Article

2008-06-23 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

The USAF Absorbs A Wake-Up Call - Strategy Page

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 06:56|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 This all came from the era (1950s-60s)

1950's....? They only became a seperate service in 1947. Appears to be an institutional problem. On General Curtis LaMay. He was one of the greatest heros of our time. Brought out of Europe after VE Day as the fix it man for Japan. He was sent to the Pacific to take over the failing bombing effort. He threw out high-level B-29 surgical "precision" bombing which hit little, and put the new aircraft down at much lower altitudes with a carpet bombing fire storm effort. Highly effective, killed scads of the little buggers and helped end the war in the Pacific.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-06-23 08:17|| 2008-06-23 08:17|| Front Page Top

#2 If you have ever watched the movie "Twelve O'Clock High", you know all you need to know about SAC. The ARCLIGHT briefings for missions in VietNam were lifted directly from the movie, even down to the big target map in the front of the auditorium that no one can read. To be in SAC was to be a consummate professional. Everything you did was monitored, evaluated, and graded. You, as the nuclear deterrent, were the keepers of the fire and the defenders of America. You were at war even when everyone else was at peace. You were proud of your service and, even though you complained constantly about the "chicken****", proud to be in SAC. That pride died when the bombers were placed under the command of the fighter pilot centric Air Combat Command. ACC and its predecessor TAC never cared about nukes and the strategic deterrent mission. Air Force senior leadership has been in decline since the days of Merrill McPeak and has forgotten its primary mission of defending America. The F-22 obsession is just the most visible symptom of the rot.

Posted by RWV 2008-06-23 08:56|| 2008-06-23 08:56|| Front Page Top

#3 The only warplanes allowed to go down and dirty are the A-10s, which were long scorned by the pilots of 'fast movers' (jet fighters.) No more.

Gee I wonder where we've heard that before? (1st comment there)

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-23 09:02|| 2008-06-23 09:02|| Front Page Top

#4 the new chief of staff is a transport pilot

sigh.. when will they get over this and call him what he is - a SPECIAL OPS pilot and a test pilot. The guy flew MC-130, AC-13O and PAVE-LOW. Major league "in the weeds" and combat mission flying.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-23 09:06|| 2008-06-23 09:06|| Front Page Top

#5 The problem for the Air Force and all the other services was the lack of natural environment for decades. When a real war showed up that lasted more than a couple months all the dinosaurs that evolved from the 'theoretical' war against the Soviet Union stood out. It's been adapt or perish, amplified by institutionalized attitudes that refused to acknowledge the 'real world, real war'. The Air Force which was very good at Beltway Wars has come out least able to adapt to the war environment we have been engaged in for seven years. It forgot that the only reason to exist is to fight that kind of war, the one outside of bureaucracies, and that in the end it is still about the doughboy, the GI, the grunt with a bayonet on the end of rifle that occupies and controls ground. If you're not supporting him, why the hell are you here?

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-06-23 09:06|| 2008-06-23 09:06|| Front Page Top

#6 RVW -

Amen, sir.

Mike SAC 78-84

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2008-06-23 09:59|| 2008-06-23 09:59|| Front Page Top

#7 Problem for the Air Force is that in its first phase it took seriously Caio Dudet's theories according to which, "bombers ever get through" and evedy other component of the Armed Forces (be it other services or fighters) is only awaste of scarce resources. This led to America entering WWII with the best bombers in world and mediocre fighters (1942 P40 had the performance of a 1940 Spitfire or Me109). This led to 8th Air Force getting slaughtered (25% bombers downed in a single mission, with many others badly damaged and with casulaties) as the USAAF sent its B17s unsecorted believing they could protect themselves. It lead to USAF loisng the qyualitative edge it once had over Communists Air Forces as the kill ratio went from 13 to 1 (Korea) to 3 to 1 (Vietnam, 2 to 1 in 1973, at a time the Navy using same models was making mincemeat of its opponents) due to wrong doctrine and the emphasis on intercepting nuclear bombers instead of in building real fighters.

