Is it time to abolish the United States Air Force as a branch, merging its capabilities into one or more of the other branches??

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:40:37 -0400

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/air-force-robert-farley-interview-180956612/?no-ist

I am fine with the arrangement as it is, but the suggestion posed in the attached article seems legitimate enough to consider. When it comes to national defense, we should always be seeking the best possible arrangement.

Is It Time to Abolish the U.S. Air Force?

A political scientist says yes.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Mar 10 at 2014 1:56 AM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 01:56:04 -0400

Nah, I think the AF has a different culture that if doled out to the other services will greatly change the performance in my opinion of the USAF.

Even third world countries have a separate AF because they know of the importance of having one.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Mar 10 at 2014 3:59 AM

CMC Robert Young — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 03:59:19 -0400

Clearly not somebody well acquainted with USAF culture or what they bring to the fight. Maybe he's just justifying his last research grant proposal....;-) Got keep those dollars flowing to avoid having to get a real job.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 5 at 2015 4:44 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:44:14 -0400

Nah. Absorb them into the Navy. That way almost all of our major logistics/transportation needs are falling under one umbrella. It would eliminate redundancies..

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 5 at 2015 5:04 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:36 -0400

Under what pretense?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 5:08 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:08:11 -0400

I think that the misinformed think that the only thing we do is sit around. We have special forces, Air Traffic Control, Weather, Rescue, Solar Observations, NORAD, Missiles, etc and the highest scores for enlisted types, pilots.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 5:08 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:08:54 -0400

Oh that political scientist is a moron. I read this in the Washington Post...

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 5 at 2015 5:09 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:09:31 -0400

No but its time to abolish inane posts.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 5:14 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:14:52 -0400

Well, we certainly can't walk to war in other countries. And I sure as hell don't plan on going via a big boat.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 5 at 2015 5:23 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:23:33 -0400

Is he a political scientist for al jezeera??

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 5 at 2015 5:35 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:35:06 -0400

After reading the article, Mr. Farley needs to start from scratch on his theory.

The US Military operates in three distinct spaces, not two Air, Land, Sea.

The Navy's mission of Naval Superiority, in controlling the sea, what lies below the sea, above the sea, and terrain adjacent to the sea requires that it has an "Air Force" and the Marine Corps.

The Army however, due to its size and scale does not have the same requirement. It can rely on pre-positioning for a great many things, and then "utilize" a sister service for logistics as needed, much as it did during WWI, WWII, and Korea. The Air Force fits that need.

As the Air Force is not solely a Logistics Branch of the Army but has a myriad of missions including Air Superiority, the author's premise falls flat quickly. Yes, we could divvy up quite a bit of it to the other Services, but over half would be left when we were done. What would happen to that, and to our warfighting capability? We would need a new service... something akin to an Air Force.

Response by CSM Michael Poll made Oct 5 at 2015 5:40 PM

CSM Michael Poll — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:40:54 -0400

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 5:41 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:41:46 -0400

Negative. That is all.
:)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 5:44 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:44:42 -0400

Hell no.

Sides that if they got rid of AIr Force what service is going to step up and build the kick ass chow halls?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 5:47 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:47:06 -0400

I have a hard time believing that half those who responded in this thread actually read the article. I don't agree that we need to get rid of the AF to remedy this culture, but I do believe that our nations defense would be better served by giving recon and CAS assets to the Army, while cutting the AF back and allowing it to focus on strategic air power which is what the AF has been fascinated by, and why it wanted to be an independent branch ever since it's infancy back in the signal corps days.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Oct 5 at 2015 6:53 PM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:53:56 -0400

I read this Q and A. Being on both sides of the coin,from being the guy requesting CAS then becoming one who sent it out, I can tell you that no matter how many text books, hearings or interviews he does with old vets, he doesn't grasp the complexities of operating a massive air force on a global scale. The daily maintenance on one B-1 wing is a nightmare that no GCE commander would want to deal with let alone set aside some of his budget for. This guy needs to get some trigger time with the services and not on a tour with PA,but the dirty side that actually shows you the need for separation.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 8:26 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:26:29 -0400

Same question was posted when this professor first suggested this in the University Press of Kentucky, 2014. This time it seems to be getting more comments.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/do-we-really-need-the-air-force

Do we really need the Air Force? | RallyPoint

Professor from Kentucky proposes abolishing the USAF did parting it out to the other services as a cost cutting and conflict response improvement measure. What do you think after hearing the short NPR story?To me it sounds like a plug to sell a book.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 5 at 2015 9:04 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:04:00 -0400

Wait, what???

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Oct 6 at 2015 12:05 AM

Sgt Ken Prescott — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:05:37 -0400

Actually, there's a much better argument for abolishing the US Army.

