Posted on 02/24/2005 9:45:43 PM PST by Former Military Chick
During the long decades of superpower confrontation, the Air Force, with its sophisticated fighter planes and ring of permanent bases encircling the Soviet Union, firmly established itself as one of the most essential elements of America's military forces.
That may as well be ancient history. The crucial battles in Iraq are being fought largely on the ground by the dangerously overstretched Regular and Reserve Army and Marine units. While the Air Force, like the Navy, is playing an important support role, it is hard to justify the outdated formula that apportions recruits between the different military branches and gives the Air Force so many people.
The Army, with roughly 500,000 active-duty troops, is sending soldiers back into battle with insufficient rest and retraining, wearing out its soldiers and its combat readiness. The Air Force, with just over 365,000 people in uniform, requires them to spend only 4 months out of every 20 performing combat duties that, in the case of Iraq, are nowhere near as dangerous or as grueling as those faced by the average infantry soldier.
Ideally, all four services should have rotation ratios like the Air Force. But as things stand, the burdens need to be more equitably shared. The Pentagon should lower the recruiting quotas for new Air Force enlistees and use the savings to provide more inducements to help the Army draw in the additional recruits it so desperately needs. The case for a smaller active-duty Air Force is even stronger because its Reserve units are at much higher levels of skill and readiness than the other services'.
The Air Force also needs to make more concessions when it comes to equipment. Iraq highlights the problem with its preference for high-performance short-range fighters. Unlike the Navy's carrier-based fighters, the Air Force fighters require secure air bases on the ground nearby. In insecure territory like Central and South Asia, such bases are hard to come by. They can often be had only by making damaging deals with unpleasant dictators, weakening America's credibility as a force for democracy. Future Air Force planning needs to shift more investment into a broader mix of aircraft, including more long-range bombers based on American soil and more unpiloted aircraft that can be launched by remote control.
The Pentagon has rightly begun asking the Air Force to trim its orders for dubious cold war weapons systems. But the cutbacks announced to date are far too timid. With the Army's equipment needs growing, deficits soaring and the Air Force's combat role changing, much sharper cutbacks are needed - especially in the extravagantly gold-plated F/A-22 stealth fighter program. This ultrahigh-performance aircraft lost its main justification more than a decade ago, when the Soviet collapse left America's Air Force in virtually unchallenged control of the skies.
Every F/A-22 built now costs well over $250 million, more than twice the cost per plane of the forthcoming F-35 stealth fighter, which is a far more appropriate replacement for the Air Force's aging fleet of F-15's and F-16's. The money saved could be invested in camera- and missile-carrying drones, like the Predator, which will be increasingly needed over future battlefields of all kinds.
The Air Force also needs to put more of its money into the kind of unglamorous aircraft that provide needed close support for Army ground troops, like the A-10 Warthog, which can destroy enemy tanks, and transport planes like the C-130, which can replace trucks for moving military cargo in dangerous regions.
America's current military forces were designed for a very different kind of warfare than the prolonged counterinsurgency campaigns they are now involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it is always hard to predict the shape of future wars, no one seriously expects the reemergence of the high-tech superpower standoff that shaped today's Air Force.
The Pentagon needs to reallocate its recruitment levels and spending accordingly, even if it means forcing the Air Force to accept a different role than the one it expected to have a decade or two ago.
Didn't the New York Times buy into the whole "the aircraft carrier is dead" routine of the late 70' early to mid 80's?
Military advice from the New York Times should certainly be taken seriously (cough, cough!):)
The Air Force, with just over 365,000 people in uniform, requires them to spend only 4 months out of every 20 performing combat duties that, in the case of Iraq, are nowhere near as dangerous or as grueling as those faced by the average infantry soldier.
This may be the case for certain units, but for AMC it's nowhere near the truth.
People tend to want to fight the war they were trained for as lieutenants. What we need is people who can visualize what the next war will be and be ready for that.
The first and most important thing to remember is airpower and seapower win NOTHING. Wars are won when the Marine or soldier with a rifle stands on a piece of ground and holds it for our country. The rest of the services are merely support units, they win nothing. Yet that young fellow cannot get there without help.
Right now there is no creditable threat that the F-15E(enhanced) cannot deal with fairly expeditiously. It will sustain more casualties than the F-22 would, but the cost of the F-22 would be better spent on airlift. The F-22 is a very capable air to air machine, we just currently have no real air to air adversaries. If we did, there will not be enough of them.
With the reduced numbers of aircraft, we must build one fighter type and build a lot of them. Thus the fighter must be multi-role like the F-4 was and the F-15E is. The F-22, if it is bought, should change to a two seat stretched multi-role version, otherwise it is useless.
There was an internal Boeing proposal to make a C-17 derivative the next manned bomber. Not a joke. It would out perform the B-52, which is apparently good enough, and cost almost nothing.
We need more sealift, much quicker than airlift when you get beyond brigade sized units, more long range airlift and more intra theather airlift.
