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."
>>I'm just rattling your cage about all the "fighter" stuff.<<
NOW you tell me.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200008/ai_n8921368
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.
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!!!!
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.
>>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.
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...
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.'
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.
You have a firm grasp of the obvious. No wonder you are a squid.
The inter-service rivalry apparent on this thread means that all is well.......If everyone agreed, THEN I'd be worried.
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.
A replacement for which aircraft?
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.