Posted on 11/02/2007 1:36:49 PM PDT by DesScorp
Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post–September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.
In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published an article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively" about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities.
Surely, this is not the way the United States Air Force had planned to celebrate its 60th anniversary. On Sept. 18, 1947, Congress granted independence to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), the branch of the U.S. Army that had coordinated the air campaigns against Germany and Japan.
But it's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
“However, if today’s Air Force had hit the beach at Normandy, the landing force wouldn’t have encountered much opposition. ;-)”
If we used today’s forces at Normandy, the Army and Navy wouldn’t be involved at all....we’d have hit enemy bunkers via aircraft carrier and precision missiles from ships, and then landed the Marine Corps. The only reason we didn’t use Marines in Europe in WW II was the service rivalry between Army and USMC; Europe belonged to Army, and for the most part, the Pacific belonged to the Corps (though the Army was still involved in some Asian battlegrounds). Remember, the Marines were heavily involved in Europe during WW I, so there was no real military reason for the Europe/Pacific division. Creating an amphibious Army was more of the more stupid, wasteful things we did in WW II. Unless there simply weren’t enough Marines to go around, it made much more sense to leave amphibious operations to the experts. Much of the USMC’s amphibious equipment was taken away from them after the war’s end, and we paid for that stupidity dearly in Korea.
“At a time when we are more dependent on space than ever before, the need for the Air Force cannot be understated.”
As I posted elsewhere, again, why should USAF get to monopolize space forces? Space certainly transcends earth battlespace divisions. If its just a matter of space weaponry, the Navy can certainly launch sea-based missiles into orbit, and as powerful as modern rocket motors are, the Army could literally launch such vehicles from the back of a truck.
Of course they are real, they have all of those Generals.
Seriously, perhaps we do not need redundant bureaucracies, but I simply cannot see eliminating the Air Force as a sensible idea in any way at all.
“Absent the air power, the US ground forces would have been in seriously adverse fights. Yep.”
Who advocated eliminating Air Power? Not the author of the article, and certainly not myself. The author suggested eliminating the Air Force bureaucratic entity, not airpower. NO ONE is advocating that airpower be ignored, far from it. The author’s argument, agree or not, was that USAF could actually be hindering many of the aerial missions. He never said, “yeah, stupid airplanes, lets get rid of them”. He’s simply advocating the return of those missions to the Army for the most part, and divying up a few of them to the Navy and USMC.
“Read a history book. The Air Force was originally part of the army.”
Ummm....who’s disputing this? Certainly not the author or myself.
F111 photo is updated. Thanks.
Should we use Bosnia? What % did the Air Force say they destroyed? Then the cease fire happend and the Serbs started moving all this “supposed to be destroyed equipment”.
Sorry to interrupt any USAF bashing by people who have NO freaking idea what they are talking about, but here’s my two cents.
First off, basically the fighters ARE controlled by the Army commanders in Iraq at least, where I just came from flying lots of CAS missions in F16s. Its called “commanders intent” and that is relayed through J-TACS who are internally attached to US Army units. What this all means is we get tasked by ground pounders, we show up, we find the target, we ask “mother may I” and then a USAF enlisted troop working with the local ground commander (normally a Major or LtCol) lets us kill whatever needs killing. Its called being “cleared hot” and its 100 percent at the request and permission of the Army or Marine commander.
All that being said, this article is just plain stupid. The Air Force does things the Marines/Navy/Army can’t. This guy argues his point poorly and starts off quoting the Lancet, which is only off by 800 or 900 percent on their casualty estimates. Not a good start.
“The reason we need an independent Air Force is that the Army is clueless about airpower.”
Wow, where do I start with this statement? Ignoring the blatant insult to the Army, you’re using circular logic here. Airpower first flourished under the Army, becoming the most powerful air power of its time. Its kind of hard to say that the Army was “clueless” about airpower when strategic bombing, transport of airborne infantry, and ground support ops were all nurtured during the time when the Air Force was the Army Air Corps.
“Ground pounders are not qualified to think on how to employ fast moving aircraft.”
That’s because fast moving aircraft absolutely suck at close air support. The very reason the A-10 was created was born from our experiences in Vietnam where F-4’s couldn’t hit the side of a barn when it came to troop support, and the Army demanded (and got) slow movers like Sandys and Puff that could actually hit their targets. Interdiction is not the same as close air support, and some people in the Air Force still don’t see the difference. The very fact that USAF brass tried to replace A-10’s with F-16’s painted lizard green (and rebadged “A-16”) shows this mentality is still alive in USAF. Bomb trucks for grunts don’t look good on recruiting posters. Lets get some more sports cars, boys!
“The main job of the USAF has NEVER been to strafe the enemy, nor should it be. CAS is not the main job of the USAF, nor should it be - that is a TERRIBLE way to employ airpower.”
And the ghost of Billy Mitchell lives. You just admitted what critics of the Air Force have been trying to deny for years...that airpower has been corrupted, from a tool to support our larger force objectives, to a a branch of the military that exists simply for the sake of having warplanes. We live here on the surface of planet earth. We sometimes have to fight for it. If an air force doesn’t exist to support the forces that are fighting for that ground, then why the hell does the Air Force exist at all? Simply for the sake of existing, like some government agency that has no purpose other than to perpetuate itself? Or does the Air Force live in floating cities high up in the clouds, far above the rest of us mortals?
Airpower originally consisted of planes spotting enemy positions to help our ground troops. Then those planes starting dropping bombs to help those ground troops. Then those planes starting shooting down other planes to protect those ground troops. At what point did airpower become a law unto itself, ignoring the very reason for its existence in the first place? Are you one of those people that honestly thinks airpower can win all wars by itself?
“Ground pounders are not qualified to think on how to employ fast moving aircraft.”
They’re damn sure qualified to tell you WHERE they need those strikes put. You said you wouldn’t want an air force officer in charge of armor battles. Why would you want an air force officer in charge of deciding where ground forces need support? Aren’t they the ones on the ground?
“Marines can get away with it only because the USAF is doing the job for them past the FEBA.”
Marines “get away with it” because the have the right idea in the first place; airpower is for supporting the total force objectives, and that first duty is to protect our own forces, not act independantly of them while they’re being shot up on the ground.
“If you think Army comm jamming is equivalent to USAF comm jamming, you are too ignorant to have any business posting.”
If you think jamming Al Qaeda field radios is a legitimate mission for $250 million dollar F-22’s, I would say the same about you.
“Where did I learn this lesson? 3 rotations at NTC.”
I always saw one main problem with NTC or JRTC.
The unit being evaluated was always the main effort so too many officers expect that when they deploy. They expect to be the main effort and will get all this support.
Part of the problem is perception. Ask a general if he got all the Fire Support, artillery, he needed, and he will say yes. Ask one of his company commanders and they will say no since the Fire Support didn’t support his unit.
Thanks for saying it.
“And they court-martialled Billy Mitchell because he pissed-off the conventional brass by sinking a warship from the air (something the Navy said could not be done) and then pretty much calling that same brass moronic and short-sighted.”
They court-martialed Billy Mitchell because he was an insubordinate @sshole. And WW II proved Mitchell wrong in some very important ways. Its one thing to sink an obsolete, unmanned ship that just sits in the water, not firing back. Its quite another when that ship has a skilled crew, is moving and fighting back. If Mitchell was right, then Japanese Kamikazes should have completely wiped the US Navy out. That didn’t happen. As for his prediction that only submarines would be effective in the future, the “prophet of airpower” completely missed the REAL future of military power....the advance of missiles, electronics, and computers; they made surface ships survivable against surface and air threats alike. Mitchell didn’t even foresee radar, which changed the game completely. Try attacking an Aegis cruiser and see how easy it is to sink.
“Tell you what: Have the infantry move to take out an inland target without having first had air interdiction, and then ask the survivors of that infantry, if there are any, if they would have liked to have had their objective softened up by “tough love from above” before they ever went in.”
No one ever, EVER said to abolish AIRPOWER. No one has ever denied that airpower is indispensable. No one EVER argued that troops should advance without air cover. The argument was that USAF doesn’t properly perform some of the close air support functions like they should.
“Back to the past? The Air Force was separated from the Army because Army commanders always wanted first priority use of airpower in their own geographical area. Any strategic use of airpower, such as bombing Iraq and Afghanistan from bases in the CONUS, requires that it be a separate service with its own chain of command. The same is true of long-range airlift and air refueling and air rescue.”
That brings up an interesting question...since strategic airpower was the Raison d ‘Etre for the independence of the Air Force in the first place, and since tactical air ops are mostly for the theater, why not simply give tacair back to the Army (as well as the transport mission), and leave long range bombers and ICBM’s to an independant USAF? The argument was that USAF really doesn’t want the ground support mission anyway. Why not simply divest them of it then? The Army has suggested this in the past, asking for A-10’s, but USAF always got into a pissing match about territory...fixed wing mine and mine only...you get rotorcraft, grunt.
