AW1Steve
Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
quote:
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
quote:
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mynok
quote:
The fact that the Air Forces primary mission is controlling the air over the battle space should not take away from the fact that it also needs to have an offensive strike capability. It needs the ability to take out enemy instillation and reduce an enemies ability to make war through strategic warfare. Space is also a growing concern and IMO the AF should lead the way. Last, but not least the Air Force should have the capability of supporting itself and the other branches of the armed forces with missions such as ground support, air lift, recon, etc.
Actually, air superiority is simply a means of expediting tactical missions, rather than the primary mission itself.
Not when the enemy is over the battle ground dropping bombs on you...the US military has been at the top so long I think perspective is lost.
While I will agree with you that air superiority is crucial, it is only the 1st step as to winning. Air power cannot occupy ground , it cannot win a war by itself without the use of nuclear weapons. I don't belive that the USAF ever had a problem with bombing (as through most of it's existance it's been ruled mainly by it's "bomber mafia"). The issue is what kind of bombing. Since the days of Douhet and later Mitchell , the argument has always been made that you could win a war by strategic bombing. Until the advent of nuclear weapons you couldn't. That's why the WW2 bombing studies were classified. It's hard to justify selling your bomber as a war winner when your evidence says otherwise.
The problem is this; close air support is nasty, dirty and down-right dangerous. It is not glamorose , and never will be. You don't need fast, pretty fighters , quite the opposite. Big, slow and heavy are the planes for this job. The Air Force has always called close air support "mud-moving". And they do not call it that with respect or affection. They call it that with disdane.
I don't think you necessarily need to put the USAF under the USA. But you do need to demand that they play well with others. And that is the message that the current Secdef is supposed to be sending by firing the Chief of staff and the Air Force sec. "Do your job and play well with others. Or you will be replaced".
Well, again, the Army's primary objective will never be to control the skies...it just won't. Somebody needs to do it. As I said, I think the Army has a legitimate need to operate AC for its own missions. Since the Air Force has made it clear that close air support is a secondary mission for them, it should be in the realm of the Army. The Air Force is and always will be run by fighter jocks. In the Air Force there has always been a two tiered system, those that are fighter pilots, and everyone else...not saying that's right, but that is the way it is.
The Army wants someone to control the skies. They don't really care if it's USAF,USN,or USMC. If somebody doesn't they will. If that means via SAM belt , ala Soviet style , then they will do it that way. The Army wants air support. They really don't care what service does it, they just want it done and done well. If the USAF won't do it , they will do it with whatever tools they have(like helo's and UAV's) . Due to the Key West agreement , they can't use fixed wing strike aircraft , because they belong to the Air Force and the USAF is supposed to do it. We don't have a question as who is to do the job (and has recieved funds , aircraft and people from congress to alledgely do the job). We have an employee who doesn't feel like doing the job , and won't give up the resources to someone else to do it. (Personally , I'ds fire the SOB).
We either need the USAF to give up those resources , or do the job to Army satisfaction. They signed the contract , they took the money, now they don't want to follow thru. Maybe instead of returning the USAF to the USA , we should follow the soviet example and have multiple AF's. (They had five). Strategic Rocket forces, Air Defense (PVO Strateny), Maritime Air, Transport Air and Frontal Aviation (the largest and biggest , whose job was only to support the Red Army).
< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 7/15/2008 8:58:54 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread