Break Up The Air-Force? What?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
So this guy thinks the U.S. Air Force should be broken up. No offense, considering the threats the US faces from China, Iran, terrorists and others this is not a smart move. What would happen to all the planes? Do we just junk them? Not a serious argument but it is out there. What a joke:

nationalinterest.org...




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Interesting article, worn but hot debate.


And so yes, the independent Air Force does given independent advice, but this advice tends to lean heavily towards the idea that airpower can cheaply, decisively win wars. This would be less of a problem were it not for the fact that strategic airpower is alluring, especially to civilians who lack experience with military affairs.

"Close support" of ground forces requires embedded response and dedication to those elements. The Army and Marines have these well in hand.

The Navy provides a lot of that as well and though they "fly" they are sea based, not land based. This allows mobility and quick response due to proximity to whatever conflict requires it.

The air force should relegate itself to its limited capacity and quit crying they aren't allowed enough "game time".

Thats my military analysis, my human analysis says US out of everywhere…



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
War =
Step 1.) control air superiority
Step 2.) if you don't the other guy will and bomb/blow/blast your ground/naval troops to tiny bits.

How history is soon forgotten.
This is what happens when we let Morons in power with the ability to speak.
edit on 1-2-2014 by DogMeat because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DogMeat
 


War =
Step 1.) control air superiority
Step 2.) if you don't the other guy will and bomb/blow/blast your ground/naval troops to tiny bits.

"Air Superiority" did not do anything to the german defenses at D Day, or on Japanese held Islands. Io Jima was pounded for weeks prior by air and naval gunfire. What it took was boots on the ground to take out every machine gun nest and only then was air able to support those troops in focused attacks on specific targets.

But I get the destruction of air bases to obtain air superiority prior to invasion.

It is a limited role. Bwah wah!



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


I'm of the opinion that if the USAF doesn't want the A-10 (or ground support mission) anymore than the Army should get the aircraft. How is it the Army arming fixed wing aircraft going to hurt the USAF? Oh, yea...funding.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the USAF uses up their average annual budget on stupid thing like upgrading golf courses and billeting, etc. Then when they run low on funds, they hoop and holler about aircraft being grounded due to maintenence issues and end up getting more money to fix that. That money usually comes from the other services budgets.

Give the aerial transport and ground support to those who actually use it. Let the zoomies keep their shiny fighters and bombers.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by travis911
 


Interesting article, worn but hot debate.


And so yes, the independent Air Force does given independent advice, but this advice tends to lean heavily towards the idea that airpower can cheaply, decisively win wars. This would be less of a problem were it not for the fact that strategic airpower is alluring, especially to civilians who lack experience with military affairs.

"Close support" of ground forces requires embedded response and dedication to those elements. The Army and Marines have these well in hand.

The Navy provides a lot of that as well and though they "fly" they are sea based, not land based. This allows mobility and quick response due to proximity to whatever conflict requires it.

The air force should relegate itself to its limited capacity and quit crying they aren't allowed enough "game time".

Thats my military analysis, my human analysis says US out of everywhere…



I agree to a point. The air force support/pilots/equip could be absorbed by Army/Marines/Navy pretty easily. The Airforce should stick to what its doing the MOST and the BEST... mapping and planning, ACFP, etc. A large part could be absorbed by the NSA or CIA for the most part due to their current work at a few of the hubs.
You may not be very knowledgeable about what really goes on within the airforce if you consider them having a "limited" capacity. Consider we are not in the era of ww2. This is the new mechanized computer assisted time of war. The AF plays a significant role.... just not the one that people who are stuck on "Top Gun" understand.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


The AF plays a significant role…. just not the one that people who are stuck on "Top Gun" understand.

I agree.

Its not "stuck on top gun" though that sees the changing nature of the conflicts abroad. A B2 stealth Bombers 17 GPS bombs aren't required to quell terror. Neither are missiles in silos or home defense fighter bases.

Those are reserved for the big one and defend that capacity well enough (so we're told). Personally I don't see Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as being that imminent.

Until we require another invasion the air force is going to have to sit on its runways.

And thats the scary part. What good is a force of hanger queens if they aren't being used? The pressure to involve them is always there which, instead of ending conflict, could result in a much wider one.

The days of B52 "Failsafe" merry go rounds and 1000 plane raids to firebomb cities are over.

By the way, where was our defensive air force on 911? Either ordered to stand down or inept, take your pick.

edit on 1-2-2014 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



Thats why they can be absorbed by the other armed forces... or decommed completely. The mission has changed for the AF over the last 50 years. The money shuffle hasnt caught up yet. It will..



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Advantage
reply to post by intrptr
 


Thats why they can be absorbed by the other armed forces... or decommed completely. The mission has changed for the AF over the last 50 years. The money shuffle hasnt caught up yet. It will..

mm hmm, remember this kind of money shuffle?

Catching up the dollars...



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

intrptr

Advantage
reply to post by intrptr
 


Thats why they can be absorbed by the other armed forces... or decommed completely. The mission has changed for the AF over the last 50 years. The money shuffle hasnt caught up yet. It will..

mm hmm, remember this kind of money shuffle?

Catching up the dollars...


That, this and many more "shuffles".
Some folks dont like being told they are obsolete.


Im not a fan of the Blaze, but its where I found it when I googled. There is a LOT to this story... particularly the money shuffle with defense contractors and etc..
www.theblaze.com... me/



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
This is a very interesting and important debate about the utility of the USAF.

The orginal and ongoing raison d'ete for the Air Force was that it could provide decisive victories with little threat to personel and material, that a decisive victory over an enemy could be won with air power alone.

arguments that were actually important at the creation. For the USAF, the important arguments focused almost solely on strategic airpower, and on the ability of airpower to win decisive victories without significant contribution from the other two services.


nationalinterest.org...

History has repeatedly shown us that this is not the case. Vietnam is a prime example that one cannot 'bomb' anyone into submission.

The AF doesn't want to provide close air support or reconnaissance. Close air support primarily being precisely directed air strikes in support of troops on the ground.

From Stars and Stripes:



Providing close-air support for soldiers is the squadron’s main mission here, and it is the specialty of the jet they fly — the A-10 Thunderbolt II. Before arriving at Bagram, pilots trained for a month in Nevada and for a month in Florida.

Maj. Brett "Mirv" Herman has 16 years in the Air Force, but this is his first time in Afghanistan. He arrived expecting to drop bombs and fire the A-10’s gun with the frequency of a video game. That hasn’t been the case. Pilots fired only half as many 20 mm rounds as during the last deployment. But things have gradually intensified with the rise in temperatures.

Herman’s missions have included guarding coalition convoys and performing screaming flyovers as a "show of force" to scare off Taliban fighters. His most memorable mission occurred when a group of soldiers a few miles outside their base came under attack. Herman provided cover as they sprinted back safely to the base carrying full packs.

"Being here and protecting the ground guys, I wouldn’t trade it for anything," Herman said. "I like it. Having them feel more secure with me overhead is a good feeling."



www.freerepublic.com...

The above speaks to part of the Warthog's mission but not all of it:



That strike occurred in Paktia Province, close to the Pakistani border, and it was inflicted by a B-1 bomber, a plane originally designed to drop nuclear bombs on Moscow. The target was a farmhouse inhabited by a man named Shahiullah and his family. The payload of several tons of bombs killed him, his wife, and five of his seven children. The ground controllers directing the attack, and the crew of the B-1, had been informed that only civilians were at the scene, and that this was a “bad target.” This information came from the one plane in the U.S. arsenal designed specifically for close air support of troops on the ground: the A-10 “Warthog.” Two A-10 pilots had spent many minutes circling low over the farm, scanning it at close range with the naked eye and through binoculars, then warning repeatedly that it was a bad target and refusing to strike as ordered. Their warnings were ignored by the ground controllers, who handed the mission over to the willing B-1. As a result seven people, including a ten-month-old baby, died.



harpers.org...

The Warthog pilots could clearly see what the controllers and bomber pilots with their 'video' eyes could not. The designated target was not insurgents (or whatever we call them now a days) but a civilian farm.

There is another - possibly more important issue involved here and that is the expensive nature of Air Force multi-mission aircraft.

Multi-purpose machines (think Multi-purpose printers) do all the jobs in a fair manner, but do none of them well. If you want excellence a single purpose machine is the answer.

Remember that World War II was won (arguably) with material that could be easily jury-rigged (MacGyvered in modern parlance) in the field by GIs. Mobile hospitals could go up and down in a day. Todays 'state of the art' weapons systems can't be repaired on the fly without a truck load of spares and a Masters degree. Modern mobile hospital units are anything but mobile all shiney and nice in their shipping containers they take weeks to erect.



But real reason for that move is because A-10 goes against everything USAF believes in. A-10 is the ultimate proof that highly capable and effective weapons do not need to be complex or costly, and that going up close and personal with target is oftentimes the only way to get things done. In fact, USAF only rushed it in production so that Army does not take over entire CAS mission.


defenseissues.wordpress.com...

The Air Force has always seemed odd to me and different then the other services.

Maybe it's time to consolidate. Air Force and Army into one service and the Navy and Marines into another. If nothing else it would cut down on administrative costs.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
We'll (I'm a army vet)take that AC130-U as well. That'll leave the flyboys the higher altitude stuff alone like they evidently want.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

TDawgRex
reply to post by travis911
 


I'm of the opinion that if the USAF doesn't want the A-10 (or ground support mission) anymore than the Army should get the aircraft. How is it the Army arming fixed wing aircraft going to hurt the USAF? Oh, yea...funding.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the USAF uses up their average annual budget on stupid thing like upgrading golf courses and billeting, etc. Then when they run low on funds, they hoop and holler about aircraft being grounded due to maintenence issues and end up getting more money to fix that. That money usually comes from the other services budgets.

Give the aerial transport and ground support to those who actually use it. Let the zoomies keep their shiny fighters and bombers.


I'm of the opinion that if the USAF doesn't want the A-10 (or ground support mission) anymore than the Marines should get the aircraft. How is it the marine close air support aircraft going to hurt the USAF? Oh, yea...funding.(the marines on the ground trust marine pilots more then USAF pilots for close air support)

It's pretty much common knowledge that the USAF uses up their average annual budget on stupid thing like upgrading golf courses and billeting, etc. Then when they run low on funds, they hoop and holler about aircraft being grounded due to maintenence issues and end up getting more money to fix that. That money usually comes from the other services budgets.

Give the aerial transport and ground support to those who actually use it. Let the zoomies keep their shiny fighters and bombers.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Sure, there's an overlap of abilities between the services. Never has the co-ordination between the services been better- even though the pissing contest continues.

I think there's a fear of the Air Force amongst the other services. Intel and space based weapons...eventually deep space seems destined to the Air Force....rightly so. There'll be a bit of delay before we invade any planets.....



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
They have this discussion in the UK periodically as well - questions raised about just what an independent Air Force brings to the table. Don't forget, most Air Forces often started out as Corps within the Army but were then broken off during the interbellum to form an independent force.

There are convincing arguments either side as to whether they should be folded back into the Army and it is worth noting that the RN and RAF have had joint commands, plus all battlefield helicopters in the UK Armed forces, be they Army Air Corps, RAF or RN fall under the Joint Helicopter Command, so a blending of the services is already underway.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by DogMeat
 


War =
Step 1.) control air superiority
Step 2.) if you don't the other guy will and bomb/blow/blast your ground/naval troops to tiny bits.

"Air Superiority" did not do anything to the german defenses at D Day, or on Japanese held Islands. Io Jima was pounded for weeks prior by air and naval gunfire. What it took was boots on the ground to take out every machine gun nest and only then was air able to support those troops in focused attacks on specific targets.

But I get the destruction of air bases to obtain air superiority prior to invasion.

It is a limited role. Bwah wah!


You've cited one instance of a less than perfect aerial bombardment. !0,000's of Air missions were flown during the war.
If the allies had not gained air superiority the war would have lasted years longer, by which time the nazi jet fighters would have been out in numbers and destroyed the beach-heads.
You seem to also forget that America ended the war with Japan, with the atom bomb dropped by air power in the clear skies.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EA006
 


Just add, in the run up to D-Day, it was really only the US beaches that seem to be unscathed by bombing primarily because the pilots missed their targets and blew up some cows instead, owing to low cloud which is understandable.

The other beaches were hit far more successfully - not to mention the carpet bombing of German cities that even allowed the invasion to be feasible by smashing their industrial base.

Without the bombing, Germany would have been able to put up a much harder fight and could have possibly stalled the Red Army in the East, owing to the fact it was a lack of tanks and tank parts that led the Germans to crumble.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Well, the US Navy are really the ones who run the show. They test everything have all the planes carry the marines have the SEALS, SWCC, and everything else pretty much. The rest of our entire military relys on naval support.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by DogMeat
 


War =
Step 1.) control air superiority
Step 2.) if you don't the other guy will and bomb/blow/blast your ground/naval troops to tiny bits.

"Air Superiority" did not do anything to the german defenses at D Day, or on Japanese held Islands. Io Jima was pounded for weeks prior by air and naval gunfire. What it took was boots on the ground to take out every machine gun nest and only then was air able to support those troops in focused attacks on specific targets.

But I get the destruction of air bases to obtain air superiority prior to invasion.

It is a limited role. Bwah wah!


Air superiority ended the war though Bwah wah!


How about something more modern like Iraq war....what if they owned the air? No one should get their panties in a bunch anyways, the Air Force is at its lowest level since conception.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


No, the Navy really doesn't. A large portion of weapons testing starts and is carried out at Eglin AFB or Nellis AFB. The Navy tests weapons their aircraft carry, but a lot of the time after the Air Force develops it.

And the SEAL teams are Navy not Marine.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join