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."

[19th LA Inf]

I can think of a couple of other early jets before the F-4 that found use in both Navy and Air Force colors. The Douglas A3D/B-66 came about because of the Navy's desire for a nuclear strike jet aircraft. They put on a little show of force during the 1956 Oklahoma City airshow when a couple of them launched from somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, I think, and did a sweep over Will Rogers airport. The AF used the B-66 mostly in recon mode, I believe.

The FJ spinoff of the North American F-86 was one of the first really good Navy jet fighters and served both Navy and Marine wings.

Then there was the F-111 which MacNamara tried to force down the Navy's throat. I have heard that if it was parked on the flight deck in the standard tail-outboard position, it was likely to fall off into the water. But they served the AF for years in various tactical roles.

Vought's F8U was certainly one of the best air superiority fighters of its day on land or sea, but the great F8U-3 follow-on lost out to the F-4 when the Navy opted for two engines/two seats. Then it gave birth to the A-7 ground support fighter for the AF (short little ugly feller).

[SampleMan]

Again, yes.

1. An air campaign like the last war to take Iraq is put together as a joint operations. A list of targets is put together as a matter of joint input, it is prioritized, and then it is parceled out to different elements of the air services in theater. Room is left for targets of opportunity. At the end of every day (or more often) the list of remaining targets is poured over, new priorities are added, and endless changes are made. Then it all starts over. This continues until the ground forces own everything and there is nothing left to destroy.
2. Apportionment and targeting are directed by a joint staff. What element has the range, weapon, endurance to hit a given target? Does it matter. What is revisit time? A representative (usually several) from each service is there on the staff to provide expert input.
3. COGs? Maybe I'm just slow tonight, but I'm at a loss.
4. The Theater Commander always "owns" everything. Under him, he will have an air element commander. This does not have to be a USAF Officer. It will likely be whoever owns the most stuff in the AOR.
5. The USAF came into existence because it was felt that the priorities of the USA and USAAF were so divergent that one service could not concentrate on both effectively.

[SampleMan]

Actually the F-86 was a spin off of the Navy's FJ-1. Then the Navy came back with the swept wing FJ-4.

The USAF also very successfully used the Spad (Skyraider), and as you pointed out the A-7. The A-7 was incorporated only into the Air National Guard elements to appease the US Army, which kept pointing out that the USAF was abandoning close air support.

[Gunrunner2]

You are reaching. . .reaching way back.

Korea?

Okay, here goes (from a Gulf War I combat experienced ground FAC):

". . .which essentially eliminated the type of close-air support that only Marine pilots attempt, diving below tree-top level to deliver munitions just over the heads of the infantry. "

Nonsense.

Vietnam ring a bell? .

Back in the 80's I flew the A-10 and low level CAS was the plan of the day. Just ask ANY grunt on the ground in Germany that took part in the exercises.

Flying LOW is not a measure of "close." Not at all, and it's time people understood that fact.

Close has to do do with how close we deliver the munition. Altitude has nothing to do with it. CAS is basically the delivery of weapons while under positive control while in close proximity to friendly troops.

If you can deliver munitions accurately from outside the bad guy envelope, best do it that way. You increase your chances of surviving and being able to fly more missions. Flying low and into the teeth of the bad guys just because it looks neat in an air show is foolish. If you can deliver accurately from altitude or stand-off, do it. We USAF do fly into the teeth when the situation warrants and we pay the price (Steve Phillis, GWI).

Amateurs that watch too many movies and never studied the science of CAS always seem to make that same mistake. . .only believing CAS somehow means flying close to the ground.

Rubbish.

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. . .and just how is the Army supposed to support in the field a large fixed-wing and heavy aircraft when loaded with all those missiles and bombs. . .and those munitions are stored where?

[Gunrunner2]

>>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.<<

Spoken by someone that knows nothing of the fighter world in the Air Force.

Look, A-10's are fighters and I am a Fighter Pilot.

F-16's do the CAS mission (air to ground) and they are fighters and flown by fighter pilots.

F-15E's drop bombs and are fighter pilots.

Fighter vs attack is a Navy argument, not an Air Force argument.

[Gunrunner2]

No exceptions. . .just turn in your test and take your "F" like a man.

[Luke]

Thank-you, SwinneySwitch.

Most folks simply forget about the United States Coast Guard - not realizing that we are a branch of the Armed Forces. We also have fixed-wing and rotor aircraft but I don't think anyone would ever consider Coast Guard Aviation as being an air force.

Back in the early '60s there was a congressional attempt to find out why all branches of the military could not wear the same uniform, I suppose to save money. Vietnam heated up and the idea was forgotten. But at that time the howls of protest could be heard everywhere... and that was from just the officer corp. No one bothered to ask me what I thought at the time; ...which was ...one zipper was more user friendly than 13 buttons.

[Gunrunner2]

I'll give you a "B". . .nah, and "A-" (I'm feeling generous tonight).

