMBAT, how much would we have been willing to pay for that back in 1968 when the Eagle was being designed?
The F-22 may not be the best aircraft we could have had, but it is the best aircraft FOR THE MONEY that has ever been produced. Someday, when a bunch of Special Forces personnel are being advanced on, surrounded by the largest concentration of anti-air munitions ever produced by our enemies, and an F-22 cuts through the haze and puts a few cluster bombs up the enemy's ass and allows our boys to escape, how much will the damn thing be worth then?
Cork-suckers!
You're "...just having a little inter-service fun."
Peters is not.
He accuses the USAF of wanting to play with toys even if it results in folks on the ground dying. There is nothing amusing about a charge like that.
He accuses the USAF of not working - saying, for example, that " If you go into the Pentagon these days, you'll find only half of the building is at war. The Army and Marine staffs (the latter in the Navy Annex) put in brutal hours and barely see their families...Meanwhile, the Air Force staff haunts the Pentagon espresso bar and lobbies for more money."
This will be news to the USAF I know in the Pentagon, all of whom have been on at least 12-hour shifts their entire tour. It will come as a surprise to the folks who worked tsunami relief, putting in 14+ hour days 7 days a week. It will come as a surprise to my coworkers - one of whom apologized yesterday for arriving 'late' at 9AM, although he had left work at 3AM. It will come as a surprise to my family, which has seen me gone 4-5 months/year on average for 22 years.
He argues the Marines really know how to fly, using their AV-8s - neglecting to mention that many of them rolled off the assembly line after the USAF jets. In 98, I was flying '67 model EF-111s - which were modern compared to the Buffs and KC-135s. The average USAF fighter is older now than it was when I flew F-4s in '88.
He also neglected to mention the Marines are working jointly on the JSF, and eager to get the Osprey to replace their aging helicopters.
Peters is a liar. "Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq." That came as a surprise to my co-workers, who knew the 2 men killed April 7, 2003, when their F-15E went down in Iraq.
Jokes are one thing. Slander is another. The USAF I know takes great pride in the protection given to our troops on the ground, and great pride in the 'path clearing' done by fighters and bombers during the offensive campaign. I will never forget listening to the embeds in GW2 talking about a lull in the fighting. Odds are good more Iraqis died during the 'lull' than during the 'fight' - the Republican Guard collapsed during the 'lull' because of death from the sky hitting them accurately in the middle of a sandstorm.
Dog,
Given the tone of this thread, it was a target rich environment in respect to beating up on the AF, but I commend you in leaving all the ISR behind and providing a professional viewpoint.
Someday, someone is going to figure out that all the services are necessary. No one would argue that the Marines are the MVPs of our services; the core of what the US is all about, but that does not mean the other services should be slighted in anyway.
When an Air Force pilot goes down, people mourn just as much as if the dude was Navy or Marines. Everyone who goes up, no matter what they are flying, is risking their neck, and for that asshole to write what he did makes me sick.
Ralph,
Wow...I must say this article seems way over the top. Geez, I'm genuinely shocked that you've reacted this way to my note to you about your earlier piece. I can assure you that I wasn't "lobbying" you - is that really what you thought? Until I read today's article, I would have thought the notion of "lobbying" Ralph Peters to be preposterous. But if you want to talk about lobbying, no one does it better than the U.S. Marine Corps. Just ask them. Believe me, the Air Force is a rank amateur vis-à-vis the Marine Corps in the lobbying business!!
Speaking of "old" aircraft, I assume you know when the USAF B-52s were built or, for that matter, the F-15s and F-16s we have these days....
But more importantly, isn't the Marines main aviation priority the V-22 Osprey? It has a fascinating record... Still, it may be the right answer for them, but the point is that it isn't exactly a low-tech - or inexpensive - solution to a mobility problem. I'm amazed it wasn't referenced in your article.... Moreover, didn't the Marines get the Super Hornet, and aren't they buying the Joint Strike Fighter? (And there are other USAF-funded programs for which Marine aviation is getting the benefit.) Was none of this mentioned to you?
And what "pressing need" - exactly - is being denied them by the Air Force? What exactly has the Air Force turned a "blind eye" to? Amphibious assault doctrine?
And what's this about the Air Force being "morally bankrupt"? Is that what you really want to say about 360,000 mostly-young Americans serving their country all over the world? I don't think that many of our most energetic critics in the Army or Marine Corps would say that.
Yes, we were deeply humiliated by Darleen Drulyan and Tom Fiscus....but the Air Force had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib mess (except that now airmen have had to be detailed to serve as guards there). In fact, no USAF people have been accused of torturing or killing any detainees in Guantanamo or Afghanistan or anywhere. Is the Army or the Marine Corps making claims of moral superiority in these cases? I would suggest to you that these latter misconduct events have had far more adverse consequences to the U.S. effort in the GWOT than anything any airman did.
I'd also add that we have had nobody who refused missions http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/05/iraq.reservists/index.html (In fact, there are 2,500 airmen seconded to the Army for convoy duty in Iraq...and none of them have refused dangerous missions to my knowledge.) Moreover, before you moralize about services, compare rates of drug abuse, desertion, or any other criminal behavior. I think you will find that your Air Force runs a relatively clean operation; in fact, none of the services are "morally bankrupt"... Ralph, you don't need to seize the rhetoric of the extreme left to make your points...and it is perfectly legitimate for you or anyone to question things like the F/A-22...it ought to be scrutinized like every other aspect of national defense.
