NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/military/12809

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!lll-winken!uwm.edu!rpi!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
From: [e-mail] (Alan Kerr)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Keywords: B2s, Carriers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Sci.Military Login)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Lines: 99
Approved: [e-mail]


From Alan Kerr <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>From Gary Coffman <[e-mail]>
>
>In article <[e-mail]> Dick Winningstad <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>I think a better question would be, why not eliminate the Air Force?

I have heard that that with all the 'downgrading' of the size of the
armed forces, that for the 50th anniversary of the Air Force, it
should be recombined with the army.  This would create two armed
forces: the Army+Air Force and the Navy+Marines.  I rather like the
idea as it will streamline a LOT of things.

>The Air Force has several missions:
>
>1) Strategic nuclear deterrence.
>   This mission is currently downgraded due to reduction in tensions
>   with potential adversary nuclear powers, but political winds have
>   a way of changing quickly. While this mission is primarily given
>   over to missiles, deep penetrator bombers like the B-1 do continue
>   to serve to cloud the strategic defensive posture of potential
>   adversaries.

So does the navy. (nuclear subs).  The army+air force would be 'land
based and air mobile' deterrence while the navy+MC would be 'sea
based' deterrance. ..and possibly, 'detection takedown'.  carrier
strike to knock out detection stations before the bombers arrive.

>2) CAP over land battlefields.
>   This mission too is currently downgraded due to changed political
>   conditions. A major conventional land war seems less likely today.
>   However, Navy jets and Army helos couldn't gain air superiority
>   over a large inland battlefield in, say, central Europe. So the
>   CAP role still needs to be filled. These units *could* be reassigned
>   to the "Army Air Force" however, where they could work more closely
>   with helos and CAS aircraft to protect the troops on the ground.

Yes! the helo+fixed-wing mixture *must* be better coordinated.  a
single joint command is needed in a smaller armed forces.

>3) CAS for land troops.
>   This role is being taken over by Army helos and fixed wing aircraft.
>   Assigning A-10s, C-130 Puffs, and the like to Army air command would
>   complete this transision. Carpet bombing by heavies can sometimes
>   be considered CAS, but more correctly falls into the area of Artillery
>   barrages used to soften up targets for an offensive push. This may
>   be an obsolete usage on the modern battlefield and heavy bombers may
>   be completely retired from this role. Or not, this is subject to debate.

but if the heavy bombers could have their bombbays fitted with
designators and smart bombs, they would be very accurate army
artillary units.  especially if they fly *high* where most AA stuff
can't get to them.

>4) Strategic conventional bombing of civil and military productive assets.
>   This WWII strategy has been shown by history to be an ineffective use
>   of force and should be discontinued as a tool of warfare. It's strictly
>   a terror weapon against civilians and is of limited effectiveness.

correct. see 3) for evolution of this idea.

>5) Logistic transport.
>   This remains a vital mission of the Air Force. In today's rapidly
>   developing military situations, the ability to rapidly deploy
>   troops and war material to remote areas is increasingly important.
>   And on today's high intensity battlefields, rapid *resupply* is
>   essential to continued conduct of operations. While pre-positioned
>   naval transport can meet some needs, a vastly upgraded air transport
>   system is badly needed.

...and much of this 'resupply' is for *army* units.  makes sence to
recombine these.  Fighters escorting 'supply planes' (and helos) would
streamline the 'in and *get* *out*' type of resupply missions.

>6) Aerial defense of the ConUS.
>  This is another badly neglected area of military preparedness that
>  falls under the jurisdiction of the Air Force. The US needs to maintain
>  systems to protect the ConUS from enemy bombers and missiles, and to
>  repel enemy naval units from attacking our shores.

no trouble here if the army and air force recombine....  with the
downgraded size of the armed forces, you could recombine the National
Guard and the Air National Guard along the same lines for this purpose
too.

The Marine Corps is the 'elite' group in the 'Navy+MC' group.  The
Air Force would be the 'elite' group in the 'Army+AF' group.  The
world and the US needs a smaller armed force but one that can *react*
damn fast.  The streamlining of command, supply, etc. is needed for a
better functioning force.

--
Alan W. Kerr                               [e-mail]
National Radio Astronomy Observatory       [e-mail]
Socorro, NM, USA                           uunet!nrao.edu!awkerr