The redunancy of the USAF
The other day I was thinking of teh savings that could be made by nationalising the US military industry, not just from removing necessary profit margins but also for incentivising outcome rather than incentivising milking th eUS tax payer for all they are worth {not to mention removing a big corrupting factor in US politics}. There is no competion in that sector anymore since all US weapon manufacturers are essentially in two blocs; the Lockheed-Martin bloc and Boeing bloc. They are both massive dependant on both the tax payer and preferential political treatment for survival so they may as well call a shovel and shovel and make the whole thing work properly, instead of pretending that there is competition.
But I found an article today on one of my favourite news feeds that argued the next best thing, disbanding the USAF. To be sure, it didn't argue that the US ought not to have combat aircraft, just that it ought to be divded up and the appropriate assets attached directly to the Navy and Army.
http://www.warisboring.com/?p=4297
This may sound heretical but it isn't, I've been thinking the same sorts of things since about 2004. The USAF only came into existance in '47 when congress had been convinced of the false notion that with Nuclear Weapons all other forms of warfare was obsolete. Therefore, all that was needed to defend the nation were fleets of Nuclear armed bombers to deter foreign aggression. However, despite the Korean war disproving this notion three years laters {and teh US constituion having no provision for an 'air force'} the USAF remained an independant force.
The Notion of independant air operations {and subsequently independant airforces} wass too firmly entrenched in the Anglo-saxon mind set. During the inter-war period The British in particular were keen to use airpower as a strategic tool in preference to losing 100,000s of soldiers in teh next ypres. In their investigations they came across Guilio Duhet, an Italian Strategist who wrote 'Command of the air'. His arguement was that with sufficient aircraft an airforce could bomb an enemy into submission and therefore the next war wouldn't be fought in trenches but instead be a race to inflict more damage on enemy cities more quickly than the enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
Unfortunalty, since air warfare was so new, he may as well have jsut been writting Sci-fi {infact the Britsh would have been better off reading HG Wells}. Also, we know now that damage from the air is neither lasting {damage can often be rebuilt within 24hrs} nor is ti sufficiently shocking to defeat morale.
http://www.killology.com/art_bombing.htm
The Second War disproved this falsehood. The German {and Later the Russian Army} used air operations in support of ground assaults. Whilst it makes sense to centralise and co-ordinate air assets in a single service they were used to support the army directly. Its because of this that German airfields were kept safe and British airfeild in France were overrun and their aircraft made useless. The British and Americans contiued to use independant arial bombardment through out the rest of the war not because it worked, but because of a lack of options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_France
Tragically, despite arial bombardment never having worked ever, not in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosina, is has been the dominatant anglo-saxon approach to warfare until arguably this day. However, Now that the Army is allowed by congress to operate its own UAVs and the Secretary of Defense seems intent on reforming the US miltary machine to focus less of advanced fighter bombers it will hopefully see the end of a form of warfare that needlessly endangers civilians with hugely expensive means of delivering HE in a manner that is ineffective. Instead, Aircraft can be used as combat multipliers in support of a ground effort.
But I found an article today on one of my favourite news feeds that argued the next best thing, disbanding the USAF. To be sure, it didn't argue that the US ought not to have combat aircraft, just that it ought to be divded up and the appropriate assets attached directly to the Navy and Army.
http://www.warisboring.com/?p=4297
This may sound heretical but it isn't, I've been thinking the same sorts of things since about 2004. The USAF only came into existance in '47 when congress had been convinced of the false notion that with Nuclear Weapons all other forms of warfare was obsolete. Therefore, all that was needed to defend the nation were fleets of Nuclear armed bombers to deter foreign aggression. However, despite the Korean war disproving this notion three years laters {and teh US constituion having no provision for an 'air force'} the USAF remained an independant force.
The Notion of independant air operations {and subsequently independant airforces} wass too firmly entrenched in the Anglo-saxon mind set. During the inter-war period The British in particular were keen to use airpower as a strategic tool in preference to losing 100,000s of soldiers in teh next ypres. In their investigations they came across Guilio Duhet, an Italian Strategist who wrote 'Command of the air'. His arguement was that with sufficient aircraft an airforce could bomb an enemy into submission and therefore the next war wouldn't be fought in trenches but instead be a race to inflict more damage on enemy cities more quickly than the enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
Unfortunalty, since air warfare was so new, he may as well have jsut been writting Sci-fi {infact the Britsh would have been better off reading HG Wells}. Also, we know now that damage from the air is neither lasting {damage can often be rebuilt within 24hrs} nor is ti sufficiently shocking to defeat morale.
http://www.killology.com/art_bombing.htm
The Second War disproved this falsehood. The German {and Later the Russian Army} used air operations in support of ground assaults. Whilst it makes sense to centralise and co-ordinate air assets in a single service they were used to support the army directly. Its because of this that German airfields were kept safe and British airfeild in France were overrun and their aircraft made useless. The British and Americans contiued to use independant arial bombardment through out the rest of the war not because it worked, but because of a lack of options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_France
Tragically, despite arial bombardment never having worked ever, not in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosina, is has been the dominatant anglo-saxon approach to warfare until arguably this day. However, Now that the Army is allowed by congress to operate its own UAVs and the Secretary of Defense seems intent on reforming the US miltary machine to focus less of advanced fighter bombers it will hopefully see the end of a form of warfare that needlessly endangers civilians with hugely expensive means of delivering HE in a manner that is ineffective. Instead, Aircraft can be used as combat multipliers in support of a ground effort.