Disband The Air Force?

**taygone** · 16 Nov 07,, 00:21

I was cleaning out my e-mail and came across this article it's pretty old and may have been discussed already. I'm biased as I served in the Air Force and my father. My sister and her husband are currently serving in the Air Force, and I heard my sister say there was talk of bring back the Air Force to the Army, but that was probably just water cooler talk.

Disband the Air Force

Above is the link and below is the text.

This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Ares Weblog.
Fed up with unnecessary gold-plated fighter jet programs, the service's impatience with counter-insurgency and its anti-China rhetoric, back in August I proposed the disbanding of the U.S. Air Force. The air service's missions could be folded into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps without any loss in national power -- and we'd benefit from cuts to Pentagon overhead.
Now Robert Farley over at The American Prospect has taken up the cause in a new piece, "Abolish the Air Force." To complement the piece, Farley has solicited input from a number of bloggers, including yours truly.
"Does the United States Air Force fit into the post-September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency?" Farley asks:
Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.
In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published a long article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively"about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities.
"Striking Iranian oil facilities?" That's exactly the kind of bone-headed chest-thumping that has made the Air Force a liability to U.S. diplomacy, as I explained in my reply to Farley's piece:
In September Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne brazenly undermined years of careful diplomacy aimed at heading off an unnecessary war with China -- all in the name of defending the service's latest Cold War-style fighter jet.
Defense experts had proposed cutting the planned 1,800-unit production run of the $100-million F-35 light fighter, a plane originally justified to Congress on the grounds that it would cost less than the current $50-million F-16. The F-35 program's $300-billion budget would be better invested elsewhere, the argument went. But Wynne rejected the proposal: "How big do you think China is?" he said.
As if a fleet of short-range fighters would make any difference if the United States went to war with China. Does Wynne honestly believe that we'll somehow find ourselves holding territory in China from which to operate these aircraft? Does he really anticipate a ground war on the Chinese mainland?
Of course not. The idea is sheer lunacy. (You think the occupation of Iraq is expensive and bloody? Imagine the occupation of China!) Wynne's statement was pure rhetoric.
But in the world of diplomacy, rhetoric matters. Note the care with which Navy and Marine Corps leaders have approached China in recent years. Since the low point in U.S.-China relations in the aftermath of the 2001 collision between a Navy patrol plane and a Chinese fighter, our sea services have taken the lead in reaching out to the communist state and industrial powerhouse. Admiral William Fallon, who organized the first exchange of port visits in years and plotted out joint exercises with Chinese forces, has steadfastly avoided painting China as a prospective enemy. And Marine general James Mattis said in Washington this year that China should be a partner, not an enemy -- and that we'd best be conscious of the way our words and attitudes influence Chinese behavior.
But to Wynne, our delicate relationship with the world's future superpower is grist for the military-industrial lobbying machine. His dangerous characterization of China is indicative of deep cultural problems in the nation's youngest military service. The Air Force's top priority is buying airplanes. Don't take it from me. Air Force general Ronald Keys said in August that the air service's "hardest wars" weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in the halls of Congress. For the Air Force, global strategy and fighting our current low-tech wars are both secondary concerns. That's putting the cart way before the horse

**HistoricalDavid** · 16 Nov 07,, 19:45

Originally Posted by taygone

"Does the United States Air Force fit into the post-September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency?" Farley asks:
Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.

Wow, the AF should be disbanded because COIN is the now and therefore will always be the type of warfare being fought...

In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published a long article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively"about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities.
"Striking Iranian oil facilities?" That's exactly the kind of bone-headed chest-thumping that has made the Air Force a liability to U.S. diplomacy, as I explained in my reply to Farley's piece:

This is an argument for reforming and toning down the Air Force's attitudes, not destroying it.

In September Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne brazenly undermined years of careful diplomacy aimed at heading off an unnecessary war with China -- all in the name of defending the service's latest Cold War-style fighter jet.
Defense experts had proposed cutting the planned 1,800-unit production run of the $100-million F-35 light fighter, a plane originally justified to Congress on the grounds that it would cost less than the current $50-million F-16. The F-35 program's $300-billion budget would be better invested elsewhere, the argument went. But Wynne rejected the proposal: "How big do you think China is?" he said.
As if a fleet of short-range fighters would make any difference if the United States went to war with China. Does Wynne honestly believe that we'll somehow find ourselves holding territory in China from which to operate these aircraft? Does he really anticipate a ground war on the Chinese mainland?
Of course not. The idea is sheer lunacy. (You think the occupation of Iraq is expensive and bloody? Imagine the occupation of China!) Wynne's statement was pure rhetoric.

Who says China would be occupied at all in a conflict? This is a peculiarly post Iraq attitude - 'war' means 'invading, occupying and pacifying a country and installing a pro-American government'.

The rest of the article basically berates the Air Force for not narrowing itself down to COIN and only COIN. In the unlikely event the s-t does hit the fan, who you gonna call? The Cougars and Humvees, or the Air Force?

**akinkhoo** · 18 Nov 07,, 06:04

the Airforce roles is always questionable.

the service cost too much to maintain and doesn't contribute enough firepower. let's face it, if the navy loses the fight, the airforce isn't going to be able to turn the tide of battle on it's own.

you need the Airforce around no doubt, but the role it is given just doesn't work.

**Jimmy** · 18 Nov 07,, 17:49

If the Navy loses the fight? The US hasnt employed massive naval firepower since WWII...and that was really the end of "naval" firepower, because aside from subsurface warfare the Navy's real firepower comes from the air.

And you cannot win any war without control of the skies. It doesnt guarantee you victory, but against any modern military your forces will be pounded into dust if you dont gain some measure of air superiority (or at least keep the opposing air force busy).

Also, the Air Force actually has the most precise delivery of firepower in the world. We dont NEED a fleet of a thousand bombers loaded with 500 lb bombs. We can launch one B-52 and take out 80 seperate targets.

**Gun Grape** · 18 Nov 07,, 18:15

Originally Posted by akinkhoo

the Airforce roles is always questionable.

the service cost too much to maintain and doesn't contribute enough firepower. let's face it, if the navy loses the fight, the airforce isn't going to be able to turn the tide of battle on it's own.

Doesn't contribute enough firepower? Holy crap, in terms of "Throw weight" even this retired Marine knows that the USAF can deliver more conventional firepower than all the other US services and the rest of the world combined.

**akinkhoo** · 19 Nov 07,, 14:00

because aside from subsurface warfare the Navy's real firepower comes from the air.

you miss the point, this is about airforce which is a service, not air power. the F18 are very much naval control.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Doesn't contribute enough firepower? Holy crap, in terms of "Throw weight" even this retired Marine knows that the USAF can deliver more conventional firepower than all the other US services and the rest of the world combined.

and where can it get throw it?

**Jimmy** · 20 Nov 07,, 00:40

I'm not missing any point. Naval aviation is point defense and localized air superiority. The Air Force doesnt have such restrictions to keep it so localized.

And we can throw it anywhere in the world. What are you talking about? Give me an address and put a sign in your window so I know which one's yours, and I can throw a bomb right in your bedroom.

**Bluesman** · 20 Nov 07,, 00:59

Originally Posted by akinkhoo

and where can it get throw it?

Okay, that's as stupid a post as has ever been written. The answer, of course, is: ANYWHERE IT'S NEEDED. Give me a ten-digit grid, and I can hit it. How's THAT?

**TopHatter** · 20 Nov 07,, 01:12

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Give me an address and put a sign in your window so I know which one's yours, and I can throw a bomb right in your bedroom.

Probably whichever window pane you want as well...

**bdn12** · 20 Nov 07,, 02:10

Wow, this article talks about occupying China. A war with China would almost entirely be fought in the sea and sky. You can't just send in paratroopers on C-130's and patrol Chinese cities like in Iraq. It would be similar to a war with the former USSR. Why do you think we wanted so many bombers during the Cold War? Because ground troops weren't an option and bombing was the only way to take a Russian city down.

**Jimmy** · 20 Nov 07,, 03:03

You'd have to send basically the entire population of the United States in order to OCCUPY China. Its a ridiculous idea, and significant evidence that whoever David Axe is, he's an absolute moron.

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 20 Nov 07,, 12:56

Originally Posted by Jimmy

You'd have to send basically the entire population of the United States in order to OCCUPY China. Its a ridiculous idea, and significant evidence that whoever David Axe is, he's an absolute moron.

And I'm sure the Chinese would love having you guys there. Any war with the PRC would be fought on the Seas, in the Sky and on Taiwan.
And China would probably be the ones who'd have to worry about COIN.

**Bluesman** · 20 Nov 07,, 13:52

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And I'm sure the Chinese would love having you guys there. Any war with the PRC would be fought on the Seas, in the Sky and on Taiwan.
And China would probably be the ones who'd have to worry about COIN.

Very true. We'd want no part of, and probably could not manage any sort of wall-to-wall occupation.

And a captive population that has just gotten in touch with the fact that their new-found prosperity has been blown to pieces would likely lead to a massive popular rising against the commissars. Thy've got ethnic and religious problems galore, and depending on the level of screw-tightening the old bastards felt they had to resort to, a war would likely be a very risky proposition for the continuation of a Chinese Communist Party.

**astralis** · 20 Nov 07,, 15:15

bluesman,

And a captive population that has just gotten in touch with the fact that their new-found prosperity has been blown to pieces would likely lead to a massive popular rising against the commissars. Thy've got ethnic and religious problems galore, and depending on the level of screw-tightening the old bastards felt they had to resort to, a war would likely be a very risky proposition for the continuation of a Chinese Communist Party.

yes and no- a war would be highly popular. a democratic china, in all likelihood, will be even more jingoistic and chest-thumping than the china of today. if china re-unifies taiwan by force of arms, then the people would irrationally but quite happily take the enormous economic blow.

on the other hand, if china loses but somehow gets off economically scot-free, then the CCP still dies.

**astralis** · 20 Nov 07,, 15:19

in regards to disbanding the air force, that won't happen.

the AF is screaming like tortured souls at the recent ascendancy of the army in the budget wars (which means a shift of perhaps oh, at most 2-3% of the budget towards the army). Sec. Wynne has found a new talking point in mentioning how old the average plane in the AF now is, and how that has led to a bad decline in readiness rates. he's gonna be beating that drum quite loudly and effectively, and i doubt the AF will get cut much further.