close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Abolish the Air Force?

Discussion in 'The US Air Force Forum' started by BrokenArrow, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. BrokenArrow

    BrokenArrow Millennium Member

    807
    0
    Aug 11, 1999
    Lost In Space
    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?
     
  2. hokieglock

    hokieglock Proud Infidel


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

  3. mitchshrader

    mitchshrader Deceased

    8,672
    3
    Jun 14, 2005
    Tulsa
    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.
     
  4. freakshow10mm

    freakshow10mm 10mm Advocate

    The American Prospect: Liberal Intelligence. I find that hilarious.
     
  5. engineer151515

    engineer151515

    14,219
    321
    Nov 3, 2003
    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.
     
  6. MrMurphy

    MrMurphy ********* Moderator Moderator Millennium Member Lifetime Member

    12,972
    3
    Jan 16, 2001
    Buried in the X-files
    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.
     
  7. DJ Niner

    DJ Niner Moderator

    15,531
    1,159
    Feb 13, 2001
    North-Central USA
    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!
     
  8. MOTHERGREEN

    MOTHERGREEN

    464
    0
    Jan 2, 2005
    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?
     
  9. MrMurphy

    MrMurphy ********* Moderator Moderator Millennium Member Lifetime Member

    12,972
    3
    Jan 16, 2001
    Buried in the X-files
    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.
     
  10. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Moderator

    34,219
    4,513
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    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.
     

  11. 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
     
  12. J. Parker

    J. Parker

    2,762
    23
    May 24, 2000
    Ephrata, Wa.
    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?
     
  13. Al U. 5811

    Al U. 5811

    13
    0
    Jan 26, 2003
    MN, USA
    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
     
  14. FEDLEO

    FEDLEO Spread Out!

    4,785
    29
    Aug 13, 2006
    State of disbelief
    I came to the AF from the Army and don't want to go back
     
  15. Bradley Brasso

    Bradley Brasso

    9
    0
    Jan 15, 2008
    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
     
  16. Dean

    Dean

    2,393
    0
    Nov 4, 2006
    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.
     
  17. Decguns

    Decguns

    1,244
    60
    Dec 29, 2003
    NC
    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.
     
  18. Bradley Brasso

    Bradley Brasso

    9
    0
    Jan 15, 2008
    That's ok as long as I don't have to wear those GREEN boots!
     
  19. meeko

    meeko

    320
    0
    Apr 15, 2006
    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!
     
  20. Highspeedlane

    Highspeedlane NRA Life Member

    3,345
    3
    Jan 25, 2008
    New England
    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.