Break Up The Air-Force? What?

reply to post by marg6043


No actually we don't have to look behind the "agenda" ... all that matters are the points being made.... Now we should probably fact check the points carefully if it smells like there is an agenda behind something, BUT regardless of the agenda if the FACTS are good and support the assertion then the agenda doesn't matter!

Whenever someone tells me to ignore the facts and look at the agenda.... I immediately check and make sure my wallet's still there and my man virginity is still intact...

Also Marg... you should not make any assumptions about whether someone "understands" the rank system, which you seem to be a bit hazy on, and the way you describe it is exactly what I was saying is BAD about it!

The reality is rank doth not make you more intelligent by default! Nor does it make your mistakes less likely to get people killed! Matter of fact in general the higher the rank you have the more people die when you screw up!

Even further you seem to miss the point that you basically confirmed that I was right in making the points I did since you've confirmed that from what you've seen I'm exactly right about how it works currently!

Where you seem to be failing to grasp things is that many of us including the author are saying this is an inherently BAD way to do things! It is not conducive to having a top flight military! It is conducive to turning a nation's military into a good place for rich second sons to live out their top gun fantasies!

Also this mentality that doesn't trust enlisted men with weapons or "killing power" or "high end systems" not only balloons your personnel and other costs but it also absolutely eviscerates your ability to sustain an acceptable "tooth to tail ratio". The tooth to tail ratio is a way of explaining how many men in support positions that do not involve direct combat with the enemy to support each combatant. Also the Air Force by the way it chooses to operate at insane costs of treasure and diplomatic capital all in a bid to keep weapons out of the hands of the enlisted underclass by basing them so far away from the action that they're considered non combat posts is foolhardy for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is if we can't trust our military personnel with pistols or carbines at all times how the hell do we trust them with Cluster bombs and nuclear weapons?

Also if you pay attention to the current acquisition trends and armament buying trends among our near peer and peer nations you will see that most of the groups we are more likely to face in combat are VERY quickly working to close the technological gap specifically in things like ISR, communications down to even the fire team level, Situational awareness augmentation, and other high end force multipliers. Not only are they doing this but since they are doing it using reverse engineered and extraordinarily heavily mass produced and therefore MUCH MUCH cheaper than our devices although generally only about 75% as capable/cutting edge as ours but they are starting to buy them in quantities that can match or EXCEED our ability to get said equipment into a combat zone in the initial days and weeks!

These same near or full peer groups are also doing everything they can to compensate for some of the qualitative differential by arming and armoring their personnel to a level we quite frankly are not used to facing! We are now in a situation where if we were to face a well equipped adversary buying chinese gear for example, it's very possible at the squad and platoon level we would be facing a very disproportionate weight of fire from comparable enemy units!

While everyone else is working to make every individual in uniform they possibly can MORE lethal... our military spearheaded by the Air force is working to reduce as many personnel as possible to unarmed, and barely trained in combat basics 2nd class DEPENDENTS on the very few remaining combatants! That trend alone is reason enough to get rid of or very heavily restructure the Air Force as it is now.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


I tend to agree with you shade in that any restructuring needs to be EXTENSIVE and focus on much more than just the air force!

Most importantly though we need a very serious change in our military and acquisitions culture! If we do not change that the rot will just reassert itself into the new structure pretty much immediately!

We also need to somehow insert the ethic that EVERYONE in the military is expected to fight if it comes right down to it. Not just that but we also need a new structure that doesn't create a barely accountable aristocracy within our fighting forces.

Really every time I've sat down and tried to figure out how we'd make this happen i've ended up looking at how the various socom teams work. Said teams work off of two key concepts.

1. Killing people and breaking S*** is our job and we take pride in doing high quality work!: Now this might offend some people's delicate sensibilities, but the reality is if you can't deal with people telling it like it is bluntly and without flowery language you shouldn't be in the military anyway. Professionalism should be the watchword of the day! Continuing education combined with a system that REWARDS you for how valuable you make yourself rather than how long you've been in uniform should be a big part of this. ANother part of this is modern warfare is intensely technical and we can no longer afford to try and idiot proof everything even at the cost of making less effective systems! We need people who want to learn and have an INTENSE interest in learning everything they can about implementing new Tactics Techniques and Procedures and combining them new technology. Soldier needs to become a CAREER not just something you do for awhile to get money for college or until you finish your degree or whatever.

2. He with the expertise leads: In groups like the delta teams the task at hand determines which member of the team is in charge. This needs to be enacted at a more broad level throughout a revamped and reorganized PROFESSIONAL military!

Most of all though we need less US and THEM divisions.... they're killing us and serving as the perfect chinks in our armor for the unscrupulous to insert crowbars into and work their way inside to our soft underbelly where we are vulnerable.

The Air Force just needs to concentrate on air and space their budgets will soon need to for space as it already has been weaponized.
Any jet ever made(even the Harrier) are FAR easier to fly that an Apache doing NOE attack sorties at night.
The Army can EASILY handle it.We'll just take a few senior warrants,toss them some manuals and a few fight lessons and we got this.
I read where the navy lost pilots in jets in the 50s DURING THE KOREAN WAR by doing that very thing,transitioning from jets.

reply to post by DogMeat


Yeah man, the Air Force Rocks!

intrptr
reply to post by DogMeat

 

War =
Step 1.) control air superiority
Step 2.) if you don't the other guy will and bomb/blow/blast your ground/naval troops to tiny bits.

"Air Superiority" did not do anything to the german defenses at D Day, or on Japanese held Islands. Io Jima was pounded for weeks prior by air and naval gunfire. What it took was boots on the ground to take out every machine gun nest and only then was air able to support those troops in focused attacks on specific targets.

But I get the destruction of air bases to obtain air superiority prior to invasion.

It is a limited role. Bwah wah!

Prior to d-day, the allied air forces destroyed bridges, railroads, canals, road junctions, to disrupt the flow of troops and materials to the front, also, allied fighter/ bombers destroyed individual targets such as tanks, trucks, individual bicycle riders!

reply to post by pikestaff


Correct you are sir, I should not have said "did not do anything". What I meant was on D Day, but by then the work you addressed had already been done.

By the logic of this Argument you may as well scrap the Army as well!
The Navy has a ground force and an airforce, as Does the Army and Airforce.
.
What a dumb argument!
.
I'm usually against American military activity but even I can see how disasterous dismantling a carefully planned and constructed military would be. It'd trigger a damn war. That would concern all of us i think.



(First time I've commented in almost a year and I choose the weaponary section.....not intentional)

I think breaking them up would be a mistake. I would be disappointed in the U.S GOV even more then normal I they were to break up the U.S AIR FORCE. that's all I have to say on the matter.

Raivan31
By the logic of this Argument you may as well scrap the Army as well!

You missed the logic of the argument.

The Navy has a ground force and an airforce, as Does the Army and Airforce.
.
What a dumb argument!

It's not a dumb argument. The point is to align the needs with the command structure. It's not 'scrapping' the air force but reorganizing who gets done where. The point that the Marines have their own air power is just the right example. Because of jealousy from the USAF, the army doesn't have any high-performance fixed wing aircraft capability, which is plainly idiotic. But the USAF doesn't align its procurement and deployment with what the Army really needs either.

At best, you can turn AF into Space & Strategic Missile & cyber command: run space, missile defense, and missile offense, and military reconaissance. Maybe some logistics. In 2014, that's what makes sense.

The combat forces go to Army where they used to be.

reply to post by intrptr


That was a little early to be judging the Air Force's air superiority don't you think?

By the way, it was the Army AIr Corps at that time!