Should Uncle Sam have one air force instead of four?

MySA.com ^ | 04/28/2005 | Robert S. Dudney

[SwinneySwitch]

WASHINGTON — Army Lt. Gen. David Barno, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, had the task of covering that huge country with just 18,000 troops.

It was possible to do so, he observed, because "airpower from all the services ... have given ground forces ... the ability to operate in smaller units and respond quicker, with more accurate weaponry, than at any other point in history."

Over the last 15 years, many have come to regard airpower as the key to victory, in war zones ranging from the gulf to the Balkans, from Afghanistan to Iraq. Fighter forces, in particular, have proved to be effective, destroying defended targets, supporting fast-moving land forces and dominating the sky.

Yet serious questions keep cropping up. Is the size of the tactical fighter fleet about right or is it "excessive"? The USAF fighter force has fallen from 37 to 20 wings. Navy and Marine Corps aviation arms have shrunk, too.

Top Pentagon leaders claim the armed services invest too much in fighters. They see air dominance as one area in which the U.S. has "excessive overmatch." The new National Defense Strategy, released March 1, suggests cutting some of the overmatch so as to better fund new capabilities and expand ground forces.

According to "Inside the Navy," a newsletter, Deputy Defense Secretary-designate Gordon England recently told reporters he sees great potential in "integrating" Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Army aviation. England left no doubt about the basic objective: "If you can gain efficiencies in tactical forces," he said, "what else can you do with the money?"

Any such move now could pit the Air Force, the Navy/Marine team, and, to a degree, the Army against each other, conceivably igniting a dustup over roles.

The last such tussle came in the mid-1990s. It was sparked by Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who lamented, among other things, that America's was "the only military in the world with four air forces." A blue-ribbon Commission on Roles and Missions, or CORM, spent more than a year pondering the subject.

The commission found the supposed "problem" proved to be largely illusory. CORM in 1995 reported, "Inefficiencies attributed to the so-called 'four air forces' were mostly in the infrastructure, not on the battlefield."

Second, CORM concluded that a little redundancy isn't a bad thing. A recent case in point: the pivotal role played by naval air in the first weeks of war in Afghanistan — a remote, landlocked nation far outside the Navy's usual mission focus.

Third, overlap fosters interservice competition, often resulting in better systems or concepts of operations, whether they concern close air support, long-range strike or something else.

The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.

Even so, there are sound reasons to make the Air Force the "keeper" of the tactical aviation art. The air arms of the other services are limited; their primary purpose is to perform missions tied directly to their basic land power, sea power or amphibious roles.

Yet, Pentagon officials should be cautious before tampering too much with the current size and structure of the services' tactical air forces.

They would do well to heed the admonition of Gen. Gregory Martin, who has commanded U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the Air Force Materiel Command and who recently warned:

"Nothing works without air and space dominance. Nothing. We don't want to assume that we will always have it. We want to always understand what it takes to get it, and we want to make sure we are building the systems that will give it to us."

[SwinneySwitch]

I vote for 4, 5 if you count the Coast Guard!

[Mount Athos]

I have no doubt that reducing to 1 would cripple the effectiveness of the Marines.

[dvwjr]

We are not a Hyperpower because we have 'four' air-forces, or because the US has the world's largetst economy, the largest defense budget, countless nuclear weapons and the largest Navy, Army and AirForce and Marine Corps.

You know you are hyperpower when you have a Navy, which has an Army, which has an AirForce. Thank God for redundancy...


dvwjr

[JOE43270]

Does anyone understand the difference in the Missions is these Services.

[SampleMan]

The Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force all have rifles too?

Yes by all means combine the air power under one service (Let's say the Air Force). Then the USAF will have a sea going wings, sea to shore wings, close attack wings, strategic attack wings. This will all be very confusing, and of course to integrate nicely, these wings will have to be subordinate to the on scene commander. So the sea going wings will be permanently attached to the Navy and be called something like USAF Naval Force. And so on, and so on. Different aircraft will still be required for the specialized missions, but there will be a cost savings on items such as motivational posters.

[SampleMan]

Yes.

[Young Werther]

This argument goes back to the Eisenhower Administration. When the first IRBMs were being developed, Thor and Jupiter the desire to have "Unique" service weapons caused the military engineers to take the same engine and "bend" the fuel flow tubes in different ways so the engines could not be interchangeable.

Old hats want to differentiate between Annapolis, West Point and the AF Academy but a "warrior" is a "warrior"! Combine them all and mucho money would be saved.

[xzins]

Battle commanders (land or sea) need their own air assets. They do not need to have their air requests put on a list in the central air power office letting some air power weenie decide if that commander's request is a higher priority than what air power had planned for that day.