>>3. COGs? Maybe I'm just slow tonight, but I'm at a loss."<<

That would be Centers of Gravity. Targets are targets are targets, but some are more important than others because of their impact and importance. A few select centers of gravity destroyed and you can win quickly, efficiently and with less loss of life. Basically, proper targeting as a result of effects-based attacks makes great strategic, operational and tactical sense. Why shoot every tank and every troop when you can drop a bridge that isolates the bad guys and they never enter the fight? You get the picture.

>>4. The Theater Commander always "owns" everything. Under him, he will have an air element commander. This does not have to be a USAF Officer. It will likely be whoever owns the most stuff in the AOR.<<

Partial credit. The air element commander is the Joint Forces Air Component Commander, and yes, sometimes he may not be Air Force, and it is not based on who owns the most stuff in the AOR. The JFACC is the guy with the preponderance of air assets AND the ability to command and control those assets. This is why you will never see an Army guy as JFACC, he may have the most air assets (helos), but he has no ability to command and control an air campaign. The Navy may be JFACC until the Air Force arrives and then a whole dance occurs as the JFACC shifts from afloat to ashore.

Nice job.

[pfflier]

God forbid, though, that'd force the USAF and Navy to come up with the same airplane to do the job (like the F-4 was) and we'd never do that.

The F-35 JSF is exactly that airplane.

Previous attempts at this were all McNamara 'd up when the USAF and US Navy learned that their aircraft have specified missions that dictated different configurations. The F-4 was a naval interceptor that met USAF needs but is was a lousy gun platform (it didn't have one), it had poor weaponry (AIM-7 that went ballistic off the rails), it had lousy rudder effectiveness (the Navy wanted an interceptor, not a dogfighter) and it had a huge drag ratio (chop the throttles and its skidded to a stop in six feet...30,000 feet up).

Different missions mean great mission oriented aircraft or mediocre "one size fits all" compromises. Compromises lose air superiority and get you POWs and KIAs. Mission oriented aircraft get performance like the F-15. Not one air-to-air loss...ever.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

Yes we should have more than one airforce.

It's never good to put all our eggs in one basket.

Just like if they put all the medical supplies with one unit and it got wiped out, where would they be?

[reg45]

Are you serious about rotating pilots?

Once the USAF pilots learn to fly off of aircraft carriers, then they will be true aviators.

[SampleMan]

Well, I know they can learn, we had an F-15 pilot that got qualled in Hornets. Its that currency thing that worries you. Plus its a completely different environment. The pucker factor of flying two hundred feet over water that you can't even see because its too dark isn't something you do every once in a while. Its like working on your roof. The first day you're scared as heck, by the end of the week you're dancing on the edge.

[SampleMan]

Thanks for the info. I'm familiar with the concept on centers of gravity, but I've never been on a JFACC staff. Remembering acronyms was never my strong point anyway.

Perhaps I generalized a bit too much on #4 to say that the selection is "whoever has the most stuff". Yes, it must be relevant, important stuff, and it wouldn't HAVE TO BE that service, BUT turf wars being what they are, it usually goes to that person. Wouldn't you agree?

[edwin hubble]

To answer the question, four air forces.

The Marines need their own Marine air support.

And would you want Air Force pilots attempting a carrier landing?

[Seniram US]

Your observation was astute, but that is exactly why I referred to Korea. The lessons learned in Korea brought about the necessary changes. It didn't seem as if a response to a post about the Marines and the Air Force required a complete dissertation on the advance of forward observers and the advance in technology. Rather, it was a remark about how the Marines through the years have worked closely and in most instance on a timely basis. And it seems that back in Korea, the Fifth Air Force did not prefer low level close-air supports.

It would seem that if the Air Force becomes the only service with aviation, it could revert back to the days of Korea, whereby Marines could not rely on Marine close-air support at any altitude.

And with regard to Vietnam, it doesn't ring a bell; however, I am quite familiar with the conflict and remember it well as the war in which the U.S. troops won every major battle on the field and for their tremendous sacrifices, they got abandoned by Congress.

Oh, by the way, John Kerry served in Vietnam.

On your last point, I am not familiar with any amateurs who watch too, many movies, so I'll pass on that.

In closing thanks for serving.

[StarCMC]

Very good points.

[StarCMC]

Interesting thread ping

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

BINGO!

Marines kick in the door, operate for 30-60 days and then move to the next door. Combined arms are required...the MAGTF Commander has to have the necessary fire support: organic, artillery, air, naval.

If we rely on one asset, it can be negated by weather, enemy action, countermeasures, or congressional (in)action.

Semper Fi,

[Kozak]

Previous attempts at this were all McNamara 'd up

Exhibit A. The F-111. Eventually became a pretty good bomber. Was MEANT to be that all around fighter bomber to fill both the AF and Navy's needs. Ended up too big. Too heavy. Not agile. Too expensive.