Comments on: CoS: Air Power Most Deadly Component

By: KJB43

KJB43 — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:43:40 +0000

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.

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:34:42 +0000

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.

By: hans

hans — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:25:54 +0000

How much does it cost to have a convoy protected by a B-1B?

By: commodore

commodore — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:03:13 +0000

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.

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:06:40 +0000

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.

By: Tuck

Tuck — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:24:03 +0000

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.

By: Foreign.Boy

Foreign.Boy — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:15:17 +0000

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’

By: Solomon

Solomon — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:23:35 +0000

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!!! ?

By: Buick93

Buick93 — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:08:29 +0000

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

By: Brian Rose

Brian Rose — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:47:47 +0000

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.