Using that logic, why have an army and a marines....they're both just land forces? Ans: because the sea commander sometimes needs to occupy land, and he needs to do it on his own schedule, not that of the chief of staff of the army.

[Terabitten]

Yes by all means combine the air power under one service (Let's say the Air Force). Then the USAF will have a sea going wings, sea to shore wings, close attack wings, strategic attack wings. This will all be very confusing, and of course to integrate nicely, these wings will have to be subordinate to the on scene commander. So the sea going wings will be permanently attached to the Navy and be called something like USAF Naval Force. And so on, and so on. Different aircraft will still be required for the specialized missions, but there will be a cost savings on items such as motivational posters.

The units would be permanently attached, but not the pilots. They should be able to change out at will. Being carrier qualified would be just another qualification, kind of like being airborne qualified for an infantryman. God forbid, though, that'd force the USAF and Navy to come up with the same airplane to do the job (like the F-4 was) and we'd never do that.

Ground forces could *really* benefit from consolidation. Consolidate doctrine, military education, procurement, supply chains, all that stuff. The long term savings could be tremendous, and the tactical and operational efficiency of our soldiers could be much, much higher.

[Terabitten]

Ans: because the sea commander sometimes needs to occupy land, and he needs to do it on his own schedule, not that of the chief of staff of the army.

Help me out here, but has a Navy admiral has ever ordered a Marine operation to hold land (maybe a port seizure that I'm forgetting about somewhere?) without it being essentially a joint operation? The island hopping campaign of WWII comes to mind as a possibility, but they were still conceived and planned as joint operations.

[cosine]

Competition is a good thing in government, too. Although the separate services fight turf wars, they also try different things. Sometimes one stumbles on something that is of benefit but was ignored by the other services.

One big thing almost never works very well no matter what the bean counters say.

[Jacquerie]

The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.

Wrong. In the late '40s the USAF tried to do just that shortly after their inception.

Each service has unique needs and missions. If the Army uses some boats to patrol the Tigris or Euphrates in Iraq, why get the Navy involved? Naval aviation has developed uniquely as well. Want to kill retention? Just ask Air Force types to give up cushy shore bases for sea duty.

[nuke rocketeer]

This would be repeating the mistake of the British when they consolidated all air forces under the RAF after WW1. It ended up with the Navy getting the short end of the stick. Would the new combined AF be as attentive to carrier operations and ground support? Or would they go off baying down the high tech trail while ignoring sea air control and support of the ground pounders? Would they dedicate pilots and funding to helicopters, or make the assumption that their supersonic fighters and stealth bombers will be ok?

Each service having their own air sections makes more sense to me. They can then specialize in their respective areas. The Marine flyboys make a fetish of close ground support and are considered the best in the world at it. The Army has made a science of helicopter operations and the Navy cannot be matched for getting air power anywhere there's enough water to float a carrier.

The nazis and soviets also had monolithic air forces that while were good, were not as good or as flexible as the 4 individual American air services. Look how poorly the nazis did naval support and how poorly the soviets did at trying to develop a carrier force. Both had some naval aircraft, but in virtually every case they were planes designed to operate from land bases and not as good as the American navy's planes.

[Wiz]

Not these tradition fights again!!!

[jwalsh07]

Me too, close air support is a tricky business. The more intense the comraderie the better.

[SampleMan]

Also, if you have the whole pie, you have a tendency to push certain priorities to the back burner. We can see this inside the USAF with the bomber force. What if the USAF had it all. Would carrier aviation be sacrificed in order to pay for long range bombers? Perhaps. I would be happier to see the USAF dismantled than to see everything conglomerated into it.

[Sandreckoner]

How incredibly stupid. The answer _is_ in infrastructure, including coordination _between_ the services where overlaps occur. Not in throwing out with the bathwater as full consolidation would be.

[Seniram US]

Agreed! During the Korean War, the Fifth Air Force insisted upon and received jurisdiction over the 1st Marine Air Wing, which essentially eliminated the type of close-air support that only Marine pilots attempt, diving below tree-top level to deliver munitions just over the heads of the infantry.

Most calls for air support by the 1st Marine Division during the Korean War, when filtered through Fifth Air Force, either never arrived or arrived, too, late. It became a near-perpetual boondoggle and irrefutably cost the Corps heavily with regard to casualties.

[dakine]

"Want to kill retention? Just ask Air Force types to give up cushy shore bases for sea duty."

ok...

[JOE43270]

I wonder what their problem is.

