Posted on 03/17/2014 12:37:23 PM PDT by xzins
Robert Farley, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky, wants to ground the U.S. Air Force, for good.
In his book, Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the US Air Force, Farley argues the United States does not need an independent Air Force in order to effectively wield military air power. Farley, an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, came to his conclusion after studying the conflict between the Army and the Air Force over which military branch was primarily responsible for winning the first Gulf War.
“I slowly became more aware that these arguments between the Army and the Air Force have broken out along virtually identical lines after every conflict we’ve fought since World War II,” Farley said. “Each service, each capability, claims its own decisive role.”
We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content? Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now. (Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)
Absolutely! Sign Me Up!
Forget the Trial … Make Me a Member!
Already a Member? Login Now
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
Farley argues that inter-service rivalries and different interpretations of combat effectiveness have had such a negative effect on both doctrine and weapons system acquisition over the decades that the Army and the Air Force are unprepared to cooperate with each other next time America goes to war.
“That got me thinking, why not just re-marry these organizations rather than maintain their distinction?” he said.
The U.S. Air Force, originally the Army Air Corps, was established as an independent military service in 1947. Over the next four decades, as conflicts over Army and Air Force roles and missions emerged, Congress stepped in and passed the Goldwater-Nichols DoD Reorganization Act of 1986, the most far-reaching legislation affecting the U.S. military since the National Security Act of 1947. By vesting operational command of U.S. forces with a joint commander, Goldwater-Nichols sought to mitigate much of the inter-service rivalry.
But, according to Farley, Goldwater-Nichols failed to solve the dual problems of procurement and training. By law, the services have their own budgets for acquiring weapons and recruiting and training personnel.
“The primary responsibility of an Air Force aviator still lies with the … parochial interests of the Air Force and for a soldier with [those] of the Army,” Farley said. “And that’s a position that I think inevitably creates friction during wartime, which we’ve seen even in conflicts that come after the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols reform.”
Piecemeal approaches to transferring missions and capabilities from the Air Force to the Army have been proposed before, particularly with close-air support aircraft like drones, and the A-10, which the Air Force wants to retire.
“It would seem to be a fabulous idea to take away these capabilities that the Air Force is unenthusiastic about,” Farley said. But the Air Force routinely opposes giving them up. “There’s a general Air Force lack of enthusiasm about drones unless there’s a prospect of the Army having them,” he said.
The best solution to such problems—and the proverbial “elephant in the room”—is to rejoin the Air Force with the Army, Farley said. Although not likely in the short term, Farley thinks it might eventually become a reality.
“I’m trying to reopen the question of whether the reform we did in 1947 was really the appropriate reform and whether we should return to it and rethink it,” he said.
That attitude, has been in place since Rumsfeld. Actually, they tried to un-civil affairs the SF, and use them in the same capacity, as US Army Rangers. The result has had a bad effect, upon SOCOM, and it’s supposed mission line.
SF complaints about being used as Rangers, was especially heavy during the Vietnam war.
I’m confused, do you want to use them as infantry, or you don’t want to?
I’m not aware of those complaints, during or after Viet Nam. SF’s were multiple force employers. Rangers were also, just in a different way. Towards the 72-76 push, there may have been some consolidation of line command, but not really enough to warrant any gripes. By the by, SF is not US Army Infantry. US Army Rangers are the US Army Infantry. All other units follow- Lead the Way.
Are you drinking? Your posts are difficult to make out, and confusing.
Well, ansel12, I’ve always appreciated your posts. Take care...Thanks
I just don’t like any article that talks about cutting the military, especially the service that I am well familiar with. I am a retired Air Force Senior NCO, with two tours in Southeast Asia. I gave the best years of my life to the US Military and I’m damn proud of it. And it pisses me off to see another worthless democrat dismantling the military.
I suspect that observation and complaint had alot to do with the decision to re-designate and field Ranger Battalions beginning in 1974 with 1-75th Rgr at Hunter AAF, Savannah, GA.
That sounds emotional, but military readiness sometimes needs looking at, not everyone is convinced that moving the air corp to it’s own branch in the heat of the post WWII climate, still make sense, or is efficient.
It isn’t like they are discussing eliminating air capability, or firing them.
For one thing, manned aircraft is on it’s way out, something that the Air force is fighting tooth and nail, as I pointed out in an earlier post, they even fought to require not only pilots to sit at the desk and fly drones, but the desk jockey was to be removed if he wasn’t physically flight ready.
I remember them getting pieces of the 2nd battalion at Ft.Lewis in 1973, but they weren’t officially activated until I had already left the Army, they were activated in the fall of 1974.
I agree. That the Army provides a large part of the training infrastructure for Marine training says that when it’s recognized that duplication can be unnecessary there is money to be saved.
“Army” aviation is limited to rotary wing assets for the most part. This is some kind of agreement that really isn’t in the interest of a ground campaign. Now the Air Force wants to do away with the A-10, and I think that plan was part of the recent DOD budget.
The F35 replacement is plagued with problems and isn’t ready to replace, and some say won’t be without a redesign that will increase the cost of this 100 million per unit aircraft. The A-10, on the other hand, costs about 12 million a copy. The comparison of cost is different than a comparison of capabilities, and some don’t think the F35 can pick up all that the A-10 does.
So, what reason is there for not having the Army have its own fixed wing assets to go with its rotary wing when the Marines have their own air assets?
It has nothing to do with effective combat. It has to do with “turf issues.”
The issue is what makes sense when fighting wars.
The best answer, in my opinion, is a unified command with one chain of command. We could not call it either “army” or “air force”.
We could call it The Land Warfare Service or some other agreed upon name. We could call it the Air Force for all I care, so long as it’s one command.
“For one thing, manned aircraft is on it’s way out, something that the Air force is fighting tooth and nail”
So you’re a big fan of Obama’s drone execution program, where he goes after one “terrorist” and ends of killing a couple of hundred men, women and children. But that’s OK, since it’s “collateral damage”. As long as the great and powerful American Ceasar Obama says it’s OK.
Unmanned droves as the future of air war is the dumbest thing that has ever came down the pike. All the brainchild chickensh*t miliary-dodging democrats who think war is just a game to be played for their enjoyment, and if 1000 innocent lives are taken as a result of their games, they could care less, as long as it’s not their children getting blown apart.
Huh?
Sure. You know, with all those tanks, artillery and Humvees that they sail into combat.
(I think the scope of his ignorant comment might have referred to the SEALs. Of course, he may not realize that there are several branches of special forces, including those sponsored by the Army.)
With Japan and the island hopping campaign that was necessary, it is important to remember, we were battling an entrenched foe. They were fortified and under ground. It wasn't the mechanized and mobile enemy we fought in Europe. So air support for ground troops was largely ineffective. Fighter bombers were only able to strafe and bomb holes in the ground from which the Japanese were entrenched.
Today we have ordinance that would have saved 10s of thousands of American lives. Bunker busters would have been a huge help in the island wars.
That's funny. I know a couple of Tankbuster Drivers too. They all seem to have the same attitude. One guy used to ask, "Imagine you're a bad guy in the desert. No imagine you get a perfect frontal view of my lumbering gunship bearing down on you and you see my teeth start to spool up. How ugly is this plane now MF!!!????"
LOL. It's my favorite plane too.
Side note: An A-10 driver that I know did several tours in Afganistan and in Iraq. He said he met a translater working for the US that told him Iraqis called the A-10 the Dragon Plane.
If you have ever seen one shoot in person, it makes perfect sense. It is a very intimidating thing between the smoke and the sound, not to mention the diabolical destruction that gun can do.
Yup. I don't care who you are that is one hell of a sh!t storm.
Ahhhh, ok.
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.