"The essence of strategy is to git thar fustest with the mostest" General Nathan Bedford Forrest
Posted on 06/10/2008 5:25:04 AM PDT by baa39
When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ousted the Air Force’s two top leaders last week, there was more to it than just the service’s reported slip-ups with handling of nuclear weapons, according to Pentagon insiders. The shake-up was a clear message to the Air Force to quit making a direct case for preferred systems and get more “Joint.” It also took from the service its top champions in ongoing roles and missions discussions, decapitating airpower advocacy in the Department of Defense.
Gates told reporters at a Pentagon press conference that the nuclear issue was his sole reason for accepting the sudden resignations of Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, but friction between the Air Force and top Pentagon leaders was probably a more likely trigger. Gates—along with his deputy, Gordon England, and acquisition czar John Young—have long been hot under the collar as the Air Force has tried to convince Congress to fund more of the systems USAF believes are needed to deter aggression by rising world powers or to fight a major conventional war.
Gates has said numerous times that the Air Force should focus on winning the current war and not fall prey to “next war-itis.” Gates and his lieutenants have, with increasing frankness, told Congress to ignore the Air Force’s push for systems like the F-22, which they say are of limited value in an insurgency and compete with things like Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles needed for the ongoing fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon leaders have also been unhappy with USAF’s push to buy more C-17s than are currently on the books.
(Excerpt) Read more at airforce-magazine.com ...
It’s not really a different view. Fighter Jock Moseley wasn’t interested in supporting the war operations and (along with Wynee, who was brought in to fix the Air Force’s acquisition issues) screamed for more F-22’s and while defining their mission as Space
Bump for later read.
They look at everything in the perspective of the current polls or current events.
I watched, while in the AF, as they berated the AF for the B-1 and B-2 bombers as well as the development of the F-15 and F-16!
The AF does need to fight the current war but MUST look ahead because their systems are being used up and the service life of the aircraft are coming to an end.
We cannot afford to finish this war and then look around, with our thumbs up our butts, and wonder where the new weapons are when we try to face down Communist China and a possibly resurgent and belligerent Russia as well as several well-armed third world countries.
I believe we need more new fighters than the 180-some authorized and less than the 300-some the AF really wants, but the AF also needs to look at a follow-on replacement for the B-52. No fighter can replace it and we still need strategic bomber forces.
Subsuming the AF into the Army and returning to WWII days is myopic and not in the best interest of our country.
The Gen McPeak days have left the AF without a prominent voice in the Pentagon and within the political circles in DC. The AF is expensive to build and operate and the nature of the current war allows the other Services to claim the AF is a dinosaur that must be collared and trimmed.
Flame suit on for the replies from the other Service supporters! :-)
Agreed, procurement cycles are LONG and our existing airframes have many hours on them. The real question is what missions and capabilities? That will define hardware. Another fundamental is manned vs. unmanned. Goes without saying that the fighter-jock wing of the AF has a lot of competition for $$$. And no bucks, no Buck Rodgers, folks. Last is what component is space/missile vs air breathing. We’re in a world of hurt these days. I hope to G-d that the Rutans of the world keep it up, because we ain’t got the lift capability we once did. I’ll leave it up to guys with a higher pay grade than me to figure. Suspect you might have spent some time at my old playground VAFB?
I completely agree. But I would like to see CAS the UAVs used by the Army turned over to the Army - like the Marines have their own CAS. Let the AF keep the strategic missions and air superiority.
Btw, I’m Army infantry.
“Suspect you might have spent some time at my old playground VAFB?”
Yep. Just TDYs though.
Titan II crew training in the 70s, Minuteman (Deuce) crew training in the 80s, and a FOT&E (Glory Trip GT120 GB) in 1987.
The idea about CAS being turned over to the Army was bandied about in the early 90s around the time McPeak took over and tried to turn the AF into nothing but fighters.
If you are talking just UAVs I would agree but I think the fixed wing, manned aircraft such as the Warthog should remain AF as I believe the Army would take the resources and apply them to the rotary wing forces.
While old, the Warthog is proven and has shown its capabilities and mettle in several conflicts.
After the first Gulf war my two friends who were Warthog drivers couldn't go into a bar with their flight suits on and pay for a single drink if an Army combat troop was there. The Army troops loved them and would thank them all the time for what they did.
When talking about how services behave and see themselves he addressed the issues along the following lines: Seven aspects were particularly useful in separating the services and are discussed here in some detail. They are: 1. Altars for worship 2. Concerns with self-measurement 3. Preoccupation with toys versus the arts 4. Degrees and extent of intra-service (or branch) distinctions 5. Insecurities about service legitimacy and relevancy 6. Uses of, and attitudes toward, analysis 7. Affinity for strategy It's a pretty good read.
I have tons of admiration for Gates. I had the privelege to meet him briefly before he was nominated. A good, common sense guy. He’s making the hard choices and has performed admirably. It will be a shame to see him leave public life next year.
Trouble is, the next war is never like the one you anticipate. Even so, I am less than thrilled with the push for more F-22s; and I disagree with ending production of the C-17 when the USAF has 205 of them.
IMO, one can’t have enough air cargo capacity in a “real” shooting war. I’m of the opinion we’re putting a real strain on the USAF transport fleet in this conflict. Look at the ANG C-130 units — from what I’m hearing the number of C-130s at those units are minimal, perhaps just enough to keep pilots current.
Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.
"The essence of strategy is to git thar fustest with the mostest" General Nathan Bedford Forrest
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.