[struwwelpeter]

'Air Forces' is a misnomer. Each service has a discrete mission that often requires the use of flying machines, whether jet or reciprocating engine, fixed wing or rotary. Should all Air Force trucks to the Army?

When I went to Lajes AB in the Azores, they had an interesting set up: The permanently stationed aircraft belonged to the Navy, the Army had a terminal tugboat unit, and the Air Force provided all the ground vehicles. It seemed to work.

[tet68]

The Marines would NEVER accept it.

[SampleMan]

The F-4 was developed for the Navy. Being the first Navy jet ever to out perform its ground based peers, it was quickly jumped on by the USAF, despited the fact that it was much heavier than it needed to be for their purposes, and therefore less effective than a purpose built aircraft would have been.

The JSF is designed to be the one size fits all aircraft, and it might well be, but there is a much longer list of failures in this category.

Are you serious about rotating pilots? If so, then why stop there? We can get rid of separate training for helicopters, fighters, patrol, bombers, etc. After all a B-52 and a Harrier are both airplanes, and pilots fly airplanes.

And ground forces! Yes!!! Nail on the head!!!! If we could just get the Marines and the Army to use the same weapons, ammunition, helmets, etc. we wouldn't have those pesky supply chain problems where the Marine M-16s won't chamber the Army's M-16 ammo. Wait, something is amiss?

[beelzepug]

"Wrong. In the late '40s the USAF tried to do just that..."

In the '60's they stole my Caribous and hollered till we stripped the rocket pods off our Mohawks. Took all the fun out of being in Army aviation.

[xzins]

My memory says that Marines take land that is critical to a naval operation and will hold it as long as it remains critical.

But, I also remember that MacArthur and Halsey were in pretty solid agreement with a few exceptions during WWII.

[Gunrunner2]

Yes.

And I have a few more questions:

1. Does anyone know how an air campaign is planned and executed?

2. Does anyone know how apportionment works and targeting?

3. Does anyone know about strategic COG's?

4. Does anyone know who "owns" the air campaign and why? (and if not the Air Force, then who and when/how is the transfer completed?)

5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?

Just asking.

[Gunrunner2]

>>these wings will have to be subordinate to the on scene commander.<<

Tunisia anyone?

[BoBToMatoE]

If this is another stab at the F-22, ungh. We really need that plane.. it is only a matter of time before the SU-37s and other new, advanced fighters really begin to outnumber and outgun us.

[joesnuffy]

No

In fact the Army should be given the Air Force's A-10s

IMO

[Centurion2000]

Even so, there are sound reasons to make the Air Force the "keeper" of the tactical aviation art

No there are no good reasons for giving the AF all the aviation.

1) We don't fight wars from 8 to 5 with weekends off.

2) Blue uniforms SUCK

3) In the Air Force, if you are not a fighter pilot you are a lesser creature. So air to ground missions and helos would be totally neglected.

[muir_redwoods]

An airplane is both a weapon and a vehicle. I would no sooner take rifles away from the air force than I would take planes away from the marines. All branches need weapons and vehicles.

[SauronOfMordor]

How about this to get the attention of Air Force types who think close ground support is "beneath" them: deployed US forces are deployed under the jurisdiction of various regional commands (eg, Central Command covers the middle east, Pacific Command handles the Pacific region, etc). Units of various service branches are deployed to various commands. My proposal is to have the commanders of the various commands write the promotion evaluations of unit commanders under their jurisdiction, rather than their service hierarchy. Thus, if you are the CO of an Air Force wing in Iraq, your promotability will be determined by how the CO CentCom likes how you are supporting his mission

And flag-officer promotions, of whatever branch, would be controlled by a board of ALL the regional commanders

Whatever your service branch, you would either be a team player, or be passed over and cashiered

[cowtowney]

"And I have a few more questions:
1. Does anyone know how an air campaign is planned and executed?
2. Does anyone know how apportionment works and targeting?
3. Does anyone know about strategic COG's?
4. Does anyone know who "owns" the air campaign and why? (and if not the Air Force, then who and when/how is the transfer completed?)
5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?"

Hey! Nobody told me there was gonna be a quiz. Jeesh! I'm not prepared.

[SampleMan]

The USMC is part of the Navy, therefore it is technically one service with two elements. Many operations have been done together, that indeed is the whole point. One such example is the battle for Guadalcanal, where Bull Halsey was in charge of the entire shebang.

There is nothing wrong with Joint, but separate missions are best left to separate services. They are then brought together to fight the battle.

[JOE43270]

5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?
I'll answer question #5 for you. In 1947 General Le May took us over to the other side of the tracks and made us a seperate Service. He got us better Aircraft and took real good care of us. We will still fly air support for our Army Brothers. We flew though the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam and other Times when needed. The Mission will change and we will have to adapt so we can fill the need. God Bless America.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Battle commanders (land or sea) need their own air assets. They do not need to have their air requests put on a list in the central air power office letting some air power weenie decide if that commander's request is a higher priority than what air power had planned for that day. <<

The Joint Force Commander establishes the strategic guidance and the Joint Forces Air Component Commander uses his forces to plan and execute an air war that supports the JFC guidance. . .and guess what. . .usually the JFC is Army or Navy, but sometimes Air Force. The JFACC may also be Navy, but when the shirt in air power occurs, like having the most and the ability to command and control those assets, then is shifts to the Air Force. While the Army may have more "aircraft" via helicopters, they do not have the ability to command and control an air campaign that spans an entire theater, not some chunk of airspace that is only 50 miles wide.

CAS is part of the apportionment and CAS can be planned or immediate. I never saw an immediate CAS request go unfulfilled.

Storming Norman from Gulf War I "fired" the first plan Gen Horner came up with because it was "local" in it's scope and had no clue about the effects of a true strategic air campaign. After Col Warden dropped by Rums/Powell and Bush and explained the concepts of CoG's, then Warden was sent over to Horner. Horner threw out Warden because Horner was an idiot. Warden's plan worked and Horner took all the credit.

There is much learning and evolution that has taken place over the years when it comes to the proper application of air power. . .all for the good.

[x]

Nooooooooo! It's a sign of the apocalypse!

[sgtbono2002]

There is a eallysimple answer for this question: If it aint broke dont fix it. Its fine the way it is.

[Americanexpat]

It ain't broke don't fix it.

[R. Scott]

The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.

No, not entirely – but they fought against the Army arming it’s helicopters and succeeded in limiting Army aviation to rotary wing when it lost that fight.
Each service has unique needs. When an Army or Marine Battalion Commander needs close air support, it is far more efficient to go to his boss than to have to beg the Air Force for assets. The same applies to the Army’s waterborne landing craft. If it had to depend only on the Navy there would be few amphibious landing conducted by the Army.

[19th LA Inf]

I can think of a couple of other early jets before the F-4 that found use in both Navy and Air Force colors. The Douglas A3D/B-66 came about because of the Navy's desire for a nuclear strike jet aircraft. They put on a little show of force during the 1956 Oklahoma City airshow when a couple of them launched from somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, I think, and did a sweep over Will Rogers airport. The AF used the B-66 mostly in recon mode, I believe.

The FJ spinoff of the North American F-86 was one of the first really good Navy jet fighters and served both Navy and Marine wings.

Then there was the F-111 which MacNamara tried to force down the Navy's throat. I have heard that if it was parked on the flight deck in the standard tail-outboard position, it was likely to fall off into the water. But they served the AF for years in various tactical roles.

Vought's F8U was certainly one of the best air superiority fighters of its day on land or sea, but the great F8U-3 follow-on lost out to the F-4 when the Navy opted for two engines/two seats. Then it gave birth to the A-7 ground support fighter for the AF (short little ugly feller).

[SampleMan]

Again, yes.

1. An air campaign like the last war to take Iraq is put together as a joint operations. A list of targets is put together as a matter of joint input, it is prioritized, and then it is parceled out to different elements of the air services in theater. Room is left for targets of opportunity. At the end of every day (or more often) the list of remaining targets is poured over, new priorities are added, and endless changes are made. Then it all starts over. This continues until the ground forces own everything and there is nothing left to destroy.
2. Apportionment and targeting are directed by a joint staff. What element has the range, weapon, endurance to hit a given target? Does it matter. What is revisit time? A representative (usually several) from each service is there on the staff to provide expert input.
3. COGs? Maybe I'm just slow tonight, but I'm at a loss.
4. The Theater Commander always "owns" everything. Under him, he will have an air element commander. This does not have to be a USAF Officer. It will likely be whoever owns the most stuff in the AOR.
5. The USAF came into existence because it was felt that the priorities of the USA and USAAF were so divergent that one service could not concentrate on both effectively.

[SampleMan]

Actually the F-86 was a spin off of the Navy's FJ-1. Then the Navy came back with the swept wing FJ-4.

The USAF also very successfully used the Spad (Skyraider), and as you pointed out the A-7. The A-7 was incorporated only into the Air National Guard elements to appease the US Army, which kept pointing out that the USAF was abandoning close air support.

[Gunrunner2]

You are reaching. . .reaching way back.

Korea?

