Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the U.S. Air Force really necessary?
World ^ | March 17, 2014 | Michael Cochrane

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airforce; army; bhodod; usaf; usmilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-233 next last
To: ansel12

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.


201 posted on 03/17/2014 9:20:14 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

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?


202 posted on 03/17/2014 9:26:22 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.


203 posted on 03/17/2014 9:52:48 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

Are you drinking? Your posts are difficult to make out, and confusing.


204 posted on 03/17/2014 9:58:58 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Well, ansel12, I’ve always appreciated your posts. Take care...Thanks


205 posted on 03/17/2014 10:08:51 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler
Here is an example of what I was pointing out about SF being tasked to do Ranger missions, and taken away from what they were uniquely trained to do.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

206 posted on 03/17/2014 10:14:15 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.


207 posted on 03/17/2014 10:20:41 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant" - John Henry Cardinal Newman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.


208 posted on 03/17/2014 10:28:14 PM PDT by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

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.


209 posted on 03/17/2014 10:37:09 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

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.


210 posted on 03/17/2014 10:42:41 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.”


211 posted on 03/18/2014 3:46:54 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I don't thing inter service rivalry is the biggest problem with the U.S. military, and in some ways it is probably healthy. The split between the U.S. Army Air Force and the U.S. Army was result of experience during World War II, not theorizing and deep thinking. The general approach to training, discipline, relationships between enlisted and officers, and the culture in general is profoundly different between the AF and the Army. It would make more sense to merge the Marines and Army, and that wouldn't make any sense at all.
212 posted on 03/18/2014 4:14:01 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (In the long run, we are all dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

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.


213 posted on 03/18/2014 5:12:10 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“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.


214 posted on 03/18/2014 5:24:30 AM PDT by NKP_Vet ("To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant" - John Henry Cardinal Newman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
the Navy has the better ground combat unit that either the Marines or the Army.

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.)

215 posted on 03/18/2014 5:35:18 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
In Japan, we would bomb and shell all day and night, and then we still had to send in the Marines to clear an island. Now air power has a role, a big role, but at the end of the day it is some guy with rifle that will solve the problem.

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.

216 posted on 03/18/2014 5:46:05 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
I spoke with a Warthog driver one time. He was so proud of his aircraft and the reputation they had. He seemed to take pleasure in announcing that it lacked a normal airspeed indicator. Rather, it had a calendar.

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.

217 posted on 03/18/2014 5:49:31 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

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.


218 posted on 03/18/2014 5:56:41 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
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.

219 posted on 03/18/2014 7:22:41 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Do I really need ot use the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Ahhhh, ok.


220 posted on 03/18/2014 10:01:53 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-233 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson