At Odds with Air Force, Army adds it's Own Aviation Unit

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Just_A_Mom, Jun 23, 2008.

  1. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    AT Odds with Air Force, Army adds it's own Aviation Unit

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/w...d=1&adxnnlx=1214216522-qf4OjoQX5UW3EE6D8205Kg

    read on.....
     
  2. HS senior USMA

    HS senior USMA New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting. Given the Air Force's recent leadership troubles and apparent inability to make informed decisions (Boeing or French tankers?), it would not surprise me to see the Army increase their aviational capacity even further.
     
  3. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Whatever the outcome, I hope it provides the best possible air support (be it CAS, Intel, CCC, or whatever) that the ground forces need.

    One could argue that the USAF should be limited to strategic assets: Heavy bombers, ICBM's, strategic recon, etc. This is because of the issues already stated, that close-air-support is best provided by those who are more closely linked and associated with the troops on the ground.

    The Marines have worked this into a well-oiled machine. There is a reason that USMC pilots wear camouflage covers on their helmets, and it's not just because it might help them in a fight: it's also a sign that they are MARINES supporting brother Marines on the ground.

    If the Army wants to pull off a similar model, they will need to figure out how to scale the Marine model up to Army proportions, deal with the logistics (at least the Marines can bring their air cover along on carriers and Amphibs, the Army would need actual airfields) and, of course, sell the whole thing to that bunch of pinheads up on Capitol Hill.


    To be honest, I think, moving forward decades (and perhaps even centuries), the final military model will end up being the Navy (right up to starships and supporting vessels) and Marines (doing the groundwork). The boundries will be on-planet or off-planet, not at-sea or ashore.

    Not a good thing for Air Force types contemplating career stability. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2008
  4. ds52262

    ds52262 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    This arguement has been made since 1947. Why do those XXXX flyboys need their own service branch. The Army never really got over the Air Force standing alone, and the Navy has always resented it too.

    CAS is one of the arguments Gates used to fire SecAF and CSAF. Today you have Raptors controlled from Nellis, A-10's, and Spec-ops AC130's ready to ruin any insurgents day,week,month. This power struggle continue, and the complaints will too.
     
  5. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    If you've seen the video from April of the Georgian UAV being destroyed by a Russian MiG-29, the argument for having raptors and manned fighters is a little more relevent. UAVs are great when the enemy has no anti-air capabilities.
     
  6. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, when you consider that the Air Force actually tried to take command of our carriers and missile subs, you can understand why.

    Actually, it was their complete failure to maintain appropriate security and controls over nuclear weapons. Damned good reason if you ask me.
     
  7. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't think anyone is arguing against manned aircraft*, just who owns them.

    * except, perhaps, for people with the same mindset as those brilliant minds in the 1950's who said, "A gun on a warplane? Who needs it? Missiles will do!"

    OOPS! :thumbdown:
     
  8. ds52262

    ds52262 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    ZAP you can find failures of leadership and command across all branches. It isn't isolated to a single branch. I believe in recent days the Ironman Commander VQ-3 was relieved for an inappropriate relationship. The Commander and his XO on the Washington were both relieved of duty. It would be simple to find examples across each service, but doesn't really serve any purpose.

    When I joined we were truly 5 separate services. Over my 21 years we became 1 force. Today seeing Airmen,Soldiers. Sailors and Marines side by side is the norm. Turf wars do not serve the men and women on the ground. Interservice rivalry is no longer healthy.

    I remember the argument in the early 1990's about how we would never fight another large Armor ground war. The overwhelming dominance of airpower used against Saddam's army caused it's total collapse. Well I think GWII and the current crisis in Georgia certainly change the dynamics of that argument.
     
  9. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    ds52262 - well said. It's a new world out there.
     
  10. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    I never said that failures of leadership were limited to one branch. They most certainly are not. My beloved Navy, for example, has had a string of reliefs-for-cause lately, the most recent I am aware of being the CO and XO of GEORGE WASHINGTON after a particularly nasty fire that was caused by a number of standards and regulations being violated by the crew.

    All I was doing was correcting you on the reasons the SECAF had been canned.

    It was never healthy, and we certainly got rid of a lot of pointless bickering that was more about ego than function. In the case cited, IF the argument is truly that the Army believes it can provide itself better cover than the USAF has been providing, then either we need to fix the USAF or else we need to see what the USA is griping about. As I said above, my only concern is that the result be the BEST solution that maximizes our ability to accomplish missions. If that means USAF retains CAS and other missions, then fine by me.

    But what if the Army guys have a real point?

    Same idiots who thought dogfights were obsolete and guns on destroyers a waste. No vision due to blinders of their own making.
     
  11. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    I think one of the big problems, regardless of the service, is the requirements to fly a predator. People have to have fighter/bomber training (learned to drop bombs) and have gone through UPT. If they could help revamp the reqirements to allow more people the opportunity to fly them, then the shortage of pilots could be addressed. I like Bullet's idea of bringing back Warrant Officers to the AF for predator pilot in the way Army has them in helos.
     
  12. ds52262

    ds52262 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Warrant Officers would be a good solution. The one thing you don't want is a fastmover flying close to the ground being suddenly surprised by the presence of an unexpected UAV.

    ZAP I still believe that the SecAF and CSAF were sacrafices on the alter of SecDef Gates. I am sorry but I have no faith in Gates. His ties to the CIA just do not impress me.

    My first AF assignment was at FE Warren and I fully understand Nuclear Assurance, PRP, and Accountability. You can be sure there were significant failures in the handling of these weapons over recent years. I think the real failure is in the National Command Authority and abolishing SAC. SAC became a powerfull goliath and many in the fighter community wanted it taken down a notch (I blame McPeak). By retiring the Command that had controlled those weapons since Curtis Lemay's days we threw the baby out with the bath water.

    I should note that I hated my time in SAC. Endless boring exercises. Pointless reviews of documentation. Stupid PRP notifications. In hindsite they all had a purpose.
     

Share This Page