What with Bones operating on combat missions from South Dakota...
And the Spirits operating on combat missions from just down the road over in Missouri (one seen here landing at Whiteman AFB after 25 hours in the air to bomb Libya)...
The Air Force is certainly setting its cards on the table about "Aircraft carriers? We don't need so steenking many aircraft carriers..." as well as, "We do too need those tankers!" along with, "Oh, and, "We're gonna need a *new* long range bomber, too, those B-52's are getting pretty long in the tooth." Then some retired guys will pop up with, "And all y'all smarty-pants said we'd never need/use the B1! So there!" And in their quiet corners, dark at night, tumbler of Jack resting on their stomach, they're talking with the shades of Douhet and LeMay and finishing up with, "The only boots on the ground we'll need are a couple of target designators and then a clean-up crew with cops." Well, yanno *some* of 'em are. Then the ones who commune with the shades of Boyd and Olds are saying "We're gonna need us some long-legged fighters to keep 'em safe!" Of course, the latter is actually an argument for... aircraft carriers, but I digress.
Mind you - this is just me talking. I've seen nothing from the AF putting that spin to it. But that's what maple-syrup-drenched-bacon biscuits will do to me on a windy, warm spring-like day in Kansas.
A B-1B Lancer takes off in support Operation Odyssey Dawn from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., March 27, 2011. This mission marked the first time the B-1 fleet has launched combat sorties from the continental United States to strike targets overseas. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Marc I. Lane)
And the Spirits operating on combat missions from just down the road over in Missouri (one seen here landing at Whiteman AFB after 25 hours in the air to bomb Libya)...
The Air Force is certainly setting its cards on the table about "Aircraft carriers? We don't need so steenking many aircraft carriers..." as well as, "We do too need those tankers!" along with, "Oh, and, "We're gonna need a *new* long range bomber, too, those B-52's are getting pretty long in the tooth." Then some retired guys will pop up with, "And all y'all smarty-pants said we'd never need/use the B1! So there!" And in their quiet corners, dark at night, tumbler of Jack resting on their stomach, they're talking with the shades of Douhet and LeMay and finishing up with, "The only boots on the ground we'll need are a couple of target designators and then a clean-up crew with cops." Well, yanno *some* of 'em are. Then the ones who commune with the shades of Boyd and Olds are saying "We're gonna need us some long-legged fighters to keep 'em safe!" Of course, the latter is actually an argument for... aircraft carriers, but I digress.
Mind you - this is just me talking. I've seen nothing from the AF putting that spin to it. But that's what maple-syrup-drenched-bacon biscuits will do to me on a windy, warm spring-like day in Kansas.
It's "All One Team, One Fight" gets dropped like a radioactive chunk of scorching hot concrete once budget and force size comes into play.
This is an interesting point, when was the last time we did not have “Defense Budget Issues”? This is one of the reasons, I go spastic about the subject of us going into “Undeclared Wars”. The subject goes black at least 50 years or Pre-9/11 Attack. If we are going to get involved in the wars than, as the old saying goes, “You better put your money where your mouth is.” Uncle Sam better learn another saying, “Money talks, BS walks!” All I'm saying is this, “Pick and choose the wars that you will be involved with and we can't solve everything.” Both sides are responsible for this mess, you cannot play in a pile of crap and expect to come out smelling like a rose.
I want to have the Marines. If I know that you are a Marine, I kinda-sorta trust you, without knowing anything else about you. If you are not a Marine, I think I should check you out a bit before I trust you. Not that all Marines are faultless, oh no...
JTG, there's a little bit more to it than that. At the least we need to consider training, Transport Command, Tactical Command, Strategic Command (ok, I'm showing my age {g}), and Aerospace.
Who gets training? Tactical should go to Army, maybe Transport as well. I am inclined to retain some form of Strategic Air Command as a separate entity. Let them have the Bones, Spirits, and Raptors, dump the rest to Tactical.
I am tempted to give Aerospace to the Navy, as they have a long tradition of exploration, not to mention my desire to see an Enterprise in orbit. :)
More seriously, the economy may force a beneficial debate on just what force mix we need after the end of the Cold War, which severely warped the West's military & economic environments. Certainly NATO is as useless as the UN these days. I would think the Navy would lead, as we are a maritime nation with little risk of physical invasion, the remade Red Dawn not withstanding. Army would be limited to mostly training & reserves, and the Marines our primary expeditionary combat force short of genuine war. Recall the old saying: "When the Marines go in, it's an incident. When the Army goes in, it's a war."
...
Come to think of it, John, I suspect some of the aerophiles will cite the Northern Alliance's victory in 2002 as an example of airpower done right; never mind the SF boots on the ground as liason and coordination. :) Only problem was, that was the easy part. The next question was now what? One of the things that truly made my teeth itch was hearing (back then) the more enthusiastic hawks exclaiming "All right! Who do we hit next!?" Winning a battle is easy, winning the peace not so much.
P.S. Very nice shot of the Bone taking off, btw. Thanks
I feel a lot better now.
You could probably lose the entire defense budget in the welfare costs of a single major city and not see edge nor side no shadow of that defense budget within that black hole swamp of money drain.
When folks bring up the defense budget as an issue of drain on our economy, I'm reminded that national defense is an actual Constitutionally authorized and mandated expenditure. Welfare is only the same such if every single written record of any and all founding fathers speaking on the issue is willfully ignored.
You could cut out every single item the gov spends money on, except welfare and the nation would still be broke.
Now, that lil' rant is out of the way, maybe I can keep from busting a vein for awhile.
As to current spazms of problems in North Africa and the mid east....
Imo, any excuse to get our people into those AOs and start sorting out who's who and what's what in the nittyist grittyist way is all to the good. We've been too far removed for far too long. Those AOs have been able to fester and foment without adult supervision for generations. We've been, effectively, clueless.
This Long War will not be over with Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Not by a looooooooonnnngggg shot. To pretend otherwise is the hight of delusional.
As to Afghanistan in particular...
There were 100s of thousands of jihadiscum trained up in the Afghan camps throughout the '90s. What we're fighting there are less often Afghans and more often jihadiscum from every muslim neighborhood on this planet, including those of Europe, Australia and the US.
We can kill them there, or we can wait until they've migrated to the already established "safe zones" among our own cities and those of the EU and fight them here. That's not bull. That was the original plan of the jihadiscum master mullahs before things got busy with jihadiscum killing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And to show how cruel and heartless and anti concern troll I am, Imo, we're still a decade off from finally cutting away the deadwood policies and practices that glommed onto our military during the decades of peace and the post Vietnam hangover.
Indeed, Grimmy. That's why we MUST fight them there and elsewhere ... and not in our own streets. As far as Grumpy's idea of ever having a formal Congressional declaration of war in this conflict, that's nothing but a pipe dream. We have half of Congress who'd never do so, and half of the country who won't even acknowledge who the enemy is.
That said - for Casey's comment...
We had what you suggest - for the War of 1812, 1848, 1861, 1898. We were fortunate enough to have the wars of 1917 and 1941 telescoped to us with enough time to try to build an infantry-centric army from scratch, and then we learned the armor lessons the hard way. Then there was the war of 1950, which is perhaps a better example of your exemplar.
So, if you want to surrender the strategic baton, and with it the initiative, just don't be surprised if you aren't happy with the Army you have should you need to use it. That's the trade-off. And in a high-tech era, it's a real trade-off.
It may be the time for that trade, I dunno. But truth to tell, Casey - I'd just as soon dis-establish the active force and convert the Guard to a true homeland defense force of limited deployability rather than build what I think you are envisioning. Keep the Old Guard - the Tomb must be guarded.