Abolish the Air Force

The American Prospect ^ | Nov. 1, 2007 | Robert Farley

[Dov in Houston]

Thank You Sir. For both You and Your Sons Service.

[SIDENET]

Fact is that the Navy already has nuclear and flight experience. The USAF has no experience with ships so your argument is not valid.

Yes, the USN definitely has nuke and aviation experience, but to assume that they should take over the job done by platforms like the B-2 and Minuteman? Do you think that the USN would even want those missions? I doubt that they would. My point was that it would be ridiculous for the USN to absorb those missions from the USAF. I believe that is a valid point.

What about the rest of my argument? What about which service should get all of those other nice USAF aircraft? Please tell me if you have a good answer.

I reread the article and it reminds me of when someone (who doesn't know either platform) tells me with a straight face that the E-3 and E-2 are "the same" because they are both Airborne Early Warning and Control platforms.

The author is an idiot.

[Eye of Unk]

If I may add my bit about an observation of historical sci-fi films and video games set in the future almost no mention is given to the term “Air Force” other than some derivative of Space command or the sort I have frequently seen the tern=m “Navel or Navy” used.
I do think that the Air Force may very well get absorved into a combined asset in the future.

[Eye of Unk]

In the future maybe Britannia will rule the waves?

[Eye of Unk]

Comparing the Raptor to a Falcon, kinda funny since a Falcon technically is a Raptor type of bird.

[MNJohnnie]

More rubble means less trouble

Amen!

[MNJohnnie]

They fought tooth and nail to get rid of a superb CAS aircraft in the low-stall-speed, long-legged, well-protected, and well-armed A-10 to replace it with more F-16s, which had none of those qualities. They've always considered strategic bombing and interdiction to be a much higher priority.

Not actually true. They got rid of an airplane designed to do one thing, shoot the crap out of large Russian armor columns and replaced it with a multi purpose aircraft. And they did it because new technology has been developed for killing armor that are far better at it, and much better able to survive a hostile air envelope the the big slow A-10 with the big gun.

During the 2003 liberation of Iraq 2 F-16s flew to the support of a forward detachment facing an overwhelming attack by a battalion of Republican Guard armor. They each dropped 2 Self forging penetrators bombs and wasted half a battalion of Iraqi armor in about 1 minute. The rest of the battalion promptly soiled themselves, then surrendered. The F-16s could deliver that munition in a most timely fashion, the big slow A-10 couldn't have.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke.

[joe fonebone]

"Go ahead and tell that to the widows and orphans of guys who died flying for the USAF, a##wipe"
I guess you were not in the military, because you do not get the interservice rivalry..all done in good fun, a$$wipe....

[JamesP81]

Funny, USAF is selling it as a multi-role machine to justify the purchase.

That's probably just something to placate the pols to get them to actually appropriate the money for it. In WW2 the Mustang was touted as multi-role, but everyone who flew it knew it's first and best purpose was to shoot down German planes.

[SampleMan]

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.

Then logically, you could just go to one military service like the Chinese who have things like, The People's Liberation Army Navy Air Element.

However you want to structure it, the bureaucracy and end fighting remain, unless you do something very simple. That is make one service that has the primary role in theater dominant over the others. I assure you that the People's Liberation Army and the People's Liberation Army Navy and the People's Liberation Army Air Force have to solve the same problems.

[SampleMan]

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.

That's nice. We have some sayings in the Navy,
"Tell the men to fire faster. Fight 'til she sinks, boys. Don't give up the ship."
"Never give up the ship!"
“I have not yet begun to fight.”
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!".

There is nothing I could find concerning finer linens or topiary. Taking care of your people is fine. Pampering them at the cost of squandering the taxpayer's money and reducing warfighting capability is negligence.

When I go to an Army base, I think the facilities are too rustic. When I go to a Navy base, I feel like I'm at a gritty factory getting the job done, without too much discomfort. When I go to an Air Force base, I wonder how perfectly manicured flower beds and an endless plethora of support billets are keeping me safe. When I go to a Marine Corpse base, I see completely focused warriors and a Spartan but neatly kept base of operations.

Bad facilities demotivate people, but pampering is a waste of taxpayer's dollars and detrimental to the warrior character.

[driftdiver]

“Leave the air force alone. They earn their pay.”

I wasn’t attacking the air force.

[MNJohnnie]

Sorry didn’t mean that comment to you specific but as a as a general statement towards the people, like the author of this piece, who think reinventing the wheel is a good idea

[Mr Rogers]

It varies from base to base. Quantico is a heck of a lot nicer and better kept than Edwards AFB (the base housing I lived in there had swamp coolers, walls that were crumbling, and my internet service managed to download at rates of 300-400 bytes/sec through the phone lines). Whidbey Island NAS is a heck of a lot prettier than Cannon AFB. And while I’ve only got 24 years in the USAF, I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of flower beds on USAF bases.

[SampleMan]

My experience with USAF bases is limited to the East Coast. I almost always stay at one if I can over a Navy or Army base, because they are nicer. As you said, it does depend on location. The Navy’s SSBN bases are very nice, and there are some great ocean side quarters at certain bases.

I’ve never been on a “nice” Army base, but I’m sure a few exist.

Perhaps we should start a forum on the best bases to visit ;-)

[proudmilitarymrs]

Thanks so much for that video. It gave me chills and made me weep with pride.

[Portcall24]

I once spent an hour, along with five other individuals, privately talking with Westmoreland, many years after he’d retired. When asked what one factor would have made a difference during the War, he said unrestricted use of B-52’s. Nothing makes your point like an Arc Light.

[donnab]

My pleasure...it is a good one.

[joe fonebone]

I was on the Kennedy, and my brother ( a pampered air farce type ) met me at the pier when we came in, and I took him on board. After about half an hour on the ship, he said “ Man, I could never work in these conditions”..typical pampered puke...Navair, baby!!!!

[AndyJackson]

LET THEM BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF OUR ENEMIES.

This is the aggressive and really stupid counterproductive thinking that got us in a mess in Iraq. This is not how you win hearts and minds and has not worked as an effective civlian pacification strategy since the beginning of time