But why should the other services be exempt from scrutiny? I think it's sad that you conclude that any critique of the land component performance is "slander." Slander? Is that really the right word for any disagreement with Army dogma? At one time you were a critic of some of the things that the Army did... And there are quite a few soldiers and Marines who firmly believe in critiquing their own performance...and welcome such critiques from whatever sources. That's the genius of the American military, the ability to question assumptions and scrutinize performance.
It is a legitimate question as to why we are having so much difficulty with an insurgency the land component leaders tell us is about 20,000 in strength versus what, 110,000 soldier and Marines? Ok, there may be bona fide reasons that even with that kind of advantage, success isn't in the cards for the near term. But isn't it still fair question as to whether the forces are properly organized, trained, and equipped - as to whether there might be some way we can do better? Shouldn't we try to determine if the current strategy is the right one? Is it wrong for me or others in the Air Force to be concerned about soldiers and Marines being killed and maimed every day?
Hypersensitivity to asking legitimate questions about the conduct of the war is not the way to save the lives of young troopers going into harms' way. You advocate silence as we watch our comrades in arms die, but that's just wrong. Challenging assumptions is not challenging the personal courage of individual soldiers and Marines, rather it is intended to try avoid losing even one of their lives unnecessarily. Maybe you are right and the Army and Marines are doing everything perfectly and there are no better answers, but that doesn't mean it is Ok to question the morality and patriotism of those who ask tough questions. Asking hard questions makes us better...exempting the Army and the Marine Corps from such queries does them a disservice.
Ralph, let me say this as a friend and admirer: you were very wrong to disparage the courage of people serving in your Air Force...that is not the Ralph Peters I know and respect. Moreover, you really don't know these young people or the sacrifices they have made and make every day. I don't know what this Colonel Davis told you, but there are a lot of soldiers and Marines with combat time who are pretty happy with our Air Force, and who would disagree with you vociferously.
You are upset because the Air Force takes care of its people better than the other services. Guilty as charged. But why does it make you so unhappy that anyone serving their country has a decent place to live and work? Would it be such a crime if Army and Marine families could have a similar standard?
Maybe one reason the USAF has such low rates of drug abuse and other misconduct is the environment we provide for our people. Maybe it's a reason we always meet our recruiting targets (and recruiting the kind of people the USAF mission requires isn't easy). Perhaps our sister services could learn something from us.
And, by the way, take a look at the senior officer housing in the Army and the Navy (though can't honestly tell you I've been in a Marine flag officer's quarters)...believe me, we have nothing to compare with some of the mansions I've seen just on the other side of the river here.
On more important subjects, you obviously are not concerned about China or any of the other potential peer competitors...and I sincerely hope you are right...but I think you ought to look at the literature (and this may surprise you, but many thoughtful soldiers and Marines are concerned about China as well...ask the Marines in Okinawa).
It may be, as you suggest, that the Army and Marines are wise to prepare to fight replays of Iraq in the future. I just don't think that that is the likely scenario; indeed, I think that those who do believe that are, in essence, already re-fighting the proverbial "last war" - but that is a debate we ought to be able to have without a lot of name-calling. Regardless, as a Nation we just can't assume that all future wars will be Iraq redux...or that everyone will bury their airplanes.
I'll be the first to say that the Air Force has its problems (and, true, many of them are self-inflicted). We are "down", and - like you - everyone is seizing the opportunity to kick us. In many respects, the Air Force is being taken to school as to its naiveté about parochialism.
Nevertheless, I will openly say that I believe that you and all of our critics are indeed making real headway, and may well succeed in deconstructing the Air Force as you desire. The result will be not a bunch of Air Force deaths that you seem to want to see (how many Air Force people need to die before the service has "courage" in your view?).
Rather, the sad truth is that the deaths will be of the soldiers and Marines you believe are better Americans than those wearing Air Force blue. It will be a very sad day when the ground forces of this country find out what it is like to try to fight without the control of the air they have enjoyed for fifty years.
Still your fan, but very perplexed....
Warm Regards, Charlie
Overall, though, the system works relatively well for such a massive organization as the Armed Forces of the United States, and each branch has much to be proud of what their members have contributed to this nation's defense over the years.
That said, I continue to be appalled by the small cadre of FReepers who level venomous, untrue slurs at the United States Air Force, and ridicule it's members bravery, patriotism, and war-fighting ability, as witnessed in this thread. As a former (peacetime) member myself, and the grandson of an Air Force Pacific War veteran who spent two years fighting the Japanese so these dimwits could sit in freedom & safety banging out abuse on keyboards directed at men like him, it turns my stomach--as it should any decent persons'.
Thanks for the ping.
I swear. . .
Well stated. Expertly argued.
You have a fine career ahead of you.
>>They're just uneducated about the capabilities of a an F-15 Strike Eagle.<<
PING to me!!
Bwahahaha. . .good one, and as we say; "SHACK"
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.