The appropriately monikered David Axe wonders whether we still need an air force:
Fed up with unnecessary gold-plated fighter jet programs, the service‚Äôs impatience with counter-insurgency and its anti-China rhetoric, back in August I proposed the disbanding of the U.S. Air Force. The air service‚Äôs missions could be folded into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps without any loss in national power — and we‚Äôd benefit from cuts to Pentagon overhead.
Over at The American Prospect, Robert Farley seems to agree:
Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post–September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.
I have as much fun as the next guy tugging on the junior service’s ascot, but I can’t help wondering whether our armchair punditry is making the classic error of preparing to fight the last battle here. I strongly suspect our collective appetite for counter-insurgency and nation building has been whetted for a generation, while our requirement to maintain a nation breaking capacity will remain very much undiminished in the interim.
Pace the “boots on the ground” set, there is a strategic element to waging a campaign that is not ground force centric, and we’d never have swatted aside Saddam’s legions so easily had not the long haul bomber force and USAF tactical wings persistently applied high volume, precise fires to command and control nodes. Those BUFFs and Bones made pretty darned good CAS assets too, I have to admit, even as shorter ranged fighters returned to air fields ashore and carrier decks at sea or refueled from land based (read: USAF) tankers to stay in the fight. Navy could do most of that, but our overland reach is somewhat limited – at least for manned aircraft – and because we’re a smaller air force it would take us a great deal longer to get the same amount of work done. In the long run, replacing current USAF capacity with carrier-based air power would probably be more expensive than retaining the bus drivers, even before we counted all of that slack capacity waiting around between wars.
There is a strange kind of symbiosis in effect between the manly men in Navy blue and those other blue-suiters who can’t quite seem to settle on a uniform: The USAF can bring to bear enormous volumes of fires relatively quickly, but to do so persistently they require a friendly host in theater. The Navy on the other hand offers nearly instantaneous options to the National Command Authority, but on a much lower scale – at least initially.
But here’s the trick: Using the maneuver space of the sea we don’t have to ask anyone’s permission and because we are routinely deployed to the world’s trouble spots, we’re always just around the corner. In fact, as far as bad actors and good friends are concerned, Navy carrier air power must always be included in the calculus. That serves to dissuade threats from emerging while buttressing allies – allies who, in turn, stand ready to provide landing rights to USAF fighter and refueling wings should deterrence fail.
Besides, if we abolish the Air Force, where are naval officers going to be able to afford quality golf? And who’s going to give us their used pick up trucks when they’re done with them?
The golf courses and MWR support are the real issue. Strategically the US Army Air Forces seemed to account pretty well for themselves prior to 1947. (For the record I’m an Air Force brat who served in Naval Aviation prior to entering the Army Guard, so I reserver the right to be offended at everything…)
:p
Are we [civilians] allowed to know how many carriers are now located in the Persian Gulf and contiguous watery areas [geography was never my strong point]? I love all our military people, [US Air force pilots too] but am awestruck by the skills of our Navy pilots in landing, day or night, on those small, unsteady platforms we call carriers. I’ve been marveling at this since WWII and before, watching you all evolve into your present splendid state.
Marianne Matthews
First a pro-Beauchump piece, then a “Why we need the Air Force” piece.
1. Is it April 1?
2. Did Lex inhale smoke, and if he did, what kind was it?
Lex once again proves he’s got more than one side. I always enjoy reading here because the comments are both Fair and Balanced. (Standby for trademark infringement nasty-gram from Fox lawyers.)
And although I AM the class clown and rarely say anything without tongue planted firmly in cheek, I actually do enjoy Lex’s, and his usual readers/commenters well thought out, un-emotional (usually) thoughts and comments.
Best,
Nose
No AF bashing here, just snark within the snark. I’ll wait for the ‘experts’ here to start lobbing megatonnage on the AF before I weigh in.