Read Tommy Franks' book and "Boyd". It becomes clear that the first thing to do is retire everyone above O-5 and their GS/ES equivalents. While there are a few people who progress above that level on real merit, most get there because they agree with the current Chief of Staff. We have had enough of that. Yes, we have won wars, but we have not done as well as we should have. Look at all the problems Tommy Franks had getting people onboard with winning for the country instead of their rice bowl.
Let's also let them decide battle maneuvers, combat tactics, and how many push-ups should be done in boot camp every day.
This article seems to tell me that we should restructure the entire Air Force solely based on Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army does face challenges today, but restructuring tha AF is not the answer to the problem. Reinstating the 10 divisions that Klintoon removed is a more realistic measure.
The first and most important thing to remember is airpower and seapower win NOTHING.
Strongly disagree.
Unfortunately, it is true. It is also true without them the man with the rifle cannot win. The Army Air Force dropped the bombs that convinced the Japanese they were losing, but the war wasn't won until the man with the rifle stood there. The Air Force made it possible for him to stand there, but he still had to stand there.
While,air & sea power do have a vital if not decisive role in Modern warfare,it is the groundwar which decides success or futility.The US had massive air & naval superiority in Vietnam,the Soviets brought unmatched airpower to Afghanistan-but in the end,both superpowers left in shame.So while the ground force is heavily dependent on jets & helos to succeed,he has to run the last lap to break the ribbon.
The Air Force made it possible for him to stand there, but he still had to stand there.
They each have their role, but dessimating the Air Force just isn't the route to take to put more rifles on the ground. It is a very shortsighted approach.
Agree. We desperately need to reinstate our military to a number more resembling the pre-Klintoon years. Our military is stretched thin these days with no immediate end in sight. I also feel it is time(overdue actually) to remove the bulk of our troops out of Europe, namely Germany.
Ideally, all four services should have rotation ratios like the Air Force. But as things stand, the burdens need to be more equitably shared.
The writer here is mixing apples and oranges. The missions of the Army and AF are MUCH different and equity will never be the same. The equity would be much closer if the Army troop strength was increased significantly.
That only holds true in these limited engagement scenerios we've been fighting. Should it ever come down to total war as the DOD calls it, air and sea power are EVERYTHING.
We need MORE capability. The current deployment schedule is tough, but not all that much tougher than the 1970s. I spent more than 50 percent of my time deployed. We do need to adjust, but the Air Force needs to grow, differently than currently planned perhaps, but grow. The Army and Marines need more combat capabilities, they also need to retain the ability to win a major combat against a real military opponent. Different battle than the one being fought right now. Not harder, not easier, different. No matter the casualty percentage, if it is you, it is 100 percent. Understand also, even though the Air Force is not engaged in high profile air to air engagements, they are dropping a lot of bombs, but flying out of bases that don't want publicity.
There needs to be combat capability growth, not decimation.
Yep,moreover I think it's about time ,that the US adopts a definite 'twin-arm'strategy with a section of the services dedicated for unconventional warfare(littoral,anti-terrorist,urban/counter insurgency) with the rest aimed at conventional warfare not too different from the Cold War era(u need that against China or North Korea).An F-16 or an Abrams is not the best system to hunt 2 terrorists in burning city but an armed Predator drone & a Stryker is.The problem is that the vast chunk of America's military has not fought in unconventional conflicts likesay India,Israel or Russia have done over a consistent period.Hence,IMHO,it's a very difficult choice to make-the resource allocation here is important & well,sensitive.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring any bells? The only hting that's limiting the effectiveness of airpower is that we've yet to fight anyone that we want to destroy.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring any bells? The only hting that's limiting the effectiveness of airpower is that we've yet to fight anyone that we want to destroy.
Even in a general or total war, it is still the rifleman who holds the ground. In that scenario, he has far more need of air and seapower to get there and stay there.
Ground based artillery is still important,though in the overall picture ,you could argue it has a secondary role.The Indian military could have ended the Kargil war of 1999 in 2 weeks(instead of 2 months) if they had more selfpropelled howitzers & the Russian Smerch MBRLS.Besides,the accuracy & mobility of the conventional howitzer has improved,with the availability of realtime data,GPS etc
The American Way of War puts a lot of weight on precision and cleanness of the the strike therefore in all most all possible theaters war planners are changing ground for air artillery
Sounds like we've found common ground here. We can't deploy our military 50% of the time without it having a negative impact on them. If some third world dictator raised his ugly head today and we had to deploy there, I am afraid that 50% rate would quickly become 100% deployed time. We all know what that will cause.
My husband and I agree with you. Our military was treated like well you know during Clinton and now look at where we are?
Yep, and it reinforces the need to increase the size of our military to Reagon-era levels, about 40% more than we have today.
I thank God I was retired two years before slick came into office.
I did have the dubious distinction of being on active duty during Jimmas presidency though(a nightmare for the military).
Rule #1: Don't fight future wars based on the last one !
I bet it's not true for the tanker guys, either.
This looks to be an "ID ten T" error from the editorial staff again.
Except holding off Napoleon and Hitler when they were ready to invade England. Except for getting all those troops to the islands in the Pacific. Except for Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the Japanese surrendered sparing numerous probable casualties from an invasion. Except for the convoys to Europe. Except for the Berlin airlift.