1. America is a strategic aerospace and maritime power. Additionally, we lack the population base to maintain a big enough army to compete with continental powers such as Russia and China after meeting our requirements for maritime and aerospace supremacy. Maintaining a large land warfare component draws money away from recapitalizing core elements of national strategy--Navy and Air Force--and expends it on peripheral capabilities.

2. A big army is an invitation to imperial mischief. 'Nuff said.

3. As far back as the 1950s, defense analysts observed that armies were, in fact, becoming air forces anyway.

4. As a permanent institution, the Army is on constitutionally dubious grounds--Congress is tasked with raising armies when needed, but is expected to maintain a navy.

Transfer the XVIII Airborne Corps to the Air Force and raise armies during times of declared war. Problem solved. Somebody get me a bag of Ruffles and some onion dip, please.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Oct 6 at 2015 12:23 AM

Cpl James Waycasie — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:23:08 -0400

The Air Force has missions that most civilian people may not be aware of and many in other branches may not have knowledge of. They fulfill special roles in combat situations. By combining them in with another service could cause chaos and confusion that we don't need. If there were serious problems with their functionality I might think it worth considering to go through and iron out all the bugs that would go with incorporating them into another service but they do fine as they are. Why upset the balance especially when you are engaged in active warfare at this time.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 6 at 2015 1:11 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:11:10 -0400

Since I am no longer in it? Interesting point.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Oct 6 at 2015 6:19 AM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:19:28 -0400

No.
The question in the title implies to rid the AF and it's functions all together which is ridiculous - it should rephrased to "should we merge the AF with another branch of service?" if that's truly the discussion you wanted to have.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 6 at 2015 6:54 AM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:54:21 -0400

What would do with all the extra chairs and contractors?

Response by SSG Michael Primm made Oct 6 at 2015 9:08 AM

SSG Michael Primm — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:08:58 -0400

Then who would the Army have to make fun of.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Oct 6 at 2015 9:52 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:52:35 -0400

No. That is just stupid.

Response by SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD made Oct 6 at 2015 2:09 PM

SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:09:06 -0400

This post can only elicit a huh response. So, a political scientist says yes. Lol. Next!

Response by Sgt Jamie Grippin made Oct 6 at 2015 2:13 PM

Sgt Jamie Grippin — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:13:49 -0400

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 6 at 2015 2:40 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:40:04 -0400

I really did not grasp the synergy to justify this move.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:40:42 -0400

Just keep the branches as they are with their distinctive uniforms and traditions. However, It might make sense cost-wise to make one Armed force with the 4 branches, but one human resources division, one medical and one logistics system. That's what they do in Canada; the branches still wear distinctive uniforms. When DOD was created after WWII, we went that way partially, but even since then we have operated more jointly and many individuals (you see them on Rally Point profiles) have been in 2 or 3 different branches, and we have started joint basing. I think it was save money by creating one bureaucracy than rather than 3 or 4. If someone wants to transfer it would be less red tape; and it can also make joint operations easier to plan and implement. The Coast Guard, due to its unique law enforcement mission, should stay as it is, under DHS.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Oct 6 at 2015 3:46 PM

SN Greg Wright — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:46:23 -0400

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA This author lost all credibility at: "B-1Bs provide small teams of U.S. soldiers and Marines with what amounts to close air support."

Really? B1's provide 'close air support'??! GTFO. B-1B is a strategic bomber, not a tactical one.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:51 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:51:04 -0400

I've read similar arguments. We don't need the Air Force because the Army, Navy, and Marines all have air elements (helicopters, jets, etc).

By that argument we don't need the Navy because the other services have water elements (I read at one point the AF has some ammo ships, I'd be surprised if the Army doesn't have at least small watercraft and/or hovercraft sort of items, etc).

And we don't need the Army because the other services have land assault troops (TAC-P, Special Ops, & Pararescue in AF, Marine Recon in Marines-and the Marines themselves, SEALs in the Navy, etc...plus associated security and other units like Security Forces in AF).

Usually, like this one it'd seem, it's someone who has little to no clue just going off because they have some chip on their shoulder about something.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 5:15 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:15:55 -0400

Put it back under the US Army Signal Corps where it came from.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 5:53 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:53:22 -0400

The other services have aircraft, but air superiority is not their thing! That can't just be split up amongst the services! We ain't going nowhere!

Where we goin? Nowhere!

Response by MSgt Wayne Blake made Oct 6 at 2015 6:00 PM

MSgt Wayne Blake — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:00:47 -0400

Seriously... rediculous.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 10:12 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:12:57 -0400

No. The author of the article seems to only talk about air power and CAS. The US Air Force is a critical element of military logistics, especially in the initial stages of a conflict. Who gets our equipment there in a hurry? Sure rail and sea resources play a big part, but the AF is critical for the initial push.

Who is going to maintain space defense, satellite intelligence, and satellite commo? Who is going to manage the nation's nuclear inventory? (not including nuke subs)

We need the AF

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Oct 6 at 2015 11:43 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:43:45 -0400

I would consider merging all the services before I would consider abolishing a service. When the topic of merging a service with another, the natural tendency is to merge the youngest service, the Air Force, with the department that it came from, the Army. Once you dig into the PPBE process amongst the services, you quickly realize that it makes sense to either have distinct five services under Title 10 of the US Code or one, but no combination in between. There are way too many doctrinal distinctions amongst the services to undo with one Congressional act to change how the services are aligned. In a perfect world, if we could start from scratch, I would align the services to the warfighting domains of Land, Sea, Air, Space, Information/Cyber with less overlap amongst those services. In reality, there is a need for some overlap.

Response by SSgt Robert Dant made Oct 7 at 2015 12:50 AM

SSgt Robert Dant — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:50:29 -0400

I can only imagine this is a port to gather our support. Much like the conversation it is time to get rid of Marines.

So why not have some fun with this and bash the wing wipers - could be fun and out last the insane concept in this port.

So here goes for reasons why not get rid of the Air Force:

10. Who would fly me home on leave for $15
9. Who would fly a cargo of rubber dog poop (Top Gun)
8. Who would allow a boy to become a veteran by being safe from harm
7. Who would be the picture of power if not for a mighty war bird just looking fierce against the sky background. See picture above
6. Who would fly in my booze and cigarettes

You all add your lines and we can have the best ten reasons to keep the air force. Make it fun and we can vote later

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Oct 7 at 2015 6:54 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 06:54:42 -0400

Don't think the AF is needed and you're a ground grunt? Next time you're in trouble and need some help then call the Girl Scouts. The AF can deploy assets anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less; how long would it take the Navy to deploy aircraft or troops?

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 7:48 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:48:45 -0400

Why? so our enemy can have air superiority over us? ... forgive my words ... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING???

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 9:21 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:21:23 -0400

This a ridiculous post. I'm sure a lot of solders appreciate the Air Force when they need close air support. Sounds to me like you don't have the experience to be posting outlandish things like this.

Response by SFC Wallace Lopez made Oct 7 at 2015 9:25 AM

SFC Wallace Lopez — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:25:40 -0400

Time for Rally Point to start doing some drug testing.......

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 9:28 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:28:27 -0400

I think we should do away with all the service branches and return to Title 10 General officer numbers that are by law, the limit. The services have gotten away with hiding them in everything from joint billets to "Flag" billets. If it flies it belongs to one group (AF) if it floats it belongs to another (N), expeditionary another (M), SOC would reside here and if we are staying a while, which we should not do too often, occupy then the last group (A) but only one Secretary all bases are purple, all support is purple, every thing is purple we would be one big group of Barney's running around.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 9:35 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:35:46 -0400

No, and shoot that good idea fairy out the sky. When the fairy awakens again shoot it again, then don't stop till the good idea fairy stops moving.

The Army couldn't handle the logistics or execution of CAS, AI, OCA, DCA or create the necessary documents to govern everything or create an Air control authority with the power to control all air assets via 1 means. Then instituting that concept of a 3 dimensioned Air plan to support all areas of the war effort based on priority. This includes making room for AAA, HIMARS, GIMLARS, and the rest of Army/Navy/Marines toys, to fly through said Airspace as well. The Army isn't prepared for and cannot handle this kind of problem. The main reason is how the Army control Aircraft in regards to priority, if Commander X has an aircraft he will not share the aircraft with Commander Y because he's the priority. This sort of "my aircraft or if it's in my area, it's my aircraft" nonsense would be a huge problem and cause confusion and infighting among agencies.

I've seen this first hand, my job in the AF is Battle management I.e OCA, DCA, A2A, Tactical A/s control, CAS,ATOs/ACOs, Link 16 and working at a CRC, ASOC, TOC, Army DIV and a Army CORPS.

Let the AF do the flying and the Army continue to smash the enemies on the ground. It works very well this way.....We can intergrate but let the AF stay the Air Force.

Response by SrA Conrad Lewis made Oct 7 at 2015 10:56 AM

SrA Conrad Lewis — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:56:23 -0400

Worst post ever!

Response by SrA Conrad Lewis made Oct 7 at 2015 10:56 AM

SrA Conrad Lewis — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:56:58 -0400

Nice pot stirring!

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 11:35 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:35:15 -0400

Dumbness all around. While I think the military would be better served by moving the money, aircraft, pilots, and resources the Air Force "uses" for CAS to the Army, the strategic mission of the AF is too great to roll the entire AF back to the Army.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 1:19 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:19:45 -0400

I think the Air Force should partake in reunification with the Army. It will solve alot of financial strain. The Navy has its own air, the Marines have their own air, and the Army has been stripped of its air capabilities.