BTW, the quoted- “and its anti-China rhetoric” is no negative for me. Of course, I’ve always been a big picture kinda guy unlike that hack-Axe. Maybe I should been more parochial. Woulda went further…
re- “but our overland reach is somewhat limited”
Ain’t that a understated hoot…(along with the unmanned comment)
And both totally related to this I may add:
“stand ready to provide landing rights to USAF fighter and refueling wings”
The refueling wings that is. IE- The USN is wedded to them even more so than the USAF and the USAF owns ‘em! In politics ” It’s the Economy Stupid”, in tactical aviation, “It’s the Hoses in the Air, Stupid”.
Joined at the hip we are. Naval Air-USAF have a common need: JP. Actually, the common issue and the common need, so to speak. But as long as folks are wowed about airshows and those purty, fast jets built in 50 states, we won’t talk about this.
b2
Cap’n,
What with the USAF’s desire to control anything and everything that flies, it’s clear they suffer the same emotional scars as the youngest child seeing Mom and Dad praising his/her elder/bigger brother(s).
Marianne,
Go to
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146
for a complete update on where our ships (and their crews) can be found.
Senior D … thanks a lot for the link. I knew there must be data somewhere, and I was just too inept to find it. Another question … if the two services [USAF and Navy pilots] are to be folded in together by the all-powerful Pentagon, won’t the Air Force pilots, at least the fighter pilots, need additional training to land and take-off from carriers? They’re used to solid land, that doesn’t move about much when they’re landing or taking off their aircraft. Or am I being stupid here [please be gentle].
Marianne Matthews
Marianne -
No, you’re not being stupid: USAF pilots would need additional training.
Any pilot can land on a 10,000+ foot runway. Only aviators can land on carriers.
Butch …
Thank you. That’s what I thought.
Marianne Matthews
The Axe thing was good for a laugh. What service was he in anyway?
Heh,
Well, my position was that we should abolish the Air Force as a seperate branch, not it’s assets.
I’d rather see us return to the pre-Key West days with an Army Air Force that handles the strategic bombing tasks, the land-based ICBM’s, etc.
Remove that extra beuracracy inherent with the “air force as stepchild” situation we now are suffering.
While we are at it, I’d also like to see the US return to a “War Department” instead of a “Department of Defense”.
I’m not being simplistic here at all. Even though our military spending is at an altime low as a portion of GDP, we still have far too many GOFO’s, and an almost criminal level of employees and staff o’s in the R&D, Procurement, PR, etc departments.
The Navy is examining the idea of reducing carrier crew numbers to 1000. The reason is that the highest expense of the Navy is mapower. Well, that’s also the case with the other services.
The Navy could set the example by reducing manning at, say, the Diversity-Enforcement department. Stop hiring civilians to do the jobs sailors ought to be doing.
The nation could save money by dissolving the Air Force, closing it’s academy, and folding it’s functions into both the Army and the Navy.
Good heaven’s, look at the savings in uniform procurement alone
I don’t want anyone to get the idea that I am bashing the good folks in the AD. I am not. They have some top-flight people there, and always have. However, they should be here, not there. It was a nice experiment. It’s time to write up the reports and get back to business with an Army and a Navy, thank you very much.
Respects,
Well, a few curmudgeonly observations tonight – yeah, we’re feeling a little bit cranky
- The dirty little (well, maybe not so little) secret about carrier air is that it is now beholden to shore-based tankers more than ever *if* it is to conduct sustained, persistent operations. Didn’t happen overnight and we arrived at this point via a deliberate process of decisions by senior leadership re. presumed savings in force structure and capabilities costs. They made the decisions, others now have to live with the results.
- I think the problem with the junior Service and it’s (justifiable) anxiety syndrome lies in the flawed doctrine that drives their vision of airpower. Not being one who worships at the altar of Douhet, Mitchell, et al, I am hard pressed to look at any conflict since Orville and Wilbur flipped that famous coin and say that the reason, the primary reason, we won that conflict (or brought it to termination) was because of airpower alone. Whether it be the strategic bombing campaign in Europe, Linebacker in ‘Nam, or “shock and awe,” airpower, as forwarded by the Douhet-ests has not proved itself. Doubly so when considered as a separate or independent service. And BTW, as if that dirty little lesson isn’t enough, there is a not so subtle campaign that’s been underway for the past few years that they (AF) should be America’s Space Force – exclusively.
Actually, this is a conversation I would love to have over an extended evening on the back porch…look, there’s plenty of stuff they do right (give me a minute and I’ll think of something beyond Exchanges and golf courses) – it just needs to be considered in the right context, flowing as it were between a supporting and supported force but not as an exclusive one. It’s probably a fool’s errand to think the 1947 National Security Act coulod and would be overturned as far as turning the clock back on the idea of an independent air force, but some serious consideration should be given to certain aspects of the Key West agreements as relates to Army and AF divisions of labor and type of platforms operated.
Now, ask me about disbanding OSD and sending SECDEF and his minions packing
(and now you know the proximate cause for our crankiness tonight…)
- SJS
Can’t we just build them a couple of 10,000 foot carriers? Replete with 20 story BEQ/BOQ with pool and jacuzzi? They could tow some barges with greens affixed so that they can, you know, keep their handicaps low.
And we can give ‘em some escorts… just to make sure they’re safe and all.
I read this and thought for a moment.
Similar ideas have floated for our cousins across the pond –
Thinking the unthinkable: Disbanding the RAF?
direct link to article:
http://www.ukdf.org.uk/cream/cp8.html
from this website:
http://www.ukdf.org.uk/online_library_cream.htm#
Lex, I think you’re right about people getting too focused on fighting the last war…i.e., a COIN effort in Iraq.
As to disbanding the AF, I like the idea of reverting to the World War 2 structure….No DOD, separate Departments of the Navy (Navy/Marine Corps) and War (Army/AF).
The real difficulty is that the AF is getting ready for the war before last – a land war in Europe. Lots of tactical aircraft, few long-range platforms. Very inflexible.
Which is the Navy’s trump card. The sea services have always been the mobile reserve, a force that can be sent where needed. If the Army is Uncle Sam’s bayonet, and the Air Force his throwing knife, the Navy is the national Bowie knife…equally formidable as weapon and as tool.
The country needs an Air Force. If not for the reasons already mentioned its because we need the airlift.
The problem is that the USAF lost sight of its roots flying, fighting, on target on time-and got wrapped up in a lot of diveristy come HR crap that it did not need.
Also the services need to solve the whole funding stream thing where the USAF does not lift things for free or embed the cost of such into its budget. That is a McNamaraism that needs to go away and soon.
In the end the nation needs to realize that it needs all its tools-for more than just a counter insurgency conflict.
Agreed on the “Wanting to fight the last battle” line. Looking at the technological and training improvements from the PLAAF, the Air Force is right to worry.
Swarm tactics with generation 4.5+ fighters will not be fun to handle.
A few thoughts as I put off finishing up my homework for the night/morning…
Naval Aviation is more or less useless for any extended period of time without USAF tankers. Like SJS said, it’s your own damn fault, but good luck with using 2/3rds of the Superbug fleet with buddy stores to support your strikes. Speaking of which, I think we should should pass the hat in your direction to help us out with KC-X. If nothing else, maybe you could take over the procurement program for us. I don’t think there’s quite as many ties to Boeing within the Navy, although I’m sure they’d still find a way to screw it up.
SJS is also spot on with the Douhet, Mitchell, et al observation. I have to roll my eyes every time I hear people talking about winning wars from the air. Airpower advocates have promised this from every war since WWI, and every single time they’ve been proven wrong. And yet the Air Force still tries to perpetuate it. As far as the Space Force goes, let’s just say that in my Afas class (AFROTC academic class) last year we were asked to give a briefing on what we thought the future of the USAF would look like in 2025…one of the suggestions that was in the lesson was the creation of a separate Space Force. I bust out laughing so hard I about pissed my pants. Keep in mind this lesson came straight from headquarters. I think mine was one of the more realistic briefings, and I don’t think I used a single one of the suggestions from the lesson plan.
I also agree the Key West Agreement needs to be reevaluated, especially with regard to tactical airlift and light COIN type strike aircraft (I’m thinking Super Tucano/AT-6 territory here), along with maybe a light(er) gunship, perhaps based on the JCA. The JCA program could’ve been a good starting point for this, but I’m not sure how viable that is now, especially considering that each service wanted a different airframe and the USAF’s choice won out.
However, there is a danger to talking about folding the Air Force back into the Army. You would get all the tactical support you need, but something to remember is that one of the world’s finest tactical aviation arms was the WWII era Luftwaffe. Unfortunately (for them), that was all they did well, and they ended up losing the war in part because they lacked the strategic ability to carry the fight to the enemy in support of the larger strategic interest (Battle of Britain, mainly).
Oh, and we can’t have a discussion about the USAF without me throwing out this factoid…the last time U.S. troops came under fire from the air was 1953. Say whatever you like about the relative strength of our enemies, but I’d like to think the junior service had something to do with that. Put another way, Lt Col Nagl was asked what the Air Force brings to the COIN fight. He first answered air superiority. It’s easy to take for granted until you don’t have it anymore. Then things aren’t so fun.
Anyway, SJS, I’d love to have that chat on the back porch sometime…I’ll bring the cigars, you bring the scotch?
Oh, just took a look at the talking paper I wrote for that briefing…I’m ashamed to say I used the phrase “net-centric” once in the paper. Of course, I also readily admitted that we’ve shot ourselves in the foot regarding the tanker and airlift fleet, so I think that wipes off the use of “net-centric.”
AW1-
re- “…Army Air Force that handles the strategic bombing tasks, the land-based ICBM’s,”
Cmon Tim this ain’t 1947..The US Army rarely knows what’s going on over the next hill let alone are they capable of conducting strategic warfare….You can’t conduct what you don’t understand or are trained for…
The USAF is what it is- you could talk about transeferring a portion of it’s TACAIR to the Army… Lets say some fighter bombers, AF SOF, A-10′s, etc. and I just might listen seriously….
But when we consider ICBMs, Space, a-a fighters, strat air and that glossed over, truly joint piece that has been required since the advent of the F-18 for the USN-USMC, that big wing low density-high demand tanker fleet- and those forces not regularly involved in COIN, those aircraft/systems must be in an Air Force. Somebody’s AF….
I am against ANYTHING resembling reorganization that would lead to buffoonery beyond the status quo of lesser-buffoonery, especially if you consider that aberration, The Dept. of Homeland Security, in hindsight, you’ll get my drift.
However, ss far as ragging on the AF for the clubs and excesses based on decades of Cold War budgeting-let fly! Merril McPeak IS a bus driver.
b2
“Merril McPeak IS a bus driver.”
Roger that. You won’t get any argument from me there…he’s the reason we wear those godawful v-neck undershirts. Ugh.
“I am against ANYTHING resembling reorganization that would lead to buffoonery beyond the status quo of lesser-buffoonery…”
LMAO, you’re right. The doggies just don’t have the intellectual wattage. There’s a larger problem though that makes all of this conjecture moot. It took sixty years to evolve the USAF culture away from their military roots. Folding them back into the other services would be akin to militarizing the GS types. Aint gonna happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.
Real AF bashing:
“Naval Officer Saves The Life of an Air Force Officer During Horse-Back Riding Mishap, June 19, 2007
An Air Force Officer narrowly escaped serious injury recently when he decided to try horseback riding, even though he had no lessons or prior experience. He mounted the horse, and the horse immediately sprang into action. As it galloped along at a steady and rhythmic pace, the Air Force Officer began to slip from the saddle. He grabbed for the horse’s mane, but could not get a firm grip. He tried to throw his arms around the horse’s neck, but he began to slide down the side of the horse anyway! The horse galloped along, seemingly impervious to its slipping rider. Finally, losing his frail grip, the Air Force Officer attempted to leap away from the horse and throw himself to safety. Unfortunately, his foot became entangled in the stirrup, and he was now at the mercy of the horse as his head struck against the ground over and over and over.
As his head was being battered against the ground and he was mere moments away from unconsciousness, to his great fortune, a Naval Officer who was shopping at Wal-Mart saw him and quickly unplugged the horse.”
Casca- we can apply that B2 theorem to anything organized by any government unless of course it’s Marine reorginization, which in most cases, they don’t carry on the old organization along with the newly minted organization…
BTW- Lex is a hard nut to crack sometimes even though just about everything he is, seems to be ‘here’. What’s he up to ya think? I’m old school but I will miss him.
b2
“Naval Aviation is more or less useless for any extended period of time without USAF tankers”
How does that work? Did the USAF change to probe and drogue?
What do you mean by extended periods?
I can’t say for sure but I would say that the the Army would get a little upset if they called in an airstrike and they got an answer back from the AF: “We’ll be there in a couple of hours, ’cause we’re busy thinking about STRATEGY!!!1!!!”.
An even better answer is, when the AF finally does show up is: “Was that you? Oh, sorry, well, see ya later”. Which seems to happen a lot.
Having talked to some of America’s enemies TM, the one thing that scares the piss out of them is the close air support, specifically the A-10 and that unholy gun.
Air superiority is like the foundation of a house. You can’t build a house without a good foundation. But don’t forget, the goal is to build a house.
Combined operations wins wars.
“How does that work? Did the USAF change to probe and drogue?
What do you mean by extended periods?”
Negative on the probe and drogue. USAF aircraft still all use the flying boom method. However, the USAF’s “superstar” tanker, the KC-10, was designed from the ground up as a joint tanker and has the capability to stream hose and drogue out the back as well as it’s flying boom. In addition, the KC-135 can be jury rigged with a drogue on it’s flying boom; this of course prevents it from refueling USAF aircraft and I’ve heard that pilots don’t really like this method as the drogue does not have nearly as much “give” hooked up to the flying boom as it does hooked up to a hose, but it’s better than nothing and gets the job done.
As for “extended periods,” I mean the Navy pissed away all of it’s in-house tanking capability, getting rid of the KA-3s, the KA-6s, and now the last of the Hoovers, leaving only buddy stores mounted on the K/E/F/A-18 Superbug.
“Combined operations wins wars.”
Yup, and you can’t have combined operations without an Air Force.
re- “As for “extended periods,” I mean the Navy pissed away all of it’s in-house tanking capability, getting rid of the KA-3s, the KA-6s, and now the last of the Hoovers, leaving only buddy stores mounted on the K/E/F/A-18 Superbug.”
Mike,
I submit that even IF we had all those Organic (USN carrier) tankers we have ‘replaced’ , Naval Air strikers and support aircraft would still need big wing tankers…Why?” Persistence in any F-18 that flies requires a lotta gas- more than any one of those we have lost, or are about to. Range-range-range…..That is why the Bombcat came were so effective during that period after 9-11 during OEF.
Tanking for us in the Navy takes on 2 categories. #1- Mission tanking IE- that required to get to/from the target area/battlespace ; and #2- overhead/recovery tanking- something the USAF doesn’t require but is as essential as the SAR helo in delta is to carrier operations. Read a little historical Lex and you’ll understand.
Now we have a $75 million dollar overhead tanker- the F-18E/F. When it does this mission it cannot do anything else except serve as a tanker. As a matter of fact, 1 of every 3 Superhornet carrier sorties is an overhead tanker.
