The extended op-ed by Robert Farley about disbanding the Air Force is now online in full, and revealed for what it is: a rather ill-structured and highly selective recycling of old arguments.
Selective? Consider this: continued production of the F-22 Raptor is an absurdity during the course of two counter-insurgency wars, says Farley. Maybe, but how much use is this…
…against the Taliban? (Apart from lashing them to the periscope, or torpedoing them when they charter a ship for a cruise vacation.)
Old? We can argue the effectiveness of the World War 2 strategic bombing campaign until we are all blue in the face. I would merely suggest that, in the absence of any plan to fire-bomb Tehran with B-29s, it’s of limited relevance.
The question is not “Why do we need an Air Force?” because in classic terms that “begs the question” — that is, it implies that there is some reason that the Air Force rather than any other service is expendable.
For example, Farley would abolish the Air Force but adds that “some elements of tactical airpower would pass to the Marine Corps.” If the United States does not need its own air force, why the bloody hell does the US Navy’s own army need its own air force?
Of course, in the world of DC, that question has a simple answer: any proposal that the Marines don’t like stands as much chance as Barney in the velociraptors’ cage…
Read the rest of this story from our partners at Aviation Week HERE.
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
“For example, Farley would abolish the Air Force but adds that “some elements of tactical airpower would pass to the Marine Corps.” If the United States does not need its own air force, why the bloody hell does the US Navy’s own army need its own air force?”
Farley’s argument is not that the United States doesn’t need airPOWER, it’s that it doesn’t need an air FORCE. He believes that airpower–like, say, armor–should be organic to other services, not separated off. You should engage with that idea, rather than the semi-strawman you’ve constructed here.
Ah… but he DOES do that in the full article. In fact, he goes into the issue in some depth, explaining why and Air Force is necessary.
Bah and Humbug…
If Mr. Farley worked for a more reputable magazine, say “Mad” or “Practical Proctology,” I might not be so inclinded to dismiss him as a loon.
As with any such opinion piece, just like listening to a well-paid defense attorney, one may be assured that one ain’t heard anything but what the speaker wants to have heard.
I DO believe that the USAF has become a bit pretentious and given over to gold-plated whizbang. Some of the capabilities built into new USAF systems seem on the verge of transcending esoteric and into fantasy. Whereas moving mud for the grunts or trash-hauling is eschewed as something more suited to the lower castes.
However, beneath the veneer and elitism there lies a cast iron capability that we truly need to retain. Air superiority, when the winds are fair, might only be a one or two day mission. Knocking down everything that dares to fly predicates getting the grunts in. And woe betide us if we find ourselves a number of years down the pike without that capability.
There is also the strategic bombing mission maligned by Farley. While there is no current requirement for carpet bombing in Iraq or Afghanistan, it would be myopic to dismiss it as an anachronism. Having the capability to wreak tremendous destruction in a short time might prove pivotal to a war.
Farley also puts up Korea and Viet Nam as strawmen for his argument. His conclusion that our strategic bombing in those wars did not bring about surrender as it had done in Japan. What his fevered mind redacted from this comparison is the totality and brutal vigor of our campaign against the Japanese. LeMay was not hobbled by fickle politicians, nattering naybobs from NGOs, the air thieves in the UN, or a half-assed commitment to total victory. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki the emperor and the general staff realized that the American commitment WAS total and that we would not hold anything back.
In Korea we started flatfooted and quickly moved into a no-win strategy. Allowing the Chinese to enter the war and to stage from off-limits Chinese soil was insurmountable.
In Viet Nam the slow escalation of our involvement and the infamous microdirection of the air campaign by McNamara and Johnson meant certain defeat. A worthwhile enemy will exploit his opponents weaknesses to full advantage and cares not a whit about political niceties. It seems now, as it probably did then, just plain stupid to allow the Soviets to sail in and out Haiphong loaded with armaments. It signaled our weak will and Uncle Ho made the best of it.
Farley also failed to note that the North Vietnamese did not negotiate in earnest until Nixon took the gloves off and started bombing the hell out of Hanoi.
It is only a SWAG on my part, but I submit that had Kennedy (or Johnson or Nixon) made a total commitment to victory in Viet Nam and communicated that to the Soviets and Viet Namese then things may have been much different. Had we completely flattened/firebombed Hanoi in 66 and never allowed even ONE ship to enter Haiphong we might have indeed broken their spirit to fight. Of course this works only if we’d been prepared to land a couple divisions immediately.
