These Guys want to Disband the USAF

[GZR_Sactargets]

http://www.military.com/features/0,1524 ... force-a.nl

An excellent example of short-sighted thinging!!

[jetmax]

Unbelievable.

[Ford Friendly]

Actually, it's not particularly "short-sighted" if you consider that Canada claims to be a single uinfied structure.

So much for the "true believer" side of the argument.

The reality is that as long as there are different weapons systems, different commanders in control of those weapons systems will want to "build their empires" and control more things. It's basic human (and demogogue) instinct. just think about how the aviation assets were split in the US in the 50's - -- Army allowed helo's as well as tactical missiles (including nukes), Navy allowed the whole gamut, Air Force demanding it have everything flyable (and imaginable) everything except undersea-launched missiles.

The result - multiple logistical battles, conflicting and confusing command and control structures, and airframe development battles that took 50 years to resolve to the point where we finally have a "single airframe" for a multi-service fighter of the future (F-35).

Then again, I've always been a pragmatist, not an empire-builder or an idealist.

[djnocturnal]

hehe maybe its time to go green!
i've only got 8 years under my belt, i'd like to make it 20! and get that good retirement

[GZR_Sactargets]

Actually, it's not particularly "short-sighted" if you consider that Canada claims to be a single uinfied structure.

So much for the "true believer" side of the argument.

The reality is that as long as there are different weapons systems, different commanders in control of those weapons systems will want to "build their empires" and control more things. It's basic human (and demogogue) instinct. just think about how the aviation assets were split in the US in the 50's - -- Army allowed helo's as well as tactical missiles (including nukes), Navy allowed the whole gamut, Air Force demanding it have everything flyable (and imaginable) everything except undersea-launched missiles.

The result - multiple logistical battles, conflicting and confusing command and control structures, and airframe development battles that took 50 years to resolve to the point where we finally have a "single airframe" for a multi-service fighter of the future (F-35).

Then again, I've always been a pragmatist, not an empire-builder or an idealist.

It is hard to separate the 'emotion' from realities. When the AF became a separate service it acknowledged the need for focus on capabilities and potentials in a particular and unique service. It is difficult for a single command/service to comprehend and apply all the capabilities.

Examples would be shown in the 'consolidated' wing structures in Korea. The Air forces were assigned to areas and using one assigned set of assets to cover another area was overly complex. The result was that one area needed support while another was relatively quiet. But the coordination was lacking to easily facilitate any crossover. Later the more comprehensive programs made forces available to the theater as a whole rather than by a specific area. The concept of centralized command and control worked much better in VN. Even so, There were specific missions that were handled as a separate entity. SAC and MAC would be the prime examples.

The priciples are always established in Doctrine and that is by the separate services. That is based on overall National Strategy. National strategy also considers force structure and capabilities. When short-falls are found one or more of the services is structured to meet the shortfall.
With unlimited resources that is not a problem. However that is also not reality. Thus the DoD is faced with estimating the needs and then building forces to meet the needs. That means weighing how the various services can build forces to meet those needs.

In the past, the primary focus was on Strategic Warfare as shown in the nuclear bomber, missile and SLBM forces. The primary plan was called the Single Integrated Operations Plan(SIOP). A single agency, The Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (JSTPS) corrdinated and planned strikes using the forces from SAC, the NAVY and the ARMY. Various levels were planned including some Tactical weapons. (Strategic warfare is loosely defined as the situation when the national survial of the combatants is at stake)

Tactical warfare is also high on the list of priorities. And the competion for resources is more aggresive there. Planners must take a more coordinated view of missions in Tactical warfare. Logistics becomes a very high priority. Movement of troop, weapons, and ammunition is vital to success. (Beans and bullets). Usually the emphasis is on troops on the ground and occupation of territory. Of course that brings Close Air Support
Tactical Logistics, and Reconnaissance into play heavily. The scope also changes from very low level operations to some covering an entire area.
Each has a set of requirements that require versitile forces from an AF perspective. As the fight goes on, each unit has support needs that must be weighed at some higher level and force allocation within a theater is vital to success.

In between, you have other operational requirements. Strategic and Tactical Recon for example. Those are met by both air breathers and satellite. Including some down at the tactical level (Witness the big discussion over UAVs).

Every commander and command (at every level) wants to have instantaneous control over all the possible assets he can get. Each would like his own airlift, supply, weapon support, etc. That becomes very cumbersome at times. For that reason, you have specialists handling a particular asset (empire?) I don't think that is illogical. I would rather have someone with intimate knowledge of his system running it than someone with only 'familiarity' with a system. Regardless of service, there is a need for specialized knowledge. I would not want a rifleman (although all infantry are riflemen) planning and deploying my artillery or helo support. That takes special training.

The end result has to be very close coordination from the top to the bottom to effectively apply military forces. Each command has to take into account their mission and plan accordingly. Force structure estimates are based on mission descriptions and those are keyed into various war plans (either strategic or tactical). Much of the bickering that happens is a result of not enough coordination of all the elements needed in a plan.
Most of that in-fighting takes place at the DoD and budget level. There are groups that must argue for each weapon system and address how NOT to lose mission capability.

Waugh! I wrote a book and only barely scratched the surface of this complex process. The key issue is the same one you encounter in any endeavor- Which will work best? A centralized architecture or one with
distributed responsibility and accountability. There is no direct answer, There is only opinion as far as effectiveness is concerned. You will easily find advocates for both concepts.

[flyboy]

Just my two cents but the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to me is a good way to operate a unified military force. They have a very simplified command structure with a unified commander with all assets available to bring to bear if needed. And history has showed that it has worked well.

The Israel Air Force which is part of the IDF has not done that bad. One of the more celebrated Air Forces in the world with an outstanding combat record.

What I have always liked about the IDF is that national military service is compulsory for all men and women over the age of 18. I always believed that everyone should do there part in defending their country.

I am retired USAF and I know tradition goes along way. In todays economic world you are going to have to settle for less weapon systems (due to such high costs) with more capability.

I think you will see most of the F-15s and F-16s will be retired soon, and fewer F-22s and F-35s than planned due to budget shortfalls.

I also think you will see more manned aircraft replaced by Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV). The UCAV will be cheaper to produce so that will be a larger number. The pilot (and computer) can control them from home country (without foreign bases) and strike anywhere in the world without risking pilots.

I think we will end up with a smaller Air Force, the question will be will our capabilities match the future threats we will face..

[GZR_Sactargets]

From AF Daily Report 7 Nov 07

Here is one of many 'arguments' related to force structure:

The McCaffrey Warning: Now that aged F-15s are falling out of the skies, we would direct your attention to a recent report prepared by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a combat veteran of Vietnam and the Gulf. His comments were contained in a six-page "after action report" prepared after visiting air bases and talking with airmen of all ranks. He wrote: "The US Air Force is badly underfunded, its manpower is being drastically cut and diverted to support of counter-insurgency operations, its modernization program of paradigm-shifting technology is anemic--and its aging strike, lift, and tanker fleets are being ground down by non-stop global operations with an inadequate air fleet and maintenance capabilities. ... We should create a US national security policy based principally on the deterrence capabilities of a dominant, global Air Force and Naval presence. ... The US Air Force is our primary national strategic force. Yet it is too small, has inadequate numbers of aging aircraft, has been marginalized in the current strategic debate. ... The next Administration must fix the manpower, aircraft, and funding shortfalls of the US Air Force or we will place the American people in enormous peril. ... We lack the equipment, Airmen, and money to adequately defend America in the coming 15 years. We are placing our national security at enormous risk if we do not soon act to correct these crucial shortfalls." McCaffrey went on quite a bit more, but you get the idea.

McCaffrey's Seven: Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in his memo (see above), proposes a seven-step get-well program for the Air Force. It is eye-popping. The seven "imperatives" (McCaffrey's word) are these:
1. F-22A fighter. "There is no single greater priority for the coming 10 years for the US Air Force than funding, deploying, and maintaining 350+ F-22A Raptor aircraft." (The current program of record calls for only 183 fighters.)
2. C-17 airlifter. "We must create the strategic national military airlift and air-to-air refuel capability for 600+ C-17 aircraft to project national military and humanitarian power in the global environment. ... The C-5 aircraft must be retired--these planes are shot."
3. UAV, ISR, Strike. "Primary control of these assets should be exercised by centralized Joint Air Component command and control. ... We are confusing the joint battle space doctrine. Air Component Commanders should coordinate all UAVs based on Combatant Commander situational war-fighting directives."
4. Space Primacy. "Our global communications, ISR, and missile defense capabilities cannot operate without secure, robust, and modernized space platforms. ... Space is an under-resourced and inadequately defended vital US technical capability."
5. Cyber Capabilities. "We must expand exponentially the resources, R&D, and human talent devoted to the massive and on-going war against our US communications-computer-control systems. ... This calls for a serious Joint Combatant Command status with a heavy Air Force component lead."
6. Next Generation Bomber. "We need a follow-on long-range system to the B-2 Spirit Bomber. The B-52 needs to be retired within the decade. The B-2 is inadequate and too vulnerable as a long-range strike platform. ... Our offensive capability should include ... a fully modernized stealth heavy strike bomber."
7. Missile Defense. "The US Air Force Airborne Laser is just short of operational deployment. ... The system needs substantial continued R&D investment and continued operational incremental upgrades in the coming 15 years."

Here is the full context of the report in PDF format. (six pages)

http://206.204.189.217/NR/rdonlyres/EAD ... 101207.pdf

[flyboy]

6. Next Generation Bomber. "We need a follow-on long-range system to the B-2 Spirit Bomber. The B-52 needs to be retired within the decade. The B-2 is inadequate and too vulnerable as a long-range strike platform. ... Our offensive capability should include ... a fully modernized stealth heavy strike bomber."

Is he talking about the B-2???? I can see shortfalls with the B-1 and B-52. With all the investment in stealth and GPS guided weapons, the B-2 suppose to be the best bomber in the world. Its strange the B-52 has been in operation for over 50 years and he is already talking about a replacement for the B-2 which has not been in service that long.

[GZR_Sactargets]

This is consistent with the long lead times to field a new system. The B-2 is also a VERY expensive platform. To build more of them would break the bank. The history of evolution of a new system from Request for Proposal to an operational aircraft takes at the minimum 10 years. That assumes it doesn't run into politics. (E.G. the B-1). What surprises me is that this is coming from an ARMY General Officer. Maybe that will help!

[GZR_Sactargets]

The "Red-Headed Stepchild": The condition of the Air Force has started to worry many in Congress, but few more than Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) She is concerned about the lack of new investment. "Here is the problem," said Tauscher, chair of the House Armed Services strategic forces panel. "You've got the Air Force, effectively, as the red-headed stepchild" among the services. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, she warned that the Air Force and Navy are "just being completely constricted on their capabilities" so that the Pentagon can "deal with what you have to do for ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan." She asked, "How long are we going to do this?" Tauscher noted particularly the rundown of USAF's airlift capabilities. "You need to have a healthy, vibrant, robust airlift capability in order to do anything," and it doesn't make sense to her that the Bush Administration hasn't asked for more airlift money. "Why aren't there any C-17s in the budget? Why are they depending on the Congress to put them in? Why do we have to make choices between the C-5s and C-17s. Isn't that their job?" (Frin AF Daily report 9 Nov 07)