As a mission tactical (not big wing) tanker, the Superhornet excels because of it’s speed to stay out ahead of the attackers; however, that’s yet another Superhornet attacker lost to it’s primary mission. See? It starts adding up..rermeber CVNs used to have 85-100 aircraft in an airwing- now we have 65.
In summary, without big wing tankers from the USAF, the combat radius of a carrier strike group is limited and mainly self-defense oriented.
b2
“Yup, and you can’t have combined operations without an Air Force.”
Well, lets just say, a Force in the Air.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Personally, I like being on the side with air superiority. I just don’t like the sense of superiority that I feel coming from the air.
So, lets just say:
“”Yup, and you can’t have combined operations without an Air Force, a Navy, and someone to close with and destroy the enemy.”
Warmest Regards,
Bill
TA-12
Are you saying that coalition air never destroyed or attrited the enemy ground forses in the air campaign of GW1, OEF or OIF?
Of course, a non-nuclear air campaign by itself could never conclusively win a conflict, but it sure can diminish an enemies capability to bring any coherent symmetrical manuever warfare against our own ground forces. Someone up above said we haven’t been attacked from the air since Korea.. Air had something to do with that.
And that, IMO, something is something ground commanders do not understand. Don’t enemy destroyed numbers count before they come into contact with ours on the ground battlefield?
b2
BB,
Hum,
“The US Army rarely knows what’s going on over the next hill let alone are they capable of conducting strategic warfare….You can’t conduct what you don’t understand or are trained for…”
I’m trying hard to read this in a non-insulting light. But it sounds like you are saying grunts not only don’t understand, but CAN’T understand “STRATEGY, BITCHES!!”.
I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. I enjoy the fruits of having the high ground (the air) but as I said before and I will say it again, I like being on the side with air superiority. I just don’t like the sense of superiority that I feel coming from the air.
I’ve only ever had the pleasure of being in the watery and earthy parts of the military/industrial complex so maybe I’m envious of the big strategic brains that air force guys have. Maybe also since I’ve had to work between 2 different services who have been going at it since time began, I find this inter service rivalry not charming and cute but counterproductive and debilitating. I guess I’m a little slow but I was always more interested in pulling together and defeating enemies rather than political infighting and seeing who gets the most credit. No one likes being talked down to.
I came here from a link ’cause I thought it was an interesting proposition, not necessarily a good one but an interesting thought experiment. I found the typical, my service is better than your service schoolyard taunting.
#############################
MAIN POINT
##############################
There is a reason that some people are suggesting that the AF get folded back into the Army (or some other force), and that is that the AF is starting to look like the body builder who only worked on his arms and neglected the rest of his body. Sure he can arm wrestle you into the ground but he sure as hell can’t outrun you or pick anything up. If you tell the guy that maybe he should work on other areas he always asks you to arm wrestle to prove that he is a strong, tough guy. Consider this an intervention. You can go around telling yourself that you are tough because you can beat anyone in arm wrestling until someone punches you in the face or gut and then you see how tough you are. Or if someone asks you to do something mundane like picking up a box or going for a hike.
I’ve seen this with the 2 other branches in other ways, so no one is immune and no I’m not picking on you. I’m just saying that if people are getting pissed off at you because you think that picking up boxes going for hikes is “beneath” you then maybe they should have a department of arm wrestling and leave the picking up of boxes and hiking to other more “well rounded” departments. The problem with this, of course, is that since you aren’t picking up boxes and going for hikes anymore, you wouldn’t need the money and time for that.
I hope that wasn’t too oblique and I know that it isn’t a perfect analogy but work with it. I know that you will say “Well, you guys would be nothing if we weren’t the world champion arm wrestlers” but that isn’t the point. The point is that due to historical infighting you also wanted to pick up boxes and go for hikes but that didn’t really interest you. So now we have a great need for picking up boxes and going for hikes and all we get back is, “Well, you guys would be nothing if we weren’t the world champion arm wrestlers”. This just leads to frustration on all sides. You guys think that we don’t appreciate your arm wrestling technique that you worked so hard on and the rest of us get frustrated because you aren’t picking up the boxes that need to be picked up.
