Posted on 04/28/2005 3:23:19 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
WASHINGTON — Army Lt. Gen. David Barno, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, had the task of covering that huge country with just 18,000 troops.
It was possible to do so, he observed, because "airpower from all the services ... have given ground forces ... the ability to operate in smaller units and respond quicker, with more accurate weaponry, than at any other point in history."
Over the last 15 years, many have come to regard airpower as the key to victory, in war zones ranging from the gulf to the Balkans, from Afghanistan to Iraq. Fighter forces, in particular, have proved to be effective, destroying defended targets, supporting fast-moving land forces and dominating the sky.
Yet serious questions keep cropping up. Is the size of the tactical fighter fleet about right or is it "excessive"? The USAF fighter force has fallen from 37 to 20 wings. Navy and Marine Corps aviation arms have shrunk, too.
Top Pentagon leaders claim the armed services invest too much in fighters. They see air dominance as one area in which the U.S. has "excessive overmatch." The new National Defense Strategy, released March 1, suggests cutting some of the overmatch so as to better fund new capabilities and expand ground forces.
According to "Inside the Navy," a newsletter, Deputy Defense Secretary-designate Gordon England recently told reporters he sees great potential in "integrating" Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Army aviation. England left no doubt about the basic objective: "If you can gain efficiencies in tactical forces," he said, "what else can you do with the money?"
Any such move now could pit the Air Force, the Navy/Marine team, and, to a degree, the Army against each other, conceivably igniting a dustup over roles.
The last such tussle came in the mid-1990s. It was sparked by Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who lamented, among other things, that America's was "the only military in the world with four air forces." A blue-ribbon Commission on Roles and Missions, or CORM, spent more than a year pondering the subject.
The commission found the supposed "problem" proved to be largely illusory. CORM in 1995 reported, "Inefficiencies attributed to the so-called 'four air forces' were mostly in the infrastructure, not on the battlefield."
Second, CORM concluded that a little redundancy isn't a bad thing. A recent case in point: the pivotal role played by naval air in the first weeks of war in Afghanistan — a remote, landlocked nation far outside the Navy's usual mission focus.
Third, overlap fosters interservice competition, often resulting in better systems or concepts of operations, whether they concern close air support, long-range strike or something else.
The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.
Even so, there are sound reasons to make the Air Force the "keeper" of the tactical aviation art. The air arms of the other services are limited; their primary purpose is to perform missions tied directly to their basic land power, sea power or amphibious roles.
Yet, Pentagon officials should be cautious before tampering too much with the current size and structure of the services' tactical air forces.
They would do well to heed the admonition of Gen. Gregory Martin, who has commanded U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the Air Force Materiel Command and who recently warned:
"Nothing works without air and space dominance. Nothing. We don't want to assume that we will always have it. We want to always understand what it takes to get it, and we want to make sure we are building the systems that will give it to us."
Didn't the Commandant of the Marine Corps recently offer to take over the A-10 program if the Air Force abandonded it?
You said it all, thanks. I wasn't clear enough about the F-35 in terms of the three configuration. I was referring more to a joint services procurement plan.
In Naval Aviation school, they say "Don't worry! If you wash out, there is always the Air Force."
"The Navy. . . it's not just a job. . .it's a silly job"
(At least that would have been an honest recruiting slogan)
The only reason the Air Force wanted the MX in the late 80's was so that they wouldn't have to give up nuclear superiority - to the Navy!
Right. . .three words for ya: "In the Navy" (Village People)
Somebody said this with a straight face?
What does the A stand for?
Well, I suppose everything can be a fighter. Throw some AMRAAM on a B-1 and you got yourself a long range fighter. No pesky escort required either.-
I always thought that air to air radar is kinda handy in modern fighters. Many century fighters had air to air (F-101, F-102, F-106) In fact, many pre-century fighters had air to air (F-86D, F-89, etc.). Many WWII fighters had air to air. But if you don't think its important in a modern fighter, you can turn yours off.
I forgot that attack helicopters are fighters too. They carry air to air and are very tough to deal with if you go low with them. I have no doubt that your A-10 could turn inside of an over anxious fighter (err...pointy nose) pilot. The S-3 could handily turn inside an FA-18. The problem is that it only works if the pointy nose guy doesn't have look down shoot down and is silly enough to actually come in close at maneuvering speed. Sopwith Camels can also turn inside every modern pointy nose aircraft.
I'm assuming that the swacked F-16's got that way via Sparrow, AMRAAM, or maybe a face shot?
We'll just have to disagree about the "fighter" thing. My definition goes beyond having an air to air capability. For me it goes to whether the primary mission of the aircraft is air to air or air to ground. But there's no shame in the Navy in being attack. I knew a skipper that transitioned his squadron from A-7s to FA-18s and forebade his aviators from calling themselves fighter pilots. His point was that with two F-14 squadrons on board, the Hornet was to be an attack aircraft and that mission was primary over air to air.
But hey, if the USAF wants you all to be fighter pilots, then you're a fighter pilot.
If I was tasked to plan our future defense needs, air , ground or sea power.......I'd plan on having to fight China, Russia, South America and the terrorist 5th element that would accompany any such fight "all at once".........
Such a plan would clearly involve airpower of such a scale never seen or needed before in the history of modern warfare. Pay for it by stopping all foreign aid yesterday.
I'd double the carrier task forces and new special operations submarines in the navy. Triple the MEF's in the Marines. And ensure that every state in the union supports a active duty military complex that is a combined Army and Air Force base.......kind of like Ft Bragg and Pope AFB or Ft Lewis and McChord AFB.
Primary on my list of improvements would be to re-establish the nuclear triad of land based ICBM's, bombers on alert and boomers at sea to their prior ability. A swiss style militia in the CONUS with men and women between age 18 and 65 would be tasked to counter that 5th element of terrorists with an armed society system such as we see in Israel ........
Just some ideas......
Who's gonna pay for all that?
I have to agree with Jeff Head. I am just completing Dragon's Fury and the real threat is going to come from multiple directions and folks we ain't ready for that with the gutted military I see everyday.
Are you still flying the F-15E? That's a nice airplane too.
I'm just rattling your cage about all the "fighter" stuff.
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.