Okay, here goes (from a Gulf War I combat experienced ground FAC):

". . .which essentially eliminated the type of close-air support that only Marine pilots attempt, diving below tree-top level to deliver munitions just over the heads of the infantry. "

Nonsense.

Vietnam ring a bell? .

Back in the 80's I flew the A-10 and low level CAS was the plan of the day. Just ask ANY grunt on the ground in Germany that took part in the exercises.

Flying LOW is not a measure of "close." Not at all, and it's time people understood that fact.

Close has to do do with how close we deliver the munition. Altitude has nothing to do with it. CAS is basically the delivery of weapons while under positive control while in close proximity to friendly troops.

If you can deliver munitions accurately from outside the bad guy envelope, best do it that way. You increase your chances of surviving and being able to fly more missions. Flying low and into the teeth of the bad guys just because it looks neat in an air show is foolish. If you can deliver accurately from altitude or stand-off, do it. We USAF do fly into the teeth when the situation warrants and we pay the price (Steve Phillis, GWI).

Amateurs that watch too many movies and never studied the science of CAS always seem to make that same mistake. . .only believing CAS somehow means flying close to the ground.

Rubbish.

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. . .and just how is the Army supposed to support in the field a large fixed-wing and heavy aircraft when loaded with all those missiles and bombs. . .and those munitions are stored where?

[Gunrunner2]

>>3) In the Air Force, if you are not a fighter pilot you are a lesser creature. So air to ground missions and helos would be totally neglected.<<

Spoken by someone that knows nothing of the fighter world in the Air Force.

Look, A-10's are fighters and I am a Fighter Pilot.

F-16's do the CAS mission (air to ground) and they are fighters and flown by fighter pilots.

F-15E's drop bombs and are fighter pilots.

Fighter vs attack is a Navy argument, not an Air Force argument.

[Gunrunner2]

No exceptions. . .just turn in your test and take your "F" like a man.

[Luke]

Thank-you, SwinneySwitch.

Most folks simply forget about the United States Coast Guard - not realizing that we are a branch of the Armed Forces. We also have fixed-wing and rotor aircraft but I don't think anyone would ever consider Coast Guard Aviation as being an air force.

Back in the early '60s there was a congressional attempt to find out why all branches of the military could not wear the same uniform, I suppose to save money. Vietnam heated up and the idea was forgotten. But at that time the howls of protest could be heard everywhere... and that was from just the officer corp. No one bothered to ask me what I thought at the time; ...which was ...one zipper was more user friendly than 13 buttons.

[Gunrunner2]

I'll give you a "B". . .nah, and "A-" (I'm feeling generous tonight).

>>3. COGs? Maybe I'm just slow tonight, but I'm at a loss."<<

That would be Centers of Gravity. Targets are targets are targets, but some are more important than others because of their impact and importance. A few select centers of gravity destroyed and you can win quickly, efficiently and with less loss of life. Basically, proper targeting as a result of effects-based attacks makes great strategic, operational and tactical sense. Why shoot every tank and every troop when you can drop a bridge that isolates the bad guys and they never enter the fight? You get the picture.

>>4. The Theater Commander always "owns" everything. Under him, he will have an air element commander. This does not have to be a USAF Officer. It will likely be whoever owns the most stuff in the AOR.<<

Partial credit. The air element commander is the Joint Forces Air Component Commander, and yes, sometimes he may not be Air Force, and it is not based on who owns the most stuff in the AOR. The JFACC is the guy with the preponderance of air assets AND the ability to command and control those assets. This is why you will never see an Army guy as JFACC, he may have the most air assets (helos), but he has no ability to command and control an air campaign. The Navy may be JFACC until the Air Force arrives and then a whole dance occurs as the JFACC shifts from afloat to ashore.

Nice job.

[pfflier]

God forbid, though, that'd force the USAF and Navy to come up with the same airplane to do the job (like the F-4 was) and we'd never do that.

The F-35 JSF is exactly that airplane.

Previous attempts at this were all McNamara 'd up when the USAF and US Navy learned that their aircraft have specified missions that dictated different configurations. The F-4 was a naval interceptor that met USAF needs but is was a lousy gun platform (it didn't have one), it had poor weaponry (AIM-7 that went ballistic off the rails), it had lousy rudder effectiveness (the Navy wanted an interceptor, not a dogfighter) and it had a huge drag ratio (chop the throttles and its skidded to a stop in six feet...30,000 feet up).

Different missions mean great mission oriented aircraft or mediocre "one size fits all" compromises. Compromises lose air superiority and get you POWs and KIAs. Mission oriented aircraft get performance like the F-15. Not one air-to-air loss...ever.