Evening star., 1951-08-09
To Rule the Air

II this country is going to be content with
the second-best air force in the world, we will
be defeated in war with Russia.
That is the solemn and considered convic-
ton which underlies the current agitation for
vast and costly expansion of our American air
power. The reasoning OF those who say that this
can and must be done is logical and persuasive.
They say-and this certainly cannot be disputed
that Second-best air force will be burden
some and costly thing to maintain. Yet in
war with country possessing superior air power
the second-best air force would be little better
than useless. 1t would be destroyed and all of
the effort and cost of maintaining it would have
been in vain. So, they argue, why not build the
best air force-an air force that can rule the
skies, and that can exercise the same influence
for peace or for victory if war comes, that the
British Navy was able to exercise during the
long years that it enjoyed undisputed control
of the seas. sA
1t will cost more money to reach this goal,
But in any event we are going to spend many
billions of dollars on our Air Force. That being
so, 1t would seem foolish, even stupid, not to
spend enough to assure ourselves OF the in
dispensable ingredient of victory in modern war
control of the air.
This is essentially the thinking that lies
behind the call from Chairman Vinson of the
House Armed Services Committee for a rapid
buidup to total strength of 1853 air wings in.
stead of the 95 groups now In contemplation
Here is what he says:
1t is impossible in modern warfare to
postpone or avoid decisive action in the air.
"a strong enemy would force our planes to
fight or destroy them on the ground.) No
matter how much strength we may be able
to assemble on the ground or the sea, we
cannot hope to defeat Soviet power unless
we have superior strength in the air.
Air warfare, once begun moves very
rapidly toward decision. If the air battle
is lost the war is certain to be lost
Senator Lodge, in his recent statement said
that we still have an advantage-though
waning advantage-over the Russians in Stra-
tegc air power He warned, however, that we
are outclassed by the Russians, not only on the
ground but also by Soviet tactical aviation and
air defense.
Senator Lodge wants the Air Force built up
to at least $50 groups. He says that the present
object-95 groups by the end of 1952-envisageS
an air force half equipped with obsolescent
planes, and means that in terms of modern
planes the only ones which can successfully
match Russia in the air, we would be building
only the equivalent of 50-group air force for
all purposes, or third of what is gealy re-
quired."
"It all boils down to the fact" he said,
"that our objective is not big enough, that our
proposed rate of attainment is not fast enough,
and that unless we increase our objective and
step up our rate of national achievement, we
court national disaster"
Some people will disagree Those who
claimed, just short while ago, that the country
could not support more than 48-group air force
may be shocked at proposals for 1853 wings or
$50 groups (The difference between wings and
groups is in the supporting elements.) But
these people were wrong at the time, and they
can easily be wrong again. As Senator Lodge
puts it, ever since the end of World War II we
have been plagued by lack of foresight and
tragic miscalculationS.
We can no longer afford to misread the
future or miscalculate the intentions of Soviet
Russia. The Kremlins bad faith and evil in
tentions are abundantly established We have
no rational choice except to make the necessary
preparations on land, sea and air. And of the
three, it is in the air that we can least afford
to be unready, or to be second best, on the day
that another war engulfs the world.