The current conflicts might only require moving a little mud, hauling trash and gas, and making small deliveries from the bomb truck. Fine. But I’d like to know that there’s a big mess of whoopass available when we need it.
Cheers,
Chief B.
P.S.: Don’t get any ideas that I have somehow stuck up for that bunch of flyweight pansies with their new weirdo cammies and weirder boots. (BTW, WTFO?) But I REALLY don’t like having some talking head PhD nudnick badmouthing a sister service. The PhD is a pretty good signal to me of someone having spent more time reading about what other folks have done and doing precious damned little themselves.
How about lets just disband DC ?
Considering that a modern bomber can take decades to procure, junking a strategic capability because it does not fit the current scenario is short-sighted at best. Twenty years from now the landscape will change and we will need a different set of capabilities. But we should retain existing capabilities, even if just a token force, in order to have the ability to quickly ramp up production if needed. Russia is turning back to the good ‘ole days, and China is rising as well. We need all the tools in the toolbox, even if some are a bit rusty from disuse.
Tactical air power may be better integrated into the Army or Marine corps, but a strategic air component would be a foolish thing to scrap.
Of course, if we can do something better in a new way, for instance relegate the long range bomber role to swarms of UAVs, then that is a different argument. As far as organization, I think all the services should be brought together under one command.
I would extend his argument further, if the State Department would hand out lollipops, build schools and adhere to these ridiculous ROE for these two insurgency wars he speaks of then one could say we don’t need the Army. His argument is good BSF (Bumper-Sticker Fodder). Thanks a lot buddy.
As I have said in some other posts on this topic, If someone wants to advocate disbanding the Air Force they need to do their homework. And that homework is more than just a hackneyed abriged history lesson. One neede to look at ALL the missions and assets of the AF and determine if and how that can be done BETTER and more efficently by other services. One should also address the long term implications of such moves. It seems odd that people complain that the AF doesnt do CAS good enough because they dont care, but then dont make the conection that the Army could care less about 90% of the AF’s mission.
Since we are one-year away from elections, do you think that this idea is a trial balloon for a presidential candidate to propose a method of slashing the defense budget? Is this an opportunity to put a wedge issue into the defense community and make an argument that “we want to look strong on defense, but we want to spend our money ‘wisely’ so let’s get rid of the Air Force or at least pare it back significantly?”
“Ah… but he DOES do that in the full article. In fact, he goes into the issue in some depth, explaining why and Air Force is necessary”
Uh, no he doesn’t. He says it’s unlikely that the Air Force will actually be consolidated into other services, but that it should be.
“LeMay was not hobbled by fickle politicians, nattering naybobs from NGOs, the air thieves in the UN, or a half-assed commitment to total victory.”
It’s never the military’s fault, is it?
Farley isn’t based in DC. He teaches at the University of Kentucky.
Neil, the Air Force doesn’t “need” to be seperate, like we need air to breathe or Kevin Federline needs a kick in the crotch. The question isn’t NEED. It’s “is it a good idea”? And the answer is no. Consolidating the Air Force into the Army isn’t a good idea. The people who say “you still haven’t shown we NEED the Air Force” are getting it backwards. Just because something is the most efficient way to do things doesn’t mean its an absolute NEED.
“While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it’s less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force.”-Farley
I think a lot of people are missing Farley’s point–it’s not the availability of air capability he’s criticizing. No one disputes the importance of that–what Farley’s is contesting is the need for a separate bureaucracy called the US AF. While he does mention that air strikes are not the most helpful counter-insurgency tactic, my reading suggests that Farley believes a leaner military bureaucracy might be more helpful.
For instance, while the F-22 Raptor is a great program, does the US really need to focus so many resources on it right now? Purchasing far fewer F-22s, while more expensive per plane, would give the Pentagon greater flexibility to allocate resources towards less expensive programs more suited for the current types of combat. However, because of the USAF constituency of fighter pilots and the government mentality of “spend-it-or-lose-it” you have the current situation of a stealth fighter-bomber being given substantial resources when the current enemies don’t even have a biplane let alone a comparable fighter jet.
