Comments on: Why do we have an Air Force?

By: L. C. Rees

L. C. Rees — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 01:49:59 +0000

One FB comment was: “More bureaucratic infighting? No thanks.”

Killing DoD wouldn’t result in more bureaucratic infighting. It would just make the existing bureaucratic infighting more obvious. Biggest gain: replacing one big dangerous dysfunctional procurement bureaucracy with the safety of multiple small dysfunctional procurement bureaucracies.

No difficulty here imagining a strategic air-space service. The name “Starfleet Command” has more verisimilitude though: Star Trek seems more plausible than a U.S. air service that can keep the F-35 flying. We don’t need a tarmac superiority fighter.

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 17:52:15 +0000

I agree, give CAS and tactical bombing (and transport?) back to the Army. Make the Air Force the Aerospace Force with command of air-superiority operations, strategic bombing, and space assets (space definitely being a major battleground of the next large-scale war).

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 14:11:02 +0000

The “Starfleet Command” bit is cute, but I have no trouble imagining a US Aerospace Force.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:52:20 +0000

Readers of this blog may recognize Lynn C. Rees' style, even if the name is unfamiliar.

By: T. Greer

T. Greer — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 19:43:37 +0000

Lynn Rees recently argued (among many other things) that the independent air force is the main reason tactical air support is repeatedly shafted, to the detriment of the U.S. national interest. I highly recommend both of his pieces: "You Will Be Gamed" Lynn Rees. Zenpundit. 10 August 2013. Kill the Department of Defense. Lynn Rees. Zenpundit. 12 August 2013. I also liked one of his comments on the first post:

Tactical air support needs its own political constituency, one powerful enough to challenge the Fighter Mafia and the Bomber Mafia in grubbing for dollars. That will never happen unless its leadership, promotional ladder, and patronage distribution network can check and balance those two gangs with independence and impunity. And that will never happen while tactical airpower is incorporated into an independent U.S. Air Force. Several approaches are:

Give tactical air support back to the U.S. Army, a natural enemy of the U.S. Air Force

As Mark Safranski proposes, give tactical air support to the Marines. Marines exercise an amount of power in Congress terrifying to the U.S. Air Force

Make tactical air support an independent service co-equal with the others with its own greasy pole and its own patronage base.

One sign that you have too much air power extremism on the brain: the U.S. doesn’t have a close air support propeller driven plane like the A1. Prop planes are slower and can hover over the battlefield longer than jets, making them better flying artillery. The jet engine partisan might object and claim that prop planes are too slow to survive against enemy jets. My response would be: what use is your precious air superiority if it doesn’t allow us to fly prop planes for close air support missions without fear of enemy fighters? There is still a need for strategic air power. It could even continue as an independent service. You could even try to sooth the amputation of the CAS role by giving them a fancier title like Starfleet Command.