The Military Girds for the Battle of the Potomac

I think this thread is going to turn into a very informative thread to some of us layman (me being the biggest one!). But I would like to point out that in our little world on this forum we are starting to see exactly what the blogger posted about as Bullet pointed out. I can only image the “fighting” that’s going on at the higher up levels that we’re not privy to. Makes for a great debate.:thumb:

It will be an interesting debate for sure. Folks lets make sure that- at least on this forum it gets conducted in a reasoned manner. It's a professional topic with lots of opinions that will have lots riding on it and everyone is free to add. But it's not time for an election campaign speech, nor is it appropriate to bash each other - so let's stay away from those- ok?
thanks and carry on
 
Feel free to weigh in if you have some information to add.

Honestly, I'd prefer not to, as it usually leads to silly arguments based on biases and agendas, and a LOT of mis-guided or mis-understood information.

But I will repsond with a few points:

My point remains the same: The Air Force has done well in the budgetary battles over the last 20 years. But when you combine their minimized role in the current fights with the well-known myopia that seems to prevent us from ever effectively predicting the hardware we'll need for the next fight, the Air Force stands to really get slammed in the budget showdown.

Your first incorrect assumption: services budget for future forces and capabilities based on the current fight, and predict the hardware required for the next fight incorrectly.

Service set their future plans based on what the President and Congress tells them what they need to be able to accomplish as written in the National Security Strategy, which is not based on what we're doing now, but on what we intend to do in the future. From these strategic requirements, they set what future capabilities they will need in order to accomplish these dictated missions. It really is the civilian oversight (and rightfully so) that is predicting the future wars. To say the AF (or the Army, or the Navy, or the CG, or the Marines) has been wrong in their assessments is a misnomer, as it is not their jobs to do so.

And frankly, I would say that the AF (and Navy, and Marines) have done pretty well in providing air power capabilities over the past 30 years or so, based on the successes seen in EVERY conflict, wouldn't you? Perhaps predicting the ground commanders appetite for continous ISR coverage was insufficient, but even the Army wasn't predicting the levels required for today's fight just a few years or so ago....

Is aviation expensive? Yes. It is. That's been evident. In the 20 years from 1985 to 2005, the Air Force budget component in constant dollars exceeded the Army all 20 years and exceeded the Navy budget several times. Not bad, especially when one considers the austerity of the 90s. According to the DoD Budget Authority by Component chart, in FY10 the AF still got $4 billion more than the Army, and only $12 bn less than the Navy/Marine Corps combined budget.

You forget the AF's responsibility as Executive Agent to provide oversight (and thus budget and planning) for the DoD's space capabilities. Rather large chunk of that AF budget goes to making sure GPS, SAT Comm, Wx Sats, ISR, and a host of other space based capabilities are available on-demand, regardless of what the color of the uniform is the end-user is wearing. If space WERE to become a seperate service, the AF budget would be much less than the Navy's or Army's.

But more importantly, you say we should establish future priorities for capabilities based on contributions towards the CURRENT fight.

While you're making recommendations for the number of fighters and airlift to cut because they aren't in the current fight in significant numbers (debatable point, BTW), exactly how many 155s are down-range and raining death and destruction on the Taliban? How much should we then reduce the Army's Armored Brigades and tank force? Patriot Batteries? Submarines? Frigates? Amphibious landing craft?

Do I feel low-intensity conflict will remain the most likely scenario for the next decade or perhaps two? Frankly, yes. But like I said, I'm not the one who sets that requirement or makes that prediction. The President does, and he wants us to be able to meet and defeat a WIDE range of threats.

I was confused by the assertion in the article that USAF leadership still thinks that "airpower alone" can win conflicts. Is that really the case, especially after the last decade? Maybe Gen. Vandenberg felt slighted after reading an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, but do his opinions represent the service as a whole? It's hard for me to believe.

Curtis LeMay has been dead for a while.

On second thought, maybe it isn't that hard to believe.....

You SHOULD be confused, sprog, because that is NOT how the AF leadership feels about how we as a military should go to war. They VERY much undrstand and support the concept that we all are part of a TEAM, and as team members, we ALL contribute to the same fight. They understand that air power CONTRIBUTES to the fight, on varying levels depending on the scenario, but that NONE of the services can "go it alone".

Heard (and continue to hear) these exact sentiments, from the highest levels, quite often straight from their own mouths. THEY get it, but perhaps a few journalists don't....
 
