Whats more effective in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan: air power or boots on the ground.
Well if you ask the Air Force Chief of staff, hell tell you its his aircraft providing the greatest combat punch.
[Air Force] Secretary [Michael] Wynne asked the staff last week to look at which component has had the biggest effect on attrition of hostiles. Staff came back and said it looks like the air component is killing bad guys at a higher rate than anyone else I have anecdotal evidence from the staff that says airpower is the most lethal of the components in wrapping up bad guys.
As far as numbers of people killed, as far as wrapping up bad guys and as far as delivering a kinetic effect the air component which also includes Marine and Navy air, by the way is the most lethal of the components. I have not seen those numbers but I thought that was a useful observation
I considered that position which Moseley revealed during an April 24 interview — this morning when I saw the latest air power summery from Southwest Asia on the Air Force Web site:
4/25/2007 — SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNEWS) — Coalition airpower supported coalition ground forces in Iraq and International Security Assistance Force troops in Afghanistan in the following operations April 24, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.
In Afghanistan, an Air Force B-1B Lancer provided overwatch for a coalition convoy near Qarah Bagh. No attacks were reported after the B-1B’s arrival.
U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets provided a show of force for a coalition forces position near Saraw. A joint terminal attack controller confirmed it was successful and no further attacks were reported. The aircrews also provided overwatch for a coalition patrol in the same area.
French M-2000 Mirages provided a show of force for a coalition forces position near Asadabad. No attacks were reported after the M-2000s arrived.
In total, 41 close-air-support missions were flown in support of ISAF and Afghan security forces, reconstruction activities and route patrols.
Nine Air Force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan. Additionally, four U.S. Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.
In Iraq, Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons searched for mortar positions and improvised explosive device activity near Baghdad. The pilots were then assigned to look for anti-Iraqi militia hiding nearby. They reported the coordinates of three hot spots.
Other F-16s performed armed overwatch for coalition forces who received small-arms fire near Salman Pak. The pilots reported three individuals hiding along a fence near a mosque.
Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs provided a show of force, releasing multiple flares, for a raid near Baqubah by coalition forces. A JTAC reported the show of force was successful. The pilots also provided reconnaissance in the area and reported suspicious activity to a JTAC.
F/A-18s provided a show of force, releasing multiple flares, for coalition forces receiving small-arms fire near Yusufiyah. A JTAC confirmed it was successful and no further attacks were reported.
RAF GR-4 Tornados provided overwatch to look for snipers for a explosive ordnance disposal team near Yusufiyah. The aircrews then were assigned to look for a truck involved in an engagement with coalition forces. The aircrew found a truck matching the description of the truck in the attack, at a building nearby. Individuals were reported to be unloading objects from the truck.
Other GR-4s provided shows of force for coalition forces near a crowd of approximately 250 people near Baghdad. A JTAC confirmed it dispersed the crowd and no attacks were reported.
In total, coalition aircraft flew 55 close-air-support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions supported coalition ground forces, protected key infrastructure, watched over reconstruction activities and helped to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.
Fifteen Air Force, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Iraq. Additionally, three Air Force and RAF fighter aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.
Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and C-17 Globemaster IIIs provided intra-theater heavy airlift support, helping to sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. More than 125 airlift sorties were flown; nearly 410 tons of cargo were delivered, and approximately 2,200 passengers were transported.
Coalition C-130 crews from Australia, Canada, Iraq, Japan and South Korea flew in support of OIF or OEF.
On April 22, Air Force, French and RAF tankers flew 50 sorties and off-loaded more than 3 million pounds of fuel.
Now, I dont see any bomb dropping in there. But Im willing to bet soldiers and Marines have been mixing it up in both Iraq and Afghanistan today, with more lethal effects than popping a few flares to disperse a crowd.
I wonder what the ground-pounders will say about Moseleys and the USAF secretarys — conviction that airpower is killing more bad guys than Joes and Leathernecks.
– Christian
“[Air Force] Secretary [Michael] Wynne asked the staff last week to look at which component has had the biggest effect on attrition of hostiles. Staff came back and said
That war isn’t about attrition.
What is the point of this article? Shocking, the USAF can easily drop bombs on targets and kill dozens of bad guys. It is not like they’re locked in air-air battles with some Mig’s. I thought that is the point of Jointness. Ground troops spot the enemy and call in the Air Force to take them out. Fire power and Air power are the only advantages we have. Nevertheless, bombing to victory is a myth. Anyway, killing people doesn’t win 4GW.
I am amazed by the irony in Iraq. US Advantage: We have Death from Above. Can’t be stopped. Iraqi Insurgents Advantage: They have Death from below (IED’s). Can’t be stopped. Who is ‘winning’ again?
