Do we need the AF?
06-11-2008 | 07:59 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Kickin it "C"old School in AK
Do we need the AF?
No! No! No!
Donate the airframes to a good cause, like UPS, FDX, DAL, NWA, or CAL who will find an efficient means of using the assets for profit and not waste.
Donate the airframes to a good cause, like UPS, FDX, DAL, NWA, or CAL who will find an efficient means of using the assets for profit and not waste.
06-11-2008 | 08:05 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
Yes, we need the USAF to project airpower (including space airpower)
Yes, We need the Army to wage war on land and occupy
Yes, We need the Navy for our seapower projection (Maritime strategy)
Yes, we need the USMC to be able to project our power ashore from a Maritime delivery mode. (and to give the Army an example of a real 'soldier' <g>)
Yes, we need a Coast Guard to maintain/protect the navigable waters domestically and coastal law enforcement.
We need them all, we need to work together, and we are like never before.
The overlaps are necessary. Each service needs a certain amount of organic capability) Marines/Squadrons aboard ships for effective power projection.
USAF has/does coordinate between all services (in cooperation) with other services.
If we dilute any of the services essential missions, we will become even more costly. I hope we don't blend like Canada.
1Seat1Engine: Why does the USMC need their own airpower? Because all services need a certain amount of organic capability. Reason Navy turns F-18's into tankers at the boat. Like USAF has some of their own oceangoing vessells/tugs etc. The Navy doesn't need to run those organic requirements. If they did, they would always be at USAF locations anyway and someone would say cheaper if they were USAF. Thus, they are.
We can mass forces, yet do our independent missions as needed by national policy, we need certain overlap to ensure mission success and cost savings.
Yes, We need the Army to wage war on land and occupy
Yes, We need the Navy for our seapower projection (Maritime strategy)
Yes, we need the USMC to be able to project our power ashore from a Maritime delivery mode. (and to give the Army an example of a real 'soldier' <g>)
Yes, we need a Coast Guard to maintain/protect the navigable waters domestically and coastal law enforcement.
We need them all, we need to work together, and we are like never before.
The overlaps are necessary. Each service needs a certain amount of organic capability) Marines/Squadrons aboard ships for effective power projection.
USAF has/does coordinate between all services (in cooperation) with other services.
If we dilute any of the services essential missions, we will become even more costly. I hope we don't blend like Canada.
1Seat1Engine: Why does the USMC need their own airpower? Because all services need a certain amount of organic capability. Reason Navy turns F-18's into tankers at the boat. Like USAF has some of their own oceangoing vessells/tugs etc. The Navy doesn't need to run those organic requirements. If they did, they would always be at USAF locations anyway and someone would say cheaper if they were USAF. Thus, they are.
We can mass forces, yet do our independent missions as needed by national policy, we need certain overlap to ensure mission success and cost savings.
06-11-2008 | 08:50 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Yes, we need the USAF to project airpower (including space airpower)
Yes, We need the Army to wage war on land and occupy
Yes, We need the Navy for our seapower projection (Maritime strategy)
Yes, we need the USMC to be able to project our power ashore from a Maritime delivery mode. (and to give the Army an example of a real 'soldier' <g>)
Yes, we need a Coast Guard to maintain/protect the navigable waters domestically and coastal law enforcement.
We need them all, we need to work together, and we are like never before.
The overlaps are necessary. Each service needs a certain amount of organic capability) Marines/Squadrons aboard ships for effective power projection.
USAF has/does coordinate between all services (in cooperation) with other services.
If we dilute any of the services essential missions, we will become even more costly. I hope we don't blend like Canada.
1Seat1Engine: Why does the USMC need their own airpower? Because all services need a certain amount of organic capability. Reason Navy turns F-18's into tankers at the boat. Like USAF has some of their own oceangoing vessells/tugs etc. The Navy doesn't need to run those organic requirements. If they did, they would always be at USAF locations anyway and someone would say cheaper if they were USAF. Thus, they are.
We can mass forces, yet do our independent missions as needed by national policy, we need certain overlap to ensure mission success and cost savings.
Yes, We need the Army to wage war on land and occupy
Yes, We need the Navy for our seapower projection (Maritime strategy)
Yes, we need the USMC to be able to project our power ashore from a Maritime delivery mode. (and to give the Army an example of a real 'soldier' <g>)
Yes, we need a Coast Guard to maintain/protect the navigable waters domestically and coastal law enforcement.
We need them all, we need to work together, and we are like never before.
The overlaps are necessary. Each service needs a certain amount of organic capability) Marines/Squadrons aboard ships for effective power projection.
USAF has/does coordinate between all services (in cooperation) with other services.
If we dilute any of the services essential missions, we will become even more costly. I hope we don't blend like Canada.
1Seat1Engine: Why does the USMC need their own airpower? Because all services need a certain amount of organic capability. Reason Navy turns F-18's into tankers at the boat. Like USAF has some of their own oceangoing vessells/tugs etc. The Navy doesn't need to run those organic requirements. If they did, they would always be at USAF locations anyway and someone would say cheaper if they were USAF. Thus, they are.
We can mass forces, yet do our independent missions as needed by national policy, we need certain overlap to ensure mission success and cost savings.
USMCFLYR
06-11-2008 | 09:07 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 10
From: Petting Zoo
I do find it kind of funny that airpower zealots can make never ending arguments about why the Army should have zero aviation assets while skipping over the fact that these arguments could be equally aimed at the Navy.
06-11-2008 | 09:10 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
From: HMMWV in Iraq
No offense guys, but the services look at air power differently as well.
As a Marine FAC, I know that aircraft capabilities are included in operational planning from the beginning. When we go to execute a mission, we know in advance that we are going to use surface fires for this target, and air fires for that. When I'm talking to an aircraft, he is there to support me in achieving my objective, which may be achieved by destroying the target.
From the Army perspective, it seems as if CAS is something that is a last resort. Uh-oh, the grunts are in trouble, arty can't reach, better call for air support. Kind of cliche', but true. Part of the problem is that they don't understand what air provides, and you can't use an asset appropriately if you don't know or understand what it does for you. They don't know what air provides because its not an organic asset.
From the Air Force perspective, it seems as though the JTAC on the ground is there to facilitate the pilot dropping the bomb and destroying the target. To the pilot, the target is just a target that needs serviced, and he most likely does not know or understand what objective the grunts are actually trying to achieve.
Its a different mindset.
As a Marine FAC, I know that aircraft capabilities are included in operational planning from the beginning. When we go to execute a mission, we know in advance that we are going to use surface fires for this target, and air fires for that. When I'm talking to an aircraft, he is there to support me in achieving my objective, which may be achieved by destroying the target.
From the Army perspective, it seems as if CAS is something that is a last resort. Uh-oh, the grunts are in trouble, arty can't reach, better call for air support. Kind of cliche', but true. Part of the problem is that they don't understand what air provides, and you can't use an asset appropriately if you don't know or understand what it does for you. They don't know what air provides because its not an organic asset.
From the Air Force perspective, it seems as though the JTAC on the ground is there to facilitate the pilot dropping the bomb and destroying the target. To the pilot, the target is just a target that needs serviced, and he most likely does not know or understand what objective the grunts are actually trying to achieve.
Its a different mindset.
06-11-2008 | 09:23 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Don't worry brother, no one is trying to take MC aviation away. As you say, a PR machine second to none.
I do find it kind of funny that airpower zealots can make never ending arguments about why the Army should have zero aviation assets while skipping over the fact that these arguments could be equally aimed at the Navy.
I do find it kind of funny that airpower zealots can make never ending arguments about why the Army should have zero aviation assets while skipping over the fact that these arguments could be equally aimed at the Navy.
USMCFLYR
06-11-2008 | 09:23 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 10
From: Petting Zoo
From the Army perspective, it seems as if CAS is something that is a last resort. Uh-oh, the grunts are in trouble, arty can't reach, better call for air support. Kind of cliche', but true. Part of the problem is that they don't understand what air provides, and you can't use an asset appropriately if you don't know or understand what it does for you. They don't know what air provides because its not an organic asset.
From the Air Force perspective, it seems as though the JTAC on the ground is there to facilitate the pilot dropping the bomb and destroying the target. To the pilot, the target is just a target that needs serviced, and he most likely does not know or understand what objective the grunts are actually trying to achieve.
Its a different mindset.
From the Air Force perspective, it seems as though the JTAC on the ground is there to facilitate the pilot dropping the bomb and destroying the target. To the pilot, the target is just a target that needs serviced, and he most likely does not know or understand what objective the grunts are actually trying to achieve.
Its a different mindset.
But still, the AF puts ASOS's and ASOC's down embedded with the Army to do exactly what you described. If the Army doesn't do it, I suppose the intent is that the embedded AF unit will. Clearly, the Army doesn't always agree with how the AF employs airpower though, so maybe you're on to something.
06-11-2008 | 09:56 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 0
From: I pilot
I think another reason the AF was formed was to ensure air power would not get overlooked or minimized by the Army's and Navy's primary missions--boats and boots.
The ATO has solved many utilization issues in theater, but the need to "train and equip" is why the AF will remain independent arm, IMHO.
Plus, airplanes are only a part of the AF...the space weenies are getting more and more emphasis every day...that's probably the biggest reason the AF isn't going anywhere.
The ATO has solved many utilization issues in theater, but the need to "train and equip" is why the AF will remain independent arm, IMHO.
Plus, airplanes are only a part of the AF...the space weenies are getting more and more emphasis every day...that's probably the biggest reason the AF isn't going anywhere.
06-11-2008 | 11:18 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
Well, kind of. I don't really know the Marine mindset so I can't talk to it. Though I find it weird you don't let enlisted do it. And found it even weirder that we used to send our enlisted JTACs to support Marines in ops when you didn't have enough of our own--why don't you allow enlisted JTACs?
But still, the AF puts ASOS's and ASOC's down embedded with the Army to do exactly what you described. If the Army doesn't do it, I suppose the intent is that the embedded AF unit will. Clearly, the Army doesn't always agree with how the AF employs airpower though, so maybe you're on to something.
But still, the AF puts ASOS's and ASOC's down embedded with the Army to do exactly what you described. If the Army doesn't do it, I suppose the intent is that the embedded AF unit will. Clearly, the Army doesn't always agree with how the AF employs airpower though, so maybe you're on to something.
Summary: Understand the nuances of both being in the cockpit AND sitting in harms way on the ground. Reason why Marine Officers go to the Basic school. Everyone is a groundpounder.