No, it did not become a ground battle. It was ALWAYS a ground battle, as every war must be at its core. It only gained an air component when NATO decided to stick our collective noses in it. The rebels and Qaddafi loyalists were duking it out with Russian iron in the streets when we got there.

Time out...the AF is doing air support missions, so you can't say they are irrelevant in these times. That is my point. Just because you don't see 15,16, 22's doing air to air or dropping bombs does not equate to the AF is not involved. Whether NATO sticks their nose in it, means nothing...look at your Kosova argument; wasn't that a NATO issue, but you used it to defend the Army.

While the AF and Navy were doing that, the Army was doing Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo (speaking of things that got walked away from quickly...the AD Army was still doing Kosovo rotations in 2003...after the 1998 war). Everyone got their pet missions in the 90s. But we aren't talking about the 90s.

UMMM...Who gave the ride to Haiti for the 82nd? Not Tower Air, it was the AF. Pope's runway was littered with heavies, along with Dover and McGuire.

You are correct the Army stayed in Kosova, but the Army is ground it is not Air, that is their mission. (NATO issue that you just argued about regarding Libya and AF) So while the Army had the missions you stated, and were not in the sandbox, the AF was with the Army on many of those missions AND in the sandbox, but you can't say the same for the Army. Remember that they were there in the beginning with the Army and still did the Sandbox, just like when Haiti came about AF still did OSW/ONW at the same time.

My point is and was guess what they have all been stretched thin, but because we live in "our" community we lose sight of the other communities that play a part in our success.

Oh, if only THAT were true. It would be great if it worked that way. Ask any Soldier how he got to Iraq or Afghanistan. His answer will be "by contract air."

This may be true, heck when Bullet went to the Green Zone he flew Tower Air. However, you know that guy who get's injured in theater, tell me how he gets home? 10 will get you 20 it is not Tower Air, but a military transport that usually goes 1st to a base called RAMSTEIN!

Do you think we have "C" planes just to take military members on leave to Hawaii instead of paying commercial prices, or are you willing to acknowledge that the C stands for Cargo, and military members sometimes are the Cargo. Again, look back at the Haiti invasion, or lack there of it, it was the AF that took them.

How about humanitarian air lifts, do they come via contracted air lines or is it the AF dropping pallets?

I am not trying to play tit for tat, I fully acknowledge the importance of each branch, but to sit there and say if Iran went off the rails today, the Army could do it alone, is not realistic, the Army would want the AF fighters to assist in the fight when they are pinned down.

As much as you hate to hear/read it, but look at the Kuwait invasion...how long did it take the Army to get there? Who gave them a ride? Can you swear on your life that will never happen again? Nobody saw it coming. I am not about to bank my life on that.

You say we need to have a big picture perspective. Then you start talking about not making hard cuts because barber shops and Waffle Houses in military towns might not survive. Which is it?

We can't sustain these budgets. Period. And we can't fool ourselves into thinking we're floating the economy with hardware production.

The perspective I was giving, was that many Americans believe the DOD budget needs to be cut, because they live in their bubble, and never realize the big picture.

Patentesq got it right...it is a collage, and you are looking at the tree, not the forest. For military it is my branch and not the DOD.

Look at the housing market, people sat there and said don't bail them out, they bought a home they couldn't afford. They never realized 1 in 6 jobs is tied to the housing market, and because they did not correct the housing market, 3 yrs later we are still in the tanks. The avg American took the bubble perspective, it's not me. Only to find out later on the incorrect action made it about them because now they are underwater due to foreclosures.

That is the same with the DOD, "I don't care, I am not in the military, my family isn't in the military, we don't work for Lockheed or Raytheon". Little did they realize that their little company that makes nylon, lost a contract to the DOD which made up 30% of their profits and now they get a pink slip.

This is not a military issue now, this is an economical issue. We cannot afford to cut just for the sake of cutting. Yes, we need to cut, but it needs to be precision strikes now and we need to understand that. If you take the perspective of looking at the dire straights our economy is in, you will be left with one question...can we afford as a nation to put more people out of work at this time? MPO, is no, we would be looking at a depression and not a double dip recession.

Hollowing out one force will just create bigger problems for another that is not ready to pick up the slack it is not a solution. Handing over money for green jobs with companies that go bankrupt using American tax dollars or converting contracted jobs to GS or closing tax loop holes is where I would look before hitting the DOD, but than again that is my bubble!
 
Last edited:
Reading is fundamental.

bullet said:
To say the AF (or the Army, or the Navy, or the CG, or the Marines) has been wrong in their assessments is a misnomer, as it is not their jobs to do so.

Correct. That's why I didn't say it. You did. I said "we" as a reference to the greater American governmental policy machine.

Your first incorrect assumption: services budget for future forces and capabilities based on the current fight, and predict the hardware required for the next fight incorrectly.

Is it a guarantee? No. Historically speaking, we don't have a great track record. We had 10 years of low-intensity conflict and nation-building prior to 9/11. What lessons did we learn? Not enough to predict the tools required to fight an insurgency. See: MRAPs, body armor, CREW, ISR, route clearance vehicles, our poor HUMINT infrastructure, our lack of intel fusion capabilities, etc.

But more importantly, you say we should establish future priorities for capabilities based on contributions towards the CURRENT fight.

Nope. You said that, just now. I never said it SHOULD be. What I said, quite clearly I think, is that the Air Force's secondary role over the past 10 years will hurt them in the budgetary showdown, as competing services will point to a variety of things that were accomplished in this fight as evidence of the primacy of their service's internal capabilities. For example, the Army frequently points out that the Air Force pays officers to fly UAVs, but the Army can provide similar tactical ISR with an E-4 at the controls.

My comments on the depth and breadth of the Air Force's role were simply to correct Raimius' assertion that the Air Force is filling the unfriendly skies with airframes.

You can parse it any way you like, but the AF is going to lose out in the Washington money game. Everyone is sold on a low-intensity future landscape. Right or wrong, they'll look to the last 10 years as a guideline. The Air Force may end up without a pot to you-know-what in.
 
Pima, I like you. I do. I respect you. But almost nothing in that post was germane. Why are we talking about a Haiti invasion that didn't happen?

No one is saying the Air Force isn't important and hasn't done great things. But that's not the point. The 24th ID executed one of the most daring armored maneuvers on modern warfare. What was their reward? They were deactivated. The fact that the Air Force took the 82nd to Haiti is meaningless in this conversation. Despite your insistence, the last decade of war will be what's fresh in the minds of the policy wonks when the adding machines come out.
 
Time out, you discussed Haiti and the Army being involved while the AF wasn't. I just illustrated that the AF was.

I like you to scout, but let's be honest only a few days ago Panetta went on record that the 35 was safe. That should tell you the AF is still going to get their fair share.
 
Cut the Air Force in half, send the bombs and attack aircraft to the Army, and the fighters to the Navy. Merge the Marine Corps with the Army. Cut the Army's budget. Get rid of the Navy reserve. Cut R&D for all services, but combine them...


BOOM! done. I figured it out.
 
Time out, you discussed Haiti and the Army being involved while the AF wasn't. I just illustrated that the AF was.

I like you to scout, but let's be honest only a few days ago Panetta went on record that the 35 was safe. That should tell you the AF is still going to get their fair share.

You completely missed the point. I said that everyone had their pet missions in the 90s, but we aren't talking about the 90s. You are aware that the Army actually did go into Haiti, right? The Division was called back. The Army was not.

FYI, just because you're unaware of the Army's activities in Saudi and Kuwait (or as you call it, "the sandbox") in the same time period as the no-fly enforcement missions that doesn't mean they weren't happening...
 
Last edited:
My comments on the depth and breadth of the Air Force's role were simply to correct Raimius' assertion that the Air Force is filling the unfriendly skies with airframes.

You can parse it any way you like, but the AF is going to lose out in the Washington money game. Everyone is sold on a low-intensity future landscape. Right or wrong, they'll look to the last 10 years as a guideline. The Air Force may end up without a pot to you-know-what in.
"Filling the unfriendly skies with airframes"...not something I argued. I did try to point out that just because we are not gunning down MiGs, does not mean the AF isn't active in the AOR. You commented about airlift and contract flights. Did you know that C-17 pilots were (are?) averaging 270 days off station per year? That is a pretty high ops tempo.

For the last part, fair enough assumption.
 
Cut the Air Force in half, send the bombs and attack aircraft to the Army, and the fighters to the Navy. Merge the Marine Corps with the Army. Cut the Army's budget. Get rid of the Navy reserve. Cut R&D for all services, but combine them...


BOOM! done. I figured it out.

Don't forget to roll the Coast Guard into the Navy as well.
 
You would have to roll the Navy into the Coast Guard. Touching the Coast Guard won't save any money. You could cut the Marine Corps recruiting budget and save more than cutting the Coast Guard's entire east coast operating budget.
 
Boy Scouts will likely merge with the Army while the Girl Scouts will likely merge with the Navy.... that's the rumor in Congress at least.
 
Back
Top