Syndicate content
 

Topic “USAF”

USAF Serious About Irregular Warfare?

More good news from Inside the Pentagon?
The Air Force's top officials in charge of irregular warfare were briefed yesterday on new details of the service's sweeping plan to assert its role in such operations by bolstering ties with foreign militaries and buying new light attack aircraft, according to internal documents reviewed by Inside the Pentagon.

The previously undisclosed details concerning the proposed organization, force mix and personnel requirements to support the service's overarching IW effort were unveiled during a senior-level service powwow held at Air Combat Command headquarters at Langley Air Force Base, VA.

The specific requirements rolled out at yesterday's meeting were the result of analysis work conducted by "tiger team" officials led by the Air Staff's plans and programs directorate (A5), according the documents. ITP first reported Air Force efforts to bolster its IW capabilities in February.
USAF, IW

Scrap the Air Force?

Not even on my worst days do I go as far as this guy:

At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not. This is not the fault of the Air Force: it is simply not structured to be in the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Army, Marine and Navy personnel have borne the brunt of deployments, commonly serving multiple tours, the Air Force’s operational tempo remains comparatively comfortable. In 2007, only about 5 percent of the troops in Iraq were airmen.

Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending.
USAF

Quote of the Day

From an article in the FT on financial scams (this one is for our USAF readers):
There are certain professions in which the collective genius of the American people dominates the field: semiconductor design, fast food product differentiation, fire-control systems for air-to-air combat, and con artistry.
USAF

Question and Answer Time

A reader writes in:

Great note on the Afghan resupply problem. Would love to see someone pose the question about why the U.S. cannot build an "air bridge" into Afghanistan? Is it a matter of long-haul planes (C-17s)? Short-haul planes (C-130s)? Airstrip capacity? Logistical personnel / contractor capacity? Cost, which is basically a proxy for the other things? It seems to me that logistical support for power projection is one of the most important missions right now for the Air Force. And, from the Air Force's perspective, it should tickle them pink because it is a mission which can justify a ton of force structure. But they don't seem to have the muscle to do it. