Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Air force-armt cooperation.
Hardu    10/2/2002 2:57:18 AM
The report on the problems of air-ground cooperation in Afghanistan just shows that the age of the independent air force is over. Tactical air power is an adjunct to the ground forces and should be under ground force command. Times have changed since 1918 and 1947.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Slade    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   10/2/2002 11:02:13 AM
Tactical airpower and Strategic airpower have wholy different missions. If you remerge the Airforce and Army you will get what happened in WWII to the Germans and Japanese. Deep strike capabilities will be sacrficed for the sake of CAS. Both countries had the technical expertise to build long-ranged 4 engine bombers but lacked the perceived need in the service or political will. This is discussed in "American and British Aircraft Carried Development 1919-1941" by Hone, Friedman, &Mandeles. The whole thing is a political problem involving relations between the services, budget aproval, the political leadership, and the law. US Army fixed wing aircraft can not be armed by law, or at least agreement between the services. And if you think the Air Force will allow that to be changed without a serious political fight, dream on. An independent airforce is a double-edged sword, it has it's good points and its bad points. I don't know that it is possible in the real world to improve the system that much. Sure all the services claim to worship at the alter of jointness but budgeting is seen as an advarcerial(sp) process amongst the services. So there is an inherent contradiction and here we are. This is not just an Air Force/Army problem, it happens amoungst all the services and amongst the various lobbys within each service.
 
Quote    Reply

Hardu    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   10/3/2002 2:24:22 AM
I can modify my stance and simply argue that the US Army has exactly the same need for its own tactical airpower as the US Marines. But fact is that the idea of the independent air force rests squarely on the notion that strategic bombardment alone can win wars. This is the idea behind the RAF of 1918 and behind the USAF on 1947. This idea was proved to be nonsense. The best result this philosophy can produce is a balance of terror - the MAD of the good ol' Cold War (God, how I miss the four hour readiness of my youth). It is not an instrument with which to pursue any rational political goal - whch is the purpose of war. The only advantage is that it is cheap. If you want to pursue policy you have to have instruments that can win wars. That requires military forces actually capable of winning battles and seizing territory without incurring or inflicting the casualities probably in a nuclear strategic exchange. Future wars are likely to be limited, colonial, wars. That means that the force structure must be tailored to such wars. The component of the US armed forces that is so configured is the Marines - with its own airforce dedicated to close air support. I see no logic in denying the army its own fixed wing, manned close ait support.
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   10/3/2002 11:42:52 AM
In an ideal world I'd agree with you that the Army should not be denied fixed-wing CAS. In the real world changing the law requires better understanding of the law than most of the political leadership and electorate has. It would also require getting past the Air Force lobby that thinks if it flies it belongs to them. They would take Navy (and thus Marine) air if they could get it. Then they would use the money to buy land based fighters but... that's the way beuracracies budget. Look at what happend post WWII in the Air Force as the fighter types took the command slots from the bomber types and how that effected relative numbers of each type of aircraft. I think there would be a similar problem within the Army in that they would use some of the money theoretically for CAS to improve tanks,apcs, land force readiness, etc. The Marines have done very well with what they have been given, but the only things they typically develop on their own is specialized amphibious equipment. They usually buy Army tanks and arty and Navy aircraft. That might be a little overstated but the generalization holds true. One could argue that the Air Force's job is to support the other services, airpower does not win wars alone. Air Force types will arue the point but the Serbs didn't quit till NATO started talking about bringing in ground troops. The Taliban and AQ didn't give up til ground troops advanced. That would ignore the need to take out the support structure, factories, supply depots, and other deep targets that need to be destroyed but would be ignored by CAS only airpower.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   10/3/2002 11:25:45 PM
The structure would not be CAS only. Long range bombers, boomer subs, and space platforms would likely belong to this new strategic air/sea/space armed force.
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   10/4/2002 9:21:33 AM
The underlying problem in my opinion is the politics, both budget and internal, of this whole thing. Depending on who is running the show part of the organization is going to get a shorted. It happens in all the services and the rest of government too for that matter. Traditionally the fighter lobby running the Air Force shorts the bomber and support types. Combat arms running the Army shorts the engineers and the Navy shorts small combatants and amphibs. The shorting is a relative thing, these functions are seen as needed but if it's a choice between these and where the leadership spent it's time while rising thru the ranks these functions get shorted. It's a hard sell to get congress to fund equipment when your job is to support someone else doing their job. It's part of the reason why the Air Force concentrates on strategic bombing instead of CAS. That and it's psychologically more fulfilling to believe you won the war yourself and your people who died did it on their own, not just supporting the other guy. Creating a new force or combining two existing ones will just change what the problem is. Hacking the beuracracy and placing GOOD leaders who got burned by these problems in a slot where they can work the problem will do more to solve it. But part of the problem will always exist as long as the US is a democracy and Congress controls the budget. It's the nature of the beast.
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   3/12/2003 1:25:48 AM
I see that the need is that the forces need to be joined under a unifying comand structure that makes the decisions and does the research to decide what each forces roles need to be and task the leader ship with accomplishing thier goals. rather than haveing the airforce, navy, and army overlapping eachother missions. technicolly i can see the three forces being united into one force. so rather than spending money on 5 new bigger carriers that may not be helpful we can focus on effeciency rather than massivity. we need to be able to say this is teh goals of the armed force for the next 20 years figure out what you need to accomplish this and bring the idea here. that way technology is shared and efficiency is more comprehensive. we got some of this during nam when they tried running things by the numbers the problem there was that mathamatician were making decisions that military personel should have been making.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   3/13/2003 3:20:09 PM
Close air support is a mission, not an aircraft type. What was the single most effective type of close air support in Afghanistan? If you ask the Northern Alliance, I think the answer would be nearly unanimous: heavy bombers. B-1s and B-52s orbiting overhead were called in by forward air controllers and within minutes of receiving the target coordinates delivered devastating strikes with six, eight, and twelve GBU-31s at a time. So I guess then it's time to give the B-1Bs and B-52Hs to the Army?!? Jim Habermehl
 
Quote    Reply

norden    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   3/13/2003 4:07:52 PM
IMHO I think the the Army should recieve the A-10 inventory and more UAV's. The B-52 is great but I believe the Army could not use it to its full potential. Norden
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   3/13/2003 8:30:17 PM
frankly with the future development of gps guided weapons and super fast aircraft(mach 4-5) I would think that the slow speed high loiter time air craft could be turned over to the army. why would the air force want slow moving bobmbers to accomplish the strategic bombing missions. by going over to ultra high altitude high speed air craft we can use the air force to make strikes deep into enemy territory with out them even detecting us. then the long range long loiter time aircraft can be use for what they have been really effective at in afganistan responding to ground troop call for munitions. with the use of the new c20 explosives designed by the navy these air craft could carry 4 times as many munitions. or as many solid bomb as they carry now and add in the new wind corrected sub munnitions. the force could be multiplyed greatly. given air supremacy they would take over much of the roll of indirect artillery. they may even be able to use the UCAV's to target for the bombers. in this way all ground attack type aircraft could be turnerd over to the army. and the airforce would handle air supremacy and strategic bombing. that way CAS would get the funding it should have and not be sidlined to develope expensive fighters.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Air force-armt cooperation.   3/14/2003 7:36:08 AM
CAS is a mission, not an air frame! Which of these aircraft are used to perform CAS: RQ-1, A-10, AC-130, F-16, F-18, F-14, F-15E, B-52, B-1, B-2? Answer: Yes. Which of these airframes are used for interdiction/strike/reconnaissance/air superiority not in direct support to ground troops: RQ-1, A-10, AC-130, F-16, F-18, F-14, F-15E, B-52, B-1, B-2? Answer: Yes. So therefore which airframe should be turned over to the Army because the Army supposedly should have control over all CAS assets? The Air Force devotes plenty of effort to the CAS mission. I have difficulty believing the average grunt thinks the Air Force doesn't provide enough CAS support on today's battlefields. Furthermore, what possible reason do you have to think that if the Army was given the CAS mission that it would receive more attention? That could only occur at the expense of some of the other traditional Army missions, and the Army is no more inclined to make those changes than the Air Force is--regardless of whether they're needed or not. Jim Habermehl
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics