Looks like the conflict between the USAF and well, pretty much everyone else within DoD is starting to heat up as the story’s signal ratio surges over the noise band in the MSM:
(E)xperts concede that one side-effect of (USAF) executive agency could impact the army
Cap’n,
Is the USAF prepared to revise their package generation procedures (like maybe an Alert 10) to respond to engaged troops? At what point does the strategic Theater Command level become a tactical Area Ops effort? One would think battalion/company level engagements would could make use of air assets on a more immediate manner.
As I have said before, the USAF gave up its tactical/close air support role when the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog) was decomissioned. Now they want to control air assets that are designed to assist ground pounders.
Maybe they’ve been reading too much Dale Brown?
The A-10 hasn’t been decommed, in fact its currently under going a fleet wide upgrade to provide it with expanded capabilities, re-engining, glass cockpit, etc to keep it in service for a while longer.
Strictly a USAF empire building and funding grab. Their strategic heritage and distance from those on the ground actually receiving incoming rounds in real time reflect two irreconcilable cultures. Also the cultural difference between using a “winged” pilot to run drones [from Nevada, no less!] vs. a NCO who understands ground combat and is close to the unit in action. The “midair” problem, is a “who cares” if drone vs. drone. If drone vs. manned then the stakes are a bit higher, but certainly no worse than the risk of all those manned flying machines up there at one time. Unless the USAF is willing to embed thier operators at the squad level in the field, tell the USAF to pound sand on this one!
IIRC, the reason the A-10 wasn’t decommissioned was in part because of the Army’s “offer” to pick up the mission and a/c since the Air Force didn’t see the need… Personally I have to agree with AW1 Tim from a previous thread that the USAF has become increasingly marginalized since the cold war. Now if they would decide that Airlift and Refueling was their primary mission we could redeploy Tac Air to the control of the people who need it.
Shipmates,
Well, the big problem I have with this issue is that the USAF demanded that the Army give up it’s fixed wing assets, and only allowed them to have medivac and recon/transport platforms. Now they want this system(s) as well.
I call BS.
Let’s rescind the Key West agreement and start over.
As to collisons, well, seems to me that the real potential for trouble lies with a pilot in a trailor back in Nevada that can’t look over his shoulder to check his six. In fact, he can’t look OUT of the cockpit at all, so he has no real sense of situational awareness. It’d be like allowing folks on the freeway with no side windows, rear windows, or rear view or side view mirrors.
Respects,
I think keeping the USAF more tightly aligned with a mission directly supporting ground troops is a good thing. While the AF might have been marginalized in low intensity conflicts like we’ve experienced for the past decade, there is a high probably we’ll have another high intensity conflict in the future. Any means of keeping CAS and Observation institutional knowledge in the AF is going to pay dividends in the future. Anything to balance out and provide a mission besides the F-22 Mafia is a good thing in my book as well.
Once I learned about what happened when the Air Force once had the maritime patrol role (short version: Navy had to take it back because there was no MPA to speak of shortly after the USAF took it over) I became much less enthusiastic about letting a more, let’s say, disinterested party take over a rice bowl.
Thems what get shot care more about not getting shot next time.
Tim and Chap,
Well said. How many USAF pilots are carrier qualified? Other than the seemingly endless numbers of SF Troops (as seen in Stargate SG1), how many USAF pilots have engaged in hostile fire actions?
Will,
The probability of another major crisis is approaching unity. Hopefully we’ll have the resources to handle the air battle above solid ground. I think the Battle Group Air War is well in hand.
The only advantage that a UAV has over a manned fighter in ACM, is the UAV can turn square corners at much higher G. Other than that, dogmeat.
Lex’s post was talking about the roles-missions fight re UAVs and turf..
It degrades from there into sorta B.S. on the USAF. I can’t believe I need to defend it..but…bashing it for the hell of it don’t appeal to me.
Senior- I am a retired naval aviator and I can tell you the A-10 is alive, well funded and about to get a new life- avionics weps structures etc as Will said..
re- “how many USAF pilots have engaged in hostile fire actions”
Y.G.B.S.M. I don’t even remotely like the AF, but I wouldn’t make that statement. It’s got that ChickenHawk argument smell.
re- “I think the Battle Group Air War is well in hand.”
Gee I hope so. All them Hornets about..but what about ASW and ASuW? Personally I think the USN is sucking “you know what” for it’s air missions right now..
Lastly, lay off the S.F.!
b2
I do not think the Army should trust the Air Force to support Army ground forces. The Air Force is still bitter that the Air Corps was chopped to the Army for D-Day support.
The Air Force senior leadership cares not a whit for anything touching the CAS mission. The senior USAF leadership has been very frank about their willingness to sacrifice anything and everything to fund the F-22.
They hate the A-10, it’s a miracle and testament to the Army and Air Guard that any survived.
Only in the last couple of years have they spent anything above the bare minimum for the ground FAC mission. I saw this first hand, my last assignment in the Air Force was as a ground FAC.
I had exactly the same equipment as the Army Air Corps had in WWII. A radio, vehicle, and a grease pencil. I had to spend my own money for the pencil.
Well shit Jim, welcome to the grunt world.
Jerry Pournelle wrote on his site today, I think, that there really is no need for an independent Air Force.
He mentioned that the “Strategic” mission tends to denigrate, and shunt resources away from, the tactical air stuff that they’d rather not do anyway, and won’t let the Army do, either.
Have a look: http://www.jerrypournelle.com
As cool and fun as it is to be an AF person, (Majors and higher get silver lightning bolts on their cap visors) as my Dad and all of his brothers were, I must rationally admit that they don’t do enough for The Republic to be a separate service.
Oh, Dr. Jerry is a grumpy old deaf artilleryman, and has a son who’s an officer in the USN, and he got his degrees back when they meant something.
Yah, his SF is way kewl, too. (and also kinda grumpy)
Oh, here’s a more particular link: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail480.html
Scroll down to the red text; that’s Jerry.
I quote: “If we are to keep an independent Air Force it needs to know what its missions are, and get out of the way when it doesn’t want a mission.”
BadBob,
I’m certainly not denigrating S.F., my Brother-In-Law has 2 Silver Stars for Vietnam and Desert Storm service as a Green Beret. My Son-In-Law is also a former Army Intel officer who served with the Green Beanies.
Now, ChickenHawk? Possibly and so, I humbly apologize. However, my B-I-L can recite chapter and verse at the USAF’s ability to provide close air support (or immediate lack thereof).
I honestly didn’t know about the A-10′s revival. I’ve always thought it is a super bird aptly designed for its mission. Again, I apologize for my error.
The point of my post got lost in translation between my head and fingers. Until we lose the inter-service rivalry, Strategic/Tactical planning has to incorporate assets from all branches. UAVs, due to their remotely operated nature, are invaluable to tactical situations in that the commander on the ground can see what the enemy is doing. From a strategic or Theater perspective, satellites can provide some information and UAVs can as well. However, I would think (bearing in mind I’m just a simple Senior Chief) the value tilts more towards the tactical vice strategic. Who controls the tactical assets and how is the guy-on-the-ground get access to the feed? That is the question.
Finally, the Battle Group Air War, specifically the Outer Air Battle, may be problematic to some. Yes, we have excellent aviators and outstanding aircraft to do the job of protecting the carrier. The Inner Air Battle and the Sub-Surface threat is far more of a concern to me. That, however, is a topic for later.
Again, to any I have offended, please accept my humble apologies.
SeniorD-
You have not offended Sir. BTW, I hate to be in the awkward postion of defending the USAF, but I have pics of an A-10 piloted by a brave woman in the shock and awe phase of OIF, all shot up, that comes to mind when I think USAF CAS….
My apologies in order here- My acronym for SF in my comment meant Science Fiction re your point about Starship Troopers and not Special Forces! Sorry.
re Naval Aviation- all your concerns are legit and I share 100%
b2
Oh yeah, I remember that gal and her story. The A-10 is kewl, and the AF had to be dragged kicking and screaming to buy it. I think the AF institutionally prefers to do things from way up high, a “You people all look like ants from up here” kind of attitude. I’m kinda that way, myself, but understand that ain’t always the best way to do things. The A-10 folks get down enough I betcha they can smell what they’ve done.