Which continues to prove my point, we need the A-10 and not the F-35. Thank you.
So what happened with the ‘Tora Bora 2′ showdown advertised earlier this week — Surely the bad guys can’t have got away with this sort of air superiority bearing down on them?
Airpower is nice, but after a certain point (reached long ago), I’d say the extra billions are better spent on boots on the ground.
Now, before i start, you need to know that I like the idea of the new Raptor. Ok, so what the AF dudes need to do istead of spending all their damn money on squadron(sp?) upon squadron of stealthy Raptors, they should develop a gunship with bombing capabilities and that is highly menouverable. We need air support, but to support the guys on the ground and to send in bombs before they get their. Throw a Skittle dispenser on it, and there will be no aircraft more useful in our inventory.
I wonder if the pilots are able to figure out which house the enemy is hiding in? More than likely there is a soldier on the ground directing the pilot on where to deliver the ordinance. With fewer soldiers, the pilots would have fewer targets. But to suggest that air power alone can win a war, especially an insurgency, is silly.
This is the same type of hype and foolish thinking that caused the stalemate against Hezbullah last summer and Kosovo in 1999. Unless you’re using nukes, you cannot win a war without putting boots on the ground. It’s a foolish PR stunt to get more funding for sexy aircraft that will never fly below 20k in a combat zone.
Foolish drivel
Smells like someone is really worried about his share of the pie…Cancel one f-22 and you’ve funded the entire production build of Mine Resistant Vehicles for both the Army and Marine Corps! Can we say funding desperation syndrome!!! ?
You guys ever play Axis & Allies?
Planes could not take ground on their own.…
Still holds true.
Air power is expensive.… and didn’t help them win Vietnam.… this sort of thing will lead to the same ‘faith in air power’
Not once in the above article was it stated that AirPower is winning the war “alone”. It said “MOST deadly component” not ONLY deadly component. To think that aircraft aren’t helping overpowered coalition ground troops is ridiculous. What do you think air strikes are called in for? Eliminating as much of the enemy as possible to clear the way for ground troops. While the Soldiers and Marines may be calling in air strikes during fire fights, the Air Force Combat Controllers are calling in air strikes from the ground prior to fire fights, to open up the battlefield for Army and Marine units coming in later. However, I will say that Air Power was much more prevalent for the initial push into Iraq. Are squadrons of new Raptors needed immediately? Probably not. It is true that better protected ground vehicles are the immediate need. But for future conflicts (which are inevitable) new aircrafts are needed. 50 year old troop and cargo transporters, and 20 year old fighters just aren’t going to cut it anymore. What if we were using 20 year old body armor, which was non existent. Or maybe we could stop ordering Humv’s and break out the old Willy’s Jeeps.
New conflicts are only inevitable if you elect warmonger politicians. Elect politicians that actually have fought in war and seen people dying on the ground instead — they will avoid useless wars.
And it’s correct that the article and quotes centered around airpower being the primary killer.
Artillery and/or mortars claimed that in industrial age conflicts, but Afghanistan is a special case due to transportation issues.
I’d like to mention that this “move to contact, call in firepower, pursuit” tactic is likely not the most effective, but only the one with minimal casualties.
It should not be considered as tactic for major wars — “bombardment kills, infantry occupies” is what the French told the inexperienced American officers in 1917 and was even back then not state-of-the-art.
Mishaps like Tora Bora and so on where poorly equipped and trained light infantry was able to escape despite being ‘encircled’ by superior forces with modern technology should have been a warning call.
We shouldn’t overemphasize recent combat experiences but put them together with older experiences to a greater picture. Airpower cana chieve great things, but it does only excel in certain scenarios, as do mechanized forces, light infantry and artillery as well.
Air power may have the positive in lethality and lower attrition to personnel, but infantry is the only way to strangle the enemy. Aircraft are hated, Infantry are feared.
How much does it cost to have a convoy protected by a B-1B?
I like how everyone forgets about the OV-10 Broncoes they used to have. Granted they can be shot down by MANPADs and bombers cannot.
Even a A-10 is likely to produce the same deterrent effect as a B-1B. If the terrorists ever figure out how long it takes to coordinate a bombing strike with the air force from the ground they just might make the attack regardless of the bomber’s presence. It’s not like the bomber can instantly attack like in a computer game.
Go over to the MNF-I website and click on the incident reports. NOTE: They do not report all the insurgent kills, but the reports will cover some insurgent kills. And the reports cover how many kills there were and what weapon was used. Air power, fixed wing and helicopters, kill a lot of bad guys. Small arm fire from ground troops kill alot of bad guys. Artillery kills a few. It is a lot of reading but worth the time to get a real idea of operations there in Iraq; and how much the media ignores.