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."

[SampleMan]

"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."

A-10s are fighters? What's the "A" stand for? How's your vertical vector? Air to air radar? Medium range air to air?

I'll accept the F-16 is both. But what of the F-15E. The last time I checked they weren't allowed to compete at the USAF fighter competitions (probably because someone was afraid they would win). Not that I'm an expert on the aircraft, but I also understand that it is subject to the laws of physics with those saddle tanks, with non fighter type G limit.

Now this might just be how you define the word, but the MSM calls everything that doesn't say "United" on the side a fighter, and that really chaps my hide.

Finally, would someone pleeaaseee explain to this idiot (that's me) how to get someone else's post or part of it in italics? I just can't figure it out and I'm throwing in the towel.

[Oztrich Boy]

The nazis and soviets also had monolithic air forces that while were good, were not as good or as flexible as the 4 individual American air services. Look how poorly the nazis did naval support and how poorly the soviets did at trying to develop a carrier force. Both had some naval aircraft, but in virtually every case they were planes designed to operate from land bases and not as good as the American navy's planes.

Actually athough the Soviets had "one Air Force" (Not quite true The Air Defense Force (PVO) which controled the Motherland defence Radars, interceptors, and SAMs was entirely separate from the AF), the actual airfroce had several autonomous components.
Long Range Aviation - strategic and theatre bombers
Frontal Aviation - air support to the ground forces (includes local Air to air)
Miltary Transport Aviation - they carry stuff
Naval Aviation = ASW, reconnisance, and strike
Army Aviation - helicopter lift anh attack
Border Guards Aviation

And the carrier force problems were down to shortage of money, and possinbly complications in designing/building the steam cat.

The actual Su-33, MiG 29K aircraft are as good as any designs anywhere.

[SampleMan]

And by the way, you fly Warthogs? Coooool.

Does that gun really shoot through schools?

May the mighty TF-34 push you onward to glory.

[Free and Armed]

It's best to leave the services alone, let each of them use their own form of air power. The Air Force has its mission, the Army needs its helicopters, and the Marines use their planes to support Marines. Our system works nicely now, no need to try and change it based on theories.

[AF_Blue]

I do, as well.

[SampleMan]

Ditto then. Any internal talk in the USAF about a replacement aircraft, or are they still bent on retiring the concept?

[Hat-Trick]

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

Wholeheartedly agree. Gotta believe the Army understand the requirements, necessities and importance of blowing up enemy tanks and artillery much better than the USAF.

[Old Airplane Driver]

That happened on 1 January 1967! Don't worry the Air Force took good care of them and had a ball flying them! Besides, you shouldn't hold a grudge against anyone but our respective Chiefs of Staff, who penned the agreement. For my part, I just got orders to fly one.

Old Airplane Driver
Once Upon A Time, Long Ago
Capt, USAF
535th TAS/483rd TAW
Cam Ranh Bay AB, RVN
And Bou Driver Extraordinaire!

[El Conservador]

The Canadian Armed Forces already consolidated command.

We now know how well that turned out to be. *eyeroll*

[xzins]

Good history, but I'll bet you that a division or brigade commander wants to control his own air cav. Just faster horses with a louder gallup.

[SampleMan]

To build on your point about CAS, the B-52s did a great job with JDAM at CAS from 30,000 feet.

I would say though that the attempt to move away from low altitude was premature, and only recently (last 10 years) has it really been possible. I'm not saying your point is wrong, just that weaponry didn't fully support the move until recently. The price has come down substantially, and JDAM allows area coverage (hit a ridge line with a stick of bombs) that just wasn't feasible before from those altitudes. Partly too, I think that the US Army's move into traditional CAS in the FEBA with their attack helicopters, alleviated part of the burden on the USAF.

[RavenATB]

Yes

[SampleMan]

"And the carrier force problems were down to shortage of money, and possibly complications in designing/building the steam cat."

I would have been a doctor, it was just the science stuff I had a problem with :)

I would say that operating a carrier is harder than building it. The Soviets were a long way from putting fleet carriers to sea. Not that they were too dumb, they were simply involved with the prospects of fighting a land war in Asia, and we all know what kind of a headache that is.

[pepperdog]

Anybody remember Robert McNamara and the FB-111? I rest my case.

[The Iguana]

I say better to have too much air power than not enough.

Everything we do in terms of power projection depends on air superiority.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Hope this helps;

Basic html formatting

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38890ecf73d4.htm

[Oztrich Boy]

Anybody remember Robert McNamara and the FB-111? I rest my case.

The old FB-111(still truckin') is OK. You may mean the F-111B

[A.A. Cunningham]

The F-4 was developed for the Navy.

The Phantom II was developed for the Navy and the Marine Corps.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The USMC is part of the Navy,

Bulls***. The Commandant doesn't answer to the CNO.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

The F-111 boondoggle of trying to make an all service aircraft was known as the TFX Program.