By having a USAF, the US military has created a bureaucracy that needs to justify its existence. How does it justify its existence? Just like every other bureaucracy, it searches for a mission and fights for dollars to support the mission.
By moving the various bureaucratic entities around and combining some of them, perhaps efficiencies can be gained–that I think is Farley’s position, and if so then I would heartily agree. A leaner government is a better government. A leaner military is a better military.
“For example, Farley would abolish the Air Force but adds that “some elements of tactical airpower would pass to the Marine Corps.” If the United States does not need its own air force, why the bloody hell does the US Navy’s own army need its own air force?”
Pretty much the entirety of Farley’s argument is that the history of military aviation **strongly** suggests that it is most effective at the tactical level, when it supports operations on the ground. Divvying up the Air Force among the other services is perfectly consistent with this.
So Christian either can’t follow an argument, or he’s blatantly disingenuous. Why am I not surprised?
Re: Total
“”LeMay was not hobbled by fickle politicians, nattering naybobs from NGOs, the air thieves in the UN, or a half-assed commitment to total victory.”
“It’s never the military’s fault, is it?”"
Not sure what your point is with this. I don’t recall having written that it was never the military’s fault. Even the most diligent and otherwise competent commander makes enormous blunders.
In recent experience, however, it is the politicians who manage to rip defeat form the jaws of victory. IIRC, we never lost a battle in Viet Nam but somehow we lost the war. Was it Westmoreland’s fault or was he the sacrificial animal? Was LeMay successful in Japan or Arnold in Europe because FDR told them how to run their campaigns?
I’m just an ignorant old sod, but it seems to me that all the great warriors of old give the same advice: War is an ugly, repugnant thing that should be avoided, even at great cost but from time to time, it is inevitable. When it comes time to fight the most humane thing to do is to be as vicious and violent as possible… that it might end that much sooner.
Would the Japanese have fared better with an allied invasion of the home islands? Did the Vietnamese (and the Cambodians and Laotians) through 10,000 days of restraint? How much blood, treasure, and misery might have been spared if FDR & Churchill had turned their armies on Stalin?
I suppose that, in the end, my counsel is that military force is inhumane. At its essence, nothing more than corpses, broken minds and bodies, the shrieks of the wounded, and the weeping of loved ones. It is a fool who treats it lightly. It is, to my mind, a far graver sin to draw it out in the fatuous hope of making it more humane.
Realizing that this started as commentary about abolishing (eviscerating, emasculating, whatever) the Air Force, I say we are better off keeping that capability intact. It may be more humane to firebomb our next enemy’s capital than to bleed him to death with a million SDB pinpricks.
Cheers,
Chief B.
re sglover
“Pretty much the entirety of Farley’s argument is that the history of military aviation **strongly** suggests that it is most effective at the tactical level, when it supports operations on the ground. Divvying up the Air Force among the other services is perfectly consistent with this.” Thats the problem, There is a lot more to military aviation than the tactical level. Most of the “Abolish the Air Force” arguments fail to look at the entirety of the Air Forces capabilities.
re Traveler
“However, because of the USAF constituency of fighter pilots and the government mentality of “spend-it-or-lose-it” you have the current situation of a stealth fighter-bomber being given substantial resources when the current enemies don’t even have a biplane let alone a comparable fighter jet.”
Yes, our current foe’s lack modern air forces and air defense’s, That is no gaurentee that our next advisary wont have capability. Neglecting our next foe is hardly a wise move.
Ummm…How does that submarine do the Taliban?
It probably won’t. Then again, for less land locked nations *cough* DRPK *cough* *cough* Iran *cough*, it would insert seal teams, sit quietly offshore monitoring communications (which it might do with the Taliban too, come to think of it, etc.)
The Air Force often gets carried away by claiming to be capable of winning wars through air power alone, but Farley is too focused on close air support. Interdiction and strategic bombing still have a lot of value, and I don’t think that the Army or the Marines have as much appreciation of those missions. The CAS mission provides more firepower to the troops engaged with the enemy; interdiction can cut off the enemy’s supplies, knock out their communications, or prevent the enemy from getting to the battlefield in the first place.
70 with 4 bombs.
40 with one A-10.