I don't know many Marines that want to go anywhere without their Marine and Navy Air.
This article screams of the very ignorance which got us to this situation. We cut those Army divisions because we didn't need them. Now we need them. Remember the 2 simultaneous crisis force plan? Who believes we are even close to that?
Air power, seapower, airlift, and sealift are all important, but mostly because, at one or more levels removed, they support the man at the pointy end of the spear.
The son of a friend of mine is getting an early discharge from the Air Force because his MOS is overmanned...he's been in less that four years altogether. Meanwhile the Army and Marine Corps are experiencing shortages. Sometimes there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to military personnel allocations.
"editorial" is an idiot to even convey such a thought.
It will never happen and to twist history and present times to tote such a thought is idiocy plain and simple.
The Raptor and projects of the like, are not created to do the job that they are created to do, however they are created to stifle the mindset of anti-American groups or nations that to have their way is to meet their demise in attempting to achieve their way.
This in the long run saves money, public concern, and promotes our free enterprise way of life by stifling public concern.
WWII was won with airpower in both the pacific and in Europe. Without it we would have lost the war regardless of our troops on the ground, therefore airpower won the war. Once we decimated the fighters of both the japanese and the germans we rolled them up. Airpower delivered the A bomb that stopped the japanese finally. Airpower stopped the battle of the bulge. It only lasted as long as it did because our planes couldn't fly because of the weather, once the weather cleared we pounded the tanks into the ground with airpower.
The troops and the air are both needed and we certainly don't need to base our future airforce neeeds on these two small wars we are fighting now. Our next war will probably be with China, our next big one. Once again airpower will decide who wins.
"The son of a friend of mine is getting an early discharge from the Air Force because his MOS is overmanned...he's been in less that four years altogether. Meanwhile the Army and Marine Corps are experiencing shortages. Sometimes there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to military personnel allocations."
The logic behind the 93' Clinton manpower cuts were that we were supposed to be able to fight a war in two theaters simultaneously. Unfortunately he never told us the second theater was a Lowes Cineplex.
Your son's friend is probably being allowed an early out due to the fact that 40,000 personnel slots have been shifted from the Navy/Airforce over to the Marines and Army, who are doing the heavy lifting.
My nephew who is in the Army is heading back over to Afghanistan shortly. He's already completed tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. These guys are getting ridden hard.
While underfunded and understregnth grunts rush from war to war
Aim High
Most of the people that I knew in the AF joined because the AF provides excellent training for specialties that are in demand once they separate from the military. They wouldn't get the same type of training in the Army.
If Congress was interested in improving the Army recruiting they need to increase pay and benefits. They've gutted the GI Bill, military retirement, and retired health care programs to cut costs. These all have an impact on recruiting and retention.
The reason the Army is free to operate in Iraq is because we control the sky over it. If the Iraqi AF hadn't been destroyed in the first Gulf War, we would have lost more ground troops.
The F-22 Raptor is a military necessity. The F-15s are 30 years old (they entered the AF in 1975 - a year after I did). This is ancient technology in terms of military hardware. We won't always be facing military forces without Air Power in every military conflict and we need to have the best technology available to gain and maintain control of the air over the battlefield.
It takes two years for a new pilot to go through the training pipeline to be minimally qualified to fly a fighter. You can't wait until we're on the brink of war with a country like North Korea to start building F-22s, training the pilots, and developing tactics that compliment the aircraft's capabilities. These capabilities need to in place and ready to go when the need arises.
Congress has already changed the mission of the F-22 and cut back the number of planes they're going to purchase.
mbynack, SMSgt (USAF, Retired)
Which is not to say that the same objectives could be met for a lot less money. It's not worth it if we can't fund the rest of what we need, such as various pilotless aircraft to replace the Warthog.
The Raptor isn't worth the trade-offs.
Who is going to build and maintain the best military golf courses if the Air Force is cut back?
Stop coughing. This rant is dead on. The Times is not trying to be helpful at any time, however, this time they are correct.
The big problem with the F-22 is that it's going to go from "unnecessary because it is so vastly superior to its competition" to "unnecessary because a two million dollar Mach 6 ground-piloted drone can easily take it out" within a decade. It's a major investment that won't buy us enough years of supremacy. Unmanned aircraft are the future of air combat.
If it were not for the AF, I would have never learned the sport of golf. Not sure if that is a plus or not.
Duing the Reagan administration the military hit it's peak in 1988 with 2,177,845 men and women in uniform. Five years later, under Bush senior's last budget, the authorized headcount was 1,675,266. So under Reagan and Bush the military shed 502,579 people. Under Clinton, the military headcount reached it's lowest point in 1998 at 1,367,838 and then rose slightly. So Clinton shed 307,428. In other words, most of the reduction was done under a Republican president, and almost all of it was done under either a Republican president or a Republican congress.
I'm not disputing that the military is too small for the demands being placed on it. But blaming everything on Clinton is just plain wrong. The GOP deserves just as much blame for the condition the armed forces are in.
don't forget that the Abrahm A1 is a waste of money because there is no need for a tank on the modern battlefield.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.