Robert Farley isn’t a huge fan of the Air Force.


And he’s pretty willing to tell you all about it.

I haven’t read his  book (though if he sends me a review copy, I’ll be happy to).

But he’s been more than willing to engage in a debate on what is the best role for airpower, and what is the structure that best provides it.

Farley penned a piece titled “Ground the Air Force” laying out his arguments.

The United States needs air power, but it does not need an air force.

In fact, it never really did. The U.S. Air Force, founded in 1947, was the product of a decades-long campaign by aviation enthusiasts inside the U.S. Army. These advocates argued that air power could not achieve its promise under the leadership of ground commanders. With memories of the great bombing campaigns of World War II still fresh and a possible confrontation with the Soviets looming, the nation’s would-be cold warriors determined that the age of air power was upon them. But it wasn’t. Advocates of an independent air force had misinterpreted the lessons of World War II to draw faulty conclusions about air power’s future.

That piece, of course, invited a response by COL Robert Spalding:

Robert Farley (“Ground the Air Force,” December 19, 2013) is so far wide of the mark that he brings to mind the difference between the miss-by-a-mile bombs of World War II and the precision-guided bombs of today that fly through windows. The defense establishment is certainly in need of new ideas. But getting rid of the U.S. Air Force will do nothing to make the Pentagon more efficient or effective. In fact, such a move would do grave damage to our national security.

Farley argues that Pentagon planners pushed for an independent air force because they had “misinterpreted the lessons of World War II” to conclude that strategic bombing — massive air raids on enemy cities — represented the future of warfare. But military leaders favored an independent air force because of what they had learned from the North African campaign: When ground commanders controlled aircraft, the results were disastrous. As Colonel F. Randall Starbuck writes in Air Power in North Africa, 1942–43: “One example, relayed by General Doolittle, was the incident where a ground commander asked him to provide a fighter to cover a Jeep that was going out to repair a broken telephone line. He refused. The plane that would have wasted its time on that mission shot down two German Me-109s.”

Farley’s counterpoint is here:

Was the jeep ambushed? Were communications restored? How critical were these communications to maintaining offensive momentum? Did anyone bother to ask? Maybe Doolittle did, and maybe he had good reason to believe that, on that day, one of his planes could catch and kill two Bf109s.

Col. Starbuck doesn’t tell us, and Col. Spalding doesn’t seem to care.
And this, in short, is why some people don’t trust the Air Force with airpower.

Deciding how to use scarce resources is the essence of military decision-making. Every commander will run short of assets, and have to weigh values in order to decide to let some missions go while pursuing others. Air superiority is surely a critically important mission, but so is communications maintenance and ground force protection. Pre-emptively choosing one mission over the others amounts to dogmatism, not decision-making.

In the West, seemingly based solely on the precedent set by the establishment of the Royal Air Force in 1918, we tend to see forces divided into armies, navies,  and air forces. A nice, simple triad of services. Of course, then you get various adjuncts, such as the Marines and the Coast Guard. And other additions, such as Naval Aviation, Marine Corps Aviation, Army aviation, and so on.

But it is not graven upon stone that there must be such a triumvirate of services. Let us assume the Air Force were to be abolished, or at a minimum, significantly reorganized. What might such a force structure look like?

One possible example is the Soviet Union.

Really?

Sure, why not? We in the Army have been stealing tactics and operational procedures and even equipment design ideas from them for decades. Why not organizational ideas? The Soviet Union was, and Russia continues to be, primarily a continental power, while the US is primarily a seapower. But the Soviet model can still serve to show what a different organization might look like.

The primary force of the USSR was the Soviet Army. The senior leadership of the Ministry of Defense, at the joint level, was always Army. The geographical district commanders (or Fronts)  for the various theaters of the USSR were always Army. This provided a unity of command. Obviously, in the US forces, having some geographical theaters under Army command makes less sense. The Pacific Command has long been seen as the property of the Navy, and with good reason, both historically, and operationally.

The Soviet Navy, even when it grew to be a true blue water fleet, was always seen as a supporting force, and while its various fleets may not have been under the direct operational control of an Army theater commander, the needs of that theater commander greatly influenced the tasking of each fleet.

In addition to Naval Air Forces as part of the Soviet Navy, the Soviet Union operated three “air forces.”

The first, Frontal Aviation (or VVS), consisted of what we roughly consider tactical airpower. Frontal Aviation Armies were directly subordinate to their Front commander. That didn’t mean they were solely dedicated to close air support, but rather this subordination resulted in close synchronization of effort between land and air power to achieve the Front Commander’s mission.

The second Soviet air force was the national air defense force, or PVO Strany. Tasked with the air defense of the Motherland, PVO operated directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and was not concerned with providing air defense to deployed forces. PVO  had their own air defense radars, command and control system, and even completely different aircraft designs. PVO fulfilled a role very similar to our own  Air Defense Command, though it was a completely independent service, unlike ADC which was a subordinate command of the USAF.

The final “air force” wasn’t really and air force, but instead was an independent armed service devoted specifically to the Soviet Union’s nuclear deterrent. The Strategic Rocket Forces had little interaction with the other branches. Unlike in our own Air Force, where missileers were (and still are) often considered those who couldn’t hack it as pilots, the SRF was considered the very elite of the entire Soviet armed forces.

I’m not advocating that we suddenly adopt a similar structure for our own DoD. But changing times argue for a look at just what roles and missions we expect our services to do. And looking at how other forces address similar problems can stimulate thinking as we look to our own challenges.

And if the Air Force wants to remain relevant in the 21st Century, maybe they can come up with better arguments to address critics such as Farley than they have to date.

About these ads

6 Comments

Filed under Air Force

6 responses to “Robert Farley isn’t a huge fan of the Air Force.

  1. anon

    No separate Air Force desired or required. We have been around this barn too many times before.

  2. Sean

    Who was it that recently suggested that if you apply the same level of logic for an independent air force….you would end up with an independent artillery force for the US Military??!!??

  3. spill

    I’m almost in agreement.
    Anything tactically expeditionary (strike/CAS) leave to the Army, Navy, USMC.
    Strategic missions (bombers, some tankers, airlift) and CONUS aerospace defense leave to the USAF (leaving these tasks to AFRES/ANG).

  4. JJAK

    Bad article. He basically insults the AF and says if it goes away the other services will do better–but then doesn’t explain why the other services would do any better, other than asserting they would because they aren’t the Air Force. For instance, he argues the LRS bomber would come under more scrutiny–why does he think the Navy (with its recent failure in developing the LCS), the Marines (with the recent failure to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) and Army (the collapse of the Future Combat System program and the long term failure to replace the OH-58) will do any better at procurement with no Air Force?

    He assumes that no Air Force means that the Army and Navy will not be ordered to conduct bombing campaigns without committing ground forces, which is amazing. The article makes no mention of political considerations driving military strategy, no mention of politicians looking for “unbelievably, small, limited” military options and easy, “no boots on ground” victories. He pins all air campaigns on the Air Force–and even though the theoretical underpinnings of using air power alone to win wars was developed in the Air Force, that particular genie is out of the bottle now, and doesn’t need the Air Force as an organization to remain an option politicians will want, and a capability the reorganized services will maintain.

    While air, surface warfare, and submarines all exist in the Navy, it’s a bit much to assume that just because they are in the same service they get along better and aren’t run “by separate bureaucratic organizations, each with its own priorities” as he claims about the AF and Army. I imagine submarines, surface warfare, and naval aviators all argue why their particular specialty is a war-winning capability deserving of more money and support. Folding the AF and Army together might put everyone in one service, but it won’t eliminate the arguments for resources, strategy, and planning. And since he isn’t arguing to get rid of air power, why does he assume that air power enthusiasts advocating air power-based solutions will go away?

    I imagine his book would dive in more detail about how the different missions of the AF would be split up, but as I see it, Farley is essentially arguing to remodel the Army to look more like the Marine Corps. So why not disestablish both the Army and the AF, and make the Marines the only land warfare service?

    • Few are saying abolish the AF, although some like Jerry Pournelle would disestablish the AF because of his experiences and observations as a Red Leg in the Korean War. The AF *has* done a poor job of living up to its CAS role for the Army and the AF has been continuing problem in that regard.

      The arrangement of the AAF in WW2 was about ideal. What we see in Europe with the 8th AF doing Strategic air, with several TACs assigned to the field armies handling the tactical role. It worked very well. The equivalent today would be a separate Strategic AF with TacAir being part of the Army. There is no reason such an arrangement should not be made. Let the individual services deal with what they need to deal with. The Army needs its own fixed wing TacAir and should have it.

      The acquisition issue is a separate issue and all branches are quite sick when it comes to that problem. Part of the problem is in the services, another in the vendors themselves who will protest any selection made and keep things hanging for years. When it comes to how the services are organized, however, it’s a red herring.

  5. timactual

    I doubt that any particular organizational structure is perfect. Making the AF part of the Army would have its own problems, and a few years after the union some folks would be arguing for separation.