Should Uncle Sam have one air force instead of four?

MySA.com ^ | 04/28/2005 | Robert S. Dudney

[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."

[struwwelpeter]

'Air Forces' is a misnomer. Each service has a discrete mission that often requires the use of flying machines, whether jet or reciprocating engine, fixed wing or rotary. Should all Air Force trucks to the Army?

When I went to Lajes AB in the Azores, they had an interesting set up: The permanently stationed aircraft belonged to the Navy, the Army had a terminal tugboat unit, and the Air Force provided all the ground vehicles. It seemed to work.

[tet68]

The Marines would NEVER accept it.

[SampleMan]

The F-4 was developed for the Navy. Being the first Navy jet ever to out perform its ground based peers, it was quickly jumped on by the USAF, despited the fact that it was much heavier than it needed to be for their purposes, and therefore less effective than a purpose built aircraft would have been.

The JSF is designed to be the one size fits all aircraft, and it might well be, but there is a much longer list of failures in this category.

Are you serious about rotating pilots? If so, then why stop there? We can get rid of separate training for helicopters, fighters, patrol, bombers, etc. After all a B-52 and a Harrier are both airplanes, and pilots fly airplanes.

And ground forces! Yes!!! Nail on the head!!!! If we could just get the Marines and the Army to use the same weapons, ammunition, helmets, etc. we wouldn't have those pesky supply chain problems where the Marine M-16s won't chamber the Army's M-16 ammo. Wait, something is amiss?

[beelzepug]

"Wrong. In the late '40s the USAF tried to do just that..."

In the '60's they stole my Caribous and hollered till we stripped the rocket pods off our Mohawks. Took all the fun out of being in Army aviation.

[xzins]

My memory says that Marines take land that is critical to a naval operation and will hold it as long as it remains critical.

But, I also remember that MacArthur and Halsey were in pretty solid agreement with a few exceptions during WWII.

[Gunrunner2]

Yes.

And I have a few more questions:

1. Does anyone know how an air campaign is planned and executed?

2. Does anyone know how apportionment works and targeting?

3. Does anyone know about strategic COG's?

4. Does anyone know who "owns" the air campaign and why? (and if not the Air Force, then who and when/how is the transfer completed?)

5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?

Just asking.

[Gunrunner2]

>>these wings will have to be subordinate to the on scene commander.<<

Tunisia anyone?

[BoBToMatoE]

If this is another stab at the F-22, ungh. We really need that plane.. it is only a matter of time before the SU-37s and other new, advanced fighters really begin to outnumber and outgun us.

[joesnuffy]

No

In fact the Army should be given the Air Force's A-10s

IMO

[Centurion2000]

Even so, there are sound reasons to make the Air Force the "keeper" of the tactical aviation art

No there are no good reasons for giving the AF all the aviation.

1) We don't fight wars from 8 to 5 with weekends off.

2) Blue uniforms SUCK

3) In the Air Force, if you are not a fighter pilot you are a lesser creature. So air to ground missions and helos would be totally neglected.

[muir_redwoods]

An airplane is both a weapon and a vehicle. I would no sooner take rifles away from the air force than I would take planes away from the marines. All branches need weapons and vehicles.

[SauronOfMordor]

How about this to get the attention of Air Force types who think close ground support is "beneath" them: deployed US forces are deployed under the jurisdiction of various regional commands (eg, Central Command covers the middle east, Pacific Command handles the Pacific region, etc). Units of various service branches are deployed to various commands. My proposal is to have the commanders of the various commands write the promotion evaluations of unit commanders under their jurisdiction, rather than their service hierarchy. Thus, if you are the CO of an Air Force wing in Iraq, your promotability will be determined by how the CO CentCom likes how you are supporting his mission

And flag-officer promotions, of whatever branch, would be controlled by a board of ALL the regional commanders

Whatever your service branch, you would either be a team player, or be passed over and cashiered

[cowtowney]

"And I have a few more questions:
1. Does anyone know how an air campaign is planned and executed?
2. Does anyone know how apportionment works and targeting?
3. Does anyone know about strategic COG's?
4. Does anyone know who "owns" the air campaign and why? (and if not the Air Force, then who and when/how is the transfer completed?)
5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?"

Hey! Nobody told me there was gonna be a quiz. Jeesh! I'm not prepared.

[SampleMan]

The USMC is part of the Navy, therefore it is technically one service with two elements. Many operations have been done together, that indeed is the whole point. One such example is the battle for Guadalcanal, where Bull Halsey was in charge of the entire shebang.

There is nothing wrong with Joint, but separate missions are best left to separate services. They are then brought together to fight the battle.

[JOE43270]

5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?
I'll answer question #5 for you. In 1947 General Le May took us over to the other side of the tracks and made us a seperate Service. He got us better Aircraft and took real good care of us. We will still fly air support for our Army Brothers. We flew though the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam and other Times when needed. The Mission will change and we will have to adapt so we can fill the need. God Bless America.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Battle commanders (land or sea) need their own air assets. They do not need to have their air requests put on a list in the central air power office letting some air power weenie decide if that commander's request is a higher priority than what air power had planned for that day. <<

The Joint Force Commander establishes the strategic guidance and the Joint Forces Air Component Commander uses his forces to plan and execute an air war that supports the JFC guidance. . .and guess what. . .usually the JFC is Army or Navy, but sometimes Air Force. The JFACC may also be Navy, but when the shirt in air power occurs, like having the most and the ability to command and control those assets, then is shifts to the Air Force. While the Army may have more "aircraft" via helicopters, they do not have the ability to command and control an air campaign that spans an entire theater, not some chunk of airspace that is only 50 miles wide.

CAS is part of the apportionment and CAS can be planned or immediate. I never saw an immediate CAS request go unfulfilled.

Storming Norman from Gulf War I "fired" the first plan Gen Horner came up with because it was "local" in it's scope and had no clue about the effects of a true strategic air campaign. After Col Warden dropped by Rums/Powell and Bush and explained the concepts of CoG's, then Warden was sent over to Horner. Horner threw out Warden because Horner was an idiot. Warden's plan worked and Horner took all the credit.

There is much learning and evolution that has taken place over the years when it comes to the proper application of air power. . .all for the good.

[x]

Nooooooooo! It's a sign of the apocalypse!

[sgtbono2002]

There is a eallysimple answer for this question: If it aint broke dont fix it. Its fine the way it is.

[Americanexpat]

It ain't broke don't fix it.

[R. Scott]

The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.

No, not entirely – but they fought against the Army arming it’s helicopters and succeeded in limiting Army aviation to rotary wing when it lost that fight.
Each service has unique needs. When an Army or Marine Battalion Commander needs close air support, it is far more efficient to go to his boss than to have to beg the Air Force for assets. The same applies to the Army’s waterborne landing craft. If it had to depend only on the Navy there would be few amphibious landing conducted by the Army.