home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!lll-winken!uwm.edu!rpi!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
- From: awkerr@aoc.nrao.edu (Alan Kerr)
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
- Keywords: B2s, Carriers
- Message-ID: <C1D8A8.9KD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:32 GMT
- References: <C124LF.77x@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C143p5.38z@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
- Lines: 99
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
-
-
- From Alan Kerr <awkerr@aoc.nrao.edu>
-
- In article <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu> writes:
- >
- >From Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>
- >
- >In article <C143p5.38z@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dick Winningstad <dickwin@sequent.com> 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 awkerr@aoc.nrao.edu
- National Radio Astronomy Observatory awkerr@nrao.bitnet
- Socorro, NM, USA uunet!nrao.edu!awkerr
-