From: Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Keywords: B2s, Carriers
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:48:09 GMT


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?
>The army has its close support helicopters and could easily assimilate
>the aircraft needed for medium range work in today's limited war
>environment.  The navy can supply the needed aricraft for areas that
>do not have air bases available and cruise missles for difficult
>targets that would likely cause aircraft shoot downs.
>
>The remaining Air Force could be reduced to a unit that runs the
>remaining land based nuclear missles.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 


Newsgroups: sci.military