America does not need the Air Force

[lookieloo]

David Axe, one of our favorites. I suppose this kind of idiocy must raise its head from time to time.

...even from the dawn of flight, it never made much sense to separate the professional upbringing of aerial warfighters from their sea and land counterparts. Since before World War I, aviators have supported soldiers and sailors through reconnaissance, interdiction of enemy transit, air transport and direct attacks against fielded enemy forces...

See: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ff4662469f95

[KamenRiderBlade]

How does he still have a job while writing such drivel?

[StolichnayaStrafer]

Not a very knowledgeable writer, is he? When the Air Force became independent of the Army in 1947, it actually had three distinct subsections. Those were MAC, SAC, and TAC. Certainly not a one minded entity devoted to carpet bombing victories equating to world peace. Then after Desert Storm restructuring led to ACC and AMC, still not a single minded entity but tailored to deal with a myriad of situations.

How these people make a living writing like this is way beyond me.

[lookieloo]

Axe digs the hole deeper.

Since When Does the Air Force Have a Monopoly on Air Power?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/c5211075d91e

[sorrydog]

Mr. Axe, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[count_to_10]

I can see an argument for originally organizing an air force under the auspices of the Navy, as opposed to springing it off the army -- you could unify long range bombing, ISR, and maritime patrol under one command (probably with the same aircraft), and there would definitely be advantages to using the same interceptor, strike, and CAS fighters from land bases as from carriers.
However, it's more of a historical accident which way it came out, and it would be beyond foolish to try to reorganize it for the US now.

[outacontrol]

Now, Now... I remember my first beer too... I just didn't go out and write a bunch of incoherent rambling afterward.

[southernphantom]

It's not complete idiocy; look at the Soviet model. Frontal Aviation was more Army Air Force in nature, and PVO/DA could realistically be folded into the navy. A separate Air Force is not strictly necessary, and I think that you could make an argument for rejiggering the command structure to more effectively support friendlies on land and sea.

[steakanddoritos]

[rotosequence]

*Spiderman Meme*

This is a bad post and you should feel bad for posting it.

There is a lot of overhead associated with maintaining the Air Force as a separate service. They jockey for funding, resources, and political will among the other branches, possess their own bureaucratic overhead, and prohibit the Army from operating specific vehicles and equipment to fulfill missions because it falls under the jurisdiction of the air force, and they don't want to allocate funding for those missions. Worse, it has created a culture that prescribes air power as a sole means of winning wars - a dubious claim that has faltered when faced with reality. I can point out a lot of problems that come from having an Air Force; can you tell me what the United States gains in having the Air Force as a separate service?

[structuresguy]

WOW! Where’s Billy Mitchell when you need him. I feel like I'm reading a bunch of crap nonsense from the 20's.

[smsgtmac]

America STILL does not need Robert Farley or David Axe. Farley's grasp of Airpower and its role in national security, as well as the Air Force's role in advancing Airpower are typical of any rump PolySci policy 'expert' coming out of the post-modern non-STEM education system: inconsequential.
This was drivel when it was published, it is drivel now. Axe can't keep a job with a reputable outfit so he's been dropping down the journalistic ladder- at least since he fell in with the Journolistas. Now he posts in what is pretty much his own playground, and uses really large font to cover a lack of substance. He relies on links from fringy friends hanging on at more mainstream outlets like AvWeek to keep him from completely falling off the webmeter.

And I'd like to know if the administrators would entertain a new category for threads. It could be called 'Troll Flypaper Topics'.

I've noticed certain lamentable threads (like this one) seem to resurrect themselves whenever they fade off the main page, but only when one of the resident soft-trolls wants to poke a stick at something, a new random troll pops up, or someone sees the carnage and can't resist trying to make it better. Don't delete these threads, but just move them over into the garbage pile where everyone can either ignore them or point and laugh at them. Let the membership nominate the thread, and let the administrators rule on the nomination.

[KamenRiderBlade]

America STILL does not need Robert Farley or David Axe. Farley's grasp of Airpower and its role in national security, as well as the Air Force's role in advancing Airpower are typical of any rump PolySci policy 'expert' coming out of the post-modern non-STEM education system: inconsequential.
This was drivel when it was published, it is drivel now. Axe can't keep a job with a reputable outfit so he's been dropping down the journalistic ladder- at least since he fell in with the Journolistas. Now he posts in what is pretty much his own playground, and uses really large font to cover a lack of substance. He relies on links from fringy friends hanging on at more mainstream outlets like AvWeek to keep him from completely falling off the webmeter.

And I'd like to know if the administrators would entertain a new category for threads. It could be called 'Troll Flypaper Topics'.

I've noticed certain lamentable threads (like this one) seem to resurrect themselves whenever they fade off the main page, but only when one of the resident soft-trolls wants to poke a stick at something or a new random troll pops up. Don't delete these threads, but just move them over into the garbage pile where everyone can either ignore them or point and laugh at them. Let the membership nominate the thread, and let the administrators rule on the nomination.

Who the heck pays for David Axe / Robert Farley / rest of the Aviation trolls, they write so much garbage, yet the real professionals should go in and rip them a new one, then get their sorry butts fired / banned.

[mk82]

David Axe = epic fail! Why don't we just ignore his garbage? He has nothing useful to contribute FULL STOP.

[lookieloo]

David Axe = epic fail! Why don't we just ignore his garbage? He has nothing useful to contribute FULL STOP.

@everyone here

First off, I think it's important to understand that Axe is a follower, not a leader, who repackages the ideas of a narrow cadre of semi-informed dilettantes and contrarians, most of whom share a similar political/philosophical bent. As for why I posted said drivel here, I think it's important to keep tabs on what people like Axe and others of his kind are saying because, like it or not, they have better access to a general audience than any of us. I don't know if anyone else noticed before they became a member, but f-16.net frequently pops up as a link during searches related to military aviation, making this site an optimum place for rebuttal and a frequent thorn-in-the-side for the likes of Bill Sweetman and his ilk (he complains about us all the time elsewhere).