Number the USAF has given in there daily reports for insurgents killed. If the USAF does band into the army aircorps the army better keep its hands off the planes, and the AF budget. Last thing we need is some hotshot general demand money for his new tank, but forget about the Airforce. This is a huge mistake. Its like calling for the USMC to join the Army because they don’t conduct amphibious landings anymore. Future, Future.
“Not sure what your point is with this. I don’t recall having written that it was never the military’s fault.”
Was then followed with this:
“In recent experience, however, it is the politicians who manage to rip defeat form the jaws of victory. IIRC, we never lost a battle in Viet Nam but somehow we lost the war. ”
Was my point. ‘It’s all the politicians’ fault’ is an easy way of avoiding figuring out what the military did wrong in its recent wars. It’s also an easy way of getting the United States right back into similar situations.
Christian’s deliberately obtuse post, of course, utterly misses the point that the idea is to change the bureaucracy and not to get out of the warplane business, presumably to be provocative.
You know something is amiss in the Air Force bureaucracy when it gets a significant share of its authority to procure aircraft taken away from it by the DOD (as it has) because it has managed the job so poorly (in part, as fallout from the air tanker debacle).
The notion, of another poster in the thread, that 90% of what the Air Force does the Army doesn’t care about, if true, would be a true indictment of the service. Almost all of the Air Force logistics mission is in support of the Army, CAS is part of its mission, the initial strike mission usually pre-supposes an Army invasion to follow, and controlling the sky in the theater is for the purpose of giving the Army one less direction to worry about hostile fire coming from. The Army may not care much about the ICBM and no fly zone missions of the Air Force, but those are a small part of the service’s total job.
The Navy and Marines, of course, are good examples of why we don’t need an Air Force. Air power without a separate bureacracy in those services produces good results. I don’t see many Air Force proponents arguing that the newest service should take over operations on carriers or martime patrols, or trying to wrest the Marine Corps of its Harriers (except to give them F-35Bs).
How about we just disband the Army, Navy and Air force and combine them all into the Marines. How about we just disband the military and make blow-dart toting droids that shoot tranquilizers so no one dies. After all, this is the last war we will ever fight, hell, we should just disband the United States. No need for any more weapons because there won’t be any more wars with no one else.
May I just point out that the article was written not by Christian, but by Bill Sweetman, at Ares (the Aviation Week defense blog)?
Maybe it’s not all that important, but it does get a little annoying when someone is chastised for something he did not write.
As for Sweetman, he is a very good writer and, IMHO, dead right about all this disband-the-AF thing.
May I just point out that the article was written not by Christian, but by Bill Sweetman, at Ares (the Aviation Week defense blog)?
Maybe it’s not all that important, but it does get a little annoying when someone is chastised for something he did not write.
As for Sweetman, he is a very good writer and, IMHO, dead right about all this disband-the-AF thing.
Success at procurement is a pretty obtuse argument for merging the air force into the army or navy. The Navy has managed to put exactly one new type of aircraft on carrier decks in the past 25 years, and has serious problems with ballooning costs on its ship programs. The Army has blown each of its recent aviation programs, and hasn’t had much luck with its artillery or tank programs either.
M
I would seriously like to revisit the political ideas behind the Farley article. It wasn’t published in any military or foreign policy journals. It was published in a liberal political journal. Why? Is it a politically-savvy way to reduce the defense budget for the sake of domestic programs and drive a wedge issue into the defense community (i.e. divide public support between the soldiers and Marines on the ground and the Air Force)? Is this a trial balloon for a Democratic presidential campaign? If so, which one?
This is worth some journalistic investigating. Hint. Hint.
Doc75
Not one of the Democratic candidates for president has called for cuts in the military. As a matter of fact they seem preoccupied and infatuated with the idea of increasing the size of Special Ops, the Army and Marines. As far as weapon systems procurement the only candidates that have spoken on that issue are Duncan Hunter and McCain. So in short I don’t think there is a political motive behind this piece.
Only one of the egregious errors Farley makes: “The strategic air component of Operation Desert Storm failed to topple Saddam Hussein or dislodge him from Kuwait.” Alas, memory! No one today remembers that the air campaign did just that — recall the so-called “Gorbachev Initiative” of early February 1991, only a couple of weeks after the bombing began and well before the ground campaign. Working through a Russian intermediary, Saddam stated that he would withdraw from Kuwait and comply with the UN resolutions — if only the Coalition would halt the bombing! President Bush and the Coalition partners refused the offer, out of a desire to permanently cripple Iraq’s military capabilities. But Saddam made the offer, and defenders of airpower need to remind people about that. Facts matter.