Yes, arm wrestling is important and we love you for it, but picking up boxes and going for hikes is also important and considering that you are such a world champion arm wrestler no one wants to challenge you, perhaps you can spend some more time working on the rest of the body. Pick up a box from time to time and maybe go for a hike. Heaven for bid but you might actually get good at picking up boxes and going for hikes. You might actually enjoy it.
Now you may say “well, we do pick up boxes and go for hikes”. This may be true but ask yourselves, If you were doing such a bang up job picking up boxes and going for hikes why would people be saying that you are doing a poor job. Or rather, you are doing a good job when you do pick up boxes but you don’t pick up enough boxes and are too busy working out on the preacher curl.
Warmest Regards,
Bill
Man’s got a point. And style.
Style counts for something.
TA-12,
My apologies if I came off too parochial. If you’ll look at my posts (way) above, I see quite a bit wrong with my service. I just get a little on the defensive side when people start talking about getting rid of it, because it seems to be an idea floated every few years, and it isn’t a very good one.
Anyway, if you’re interested, I’ve kept the discussion going over at my place.
hey no problem, I’m cool.
As long as everyone knows that we are on the same side. Sometimes I don’t know.
TA-12-
re – ““The US Army rarely knows what’s going on over the next hill let alone are they capable of conducting strategic warfare….You can’t conduct what you don’t understand or are trained for…””
Should say. “strategic air warfare”. Used a little hyperbole on “the next hill”, too. My mistake. However, I stand by everything else. In context now, I hope for y’al’. As I recollect, this discussion did originate as a “put the AF back in the Army post”, didn’t it?
That being said, I sure don’t get the rest about arm wrestling and so forth. Which one pays flight pay?
No. Don’t answer that. I’ve read Army opords. Just kidding.
I reckon you’re telling me I’m parochial…LOL, …”Bill”.
Et tu, Lex? Roger that. Thought y’all knew me bettern’ dat.
b2
bsquared,
there was a learning channel doc called “the man whose arms exploded”. check it out.
Warmest Regards,
Bill
Out
Man, this is like catnip.
Ok, not that this matters since none of us is in a position to alter the state of the USAF, USArmy or USN but here goes.
1) the probability of the USAF being folded into another force is zero. The USAF knows this. Because of this, they know that they can do whatever the hell they want without any reprecussions. If they wanted to spend their entire budget building a bridge to Mars no one would be able to stop it.
2) A long time ago the USAF said “oh yea, we’ll take care of TAC air”.
3) The only reason people say now “Lets get rid of the USAF” is that they are not taking care of TAC air to the satisfaction of the end customer. And in the “real” world the customer is always right.
4) If the USAF was doing a great job about TAC air then no one would be saying “Hey, lets get rid of the USAF”.
5) “Hey, lets get rid of the USAF” is shock treatment to get all the big brains to think
a) Why is everyone mad at us. How can we fix that.
b) Maybe they are serious. How can we fix that.
So, In summary.
1) If the USAF doesn’t want to have people running around saying “hey, maybe people are right, we should fold the USAF into the IRS or the department of agriculture or some other branch of the government” then I suggest you take a good look at yourselves and say either:
a) Lets get out of the TAC air biz cause we don’t really like it anyway.
b) Hey, TAC air is actually kinda kool. Lets do more of it. And people will like us better. AND IT IS OUR JOB.
2) Inappropriate responses are:
a) You guys are just jellous.
b) We are doing TAC air just fine so fuck you. To Death.
c) We are too busy doing other things. Give us more money.
d) It isn’t our job.
e) Ok, Ok, we’ll get to it…….later.
Warmest Regards,
Bill
Out