Response by PFC David McLeod made Oct 7 at 2015 2:08 PM

PFC David McLeod — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:08:21 -0400

Yes, or move ground support assets to the army much like that other branch that belongs to the navy.

Response by SSgt Khanh Pham made Oct 7 at 2015 2:16 PM

SSgt Khanh Pham — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:16:06 -0400

That was shocking to me. It can be abolish but so unlikely, as who will willingly give up their cushy job and power sit.

Navy can take the assets and use it just as well. they can all be simply military. Not so strange a thought, but people have got a habit of alienating anything they don't accept.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 2:24 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:24:49 -0400

I read the article. Very interesting. If you commented on this post without reading, I would ask you to go back and click the link. Before reading, I considered replying with one word - No.

However, I still have one, I believe, weighty objection: Do we really trust the Army to properly manage and care for all of the superior USAF golf courses? .... I didn't think so.

Response by SFC Brandon Pechette made Oct 7 at 2015 2:37 PM

SFC Brandon Pechette — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:37:02 -0400

Yes. They've gone far away from their original job of supporting the fighting forces. Back to the Army Air Force.

Response by SPC Shannon Younger made Oct 7 at 2015 3:13 PM

SPC Shannon Younger — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:13:31 -0400

Speaking from the stand point of an armored crewman all of our armed forces. All of them are parts to the puzzle of what makes us one of the greatest countries of the world. But without one of these forces the rest are not going to be a success.Air land and sea has to be present to complete to accomplish control in any military action. And witnessing with my own eyes the air force can be your best friend or your worst enemy.

Response by SGT Robert Dutton made Oct 7 at 2015 3:52 PM

SGT Robert Dutton — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:52:01 -0400

Hell no smh some people are just retards

Response by SFC William “Derrell” Chandler made Oct 7 at 2015 4:18 PM

SFC William “Derrell” Chandler — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:18:47 -0400

ARE YOU CRAZY,WITHOUT THE AIRFORCE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REMAIN A STRONG MILITARY NATION.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 4:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:31:16 -0400

No, and Why would we

Response by MSgt Michael Lane made Oct 7 at 2015 4:33 PM

MSgt Michael Lane — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:33:42 -0400

I remember when I was at leadership school we were discussing somtingthing really important I'm sure and this NCO says the Airforce was created by Officers for Officers and I thought at the time what am odd thing to say but I always remembered that, and as time went on I came to realize he was right almost every AFSC in the Airforce is geared in some way to support an officer. The ratio of officer to enlisted is crazy I remember having a major in charge of the jet engine shop I thought how crazy is that. Now the part that's going to get me in trouble. The problem with the Airforce is the people in it, instead of putting or efforts into the mission it's more about how do I make myself look better than the guy next to me, how do I get over on that guy. It's the EPR system everything evolves around it you get an evaluation once a year and the feel is if I don't get firewall 5 my career is over I have seen people get out, PCS, change career fields just over one evaluation. It seems excellence has become the standard. Now oddly enough I retired form the Airforce and ended up working for the Army at Fort Rucker and I will say I don't get its about me, me, me in the Army, we and us and how do we and us get the mission done. (I did this on my phone so I hope this make some sense)

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Oct 7 at 2015 5:22 PM

SGT Apollo Sharpe — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:22:27 -0400

This is why politics & warfighting should never mix. A political scientist, in most cases, doesn't have the required experience (nor knowledge) to even speak on such a topic. First, if you've never been deployed as a service member, then you probably should shut up about something like this. Second, if you've just never worn the uniform at all, then you DEFINITELY should shut up about something like this. There's not one single branch (or sub-branch) of the military that should be abolished. Every single branch is important. As an army veteran, I feel that every single member of every other branch is a vital part of the overall team. A political scientist, without a military history, will never be able to properly frame & understand that!

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Oct 7 at 2015 5:35 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:35:29 -0400

This is purely an academic discussion because it will never happen. It is similar to a discussion on RP a few months ago about should the Army and Marines integrate into one land force. The main point of his article is that air power needs to be integrated with all other forms of military power and is not a stand alone force. When the Army Air Corps became the USAF in 1947, he is saying we lost a lot of that integration. I think you can see this in the fight over the A-10 which is near and dear to the Army for its CAS mission but the Air Force seems determined to kill it off in order to pay for the F35. He does make the point that during actual combat, the differences get worked out. However, in peacetime when the services are fighting over every dollar, the Army and Air Force have different visions which leads to some of these problems and conflicts. Do we need an Air Force? Absolutely! When I was in Fort Greely, Alaska, we would travel up to Fairbanks quite often. It was much nicer to stay on Eielson AFB than on Fort Wainwright. For that alone, we need the USAF!

Response by Sgt Todd Adams made Oct 7 at 2015 5:46 PM

Sgt Todd Adams — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:46:56 -0400

Hey let's get rid of the army, navy, marines and coast guard also and negotiate our way out of armed conflicts. HA HA. Idiots

Response by SPC Ronny Miller made Oct 7 at 2015 7:36 PM

SPC Ronny Miller — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 19:36:06 -0400

What airhead comes up with such questions? Sounds like the wish of a radical Muslim.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 7 at 2015 7:56 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 19:56:26 -0400

It may be time to close down the service Academies. They haven't produce War or major battles winners officers since........forever! ROTC and OCS probably can effectively replace them at a whole lot lesser cost.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 9:18 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 21:18:22 -0400

Just give CAS back to the Army

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 8 at 2015 4:31 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 04:31:10 -0400

What I want to know is, what are Robert Farley's REAL qualifications? Yes I read his list of degrees but has he EVER served in the military?

Response by SSgt Jersun Amos made Oct 8 at 2015 6:15 AM

SSgt Jersun Amos — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 06:15:27 -0400

Simple Answer...NO.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 10:49 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:49:15 -0400

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA - I'm curious how one could validate the ramblings of a political science major as an authority on strategic and tactical military operations. Now... if this had come from someone like a former Chief of Staff, I might lend it more credence. The fact is, the author fails to recognize the importance of the USAF to US National Security. He fails to recognize the multiple roles the USAF has taken on over the course of it's history. His suggestions and arguments are foolhardy and shortsighted.

You don't go to a neurosurgeon for advice on how to build a satellite.

Response by PO2 David L. Parker made Oct 8 at 2015 12:34 PM

PO2 David L. Parker — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:34:38 -0400

Well Hell NO!

Response by SGT Paul Nichols made Oct 8 at 2015 1:08 PM

SGT Paul Nichols — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:08:41 -0400

WTF our two major defense's AIR and SEA, lol the political scientist that said yes LMAO remove political from it because it sure as hell is a political statement a book worm that has no common sense.

Response by Sgt Christopher Collins made Oct 8 at 2015 9:53 PM

Sgt Christopher Collins — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:53:56 -0400

As an Air Force veteran, heck no!

Response by Col Lyman Faith made Oct 9 at 2015 12:48 AM

Col Lyman Faith — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:48:18 -0400

So, I googled Mr. Farley. No military service. Thanks for playing.

Response by SPC Bruce Nichols made Oct 9 at 2015 7:20 AM

SPC Bruce Nichols — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 07:20:09 -0400

It's time to abolish this poisonous mindset.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 9:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:21:20 -0400

Who else is going to haul our butts across the world? I appreciate everything the Air Force does for us. And really dig the pornstache they all seem to have out here. But seriously, they do their part in the global war on terror.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 10:40 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:40:27 -0400

There's always someone who thinks they've found a "radical" answer to problems...The reality is, things tend to evolve into what they need to be.

The air assets controlled by the Navy and Marine Corps have a very specific mission, and a limited number of airframes to do it. The Army aviation assets are similarly tailored.

The Air Force carries a large mission I don't think any other existing service branch would be able to adapt to without MAJOR changes and costs-All of which would, inevitably, create some sort of "Joint Air Superiority" force...aka, the Air Force.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 9 at 2015 2:31 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:31:42 -0400

If this is such a brilliant idea why hasn't anyone done it. As in Canada's case in protecting Iceland, the only NATO country without a military, their Air Force would be there in an a couple of hours - disconnected from any prerequisites in coordinating any ground troops. This makes as much sense as combining LEO with Paramedics based on 911. Yes they're similar yet they have very different missions.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/why-america-needs-the-air-force-rebuttal-to-prof-farley/

Why America Needs The Air Force: Rebuttal To Prof. Farley

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 4:09 PM

1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:09:01 -0400

Young Sir, I am a nurse in the Air Force and the missions that are flown are more numerous than can be imagined. Please remember we all have a specialty to do. When I need sea power I am calling the Navy, someone to guard the coast the cost guard. Overwhelming forces... the army. Someone to knock out my front teeth because I accidently kissed his girlfriend (before I was married) the Marines. When we need someone to dominate the skies lets not try and fix something that is not broken.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Oct 9 at 2015 6:10 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:10:38 -0400

Really?! Well prior to it's official establishment, it was a part of the Army - USAAC. With the advances in technology, I don't think it's all that good an idea. I mean, if you could land a B52 or a B!/2 or an F117 on a carrier deck, then maybe. Projecting THAT kind of force could be something to see. Not to mention the US Strategic Missile command. The USAF runs that too. No, I don't think merging it with another service would be all that beneficial.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Oct 9 at 2015 8:46 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:46:28 -0400

The Air Force started as a branch of the ARMY, but it grew into its own branch and any one that suggest that we should go backwards while the rest of the world goes forward is a FOOL. You do know that a degree of BS stands for BS and MS is More S, and PHD means Piled High.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 11:43 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 23:43:46 -0400

Ummm yea. I need to fly the A-10 why isn't this a thing yet. Army Air Corps :-D

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 11:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 23:53:44 -0400

No. Keep the USAF for high-altitude intercept, strategic bombing and transport, and air superiority. Any supersonic, high-altitude and extreme-long-range mission should belong to them.

Give sub-sonic, fixed-wing CAS and tactical & operational transport to a revived US Army Air Corps.

Response by SMSgt Cary Baker made Oct 10 at 2015 6:55 AM

SMSgt Cary Baker — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:55:39 -0400

I'm retired 28 yrs AF, retired in 2013. During the Gulf War in 1991, A US General ran the whole operation using the Air Force as part of his battle plan and it worked perfectly. I don't want to upset any of my fellow Airman here; however, I have said for a long time that the Air Force has forgotten that its a military. Meaning, that it operates similar to a business. I would support transferring the AF back to the Army. A Platoon Capt can issue NJ Article 15 Action to his/her soldiers. In the Air Force, unless a Flight Capt is on G-series orders, they cannot. I believe the AF needs to get back to war fighting training, and get off this kick of pleasing everyone, or preventing to hurt everyone's feelings. In the late 80s, as an airman, if you messed up, you did halls & walls, cleaning latrines, etc. Humility is bliss! No one likes to be embarrassed. This straightened most of out. Cannot do this today in the Air Force. If you yell at an Airman - you may have an MEO complaint filed against you for "promoting an hostile environment" - not joking on this one, it happened to me. To demote and eventually discharge an airman because they cannot conform to standards - is like pulling teeth. Thanks to Legal. When I have a Personnel Information File on someone that looks like a medical record and I do not have enough documentation for demotion or Article 15 Action - therefore, I have to issue a 4th Letter of Reprimand? The system is broke in the Air Force - my opinion only.

Do not misunderstand me please, majority of our Airman are in the Air Force to serve their country, and they will die for it. They are sharp, professional, and these folks follow orders.

I believe the USAFA should stay in place, the training is different than West Point. The Army would have to have it's experts - AF Generals, Colonels, etc - in place. The US Marine Corp falls under the Navy, I think the Air Force should fall under the Army. The Air Force has been in the media much lately about morale. I believe this could - maybe not - fix some of this. The Army has a complete different mindset about military operations than the Air Force. I have worked for the Army on special training missions - and I loved it.

I know this will upset some of my fellow Airman - Sorry guys! Let's go drink a beer sometime. hahaha

Response by SMSgt Cary Baker made Oct 10 at 2015 6:59 AM

SMSgt Cary Baker — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 06:59:08 -0400

Let me go on to say, the Air Forces mission would not change! The Air Force would be ran by the Secretary of the Army, and the Chief of Staff of the Army. No different than how the Navy and Marines are ran. The Nave doesn't tell the Marine Corp how to conduct their operations - they have Generals for this. Nor would the Army tell the Air Force how to conduct their operations.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 10 at 2015 9:44 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:44:31 -0400

senior lecturer at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, Robert Farley is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force (University Press of Kentucky, 2014). Farley spoke with Associate Editor Diane Tedeschi in August.

Robert Farley should be grounded for writing that book to abolish the USAF. What will be his next book "The Case For Abolishing The United States Marine Corps".... if he does write that one he had better move to Russian and hang out with Snowden...

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 12:14 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:14:55 -0400

Combatant commanders integrate military power from all the branches and fights our nation's wars. Services are separate and distinct mainly due to funding (Title 10), so that no one land, air, or sea domain gets all the resources. Integrating the AF and ARMY again would certainly lead to a degradation of air power as the preponderance of resources get diverted to land based capabilities. Also, let's not even talk about span of control, and the complexity of managing such technically diverse organization. This is certainly not your 1940's technology were talking about here.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 2:40 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:40:38 -0400

Perhaps we should just merge them all into one single branch. We could call it "United States Armed Forces" or "USAF" for short..... :)

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 7:33 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:33:37 -0400

No matter how this is worded it is horse manure...

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2015 2:36 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 02:36:37 -0400

SPC Henry, thanks for supporting the stereotype that Air Force is smarter than Army. The author of the book lacks credibility in two ways. First, he never served in any branch of the military. Secondly, he refers to pre-1947 Air Force as Army Air Force. The correct name is the Army Air Corps. That in and of itself isn't a big deal, but when you factor in that all of the author's opinions are based on extensive research, you can't help but question how thorough was his research if he can't even get the name right. It is my opinion that before you criticize the way the military operates, grab a gun and man a post for a bit. This guy has the nerve to stand in front of students and lecture them on military matters without ever having served? WTF, over!