Mr. Hitchens’ protests too much. The initiative he was talking about was seen by the then President Bush as an attempt by Gorbachev to remain relevant and by Hussein to sow confusion. From Robert Gates’ recollections of the discussion between the senior President Bush and Defense Secretary Cheney:
“The basic issue at the meeting was how to deal with Gorbachev, and it was a repetition of the basic argument that had been going on from August. And Dick Cheney and my recollection is that Brent as well, were basically inclined to tell him to buzz off. To not get in the way, and that what he was proposing was totally unacceptable. The President and Baker were much more inclined to go back to Gorbachev and very carefully point out the shortcomings and the proposal for the ceasefire and how it didn’t require the Iraqis to leave immediately, it made no provisions for a whole host of things, such as the repatriation of Kuwaiti, wealth, and reconstruction of Kuwait and so on and so forth. And that was ultimately the decision that was made.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/gates/1.html
So, no, Hussein did not attempt to surrender because of the air campaign.
Total!
Well said! You summed that up nicely. The Air Force still wishes to operate as the SUPPORTED FORCE and not the supporting force that it is. That is why their have been calls for its disbanding. Every service supports the Army. Thats why the Commandant stated that Marines win Battles and that the Army wins wars. It does not diminish the Marine Corps role in the defense of this nation but it does reaffirm the fact that the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are supporting services. Each organization definitely has a part to play, certain specialties to bring to the table and can influence the battlefield. Futurist, Industrialist and Enthusiast might still hope for the day that air power alone can win wars but that days is not here and I doubt it ever will be.
Solomon,
Ever since Goldwater-Nichols, there is no such thing as a service being the SUPPORTED FORCE. Services organize, train and equip. The combatant commands fight. The services supply forces to the COCOM. The COCOM determines the needed capabilities and the services package them together and provide them to the COCOM.
Solomon,
If there wasn’t a political motive behind it, then why publish in American Prospect instead of Armed Forces Journal?
Doc 75,
“…determines the needed capabilities and the services package them together and provide them…”
Believe me Doc, I’m aware of the provisioning of units to the different Combatant Commanders in theater. I was referring to the different services “organizational mindset.” The Air Force appears to be acting with little regard to the fighting thats going on. Attempts made to take charge of the UAV programs Pentagon wide? Devising its own counter insurgency manual? Those are the actions of a Service Branch that acts not as part of a war fighting team but as a separate war winning force. The Air Force’s culture is in disarray. People have noticed and are alarmed.
“If there wasn’t a political motive behind it, then why publish in American Prospect instead of Armed Forces Journal?”
I don’t know and its of no concern. If this piece had been printed in the Weekly Standard would your criticism have been any less? I hope not. Politics are not the issue. The “punditocracy” is.
Solomon, Would people have problems if the US Navy wanted to take charge of USV’s or AUV’s? Why do people get upset when The AIR Force wants control over AIR vehicles. Maybe they would mess things up, but people here want efficency, but yet they apparently dont mind the 4 services having overlapping UAV’s.
As for their CION manual, doesnt it seem to make sense that idividual services examine how they fit in the larger picture.
As for acting seperate I would suggest that you take a look at their actual actions over the last 5 years.
NTV
“Why do people get upset when The AIR Force wants control over AIR vehicles”
Because the Air Force has yet to demonstrate a desire to fully develop these vehicles. The Air Force dropped the X-45 attack drone and left it to the Navy to continue on with the X-47 on its own. Now belatedly the Air Force is again (after a PITIFUL-SORRY-SHAMEFUL DELAY) pursuing the attack UAV program again. The Army’s future UAV, the fire scout, is rotary winged and was no where on the Air Force’s radar. The Marines were at the forefront of Micro UAV development with no input from the Air Force. So please tell me why the other services should cede UAV development to a service that has such a spotty and fragmented record? Certain weapon systems are common to combat operations and their usage crosses domains, the UAV is one of those.
