Abolish the Air Force? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Abolish the Air Force?


BrokenArrow
11-19-2007, 10:37
Abolish the Air Force

What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare. What it does well -- its tactical support missions -- could be better managed by the Army and Navy. It's time to break up the Air Force.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=abolish_the_air_force

Presents a good case. Do we need a stand alone Air Force anymore than we need a stand alone armored force, or artillery force, etc.

Maybe the AF should be to the Army as the USMC is to the Navy?

Maybe it is time for the AF to go home, back to the Army?

hokieglock
11-19-2007, 10:41
Abolish the Air Force

What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare. What it does well -- its tactical support missions -- could be better managed by the Army and Navy. It's time to break up the Air Force.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=abolish_the_air_force

Presenta a good case. Do we need a stand alone Air Force anymore than we need a stand alone armored force, or artillery force, etc.

Maybe the AF should be to the Army as the USMC is to the Navy?


and give up our 5 star hotels to live in a tent? NO WAY!

mitchshrader
11-19-2007, 10:42
i don't intend to argue the case, and there are individual issues deserving of attention re: tactical command and control, and unified purchasing, but as far as training and command structure.. the concept of combining the air force and army is stupid and unwieldy.

No, it's not smart. No, it's not worth arguing about, and yes, there are real issues that deserve a focus.

freakshow10mm
11-19-2007, 10:49
The American Prospect: Liberal Intelligence. I find that hilarious.

engineer151515
11-19-2007, 10:55
I did not see the "good case" presented.

US Navy handling land based ICBM's.

The US Army handling air superiority.


Then this line
"absurdities as the continued procurement of the F-22 Raptor, an aircraft whose sole purpose is the destruction of advanced enemy fighter planes"

Absurd? Perhaps from an Army point of view. In the face of Chinese and Russian military buildup, I think we need the F-22.

MrMurphy
11-19-2007, 23:39
Strategic bombing may not be current in THIS war, but in a major theater war, the ability to wipe half their infrastructure off the map in a couple bombing runs would certainly be relevant. Fighterbombers can't do everything.

The AF also does major air transit. The capability of rapid shipping cargo and troops is not matched by any of the other branches. The Navy can guard ships delivering tanks and cargo (taking weeks) but the AF can have quite a bit of crap delivered in a couple days.

DJ Niner
11-19-2007, 23:44
(snip)

Then this line
"absurdities as the continued procurement of the F-22 Raptor, an aircraft whose sole purpose is the destruction of advanced enemy fighter planes"

Absurd? Perhaps from an Army point of view. In the face of Chinese and Russian military buildup, I think we need the F-22.Some folks have a short memory; they don't remember what happens if you don't decisively control the entire airspace above a battlefield 24/7.

These whiners are just looking for a reason to bag one of the biggest single items in the defense budget, so they can fund their own pet programs instead.

Heck, the Air Force is the only service poised to expand so they can properly cover the newest above-ground battlefield; space! Other than a few more feet of water for the Navy due to global warming, everyone else has got all the real estate that they're ever gonna get!

MOTHERGREEN
11-20-2007, 00:34
the army air corps became the air force all them years ago for valid and still aplicable reasons. :) all branches have aircraft anyways.. what would be the point?

MrMurphy
11-20-2007, 00:44
I think the AF could expand on the ground support role a little (a newer/better A-10, some smaller gunships in the AC119/AC47 mold so they can be more places at once, etc) but on the fighter end of things, there is a reason that the US has had complete air superiority over the battlefield since about 1952.... we have the best/most fighters, the best command and control (AWACS) etc.

Any other country contemplating fighting us may have "more" but our pilots have the best training, and generally the most, as well as more reinforcements.

RussP
11-22-2007, 11:39
and give up our 5 star hotels to live in a tent? NO WAY!Ain't that the truth!!! Only way I survived the engagement in SEA was knowing I'd be sleeping in air conditioning after a mission...

Well, maybe it wasn't the only factor....but, it helped.

kenpoprofessor
11-23-2007, 18:54
Ain't that the truth!!! Only way I survived the engagement in SEA was knowing I'd be sleeping in air conditioning after a mission...

Well, maybe it wasn't the only factor....but, it helped.


Yea, we always caught crap from the Army when we supported the Red and Green Flags in Vegas. We use to laugh as we drove away in our GSA vans to go back to our air conditioned w'pool quarters. Yea, we made rank slower, but we sure were comfy LOL.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
USAF 1980-1991
42371

J. Parker
12-20-2007, 20:14
Hmmmm, poor BrokenArrow. AC130's? AC47's? I've seen 'em all in action. Impressive. The B-52 is THE greatest deterent ever! There is more to the Air Force than low level warfare.:upeyes:

~John :usaf:('67-'74)


Phan Rang RVN ('70-'71)


PS- how is the Army (or whomever) going to maintain the KC-135's/KC-10's that keep the B-52's flying 24-7?

Al U. 5811
12-23-2007, 17:21
I look at the Air Force as an "Armed FedEx". No one can move the tonnage in the time span that the AF can.

S/F

Al

sfguard
01-16-2008, 00:26
I came to the AF from the Army and don't want to go back

Bradley Brasso
01-16-2008, 06:43
The fact is THAT we do not know what the NEXT war will be like. We were not prepared for the GWOT. We cannot afford NOT to be prepared for ANY type of future war that may occur. The Air Force was cut by 53,000 personnel recently-and now has the smallest force in history. The decision makers in Washington have to WAKE UP and fund ALL branches of the military adequately for the missions that they are assigned. Remember that due to the strong Air Force that we have had we have had NO casualties from enemy air attack since Korea. The F-22 is needed to counter advances in Russian, Chinese, and European advances in technology. Our F-15's are aging rapidly, and aproximately 160-170 are grounded right now due to structural cracking. P.S.- I am an Army type of guy

Dean
01-16-2008, 06:56
Let me get this straight: You want to abolish the U.S. Air Force?
Are you "Doped up?"
The Air Force is a huge, highly technical and unique service community, very different from the Army or Navy. Do you understand the multiple global missions of the Air Force?
The Space Command - do you understand that?

Are you a dope fiend? Is there some sort of water pipe in your hand? Are you listening to Grateful Dead music, as you smoke and wax poetic about disbanding the U.S. Air Force? Are you wearing multi - coloured draw string pants?

No. You cannot abolish the U.S. Air Force, and just have the Army or Navy "do that stuff."

Hell No.

Decguns
01-16-2008, 07:16
The writing is already on the wall. The Army will absorb the Air Force in the distant future. We are already combining infrastructure with the Army at many bases. From depots/supply to services/MPF, the Air Force is handing control over to the Army. Thousands of Airmen now serve with/under the Army. The new PT program to the whole "warrior" mentality is geared for the inevitable transition to the Army. And, the Air Force is continuing to down size.

Perhaps the most telling tale is that the replacement for the C-17 is an Army project. There are no manned fighter/bomber aircraft planned after the F22 & F35. If all we will fly is unmanned aircraft, there's no need for a seperate Air service.

Bradley Brasso
01-16-2008, 16:14
That's ok as long as I don't have to wear those GREEN boots!

meeko
01-17-2008, 22:42
The writing is already on the wall. The Army will absorb the Air Force in the distant future. We are already combining infrastructure with the Army at many bases. From depots/supply to services/MPF, the Air Force is handing control over to the Army. Thousands of Airmen now serve with/under the Army. The new PT program to the whole "warrior" mentality is geared for the inevitable transition to the Army. And, the Air Force is continuing to down size.

Perhaps the most telling tale is that the replacement for the C-17 is an Army project. There are no manned fighter/bomber aircraft planned after the F22 & F35. If all we will fly is unmanned aircraft, there's no need for a seperate Air service.

I do not take any offense to what appears to be your view even though I am retired from the Air Force. That being said the Army absorbing up the AF is just not going to happen. Thats like saying there is no need for the USMC so lets move it into the Navy. There are several people in the DOD both military and civilian with a heck of alot more college degrees than probably anyone here that will make those decisions.

I was a career Security Forces guy. Several of my unit members have/are deployed on "in liue of mission" backfilling or supplimenting army units. AF Security Forces are trained in small unit tactics and dismounted patrols, MOUT etc. it just makes sense to utilize the AF ground guys to supplement the Army. If it keeps someone in the Army from being deployed more than they should it's worth it. Spread the wealth we are on the same team no matter which pattern of camo we have on!

And as far as Services being combined on military bases, thats just a way of life now with severe fiscal cut backs. You will probably see alot more joint services bases. Like it or not!

Highspeedlane
01-28-2008, 06:57
The AF is subject to much more upheaval in manning numbers it seems, than other branches. If we're in a protracted ground conflict, everything gets focused on infantry and armor. If it's peace time then the call goes out "Hey, we don't need a standing army this large anymore". It goes on and on.

But the need for strategic air superiority will never go away, just the numbers contributing to it, and to do it effectively, I personally believe the upper echelon feels we need a unique and mission focused branch to get the job done.

Witness the increase use of unmanned aircraft in mission support and intel gathering. This is the new AF and ANG of the future. Fewer rear ends in the cockpit yes, but alot more manpower on the ground in these emerging roles.

Years ago (80's I believe) there was talk about getting rid of the USMC. Then along comes a conflict and suddenly they are not only on the front burner again, but expanded somewhat. They wanted to ditch the A-10 and replace it in the A/G role with the F16, then Desert Storm happened and the A-10 quickly became the best thing since sliced bread.

I think the AF is not only here to stay, but will get even more specialized in roles that other branches aren't going to be able to fulfill, thus making the AF even more bullet proof when it comes time to trim and ax the defense spending budget.

jetrecbn1
02-17-2008, 18:09
I'm a green suiter, but I think it would be a mistake. What would the priority of fund allocation be? Would most of the $$ go to the ground pounders? I honestly think that the air wing would run into funding problems. I do believe that we need to cross train more. Not just TACP's.

frefoo
02-17-2008, 21:56
Does anyone else see the irony in a post written by BrokenArrow being the same as a B movie of the same title?

odie072
03-13-2008, 05:26
Let me get this straight: You want to abolish the U.S. Air Force?
Are you "Doped up?"
The Air Force is a huge, highly technical and unique service community, very different from the Army or Navy. Do you understand the multiple global missions of the Air Force?
The Space Command - do you understand that?

Are you a dope fiend? Is there some sort of water pipe in your hand? Are you listening to Grateful Dead music, as you smoke and wax poetic about disbanding the U.S. Air Force? Are you wearing multi - coloured draw string pants?

No. You cannot abolish the U.S. Air Force, and just have the Army or Navy "do that stuff."

Hell No.


Plus I don't foresee the F-22 having little stick figures drawn on it so the Army will know what to do with it!!:tongueout:

odie072:supergrin:

bfg1971
04-05-2008, 00:10
Just to play a little tonight what if we only split tactical air from the Airforce and imbeded it with the Army? Give the Army all the drones and strike aircraft. Leave AF as heavy lift, strat war, and space.

mitchshrader
04-05-2008, 00:36
Dean.. you don't smoke dope, do you?

I'm gonna point out that you aren't well informed about it. :)

You have plenty folks who drink beer and aren't lushes, don't beat their wives, do manage to make it to work on monday, ok?

and some who can't, and you notice em.

I'm sure you've seen some colorful hippies that get high and diss the military, in any form.. but darn few of them have any opinion of WHICH service they'd prefer or how they're most effective. they are lousy on baseball stats, too.

on the OTHER hand, they're a fraction of the potheads, most of the potheads ARE NOT HIPPIES.. and a BIG bunch of em drive nice cars, have nice houses, and quietly burn one when it doesn't interfere with the rest of their lives..

associating weed with hippies is very easy. so is associating oppression with cops, and lots of folks make such association.

finding a few cops who fit that description implies nothing about the others.

the fact Many hippies smoke dope, (and surprisingly about 1/3? 40%? are VERY opposed to it) .. doesn't stop a lot of NON hippies from trying it.

you're a lot more likely to get a rant about military waste from a yuppie paying big taxes than from a hippy hustling food stamps.

i won't claim all republicans are gay cause some of em are, and i won't claim nobody ever stood close to burning evidence at a dead show.. but lets not conflate a social euphoriant with bitter ire at military expenditures..

one thing hippies ain't, is worried about TAXES. what'd be the point? Outside of Willy, I mean.. :)

BrokenArrow
04-08-2008, 11:39
I was USAF (Security Forces) from 78-98.

Just pointed out the article cuzz I thought it was interesting and would stimulate discussion. It was, and it did.

Thats like saying there is no need for the USMC so lets move it into the Navy.

The USMC is already in the Navy, always has been.

The Navy has naval infantry (Marines), and both the Navy and Marines have aviators... maybe we should abolish the Army AND the Air Force and put them both in the Navy? :supergrin:

DJ Niner
04-08-2008, 23:36
:poke: Cut it out!


:supergrin:

Rocknropes
04-13-2008, 01:21
Are we forgetting that the US air force deals with space, satellites, and missile controls too? If aliens attacked, the air force would be the go to guys. hehe. :cool: