It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Break Up The Air-Force? What?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

FyreByrd

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.


Now that would not be very fair to the Army guys having Air Force in charge of them now would it? The Marines are already a department of the Navy...the Mens department...




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Thier is some very good logic in breaking up the Airforce as it is. I could see it remaining in a smaller version with a strategic mission while most of its air superiority/support roles could be returned to an Army Aircorps from where it came. Sure would save money on redundant command and support structures and it we managed to win two world wars that way.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EA006
 



If the allies had not gained air superiority the war would have lasted years longer…

That was a World War after all. Regular out an out between first world nations.

Today that would be fought with missiles. If anything was left after that, maybe a force of planes would come into play…

But carriers and jets are so sloooow compared to ballistic missiles. By the time they arrived on target it would be over, if they got airborne at all.

ICBM, 3o minutes to anywhere

B2, how many days?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


No one should get their panties in a bunch anyways, the Air Force is at its lowest level since conception.

Thanks, panties unbunched.

ETA: Now I'm going to go beat some swords into plowshares…
edit on 1-2-2014 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Advantage

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.



You want to make the NSA and CiA bigger!



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

travis911
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...


Iran a threat? Give me a break. Only thing they are a threat to is isreal and even thats a grey area!



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by EA006
 


B2, how many days?


Less than 24 hours anywhere in the world. But by all means lets use the ICBMs instead of something you can abort and call back.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Less than 24 hours anywhere in the world. But by all means lets use the ICBMs instead of something you can abort and call back.

We'd use them because we fear the enemy would. Sort of why the Bomb came into being in the first place…

"If we don't build it they will."



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


And yet, despite being closer to a major war than we are today no live ICBMs have ever flown.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Close air support for the troops on the ground... The army has tried to with pretty good success to accomplish this feat starting with the old "B" Huey which evolved into the 540 rotor system "C" model and then finally the Cobra. However I must admit when the fast movers were needed in a big bad way they usually showed up and if they hit the bad guys and not us it was nice having them around.

Used to be the running rumor the army would build the runway and revetments for their aircraft and when almost out of money would request funding for BOQs ... Nope live in tents ... Where the air force would build their BOQs and "O" clubs first and run out of money with only half the runway finished... They always got the money to finish the runway ! Who said the air force boys were dummies ?

The Army has always wanted a close air support aircraft and I have personally known guys who have written papers and testified before congress upon the merits of letting the army run it's own show and protect it's troops... Live in tents and be glad we let you have helicopters is the answer they have always gotten.

If I were Emperor I would leave the strategic bombing and air superiority missions to the airforce. But real ground support missions I would turn over to the guys on the ground just like the marines have today. Would that solve a few problems, YES SIR REBOB it would..... but it would also start other problems with "Well the Marines have FA-18 Hornets, why can't we" kind of arguments.. However if I were emperor I feel I could work it out... at least until I was assassinated.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thats one way of looking at it.

Another might be that they do not make our planet any safer.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Zaphod58
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.


BS go back to the history of aircraft weapons and many lead back to NOTS China Lake.

Nearly every guided missile in the U.S. Inventory today owes a major debt to China Lake R&D efforts in sensors, guidance, control, fuzing, propulsion, warheads, and materials technology. China Lake has made significant contributions to every aspect of guided missile technology and development.
Sidewinder (AIM-9)
Shrike (AGM-45)
AGM-62 Walleye
HARM (AGM-88)
Sparrow (AIM/RIM-7),
Maverick (AGM-65),
Harpoon (A/R/UGM-84),
Tomahawk (BGM-109)
SLAM-ER AGM-84H/K
fuel-air explosive (FAE)
lightstick,
Continuous-rod warhead.

In many cases the AirForce use parts of navy weapons systems to built there weapons.
China Lake Pump-Action Grenade Launcher
Sources
China Lake was the lead in integrating FLIR systems into aircraft. China Lake targeting and fire-control projects also include the CP-741/841 weapons computer, Navy Pave Knife laser designator, and the Angle-Rate Bombing System (ARBS).



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
You know what, screw it. You guys are right. The Navy did it all.
edit on 2/2/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Interesting article, and the logic can even make sense in you do not look into the hidden agenda behind the idea,, because I am a conspiracies theorist I can not keep thinking that the agenda behind the idea of getting rid of the air force or at least downgrade it enough to make useless is because I am sure that is plenty of lobbyist already in Washington padding the pockets of some whores in congress with promises of a drone driven arm forces that will not required any human interacting that will bring profits for everyone.

How do I base my opinion? well in the coming legislation of drones for everyday use in US air space coming soon to a neighborhood near you, also, the more increasing powers of the private interest and the use of drones in conflict zones, and this part of the article.


Secretary Gates found himself repeatedly frustrated by the Air Force’s attitude towards drones, which he summarized as “The Air Force was grasping for absolute control of a capability for which it had little enthusiasm in the first place.” In the system we have, the Air Force has little choice but to challenge the right of other services to aircraft, just as it steadily gnawed away at Army tactical aviation during the Cold War.


Does this surprises anyone?

Then this other piece on the article that shows how Dr. Lowther denigrates the specialized abilities of the men and women of the Air force in order to sell his idea or agenda.


It’s About Bureaucracy

The creation of the Air Force in 1947 turned airpower into a zero-sum game for the U.S. military services. Aerospace innovations developed in one service threaten the turf of the other two. This leaves the Air Force to justify itself through explicit denigration of the contribution of the other services. Indeed, Dr. Lowther manages, in this short piece, to imply that soldiers are incapable of understanding aerial maps, and that the Navy can’t contribute to antiaccess warfare.


If I was in the Air force I will demand prove of what this man is talking about.

The writer of the article seems to agree with what the debate is about and I will not put in doubt that this is going to be expanded.






posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


So in other words what I'm getting from you is that you read a HEADLINE of someone else paraphrasing what this guy said, didn't bother to read the article and commenced to rage post this thread.

As was said to me often when I was first on this site.... it's best to load your mouth before shooting it off...

The reality is the calls to disband or radically restructure the air farce are in fact very valid. The reality is modern warfare does NOT require star players or platform centric warfare! Modern warfare is about combined arms PERIOD. The air farce REFUSES to do combined arms!

Not only will they NOT do the close air support, preferring instead to lie to congress and say that strategic bombing can win wars on it's own, but they also flat out REFUSE to actually fully man or fund their logistics duties!

Between that and their "country club ethic" in an era of theatre ballistic missiles they are a glaring liability on the American readiness posture.

The air farce is an experiment gone horribly wrong, and it has cost us TRILLIONS in treasure and an unknowable amount of blood from their flagrant refusal to do their core jobs! It's a supporting service with delusions of grandeur that thinks it can win wars on it's own.

I have news for them... there is no platform or service that's a single handed war winner not even variable yield MIRV's !!

The reality is if we ran our military like UPS runs it's business we'd see that the Air force is the LEFT turn of the military industrial complex....

As far as the idiotic statements in here about getting rid of planes blah blah blah.... All you've proven is that you didn't bother to read the damn paper, because YOU feel you are smarter than the author. You're not.... everyone gets participation trophies, and EVERYONE'S mom tells them they're special (but most of us realized moms have to say that it's right in the job description)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Marg ... its called the key west agreement, the way the key west agreement has been used as a weapon time and again to kill aviation programs DESPERATELY needed by the Army with NO replacement or alternative solution offered by the AIR FARCE!

Hell look at the Air farce's insistence that NO ONE who isn't an officer should ever be allowed to fly especially armed aircraft because it gives "too much killing power" to the enlisted who are apparently more of an enemy than the ENEMY!

This attitude alone in an era where every other sane country is doing everything they can to radically increase the killing power of individual formations specifically at the enlisted level is enough to screw us big time in a real fight.

Beyond that look at how Air FARCE has killed the c27, a 10, ov 10, and a crap ton of other things including the OV 1 as well... (long story). Now consider that I've missed several of the aviation programs they've killed or maimed over the years, including their insistence that Army rotary wing assets not be allowed to be built with "too many" capabilities because it "threatens their mission and violates key west"! Yes that's right the Army has been forced to take equipment that wasn't the best we could give them because the AIR FARCE thought it would threaten their budget and the army's "need" for them.

Now consider that the reason we don't have a coherent air defense artillery posture or assets because the Air Farce considers it a MORTAL INSULT that the Army or ANYONE ELSE would devote funds to air defense that THEY could use for more planes so that "air defense will never be needed from ground based asset"! Consider now that whenever the Air Farce faces hard times the first things they cut are the assets specifically designed or used to support OTHER SERVICES (COUGH C-130 upgrades)! Now you could say so what? But consider this, other countries have at least LIMITED ability to defend their homeland from aerial threats and incoming cruise missiles from ground based sources that don't cost 10 thousand or more dollars per hour to keep in the air. Maybe that coulda came in handy one september day... whadya think?

Personally I don't believe in completely disbanding the Air Force but I DO believe in stripping them of everything but their nuclear mission and their SUPPORT SERVICE duties. Air power does NOT win wars! It DOES NOT create lasting defeats on the enemy, this has been proven time and again (KOSOVO!!!) Bottom line is no matter how much good they can do in some select instances, the insane costs they accept as normal, the hellishly bloated officer corps, and the insistence on luxury accomodations et cetera make the Air Force as it is now too much of a liability in a true modern peer on peer war. (and YES we do have peers or near peers!)

The corrosive effect they have on the morale and combat capabilities of other units through their direct and indirect actions is just beyond the pale. Now this doesn't mean get rid of all the equipment it means sit down and have a hard and ADULT look at things with all the pride, prejudice, and BS set aside. Then go from there!

P.S: Lest some of you think that I am just a flight hater or someone who "doesn't understand the value of what the modern Air Force does" Suffice it to say that i've been an aviation enthusiast since before I could say the word AIRPLANE! I love aircraft... I love the adventurers spirit present in flight. Hell until i realized my eyes were too bad I wanted to fly combat aircraft!



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


I was a military wife for 22 years that my husband was an enlisted Marine, I know how ranking works, the pros and cons, yes officers are an elite, but so are the higher ranking within the enlisted ranks, where my husband was at the end of his military career, that is the way is done, once your reach certain ranks you are allowed to mix with officers.

That is why in the air force only officers fly, as those like any other officers within any ranking branch have the education to be in the ranks and the schooling also.

I know how enlisted can become officers or commissioner officers, but to be in certain career fields like aviation you have to start from the beginning,Unless you know how the ranking system works is kind of difficult to understand with me just taking about it.

But the conspiracy here is like any other working its way around when it comes to the privatization of the military, that believe it or not is on going and getting stronger since the Rumsfeld years.

As I keep reading about the person behind the article that is not the same that brought the issue for debate, he blames the democrats for the denigration and very soon to become an anti propaganda against the military.

The Op debate is one that has gone on within the two main characters since 2012, back and for is more of dislike between the two or perhaps one sided than anything else and politics are heavily involved.

Now as for the topic of the Air Force been disbanded well before we take side and bash the air force we most look at the agenda behind the issue.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Xtrozero

FyreByrd

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.


Now that would not be very fair to the Army guys having Air Force in charge of them now would it? The Marines are already a department of the Navy...the Mens department...


I agree. The USAF is obsolete.

Air Force -> Strategic Air/Space/Cyber Command. The USSR had "Strategic Rocket Forces" as a separate branch.

The US Army Air Combat and Logistics Forces should be in charge of the non-strategic air force and logistics & materiel for Army and Marine ground troops. Obviously they get the A-10 and its drone successors.
edit on 2-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 


And yet, despite being closer to a major war than we are today no live ICBMs have ever flown.


In the 1960's there was one end-to-end test of a live Polaris system. (And Polaris was a giant technical breakthrough). Maybe you might consider it a IRBM by modern standards but it's pretty close in strategic outlook.

And both US and USSR did tests of live missiles to test EMP.
edit on 2-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
You know why the Air Force is still around, and why Congress will never roll them back into the Army? Defence contracts. As soon as a proposal to rework or cut down the USAF hits the table, Lockheed Martin will just have their lobbyists lean on certain Congressmen and it'll disappear. It's the same reason the godawful F-35 program is still dragging on almost 20 years later. There's too much profit in keeping the Air Force running for defence contractors to allow it to be shut down.

Me? What I'd like to see is a major reorganization of the entire US military structure. Roll the Marines and Army into a unified ground branch, slash the hell out of the Navy's budget (and maybe order them to actually build some Arsenal Ships instead of absurdly expensive missile destroyers), and split the Air Force in two. The air support role is handed over to the land forces, giving them a portion of the bomber fleet and all the attack aircraft. The other half takes over as what Strategic Air Command used to be, in control of the nuclear forces and dedicated fighter aircraft, as well as the few land-based ballistic missile systems that are still active.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join