Abolish the Air Force

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

[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.

[Kozak]

The F 22 will shoot down an F 18 999 our of 1000 times.
Not even the F 15 has been able to lay a glove on the F 22 in air to air combat simulation. Every sortie ends up with the Raptor opponent toast.

[Eye of Unk]

[Eye of Unk]

[ought-six]

“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.”

I think the Japanese admiral at the Battle of Midway would disagree with you, since he lost three carriers to US aircraft. And those carriers were neither unmanned nor obsolete.

[Jet Jaguar]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920690/posts

Pilots tallying fewer bombings as Iraq hits lull

FWIW

[Gene Eric]

>> I think the Japanese admiral at the Battle of Midway would disagree with you

Japan lost a lot more than a few carriers to the USAAF.

[Gene Eric]

So the F-22 kicks butt. I found this comment on www.airliners.net regarding the F-22N

"The fact is that USN politics will not allow the buy of a USAF aircraft, that is why the USN will not get a F-22N."

And here's something else off www.globalsecurity.org:

In early 1991, before the final contractor for the ATF was even selected, the consideration of the NATF was dropped. This was mainly due to the fact that the Navy realized that a series of upgrades to their existing F-14's could meet the Navy's air superiority needs through 2015.

The F-22N was studied in the Major Aircraft Review as an NATF concept, and canceled in large measure because the projected high gross take-off weight exceed the capacity of current carriers.

Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) 1988-1991

oh well...

[SampleMan]

He clearly states that the USAF was originally a part of the ARMY and became a seperate branch after a desire to gain prestige.

In which he is pushing his own agenda. I'm certain that we would not be best served with the strategic nuclear mission and space missions under Army command (no bad on the Army, but these programs need their own focused approach).

I think the issue of whether the Army should have its own fixed wing attack aircraft is a good question.

[Non-Sequitur]

And it was written when? I guess their crystal balls were out of commission. Smiles oh so sweetly.

Then there's always Article V, isn't there?

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you saying the Constitution doesn’t allow for the common defense?

Which is why it funds an Army and a Navy. It also says to promote the general welfare, which is how all these other cabinet posts like Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, etc. came to be.

[Calpernia]

I like your idea better. Can we add the NEA to it?

[sphinx]

The real question for the airforce is how long men will still be in the cockpits.

[SampleMan]

BTW, you may think the AF may now have a uniform fit for a postman, but coming from a Navy guy, I wouldn’t start an issue of uniforms along with wasting tax payer dollars.

I'm just saying...

Meanwhile...

[JamesP81]

Read it again.

Well, I grant you this: the Constitution doesn't mention an Air Force. That said, I think this is one instance where it can be safely stated that the spirit of the Constitution would allow for one. One of the federal govt's few mandated responsibility's is the physical defense of this nation, and that requires an air force.

[Mr Rogers]

Good point. The USAF obviously has nothing to do with the common defense.

Ron Paul, what are you doing posting here?

[JamesP81]

I never mentioned nukes by the way, I said our Air Force might be more useful (in reference to the article) if we allowed them to bomb the enemy out of existence.

Well I will mention nukes. I personally believe that if we had employed tactical nuclear arms against the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan right after 9/11, we'd have avoided much of Iran's saber rattling. No one fears American nuclear weaponry because they all, rightly, believe that we won't use them.

Not to mention that most of the terrorists were located in the countryside in Afghanistan. If ever there were a 'good' place to use such weapons so as to minimize collateral casualties, that was it.

[pctech]

This is about the most stupid thing I’ve seen put out in such a long time. What an idiot left wing nut job. BTW, I am an Air Force vet.

[snippy_about_it]

I won’t argue with you there.

btw, imo, you were correct in your P51 Mustang statement. ;-)

[Veloxherc]

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

Not true, I bet you did not know the USAF has ships.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123072417

[ffusco]

I did not know that. 4 freighters...