tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post5375386699310193553..comments2024-03-28T16:26:35.679-07:00Comments on Chant du Départ: My Thoughts on Military Affairs, For What They're Worth...OldAFSargehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15935839956936191547noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-47412160962419831812014-01-23T07:52:22.261-08:002014-01-23T07:52:22.261-08:00A lot of good points for discussion and thought. T...A lot of good points for discussion and thought. Thanks to everyone for chiming in. There will be more along these lines in a future post. Especially in light of Buck's comment bringing the <em>National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force</em> to our attention. While that seems like a good idea on its surface, anything the current maladministration does is highly suspect in my eyes. (I am of two minds where this "regime" is concerned. They are either (A) fundamentally stupid as regards military and international affairs or (B) completely evil and working actively towards the destruction of our nation. While I lean towards (A), I haven't completely ruled out (B).<br /><br />Thanks again for the comments and feedback.OldAFSargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935839956936191547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-26868616248482444192014-01-22T13:22:05.902-08:002014-01-22T13:22:05.902-08:00Well, the Mothership is still down, so I can't...Well, the Mothership is still down, so I can't cut & paste my comments there I once made on this subj which juvat knows well. IIRC his comments on mine were "Good shooting lead! Contact! Visual, press." And I was late to xbrad and then called away, so let me try to repeat my comments at Lexs' and embellish some. First some history. The reason that Army Air was taken away from OPCON by Division, Corps and numbered Army level commanders and organized/evolved into what is now known as the "Single-Manager TACC/DASC system is because of the proclivity of gnd commanders to hoard assets whether they were needed or not and refuse to release them to adj ops where they were needed more. Airpower is, by definition, a scarce asset--too scarce to be horded rather than shifted across operational boundaries to be employed where it is most critically needed. A classic example of ground commanders tendency to not only hoard but by-pass their own chain-of-command in order to utilize the AF was seen in Vietnam where they would game the TASE (Tactical Air Support Element--a joint Army Air Force element used to screen/prioritize Army pre-plan target nominations for the next days air ops thru the TACC system) by nominating tgts of dubious priority with the tot spread throughout the day in the area of planned ops just so they could insure air constantly overhead in case of TIC. If no TIC they would go ahead and expend expensive ord on the worthless pre-plan tgt. This all was done because they didn't want to risk getting into a TIC situation and getting a request for CAS denied by the AF because of an even higher TIC priority elsewhere. They also by-passed their own chain of Command. When in TIC rather requesting Company mortars, Battalion, Regiment or Div arty, etc and risk getting turned down by the TOC or risk a delay in getting the arty cranked up, they would go directly to the FAC on Fox Mike and request an immediate by the AF for TIC, reasoning the AF would get there quicker and would be more accurate. An August ' 68 HQ7thAF "eyes only" "Force Improvement study contended that out of all AF assets used for "immediates" in responding to requests for CAS because of TIC only 13% could have not been adequately handled by the Army's own organic fire-support system. All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, if one is to attach fixed wing assets to ground commanders, in order to be "effective" one MUST be, ipso facto. highly "in-efficient because of the much larger number of air assets required if remaining permanently opcon to each gnd commander.. Of course the Marine Corps operates EXACTLY that way, but only because their ops rarely involve anything more that a single beefed-up Corps operating over a limited geographical area. Composite Wings are the norm for the Marines because of their limited assets operating over smaller areas. <br /><br />The difference is a matter of scale. If the Army thinks in terms of daily ops of thousands of yards, the Navy in terms of hundreds of miles/day, the AF thinks in terms of thousands of miles/day. Only the AF is equipped in terms of doctrine, training, equipment and communications to seamlessly operate at all levels in all theaters of operation on a constantly adjusting global basis. If the Army was in control of TACAIR no aircraft would ever be designed or procured that had a combat radius extending 500 yards beyond the FEBA. <br /><br /><br />Gotta scoot. More later to tie it together..<br /><br /><br /><br />virgil xenophonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14577165785872035948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-30807822540732619792014-01-22T10:02:41.254-08:002014-01-22T10:02:41.254-08:00The navy can be anywhere in the world in 10 days i...<i>The navy can be anywhere in the world in 10 days if it puts its mind to it. Anywhere. In. The. World.</i><br /><br />And if what I read is correct... either now or in the foreseeable future... the Chinese can put <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21" rel="nofollow">warheads on foreheads</a> standing on the flight deck... Anywhere. In. The. World. THAT might could be a problem, assuming the missiles are carried by submarines as well as being land based.Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05319116022465066060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-19977611706378157942014-01-22T09:56:09.112-08:002014-01-22T09:56:09.112-08:00This isn't just a subject for idle debate amon...This isn't just a subject for idle debate amongst friends. There's this, FWIW: <br /><br /><i>The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by Feb. 1, 2014, to the president of the United States and the congressional defense committees.</i><br /><br />That would be the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force. They even have <a href="http://afcommission.whs.mil/" rel="nofollow">their very own web page</a>. It will be interesting to read the report that comes out in a couple of weeks. I use "interesting" in its full meaning, too.Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05319116022465066060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-51348804980607875162014-01-22T08:36:06.354-08:002014-01-22T08:36:06.354-08:00President Reagan said, "Of the four wars in m...President Reagan said, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong." I served through the end of Nam & the "reduction in force" that came afterward. Wasn't smart then, and it's suicidal now.Rev. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04588179227576383679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-86665264621962719842014-01-22T08:10:18.159-08:002014-01-22T08:10:18.159-08:00The "big stick" approach worked well eno...The "big stick" approach worked well enough in the last century, and didn't require a huge standing Army. Do we need to protect ourselves from invasion? Probably not - our geographic neighbors don't seem all that interested and short of Russia lusting over Alaska I don't see us needing 1.5 million in arms with 800,000 reserve. That's not to say we could just change everything overnight. The Navy has some serious ship building and composition issues to work out (I'm a fan of Cdr Salamander on this one) and both the Army and Air Force need to have their missions defined - the middle east unpleasantness has caused the Army mission to be turned into something the State department ought to be doing, and the Air Force hasn't had much need for their fighters. Their cargo and tanker resources are the big dogs of the last decade's conflict, and they've been dragged kicking and screaming into the UAV world. Out of mercy we won't talk about the state of their nuclear forces. The Marines are probably already there - they've always looked at themselves at the country's QRF. I have to nit pick with Tuna a little - all the services are doing the cooperative training and showing the force thing, we just do it in different places that the Navy & Marines. But still, I am in general agreement, that is the kind of projection we need to be doing. So the question becomes, "How big a military do we need to protect our national interests?" Poguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14844435158421387888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-47317031190239866912014-01-22T08:01:56.093-08:002014-01-22T08:01:56.093-08:00With all the military saber rattling going on in A...With all the military saber rattling going on in Asia at the moment this may not be the best time to be considering a major military overhaul. Then again, perhaps it's the perfect time. I suppose history will judge. For myself, I'm a former ground pounder (Artillery in a Light Infantry Division) so I have my on set of biases and desires. Policy is a bit over my simple head. I'm more a pointy end kind of a guy. The knuckle trails on the ground behind me as proof. <br /><br />It does seem to me that Strategic and Tactical do have different motivations and missions. What I'd love to see is the Army taking over much of the responsibility for their own CAS. Maybe those A10s the AF doesn't seem to want (and perhaps never really did?) could find better employment with Army Aviation. I have a few friends who are or were Army rotorheads. Most of them would have made fine fixed wing pilots. Fold the AF into the other branches? I have to say I'm not in favor. All the branches may bring their own biases and inefficiencies but they also bring their institutional expertise and knowledge. There are things the AF does that I really think they're best suited for and the same goes for the Navy, Marines and CG. Maybe some rethinking on priorities and who is best suited to address the various defense needs but I'm against wholesale restructuring, at least at the moment. <br /><br />As for fighters. Heck, I don't think we have enough now! I bet Davis Monthan still has a bunch of F14/F15s lying around... Nothing warms a grunts heart more than fast movers overhead filled with pilots with mayhem and destruction on their minds. Viva La Zoomies!Sixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05572583408046642437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-82853516373110245462014-01-22T06:06:57.372-08:002014-01-22T06:06:57.372-08:00Tuna, I think you nailed it. If we have a military...Tuna, I think you nailed it. If we have a military to match our diplomacy we are well served. For a long time our diplomacy has been the big stick approach and yet fewer and fewer cases call for a big stick and none of them fear it. What we have is a superpower force that was designed from the outset to fight two wars simultaneously because USSR. Those conditions no longer hold true. The navy can be anywhere in the world in 10 days if it puts its mind to it. Anywhere. In. The. World. When you have to move at the speed of diplomacy, what's a week or two?<br />People keep getting trapped in peace-time warfare thinking and thinking we need to have all this stuff because that's the way we roll. Nothing could be further from truth. One battle group can destroy every other navy in the world. Two makes it easier. We keep so many around because we keep them deployed all the time. The sad truth is that is where we do all of our training with any meaning...on deployment. That's because we don't have the time or the dollars to do it Stateside since that part has been cut well beyond the bone. We really don't need 2000 fighter aircraft and 40,000 pilots anymore.HMS Defianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10024721130102173694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-77951478630305294522014-01-21T20:46:59.808-08:002014-01-21T20:46:59.808-08:00Reducing to cadre makes sense on a purely economic...Reducing to cadre makes sense on a purely economical level, but part of the strength of our military is in it's size. Being the biggest, baddest mo-fo on the block does something to our enemies. It makes them question stepping out of line, makes them think before acting, keeps them in check. Sure, we might have a very costly military that may never go to war, but that's part of the beauty of it. One of the reasons it never (or fully or rarely) goes to war, is that we are able to keep aggression and hostility in check around the world. Now could we do that with a large number of F-22s and F/A-18 E/Fs vice JSFs? Yeah, almost definitely. Would we still be vastly technologically superior with those jets and not the F-35? Absolutely. Economically, it makes sense to do both- keep a large force, yet one that is not so insanely expensive. As far as having superior numbers, that only works as a deterrent if the enemy knows, cares, and fears it. Having forces like the F-22 that never really gets into the fight is a waste. We need to show the flag, sail the great white fleet, make irrelevant Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployments, put Army boots on the ground for force exchanges, cooperative engagements, training and exercises, etc. Costly? Yes. Wasteful? Not if you look at the less tangible effects. The Navy and Marines already show the force quite strongly and regularly. The others- not as much. That doesn't mean they aren't vital, but we're not using them as much as they could be used. And not using them doesn't necessarily make them useless, it just puts them in the realm of strategic deterrence vice active kinetic forces. I won't start on the fat vs. muscle right now- there's plenty of the former, and I could stay on that soapbox for days.Tunahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930237104692982421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-46298150186087321342014-01-21T19:08:03.981-08:002014-01-21T19:08:03.981-08:00Training is absolutely critical. You can't mak...Training is absolutely critical. You can't make a good soldier overnight!OldAFSargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935839956936191547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-22573909678840665932014-01-21T19:07:23.658-08:002014-01-21T19:07:23.658-08:00They are part of the problem. They have always had...They are part of the problem. They have always had the power to fix things. Too many PACs run by the defense establishment.OldAFSargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935839956936191547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-34326626092884351212014-01-21T17:45:55.729-08:002014-01-21T17:45:55.729-08:00Most of your commentators have far more experience...Most of your commentators have far more experience than me. I will say one thing, training is critical. Fifty years ago, as a Combat Engineer, I saw it took nine months to a years of active duty before someone (including me) was competent and reliable at the enlisted level. Probable as long, or longer, for Lietenants.Well Seasoned Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16670165728759453075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684531976778247960.post-45625804398656124862014-01-21T16:59:29.332-08:002014-01-21T16:59:29.332-08:00"...there is a lot of fat which can and shoul...<i>"...there is a lot of fat which can and should be cut..."</i><br />I concur<br />Just don't let congress decide what's fat<br />effin' maroonsIT (aka Ivan Toblog)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07484236901066944983noreply@blogger.com