In a second phase (the Fighter Mafia phase) the USAF has been unable to replace the B52 and has donce little in the ground attack deprtmant (Warythog is 30 years old). I don't even mention the neglect of its transport fleet. More than in fighters teh emphasis has been on stealth. However when a B2 is two billion dollars a pop, simple maths show that the mere wear and tear for the round trip between America dn Afghanistan (even without factoring risk of being downed) was much higher than the value of the target. In the meantime the Air Force is still flying the ageing F15s and F16 who are now inferior to some of their potential opponents. So we shouls speka of Sytelth Maffia instead of Fighter Maffia.

What the Air Force seems to have been unable to do in all of its history is to assign itsalf as goal not the success of USAF but the success of America's Armed Forces

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-06-23 10:38|| 2008-06-23 10:38|| Front Page Top

#8 JFM, the problem in WWII was the disparity between the ranges of fighters and bombers. The B-17 loss rates were the result of flying daylight missions beyond the range of fighter escort to bomb the industrial complexes in the German heartland. Under Bomber Harris, the Brits burned the cities at night.

Losses in VietNam had more to do with restrictive rules of engagement than loss of qualitative edge. You can't shoot down an enemy that won't come up to fight. Most of the American fighter losses came from surface to air missiles and ground fire encountered in ground attack missions. There was an electronic warfare aspect to the loss rates.

But, yes, in recent years, the AF senior leadership has been self-absorbed and focussed on appearances rather than its erstwhile mission "to fly and to fight".

Posted by RWV 2008-06-23 11:00|| 2008-06-23 11:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Rwv

I knew it (I am a warbird enthousiast, BTW a gold mine: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ ). I was speaking about the fact that the USAAF staff thought possible in the first place that B17s could survive unescorted in the German sky (otherwise they would have reverted to night bombing or stuck to missions in fighter range).

Also, when you think about fighter designs initiated through a requirement from the USAAF and the tactics needed for them when meeting German fighters, they were not adequate for escorting bombers. If prior to the war teh USAAF had thought B17s would need to be escorteded it would have gone for planes very different to the Thunderbolt or the Lightning.
The exception was the Mustang but as you know it was the British not the USAAF who were at the origin of its design.

About Vienama I was not speaking about total losses but air to air. I agree with the restrictive ROE. But you have to remember that the Americans fought on plane who let a moke trail behind it (making it easy to spot), without a gun and that the other designs were still worse. Also this plane (the Phantom) had been "imported" from the Navy.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-06-23 12:12|| 2008-06-23 12:12|| Front Page Top

#10 Besoeker, I recently finished the book Flyboys by James Bradley. It, in part, describes LeMay's brilliant and risky decision to use unescorted low-altitude night fire-bombing. He only had a hunch (no real intelligence) that there was a gap in the Japanese air defense (between 5,000 and 10,000 feet, IIRC). Further, he removed most/all of the gunners and their ammo so the bomb payload could be increased.

Most pilots and what was left of their crews on the initial mission to Tokyo thought he was insane and they fully expected to die that night. He gave the order for the initial bombing raid without the knowledge of his commander, Chief of AAF Hap Arnold, so that if the mission failed, Arnold could make him the scapegoat and allow the AAF mission in the Pacific to continue. Helped save millions of lives.

Posted by Erk 2008-06-23 12:50|| 2008-06-23 12:50|| Front Page Top

#11 JFM: Think Robert Strange McNamara. (Actual middle name taken from his mother's maiden name.)

Guns, we don't need no stinking guns, we got unreliable missiles that are useless at close range. The North Vietnamese used tactics designed to take advantage of these weaknesses.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 12:53|| 2008-06-23 12:53|| Front Page Top

#12 Unlike the German industry under Speer, the Japanese relied upon lots of small factories, often mom and pop type operations to fabricate parts that would in turn be trucked or delivered to the major assembly plants for war production. The area fire bombing in Japan actually did result in a drop in productivity and compounded the Japanese problem with the stripping of housing for workers within reasonable distance from their industrial plants. Of course, like nearly all of America's opponents, there was strict attention to the Geneva Convention for our boys, thank you Justice Kennedy.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-06-23 13:00|| 2008-06-23 13:00|| Front Page Top

#13 #6 RVW - Amen, sir. Mike SAC 78-84

Dittos Gents....OAFB '71-73.

Posted by OyVey1 2008-06-23 13:51|| 2008-06-23 13:51|| Front Page Top

#14 Look, every service has its warts, skeletons and vulnerabilities - even the Marines who I respect deeply. But, the Air Force deals with a multitude of interesting issues such as space, nuclear technology, logistics, refueling, etc. that don't even enter the Army lexicon. Not to down-grade the Army since it has its own unique set of issues to engender the most competent deadly fighting force the world has ever known. But don't think that the Air Force can some how be relegated to the occasional air drop or tactical take-out of some terror cell using an A-10. Binny still has the shakes from the Buffer(ing) he took at Tora Bora and there will always be more requirements like that. All our services have comlementary and overlapping missiion requirements. The vision should be how to best equip and plan those missions so everyone is in synch and not over occupied.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-06-23 14:01|| 2008-06-23 14:01|| Front Page Top

#15 If the Air Force had had it's way the A-10 would be gone and we would have fewer armed UAV's. That's why Gates rolled some heads.

This WOT is mostly down and dirty. Like Raiders of the Lost Ark you don't bring a fancy sword to a gun fight.

I suspect the pyrotechnics at Tora Bora were supplied by Buffs, another plane the AF wanted to scrap.

Left to their druthers the AF would have over 100 B-2's, nearly 400 F-22's and Lord knows how many F-35's.

The poor ground pounders would be trying to figure out how to maneuver the bad guys into an open space with perfect timing so a B-2 from Kansas can bomb the B-jeebers out of them.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 14:20|| 2008-06-23 14:20|| Front Page Top

#16 Give the Army the A-10s and close support missions. They heave to work tight with Army units anyways - and are most effective combined with attack helicopters and artillery.

And FYI, the Army has been managing airspace just as hard as the USAF: Missie Defense is tha ARMY job, as are the US SAMs. And thats all coordinated with artillery fires (you do not want to be there when a TOT arrives in your airspace), attack and air-assault helicopters, tactical ELINT aircraft, smaller transports, and UAVs.

Having integral ground attack support from Harrier jets AND helicopters seems to work pretty well for the USMC.

Time to give those to the Army, and put a WO-2 at the stick.

Let the USAF flyboys stay above 12000AGL where they are comfortable operating, and out of the way of the people doing the real fighting down in the dirt where it matters: the Army, Marines and USAF tactical controllers.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-23 14:28|| 2008-06-23 14:28|| Front Page Top

#17 JFM, a lot of the problems in air-to-air combat in VietNam were self-inflicted by the ROE, among other things, requiring visual identification of the target. Missiles were designed to shoot the enemy down at long range. One of the truly stupid moments in American aviation was taking the F-14, a fleet defense platform with the AWG-9 / Phoenix missile combination lethal to >100nm and trying to make a gunfighter out of it. That is like taking a M16 to a knife fight and using it as a club.

Posted by RWV 2008-06-23 14:37|| 2008-06-23 14:37|| Front Page Top

#18 Old Spook, a rational command structure would divide the assets along mission lines. Close Air Support should be a function of Army Aviation which should control the assets suited to it (attack helicopters, A-10s, armed UAVs). The AF can support with B-52s and B-1s. It is a matter of degree. If you need to take out a machine gun or a mortar that is harassing the troops, Army Aviation should do it. If you need to take down something bigger, say someone's command & control structure or a nuclear weapons facility, that should be an AF function. The armed Predators and their big brother Reaper have let the genie out of the bottle. CAS is going to become a do it yourself business, no matter what the brass would like.

Posted by RWV 2008-06-23 14:49|| 2008-06-23 14:49|| Front Page Top

#19 I understand that the B-1 does some of its most effective work at under 1,000 feet. And without dropping a weapon.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-23 15:51|| 2008-06-23 15:51|| Front Page Top

#20 The only place the Air Force got it really right was in intelligence, and only when it worked in coordinated facilities with Army and Marine components. I worked at several of those. SAC intelligence was strictly interested in targeting nukes and degrading air defenses. TAC Air was all for "airspace control", with a secondary, "if we have to" attitude of supporting the other branches of service. The Air Force is being forced to adjust to multi-mission requirements that some generals are too "proud" to take on. Fire them, let some of the young blood rise to the top, and let them get it right.

I've been at one or two bases where the command structure got sloppy, and most of the senior officers lost their job after the last Operational Readiness Inspection. It's not pretty. There's going to be blood (figuratively speaking) in the halls of the Pentagon before this is over.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-06-23 16:16|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-06-23 16:16|| Front Page Top

#21 WOT > WAR FOR OWG-NWO > WAR FOR THE ANTI-"STATUS QUO" = ANTI-COLD WAR STATUS QUO, among other "Critical Mass" premises.

DILEMMA for the USDOD > iff no one wins the GWOT = WAR FOR GLOBALISM/OWG-NWO,etc vv the CAPTURE OR DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN BY EOY 2008-JAN 2009, WILL THE USAF revert back to being a US-ONLY = NATIONAL/NATION-SPECIFIC "AIR FORCE" [Cold War definition], as opposed to being a DESIRED
"AEROSPACE" = future OWG "SPACE FORCE", e.g. STARFLEET COMMAND???

US-ISLAMIST GEOSTRATEGIC STALEMATE > the USAF may had precluded any need to transfer its FIXED WING = CLOSE/CONVENTIONAL WARFARE AIR SUPPORT MISSIONS back to the US Army, BUT WILL "STALEMATE" SIMUL PRECLUDE ANY NED FOR REQUIREMENT FOR THE USAF TO BECOME AMERICA's SOLE "SPACE FORCE". DITTO as per US NAVY as per the USMC to the Army vv OWG-NWO???
"STALEMATE" = NO NEED FOR OWG-NWO = "GLOBALISM/
GLOBALNESS" = A LOT OF AGENDAS ARE GOING TO GET STOPPED, IGNORED, OR DISCARDED = A LOT OF IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PISSED OFF.

* Shades of OLIVER STONE'S "JFK" > DONALD SUTHERLAND as THE COLONEL to Kostner's GARRISON >
"Who makes the HUEY helicopter...FB-111TFX/JTFX ... OIL ...GOT A LOT OF PISSED OFF PEOPLE [at POTUS JFKennedy], MR. GARRISON"!

IMO, US-GLOBAL CONVENTIONAL WISDOM = NO ONE + NO SIDE [Political-Indistrial-Governing ELites] TRULY WANTS A "STALEMATE" IN THE WOT.

Lest we fergit, RADICAL ISLAM > 9-11/WOT + REGIONAL-GLOBAL JIHAD = WAR TO SAVE ISLAM FROM USSR-STYLE SELF-OBSOLESCENCE + IMPLOSION.

All together now, wid LEFTIST-GLOBALIST feeling > D *** NG IT, OLIVER STONE, WE WANTED THAT TEXAS-SIZED ASTEROID TO HIT!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-06-23 19:09|| 2008-06-23 19:09|| Front Page Top

#22 There's going to be blood (figuratively speaking) in the halls of the Pentagon before this is over.

Probably a long time coming, and not just in the AF, either. Damn shame G-Dub stuck with Rummy as long as he did...if Gates had been brought in earlier, he'd probably have already swung his ax and we'd have a really big crop of smart, aggressive bird colonels in their mid and late thirties and generals in their early forties.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-06-23 19:35|| 2008-06-23 19:35|| Front Page Top

#23 Rummy had a war to prosecute - one he didn't really want if stories are true since he thought it would be a mess and that transformation (including that bloodbath) was more important.

Give him credit -- he and Cheney held off Colin Powell and State better/longer than most could have managed.

Posted by lotp 2008-06-23 19:41|| 2008-06-23 19:41|| Front Page Top

23:53 RD
23:49 Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6
23:43 Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:27 Dopey Ebbimble9291
23:24 3dc
23:15 Spike Uniter
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:01 g(r)omgoru
22:58 g(r)omgoru
22:45 trailing wife
22:44 RD
22:38 trailing wife
22:36 g(r)omgoru
22:35 g(r)omgoru
22:10 Nimble Spemble
21:42 Pappy
21:32 Pappy
21:26 Robert M Kraus Sr
21:19 gorb
21:11 JosephMendiola
20:56 JosephMendiola
20:44 JosephMendiola