“As for their CION manual, doesnt it seem to make sense that idividual services examine how they fit in the larger picture”
Another calculated and pathetic example of Air Force malfeasance. The Army and Marine Corps cooperated on the publication of the current COIN manual. The Air Force re-created the wheel as a publicity stunt and it backfired beautifully. The whole purpose of the Air Force’s production of a COIN manual was to again worship at the alter of AIR POWER ALONE WINNING WARS! The Air Force as ultra conservatives might say “serve a false master.”
“As for acting seperate I would suggest that you take a look at their actual actions over the last 5 years.”
It is a separate service. I was attempting to say that they are not acting as part of the War Winning Team. And they aren’t. A sad truth is that many service people consider the Air Force a corporate entity and not a true member of the armed services. Their actions over the past 5 years bear that out. They are the ultimate example of perception (they suck) being reality.
Solomon, are you a regular American Prospect reader? Sounds like you reveal a lot about who you are when you say “as ultra conservatives might say “serve a false master.”" Ultra-conservatives or religious people? Hey, what’s a little intolerance by self-appointed tolerant people like you?
Anyway, the Air Force has been part of the war winning team for five years both in direct support of the ground forces and independent of it. I would put guys like Captain Scott Markle forward as an example. You see, the F-22 loving Air Force leadership selected Capt Markle as the Mackay Trophy winner this year. Previous winners included Hap Arnold, Eddie Rickenbacker, Jimmy Doolittle and Chuck Yeager. Capt Markle, an A-10 pilot, received the award for *gasp* providing close air support for special operations forces engaged by the Taliban.
Fortunately, Capt Markle was able to perform his duties in an environment without centralized joint air control of UAVs and the comm interference that results from having so many UAVs bought by so many different services operating in the same airspace. Also, Capt Markle amazingly demonstrated the power of aerospace in the counter-insurgency environment as so apply demonstrated in the Air Force’s recently published COIN doctrine.
But, that won’t appeal to you. In your eyes, Capt Markle sucks and is part of a corporate entity. You believe he is not part of the war winning team. I bet the guys on the ground would disagree.
As for me, Scott Markle is another example of the fine bluesuiters I served with for nearly ten years. I found people like him throughout the service and they understood their mission and their role as part of the joint team.
Solomon-
To say that the AF hasnt been willing to develop UAV’s is off base. The AF has been in the UAV developing UAV’s for 15 years now. Dark Star. Global Hawk, Predator are examples of that. Remember also that the AF is only concerned about MEDIUM and HIGH altitude UAV’s. They are not trying to control the Micro UAV’s Besides if the Army was so “with it” why didnt they develop their own UAV, instead of revive the Navy’s Fire Scout? And again the AF is looking not to control the medium and high altitude UAV’s, but the AF wants to be in charge of developing and building them. this would build on their existing exepriance working with the UAV’s listed above as well as the U-2′s and RC-135′s. Now we can argue whether this is all a good idea its hardley a reason to disband the AF.
“So please tell me why the other services should cede UAV development to a service that has such a spotty and fragmented record?”
This is a contining theme here, and yet you and others fail to look at the flaws in the other services aquisition proccesses. Those are hardley steller.
“A sad truth is that many service people consider the Air Force a corporate entity and not a true member of the armed services. Their actions over the past 5 years bear that out. They are the ultimate example of perception (they suck) being reality. ”
Those that think that way are being uttelry obtuse. The AF is consistently invloved in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as continueing its other missions. To say they are not true memembers of the armed services is truley ignorant. Yes, the Amry and Marines are bearing the brunt of the fighting, but thats the nature of this war. But no one can look at the AF and say that they are not part of the armed srvices.
Hmmm where to start???
Doc75
I’ve read Mein Kampf but I’m not a Nazi, so why does my reading of any publication mean that I am aligned with their values? Thats being simplistic. Keeping with the theme I started, although I definitely applaud the work done by the Air Force Capt you sited-that does not mean that I do not recognize the deficits of the organization that he belongs to. Their are many accounts of individual heroism performed by members of the SS yet many would still say that it was a flawed organization. That same line of reasoning extends to the present day Air Force.
NTV
The Air Force has yet to establish a future path for the inclusion of UAVs into its own force, much less DOD wide. The Army has its network based Brigade Combat Teams in which the recon aspects of the UAV will be touted. The Navy and Marines have their doctrinal publication to provide a blueprint of future UAV needs. The Air Force simply have not done their homework on this subject. You avoided discussions of the X-45 why? It is the next evolution of the UCAV and the Air Force is late to the game. That program alone is an indication of why they should not have control of DOD UAV procurement programs.
No one has said that the Air Force is not a military service. I do stand by the contention that members of the other services consider it to operate more in a corporate style than that of a military organization.
As I have said earlier, the Air Force is on notice that its performance has at least caught the attention of the public and we do not like what we see.
Solomon.
“The Air Force has yet to establish a future path for the inclusion of UAVs into its own force, much less DOD wide.”
Huh? The AF currently owns and opperates a number of UAV’s in its own force, and is planing on expanding their use in the near futuer. The AF curently has a highly integrated system to obtain and process information from the UAV’s that they operate. As I said, there are plenty of arguments to be made for the AF to not be an executive agent, but to suggest that they should be disbanded is a stretch.
“You avoided discussions of the X-45 why?” Because it doesnt necisarily indicate much of anything, when the AF has alrady shown that it is working on its own UAV’s. I also think they think a maned bomber is a better use of thier funds in the next 20 years. I did notice that you ignored many of my points as well, Why? What about the AF’s record of currently useing UAV’s? Wha about the procurment issues of the other services?
“No one has said that the Air Force is not a military service. ”
Well in your other post you said this.
” It is a separate service. I was attempting to say that they are not acting as part of the War Winning Team. And they aren’t. A sad truth is that many service people consider the Air Force a corporate entity and not a true member of the armed services. ”
Not a true member of the armed services?????
“I do stand by the contention that members of the other services consider it to operate more in a corporate style than that of a military organization.”
Yes the AF has always been held in low regard by the other services as being more “buisness” like. And that matters how? The AF’s mission is what it is, and its different than the Army and Marines. And,in the end, it doesnt make one bit of difference. If they want to bitch and moan, they can but AF could care less, They have a job to do, and willdo it.
Like I have sais a number of times, Tell me what the missions of the AF are, and how they can be better served by the other services, both nao and 20-30 years into the future.
“The Navy has managed to put exactly one new type of aircraft on carrier decks in the past 25 year”
Well, not really- both the pro and anti F18 folks know that the F18 E/F is really a new plane. It was a savvy way to get it through the approval process. I forget the details- but a full blown competition would have been legally required, for one thing.
If the Cold War was still on things would be different- a rebooted A12 or even a naval F22 would have been lobbied for. With the “peace dividend” the F18E/F was seen as a good way to go.
Bogus BS DC rant & ravings.
For this debate I feel the following:
Merge USN Air Force & USAF into 1.
Merge US Army & Marines.
USCG can be under Navy as always.
Or combo Navy & ICE.
KISS.
Simplfy, simplify.
One new command Id estd:
COUNTER TERRORISIM COMMAND
& merge with SOCOM?
Re organize Army & Marines into:
Tactical Field Combat Command
Combat Eng Command
Support Command
Intelligence Forces Command
SeaForce Command
Rapid Deployment Strike Command.
For Navy & Air Force:
Tactical Command
Marine Defense Command (with USCG).
SeaForce Command.
Air Mobility Command
Training Command
Undersea Forces Command.
Base Support Command ( include shipyards & depots).
NORAD Command.
CONUS Air Defense Command.
Space Defense Command (with NORAD).
Intelligence Command?? with US Army & Marines.
& close up those miscl agencies in the DOD alone for Savings.
Combine R&D, Procurement under 1 roof.
GAO & CBO oversee budgets.
Involve CAGW.org in the Budget mix.
Win Win.
The obvious ignorance of the air force’s mission his almost hilarious from people of different services. Ask the ground controllers, the army guyus, navy who’s lives have been saved by pricision airstrikes from the Air Force’s fleet of A-10′s, fighters, b1 bombers ac-130′s? Look at the absolute disproprtionate casualty rate in OUR FAVOR, since Vietnam, granted we’ve lost thousands, but how much have our enemies lost? Hrmm, how much did airpower contribute to the War in the Balkans, how about ALL OF IT! Yes F-22′s do not meet the criteria of our threat today, but out threat or wars of tomorrow. In this ever changing world, and fierce competition of air superiority from the Russians, we MUST keep a competative edge. Look at history, anything can happen, our friends can soon be our enemies. Do you want to be on the winning side?