Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Uncle Sam have one air force instead of four?
MySA.com ^ | 04/28/2005 | Robert S. Dudney

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."


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airforce; army; marines; navy; oef; oif
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last
To: SampleMan

>>I'm just rattling your cage about all the "fighter" stuff.<<

NOW you tell me.


141 posted on 04/30/2005 7:28:30 AM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2

Context of MSM question...

First, the shooting through schools. I think the movie was "Johnny Danerously" or something like that. A guy pulls a enormous handgun out of his jacket and someone says, "Man what is that!" to which he responds, "It's an 88 magnum, it shoots through schools."

Well my buddy and I were listening to some MSM idiot reporter asking an A-10 pilot fresh from a mission (pointing at the gun muzzle on the A-10), "So what is this thing and what does it do?" Of course this was also when the MSM was reporting outside the "Baby Milk Factory". We immediately both thought the same thing regarding an appropriate answer, "That there, is a 30mm cannon, it shoots through schools."

I'm very familiar with the nice IR qualities of high-bypass. Its also nice having them outside of the fuselage.


142 posted on 04/30/2005 7:29:41 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

We should only have one air force for the same reasons only one service should be in charge of any and all types of computer systems in the military services.


143 posted on 04/30/2005 7:31:47 AM PDT by Cvengr (<;^) That reason is the 'null' set.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Yeah.. I can see the connection. Some of the dumbest questions ever are from MSM, and the sad thing is. . .I expect dumb questions because the MSM has no clue, no knowledge, no awareness of the subject they are supposed to be reporting on, and it doesn't matter if they have no idea about the subject, as long as a republican is for it (or conservative), they are against it.
144 posted on 04/30/2005 7:41:33 AM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Incorrect. Something you failed to learn at Canoe U., obviously. Marines and squids both serve in the sea service. Although I had the misfortune of having to serve with a number of mediocre and lackluster squids, along with a few excellent ones, I didn't serve in the same naval service that they did. You can flap your gums as long as you like and it won't change that fact. The Marine Corps and the navy are two separate and distinct branches of the military which happen to report directly to the same appointed civilian leader.


145 posted on 04/30/2005 8:50:00 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
No. The frogs retired the F-8 in 1999.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200008/ai_n8921368

146 posted on 04/30/2005 8:56:52 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

If he did then he's contradicting himself. The Marines didn't want the A-10 when they were supposed to get some of them in 1991 and they don't want them now. The Corps wants to get to one tactical airframe.


147 posted on 04/30/2005 9:08:20 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
I can see at least one advantage of having different branches of the services, whether it be air forces, or ground troops or whatever. We all have heard the old adage about generals preparing to figh the last war. If you have one force, and the powers to be guess wrong, your entire military establishment is weakened. If you have one force that makes better decisions, even if it is a numerically smaller one like the Marine Corps, when the fit hits the shan they `are better prepared to fight and the other services can learn from them.

The same goes true for the fight for resources. Even with inefficiencies, the various factions fighting for money helps keep a balance where no one aspect is ignored as it might be with one great, monolithic command structure.
148 posted on 04/30/2005 9:17:22 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Interesting how they "just happen" to report to the SECNAV. Kinda like the Army just happens to report to the Secretary of the Army.

What an amazing coincidence!!!!


149 posted on 05/01/2005 4:20:34 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2

The agreement between the army and the air force is that the army takes rotary and the air force takes fixed wing.

For the bombs, one has to deal with the air force. It's a good working compromise if the results of our last few wars are any indication.

Therefore, the army doesn't get the jets. In that case, it has to send up an air support request, and if rejected, has to work it with the theater commander who is above the supporting air expeditionary force and in control of all forces.


150 posted on 05/01/2005 2:23:32 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: xzins
>>In that case, it has to send up an air support request, and if rejected, has to work it with the theater commander who is above the supporting air expeditionary force and in control of all forces.<<

The Army determines apportionment for "their" sorties, not the Air Force (JFACC); therefore, a) if there is a disagreement on apportionment then the various Corps/Division/Brigade commanders take it up with the LCC commander. If it is for CAS, then there is the immediate TARN. As I said earlier, I have never seen an Immediate request go unanswered.
151 posted on 05/01/2005 4:05:30 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

>>The Marines didn't want the A-10 when they were supposed to get some of them in 1991<<

I am going to have to ask you to provide proof that they ever were offered the A-10. Really.


152 posted on 05/01/2005 4:06:59 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hat-Trick
Gotta believe the Army understand the requirements, necessities and importance of blowing up enemy tanks and artillery much better than the USAF.

But they don't understand flying. I spent 2 years as an ALO, and there is no idea WORSE than letting the Army control airpower. They understand the need (as does the USAF guy with them on the ground!), but they don't have clue one about how to deliver it.

Well, maybe Hillary as Pres is a worse idea, but...

153 posted on 05/01/2005 4:37:53 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
You'll have to search through the Congressional Record to find the directive from the Armed Services Committee and my copy of Proceedings that dealt with this is archived in storage but the following deals with the issue, albeit in a rudimentary manner. You are aware that the Air Force wanted to begin getting rid of the A-10 prior to Desert Storm aren't you?

'In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A's and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.

However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CAS mission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed.'

154 posted on 05/01/2005 4:38:44 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

The F-16, equipped with SADL/MIDS and 3rd gen targeting pods, is a great CAS platform. Even its 'legs' have gotten longer with time.


155 posted on 05/01/2005 4:45:40 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

You have a firm grasp of the obvious. No wonder you are a squid.


156 posted on 05/01/2005 4:46:25 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

The inter-service rivalry apparent on this thread means that all is well.......If everyone agreed, THEN I'd be worried.


157 posted on 05/01/2005 5:20:47 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Never were "ordered" by congress. If you think there ever was such an order, and because you made the allegation, please cite the congressional record.

The congress cannot "order" the executive branch to transfer assets from one service to another. That would violate all sorts of laws (and common-sense). Likely the reporters you read have no clue about the aircraft nor its mission(s). Can you imagine the congress ordering the Navy to turn over aircraft carriers to the USAF? Same thing. It's nonsense, as well as stepping all over the separation of powers and the role of the Commander-in-Chief.

As far as being aware of the history and future of the aircraft. . .*snort*. . .read my bio, Bucko.

As far as "ordering" the USAF to retain the A-10 for the CAS mission, again, who said so and, again, the reporter hasn't a clue.

The A-10 was assuming the role of the O/A-10, as in airborne FAC. . .hence the O/A-10 designation. Same jet, just different emphasis in training squares.

Details, please. You make the allegations now provide the official record.

I'll stand by. . .
158 posted on 05/01/2005 5:29:58 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Thanks for the complement! And might I say, you have a curious fixation with the mundane, but I wouldn't want to credit that to the entire USMC.

Take a long breath and smile. There are people out there ready to fly jetliners into skyscrapers. I'm not one of them.


159 posted on 05/02/2005 10:08:28 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

A replacement for which aircraft?


160 posted on 05/06/2005 11:38:11 AM PDT by AF_Blue (It's the color of the sky when you look up to watch the jets fly over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson