Who says the SKY is the limit?
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 ...
No one said to disband it, just that the idea that things with wing need to be an autonomous entity with it’s own goals, budget beauracracy is another. Let the Navy run the bombers and the army the attack aircraft. Bet it would still be the best in the air and probably more effective.
“Makes me wonder why the USN uses aircraft carriers. After all, the aircraft have so much trouble sinking enemy ships..”
Navair has a ship killing mission, but carrier based Navair is mainly focused on power projection, usually to a landmass. Naval doctrine calls for a combined air-sea action when sinking ships. Do a Google search for Operation Praying Mantis. In short, A-6’s attacked Iranian warships from one direction, while surface ships engaged from another.
Land based Navair is mainly focused on sub hunting, and subs generally don’t fight back. They just hide.
Unfortunately I couldn’t get the video to load. :( It looks like a good one from the comments. It may require Adobe Flash which I have not been able to install correctly on my PC since my Windows profile became corrupted and had to be recopied.
Obviously written in crayon by someone who couldn't make the grade to join the Wild Blue Yonder.
Who says the SKY is the limit?
Tacair is more than close air support. It includes air superiority and interdiction and theater airlift, to name a few.
Close air support is advancing rapidly through the use of armed UAVs, locally launched and controlled by the Army, and I’m all for that, but they still need fast-movers on station from bases far away, beyond the local Army commander’s turf.
strategic bombers could be managed by the navy as they already manage boomers
By the same logic, would you want the USAF managing our Navy's submarine force? The Air Force does already own two of the three elements of the Nuclear Triad and possesses an inherently stragegic role in our nation's defense.
No offense intended whatsoever, but please research the different roles and missions of our service branches as well as the history of our Air Force.
Respectfully,
SIDENET
Tactical wings could be rolled into the Army to support ground missions, as they were intended
This is a clear illustration of how simplistic the author's view was in the article. It sounds easy to say that the bombers go to the USN and tactical assets go to the Army.
But wait, what exactly is a srategic or tactical asset? In Operation Anaconda, I saw B-52s directly supporting ground troops. B-1s were there as well. In OIF, F-15Es and F-16Cs were dropping PGMs on preplanned targets in Iraq during "Shock and Awe". Anymore, "strategic" or "tactical" is much more defined by assigned mission, rather than airframe.
Possibly even more problematic is the question of who would get tanker, airlift, C2, and ISR aircraft. Who gets the AWACS? Who gets the tankers? If a C-17 is carrying paratroopers, I guess that the Army could lay claim to it, but how about if it were carrying B-52 parts to Diego Garcia?
If we were to divide up our Air Force assets among the Army and Navy, how would we ensure that they could achieve the proper mass of force against an enemy to be effective? Who would publish the Air Tasking Order? The Navy can do it, but would the Army's newly acquired air assets be on it?
All of this is to make the point that a separate Air Force isn't just some unnecessary appendage of our military with a role that can be easily absorbed by our other services.
Agreed.
Thanks.
Don't know when you served, but that's not true anymore. Not even close.
Very cool. Curious camera shot given the vectors on the wings and the proportion of the escort to the fueler.
I was hoping to see more pics on this thread.
The pic was taken over Iraq in September of 2006 by the wingman of the F-15E in the picture. Maybe I can dig up some more cool pics. That’s my only cool JSTARS photo, though.
>>Unfortunately, the Air Force has had a poor strategic record. In the Korean War, heavy strategic attacks on North Korean cities failed to reduce Communist capabilities. Operation Rolling Thunder — the campaign designed to destroy North Vietnamese will, transport capacity, and industry — went on for three years and had little noticeable effect on the course of that war.<<
>The problem today is not with the Air Force, but with the policy makers.<
The author evidently has NOT spoken with pilots who flew in North Viet Nam. Our pilots were not allowed to attack within 20 miles of the entire coastline. All targets were approved by the United Nations at least 24 hours before being attacked.
Now the part that gets me is, us not being allowed to attack the coastline, port or harbors, or any factories or anything built within 20 miles of the water.
I ask myself why not. If we had closed the harbors and railroads to China, we would have ended the war in a few months.
Or bombed the dikes north of Hanoi.
The sweetest sound in the world?
Dunno - but that little ‘snik’ sound the retarder make as they open on the Snake-eye just before it hits the wire ain’t so bad......
I understand your point. So far, we aren’t trying to project our force to other worlds, just our presence.
It was really RAF in name only - all of our bases in England are prefaced with RAF, and there was a small RAF headquarters on the base that nobody ever went to.
I had a great time there - even met my wife there (she was in my squadron.) And I still keep in touch with more people from there than from any other assignment I’ve had.
Nice new photo - too bad they blanked out the tail lettering. Those were some seriously loud airplanes.
Fact is that the Navy already has nuclear and flight experience. The USAF has no experience with ships so your argument is not valid.
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.