This helicopter flew by a few days ago. I assumed it was an Army one but when I uploaded it to my computer, I could read U.S. Air Force on it. To make things even more confusing, it has FR on the tail which is Fort Rucker I am sure.
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.
Of course we need an air force (lowercase). The question, as it was in World War II was how to organize the fighting forces of the United States. For World War II, we were organized as a separate Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps) and a War Department (Army and Army Air Forces). All of the services had their own air arm who did not play all that well together and had difficulty playing with ground and sea based forces.
The debate was really about how to institute and organize a Department of Defense. The original plan eliminated both the Department of the Navy and the War Department with the services organized into land, sea, and air components. This suited the Army Air Force since they would run the air arm. It suited the Army since they would run the ground forces. It did not suit the Navy as they would lose both their air arm and their ground force, the Marine Corps. The Navy fought the idea throughout World War II and the strategic thrust across the Central Pacific was really designed to make the case for an independent Navy with its own air and ground component.
In the end we got a committee designed compromise, a Defense Department with a Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and a Department of the Air Force. These departments had two armies, four air forces, and enough bureaucrats to fill up the biggest office building in the world, the Pentagon. It hasn’t worked out that well in terms of an efficient means of organizing for defense, so after 9/11 we created yet another bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security. Feeling better yet?
Truer words...
I thought ultimately the Russians gained air superiority as well, after the Luftwaffe was depleted. The Russians matched the Germans in the air during the Battle of Kursk, which proved crucial to their victory.
bkmk
Good post, centurion.
The issue should always be what wins wars. Losing wars is not an option.
If we think divided attention and divided loyalties is the way to win wars, then we’ve not been paying attention.
...also known as the Rice Bowl Factory. Everybody has one. Everybody wants to eat out of someone elses.
This helicopter flew by a few days ago. I assumed it was an Army one but when I uploaded it to my computer, I could read U.S. Air Force on it. To make things even more confusing, it has FR on the tail which is Fort Rucker I am sure.
Hardly. It's Free Republic's new air force!
Just think of how generous we could make food stamp benefits if we cut the Air Force! /sarc
Not sure if that's a yes or a no, but it's good that the question's already been decided.
This occurred to me when I was younger, though. The Navy and Marines had their own air forces, while the Army more or less had to give theirs up (maybe not exactly or not completely, but where is the Army Air Corps nowadays?). I wondered why.
There was a justification if the Air Force, as a newer service, brought fresh thinking to military problems. I don't think it actually did -- apart from recommending strategic bombing a lot -- but it's possible that in the early days, there was more mobility for minorities in the Air Force than in the older service branches (and in those days, Jews and Catholics were also considered ethnic minorities).
Probably a UH-1H trainer assigned to the USAF’s 23rd Flight Training Squadron that trains and qualifies USAF helicopter pilots at Ft Rucker.
Who were the first guys into Afghanistan.
Air Force forward air controllers.
They went out alone with Afghan forces to identify and laser designate targets for the bombers.
The same reason a corporation has managers, or an NFL team has assistant coaches. Each service has its own specialization and it would be very difficult for one body to operate both.
We do have unified command though - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Now there are valid discussions to be had about the services using the same radios etc, but the AF and Army are different to their core. I have seen many unsuccessful mergers in the business world that come to mind.
Sure it is, its foolish to think you can understand everything.
“I expect and demand your very best. Anything less, you should have joined the Air Force.”
(The speech given by Captain Ramsey (Gene Hackman) in the movie, Crimson Tide)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjRxdrg9BtU
heh
What does that have to do with anything? Do you think the Army can't handle air traffic control and Special Operations?
You think that instead of having an Air Force guy accompany an Army Special ops team, that one of the Army guys could not do it?
I would also like to see your source.
Off we go into the wild blue yonder,
Climbing high into the sun;
Here they come zotting to meet our thunder,
Hit ‘em boys, Gittin ‘er done!
That's true, but that is hugely myopic!
1. What about air superiority? How can you direct fire to support the army when the enemy owns the air? The Army hasn't been bombed by another nation's air force since WWII. That would change if air superiority was not mission number 1.
2. Strategic bombing would be the job of who? Did you know the B-2 can fly from its base in Missouri with a full payload ANYWHERE in the world and be home for supper? How would a ground commander make up a mission list for the B2, use it on the front lines? A multi billion $ aircraft?
3. Strategic Airlift. The navy owns sealift, so I suppose the army could do airlift. Still, it's something far beyond fire support.
4. If doing away with the USAF makes sense, then doing away with the Army and Navy also makes sense. We could be like Canada. Just ONE military service. The same argument the professor uses here is the one the Canadians pushed through to go to their one size fits all military.
The Air Force has and uses air power much differently than the Army.
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.