Do we need the AF?
06-22-2008 | 03:45 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
06-22-2008 | 03:53 PM
#52
Thread Starter
Libertarian Resistance
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
From: 757 FO
THAT is a leadership problem IMO. We had a Army SF O6 CC on a contingency I was a MSN CC on. (AFSOC). He stood up after the Intel Brief and EXPLAINED to my crews the mission, the REASON, his intent and what the impact would be.
Every one of them told me that was the first time a CC actually EXPLAINED WHY they would be doing what they do...what the impact would be..and why they were hanging their asses out on the line. I made sure to pass that on to the O6.
Every one of them told me that was the first time a CC actually EXPLAINED WHY they would be doing what they do...what the impact would be..and why they were hanging their asses out on the line. I made sure to pass that on to the O6.
Contrast that with the Army or USMC. O-5 or O-6 is not uncommon at all anywhere in theater. And if something lights off, they are there doing essentially the same thing as everyone else from E-1 on up.
Maybe that disconnect explains some leadership issues that have been discussed.
WW
06-22-2008 | 05:18 PM
#53
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Work
06-22-2008 | 05:19 PM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Work
dtfl, that is a really interesting point. In the AF, once you make O-5 or O-6 you are done with operational flying. You are a staff officer, maybe a commander, but you are no longer a flyer. You have become management.
Contrast that with the Army or USMC. O-5 or O-6 is not uncommon at all anywhere in theater. And if something lights off, they are there doing essentially the same thing as everyone else from E-1 on up.
Maybe that disconnect explains some leadership issues that have been discussed.
WW
Contrast that with the Army or USMC. O-5 or O-6 is not uncommon at all anywhere in theater. And if something lights off, they are there doing essentially the same thing as everyone else from E-1 on up.
Maybe that disconnect explains some leadership issues that have been discussed.
WW
06-22-2008 | 06:03 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Urban combat has always been a HUGE part of Marine History and training.
But with a battle history the includes the following I felt it needed to be said:
1) Chapultepec
2) Inchon
3) Hue
4) Mogadishu
5) and of course Fallujah now
..........to name a few
USMCFLYR
06-22-2008 | 07:16 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
From: 757 Capt
Of course we need an AF,
who wants to go TDY to an Army or Navy base.
Qs barely have hot water let alone Flat Screen HD tvs with the premium cable package for workin off the free booze at the club
who wants to go TDY to an Army or Navy base.
Qs barely have hot water let alone Flat Screen HD tvs with the premium cable package for workin off the free booze at the club
06-23-2008 | 05:32 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
06-29-2008 | 12:24 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: King Air (both)
Had airplanes existed at the time of the constitution's inception, you better believe the founders would have seen the importance of an independent air force...They were forward thinkers who were ahead of the curve on most things. The Army and Navy have not historically been very willing to change and did not foresee the force air power has become. There are many in those services who still do not. Why do you think the Europeans were so quick to create independent air services in World War I? A lesson it took us 50 years to learn and still you have people on an Airplane-centric message board saying the Air Force is not needed...that is amazing to me.
I think I see where you are going with the USAF is "air power" posts. I understand and agree but have some questions. You have mixed several issues to make a point. This could be a war college subject but I will try and be brief.
One, we need an AF. The USN/USMC do not have enough strike/fighter assets to cover a large land mass. Army only has rotary CAS. This doesn't even speak of tankers or air transport.
Two, the Navy learned from Billy Mitchell (sp?) the hard way. Yes, it served the 1940's AF well to become independent but that is old news.
Three, air power is not a "strategic" mission, this includes Naval Air. Air power should exist to support the "real estate" transaction of full scale war. Small scale conflict is different. I am making a distinction between "power projection" and all out combat.
Four, the independence of the services is good for future planning but bad for interoperability. Each service can fight for it's budget to meet it's requirements but that should stop at the operational level.
Five, the Constitution says nothing regarding the independence but only to maintain a Navy and militia (summary not quote).
Questions:
Should the AF be in support role all the time?
If no to above, should the Navy have tankers? (I'm talking big iron, KC-135 or better)
Should a Unified Commander always be Army or USMC, i.e. a ground type? An exception is the Pacific, the Navy's bath tub, always an Admiral.
Should the USMC have a vote on the JCS? (I say yes)
As before all good stuff. I don't want to poke anybody in the eye but do like the discussion even if we agree to disagree or just like shooting the bull.
Fly safe,
SC
