Is the Air Force essential or outdated?

<p>[Is</a> the Air Force essential or outdated? - Air Force News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Air Force Times](<a href=“http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_radical_plans_071103w/]Is”>http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_radical_plans_071103w/)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, THIS is going to be fun! :D</p>

<p>He wouldn’t be a former Naval officer would he?</p>

<p>“Robert M. Farley, assistant professor, joined The Patterson School in the fall of 2005 as a post-doc scholar. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Washington Department of Political Science in 2004. His dissertation, Transnational Determinants of Military Doctrine, investigated the role that transnational networks of military officers play in the diffusion of military doctrine. In addition to a book manuscript, he is working on projects involving piracy and naval doctrine, nuclear power in second tier states, and the spread of Mahanianism across the international system in the first half of the twentieth century.”</p>

<p>My guess is that he’s purely an academic. If he were retired military, I would think he would be at least an associate prof, but maybe not.</p>

<p>How in bleep did they dig this guy out of the woodwork? I currently work at the University of Kentucky Medical Center, and the only publication listed on his website is his 2004 dissertation!! Clearly, the article listed above was looking for extreme positions on the future of the Air Force. This guy is the best they could do??? </p>

<p>Beware, he’s working on a book about (among other things) naval doctrine.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, in all fairness to my USAF (former) comrades, I have to say that Mr. Farely is full of it.</p>

<p>First off, his assertion that a military service should be able to win a war on its own is foolish. Each service has its area of expertise, and the strength of our military comes from those services being able to work together.</p>

<p>While it makes sense from a logical point to standardize everything (and using that argument, we could ditch both the Army and the Air Force and just keep the Navy/Marine Corps Team), the practicality just isn’t there.</p>

<p>The USAF excels in military airlift, strategic strike, air superiority, and space command and control. To burden the Army or the Navy/Marine Corps with those functions would give only administrative benefits (at best), and the loss of operational effectiveness would far overshadow that.</p>

<p>Besides, the USAF is so much fun to make fun of! :D</p>

<p>My two cents. :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Perhaps he forgot what two actions forced Hirohito to admit defeat. It was only six days after Nagasaki that he formally offered to surrender.</p></li>
<li><p>When was the last time we launched a B-52 off a carrier?..I don’t seem to remember that one.
Hey Z, where have you been hiding those strategic bombers?..fess up.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>We have a service for Air and Space, one for the land, and one for the Seas (with some guys for taking the beaches as well). It seems pretty simple and logical to me.</p>

<p>Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame…</p>

<p>Back in the Cold War - it was the Strategic Air Command (Peace is our Profession) of the USAF that kept the cold war from turning into a “Hot” war.</p>

<p>Some have even gone as far as to say that SAC won the Cold War for us - without dropping “the big one” - </p>

<p>Farley’s assertion that:

bogus. </p>

<p>Back in the early 90’s a lot of people thought the Army was outdated then - remember the downsizing that came back to haunt us???</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>OH, yeah. I was there in the midst of it. It was horrible, and we’re STILL paying. :(</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>1) Carriers are more vulnerable (since they can sink and since you have to move them closer to the enemy) than air bases in friendly countries or the United States.</p>

<p>2) Strategic bombers have longer range, bigger payloads, and are stealthier than anything you can put on a carrier.</p>

<p>3) While SLBM’s are perhaps the most secure arm of the nuclear triad, once they launch, there is no recalling them. Also, you can’t really do a single or limited strike with them without alerting the rest of the world. A B-2 can sneak in and deliver its warheads, and no one will ever know what’s happening until the mushrooms have sprouted.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>1) Japan surrendered after they realized they would be vaporized if they didn’t. It worked.</p>

<p>2) In Korea, we were able to push them all the way back to China before China sent a few million men over the border. We could have kept going, but that would very likely have resulted in a nuclear war.</p>

<p>3) In Vietnam, strategic bombing forced the Vietnamese back to the negotiating table because they knew we COULD vaporize them. (Funny what happens when you fight a war like you MEAN IT, eh?)</p>

<p>4) In Iraq, the enemy forces have been defeated. What we are fighting now (and increasingly successfully, judging from the noticeable absence of “OMG! WE’RE LOSING!” stories being posted here lately) is a proxy war fought through terrorism. You can’t fight a war like that with strategic bombers unless, of course, you’d like us to fly into Iran and pave it over (no problem, as far as I’m concerned).</p>

<p>This guy is clueless. He has NO IDEA what he’s talking about.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, it was the Nuclear Triad that kept the Cold War from turning hot. The triad included B-52s on constant alert, land-based ICBMs, and submarine-launched ICBMs.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That downsizing was supposed to be the peace dividend for winning the cold war. The Navy and the Air Force were also downsized.</p>

<p>One other thought…</p>

<p>I think that we will continue to have the current four Armed Services until such time as the media in which they fight change.</p>

<p>Many, many years from now, when Man has finally managed to get off the planet in force, it will make sense to have only a Navy and a Marine Corps. The Navy would control all vessels (including what we traditionally call “warships”, and both tactical and strategic “aircraft”) with the Marines being in charge of surface operations on whatever celestial body we happen to be attacking. The arrangement makes sense because the traditional media of air, land, and water will no longer apply. All we’ll have is Space and Planetary.</p>

<p>Needless to say, that is WAY, WAY, WAY in the future, so the Woops and Zoomies are safe for now. ;)</p>