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 11 at 2015 6:30 AM

SGT Rick Ash — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 06:30:14 -0400

It is NOT time to roll the AF in with another branch. They have a different overall attitude and environment of highly specialized skills not present in any other branch. Leave them alone!

Response by SGT Jose Perdelia-Torres made Oct 11 at 2015 10:43 PM

SGT Jose Perdelia-Torres — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:43:10 -0400

Didn't it come from the Army? Army Aircorp? I disagree, we need an Air-force as a stand-alone military branch. it is simply to large of a component to be under another branch

Response by CPT Norman Pickett made Oct 13 at 2015 7:30 PM

CPT Norman Pickett — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:30:51 -0400

Downsizing is tough. As the working population continues to shrink and the number of nonworking citizens is growing, I think some changes in government including the Armed Forces is not only smart but essential.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Oct 16 at 2015 3:09 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:09:41 -0400

I believe we would better serve the taxpayers by making a major effort to reduce redundant functions among the services and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. We should have a Congressionally mandated BRAC-like process to overhaul the Services' missions and functions, organizations, and processes. Changes to facilities, staffing, and budgets to follow. Start with a 25% reduction in all headquarters above division/wing level including Services and Joint and Defense staffs.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 16 at 2015 4:37 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:37:34 -0400

WHAT!?!?? Seriously? Who comes up with stupid crap like this....what is a Political scientist and who are they to even make or suggest something like this? Yeah, not ever going to happen.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 20 at 2015 10:08 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:08:22 -0400

This is plain silly. About the only case for downsizing is reducing the USMC into the army , minus boat ops, ship board and boarding party troops. The Navy does not need its own army, not in this day and age. Where is the Ocean in Af-Pack land? And there will never be another large sized assault on a hostile shore again.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Oct 20 at 2015 10:11 PM

MAJ James Woods — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:11:07 -0400

In for bringing back the Army Air Corps. LOL!

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Oct 29 at 2015 11:53 AM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:53:57 -0400

I'll simply add my 2 cents ($20.00 with inflation). I spend two years in the US Army and 6 years in the USAF after. While on the ground and under heavy fire from enemy troops (Vietnam), I thought the most beautiful sight was not a Huey helicopter, but the USAF F-4 with trailing smoke and screaming engines blowing the #$%^ of of the guys nailing us. that's why I wanted to join the Air Force. I have tremendous respect for every service and for the mission they perform. Esprit de Corp (hope I spelled it right, I am getting old) keeps a healthy competition and traditions alive. Keep the uniformed services separate. Just because someone has cost containment as their priority doesn't mean more efficiency in the end. Just my opinion. I'm thankful to all of you who have served no matter the branch....

Response by Maj Jeff Dodd made Oct 29 at 2015 12:19 PM

Maj Jeff Dodd — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:19:50 -0400

If the USAF were abolished, where would the other services go for fine dining and world-class golf courses? Ever stayed at a Navy Lodge? Eww.

Response by Cpl Terry Fowler made Oct 30 at 2015 6:56 PM

Cpl Terry Fowler — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:56:50 -0400

I dont think there would be any real reason to do this what would be the benefits

Response by Col Kyle Taylor made Oct 31 at 2015 8:31 AM

Col Kyle Taylor — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 08:31:02 -0400

Let me start with saying the USAF made a huge mistake putting too much focus on strategic bombing and if it weren't for people like General "Pete" Quesada, the AF probably wouldn't even have tactical air forces. I would suggest that all aviation should be under the Air Force. Some would argue that no body would want to go aboard ship etc but that is bunk. Taking a supporting role for any other service is an honor many in the services do every day. As a member of the USAF I Have served with the USMC, deployed on Navy ship, and been assigned to an Army base, I've seen it work in action. It takes people to understand that what they are tasked to do is for the betterment of the country and not just the Service they are in. They must be able to plan and execute missions at any time that may be strategic or tactical...plan accordingly.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 5:03 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:03:41 -0400

As an AF member, yes, we need to be under the army.

Response by MSgt Jeffrey Glick made Nov 1 at 2015 4:34 AM

MSgt Jeffrey Glick — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 04:34:18 -0500

Okay so you can see from the other comments that this is crazy talk and we will just say negative that is a really bad idea

Response by MSgt Dave Burke made Nov 5 at 2015 3:02 PM

MSgt Dave Burke — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 15:02:49 -0500

I can see more of a trend to merge all services into a single one - United States Military. There is much overlap in which branch does what that it makes sense to put them all under one roof. For an example of the overlapping duties you need only look at Lajes AB, Azores where the Navy flies the planes, the Army has the boats/ships, and the Air Force does the rest. If you look deeper you will find many more examples.

Response by SSgt Paul Esquibel made Nov 30 at 2015 1:48 PM

SSgt Paul Esquibel — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:48:54 -0500

I wouldn't say abolish, but I could see the Air Force changing commands and falling back under the Army as in today's Air Force more and more AFSC's are not deploying and doing their jobs but instead are tasked with the Army. So like the Marines fall under the Navy I could see due to budgetary reasons if the government was to restructure the branch and have it fall under the Army again. I think as a whole the government invests too much money into the military to the point of it being wasteful, this is not saying we shouldn't have the most advanced aircraft but there comes a time that regardless of the pilots that stand to possibly loose the aircraft they have been trained on need to be retired as the cost of repair out weighs the use.

Response by Sgt Brent Wanstreet made Jan 25 at 2016 6:59 PM

Sgt Brent Wanstreet — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:59:12 -0500

I have to be honest, I did not spend a lot of time on the article, however I would suggest this man never wore a uniform. I agree with him that air support will continue to be an important part of any conflict going forward but do not believe consolidation is appropriate. Each branch of the military, in my opinion serves a very specific purpose and is well trained and skilled to serve that purpose. I do not believe any branch can be all things to all people.

Response by PO2 Larry Eslinger made Oct 8 at 2016 1:24 PM

PO2 Larry Eslinger — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:24:09 -0400

There should be no separation of the armed forces. Each outfit should be assigned to a regional command. This assignment should be under a command structure that controls all of the assets. Air/land/sea, focused into an operation without all the liaison issues that cause mission failures. The majority of our forces are a complete waste of money. We need to be far more effecient.

Response by PO2 Larry Eslinger made Oct 8 at 2016 1:24 PM

PO2 Larry Eslinger — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:24:35 -0400

Response by SPC John Decker made Oct 8 at 2016 1:32 PM

SPC John Decker — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:32:10 -0400

Why not just have an air service a ground service, a sea service and a joint operations service. We have the means to put whatever troops are needed anywhere in the world in a relatively short period of time. The Acadamies could still be used to train people in their chosen service requirements. Each service would have a commander (who came up through that service) who would answer to SecDef. Obviously, details would have to be worked out, but it seems to me that while rivalry has its place, there is too much inter-service rivalry the way it is now.

Response by PO2 Larry Eslinger made Oct 8 at 2016 1:35 PM

PO2 Larry Eslinger — Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:35:33 -0400

There should be a single command/rank structure. Example: operations and actions are always compromised by inter agency coordination. This would be eliminated by breaking our defense/offense into regional commands. Controlling air/land/sea assets as necessary for the objective. Far more effecient eliminate all the different ranks into one system. Uniforms dependent on what you do. No need to dress like a schrubbery if your on a sub.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 9 at 2016 4:41 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Sun, 09 Oct 2016 16:41:07 -0400

when did the Air Force get considered military?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2017 11:32 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:32:38 -0400

I work in an Air Force base, and I have for two years. It's a joke. There's no discipline, no structure, no military bearing. I say let the Marines have them for five years.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Oct 21 at 2017 1:35 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:35:35 -0400

With respect tot he question, there is room for Air Force leadership to get their head out of their duffle bag. The C-27J Spartan issue comes to mind, the US taxpayer spend 528 million dollars on aircraft to see them shelved after they got delivered? Sorry some four star should be in Leavenworth for that. The inept decision in Afghanistan to not have Field Artillery in place to back up our forces in the early part of the war, and being reliant on aircraft only. Only using Air Force air traffic controllers to call in air strikes, so there is room for improvements.

Going back and revisiting the Key West Accord and looking at the Army having more fixed wing air assets may be a good thing, as the Air Force has shown little interest in the needs of the Army unless there is a half billion dollars of funds to blow. The US Forestry Service could use those shelved aircraft to put out fires, instead of collecting dust.

Response by SPC Donn Sinclair made Oct 21 at 2017 5:19 PM

SPC Donn Sinclair — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 17:19:12 -0400

Bored? Nothing to do today? Figured you'd light the fuse in this forum?

Response by CW5 Jack Cardwell made Oct 21 at 2017 5:39 PM

CW5 Jack Cardwell — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 17:39:04 -0400

They were split off from the Army for a reason.

Response by A1C Mathew Wood made Oct 24 at 2017 12:55 PM

A1C Mathew Wood — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:55:15 -0400

Why do these posts keep popping up? Abolish/Absorb branches.

Response by SSgt Stephen Bramham made Aug 20 at 2021 8:03 PM

SSgt Stephen Bramham — Fri, 20 Aug 2021 20:03:54 -0400

Just roll the Air Force into the Space Force.
Sarcasm mode off!