Sounds like a Sandy talking.
I thought this video might be appropriate for this thread...
big grin as I post it. http://www.airshowbuzz.com/videos/view.php?v=00acbca5
1 - Yes, the USAF started as part of the Army. My Dad flew P-47s and P-51s for the Army Air Corps. Notice that even then they had started to pull airpower out of control of the local commander. Indeed, it was one of the lessons of WW2 that the USAF needed to be created.
2 - I say they are clueless because I’ve done a lot of coordinating with them. Very few Army officers comprehend the flexibility and maneuverability of airpower. I’ve had BN/CCs insist that aircraft need to stay directly overhead their BN for 8 hours - which is not only impossible, but would prevent the aircraft from responding to TICs in the TF 40 miles away. That is at the tactical level. Don’t even start on higher level uses, such as JSTARS, RJ, bombers, etc.
3 - Fast moving aircraft USED to suck at CAS. That was true when I was at NTC in the early 90s. However, since then the USAF has spent a ton of money on “targeting pods”, and weapons that can be dropped with great precision from 30,000 feet. The Litening and Sniper pods, and systems such as ROVER, make it possible in many cases to attack MORE accurately from 30K than from 500 feet.
Also, that speed allows a single aircraft to support 4 units at one time. How? Well, at least in Afghanistan, the enemy doesn’t have coordinated attacks across several hundred miles of space. Heck, OUR Army doesn’t seem to do much coordinated movement between adjacent battalions. Speed is what allows an aircraft that just supported a TIC west of Jalalabad to move and support a new TIC near Naray.
And again - there are many valuable roles filled by aircraft NOT tasked to supporting specific ground units.
I also spent about a year working on the A-10 PE program, which has successfully competed for USAF money to upgrade the A-10. But if you think an F-16 can’t do an awesome job of CAS, you are wrong. I’ve watched them (and F-15Es) do it.
4 - Yes, I said CAS was a terrible way to employ airpower. When you employ aircraft in CAS, it is a force additive...killing what is in range of the Army units to kill. That is fine when the Army is on the defensive. On offense, airpower becomes a force MULTIPLIER when you attack the NEXT echelon or beyond. You confuse direct support at the lowest tactical level for the ONLY way to support national objectives. Most of USAF efforts support the Army, but out of sight of the Army units. The 6 weeks of bombing prior to the GW1 invasion of Iraq were extremely valuable to the Army, as was the bombing that took place during GW2’s so called lull.
5 - Army officers can say where they want strikes. However, they often don’t get it - not because the USAF doesn’t care, but because there is greater need for a limited resource elsewhere. In many cases, such as the lull, the USAF is working strikes that will be more useful to the USA than what the local ground commander knows about. That is why putting the USAF under the thumb of a BN or BDE/CC is stupid. The USFK/CC got to approve the USAFK plan - but the experts of the Air Force built the plan (to the USFK/CC’s intent) and then explained it in exhaustive detail to him. There isn’t time to do that to every ground CC out there.
6 - The Marines rely on the USAF for strategic air, for RJs, AWACS, etc. They rely on the interdiction efforts of the USAF, and the deep bombing to interrupt the enemy’s C2. Those are valuable roles, which the Marines can not and do not fill.
7 - Apart from my own role planning and coordinating air, I have a vested interest in ground troops getting support - I’ve got a son in the Army and a daughter who used to be in the Marines. But there is no way that would happen properly if the USAF was moved back under the Army. We had this discussion in WW2 - lets not unlearn the lessons of the last 100 years!
Well, it might look like a country club to you if you are coming from your average Army post which looks like a ghetto, but I assure you it isn't. I for one won't apologize for the appearance of AFB's. The Air Force believes, unlike some other services, that it's most important asset is it's people. We have a saying in the AF: Take care of the troops and the troops will take care of the mission.
Good point. Makes me wonder why the USN uses aircraft carriers. After all, the aircraft have so much trouble sinking enemy ships...
why not simply give tacair back to the Army (as well as the transport mission),
Puhlease! I saw how the Army worked local airlift in Afghanistan. Giving our C-130s to the Army would be insane!
The author did not say to scrap the USAF, he said: strategic bombers could be managed by the navy as they already manage boomers and would coordinate their efforts to acheive goals set by the CIC without grandstanding,competing for resources and seperate beauracracies. Tactical wings could be rolled into the Army to support ground missions, as they were intended and marine aviation wouls continue to work along side the Marines. Makes sense.
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.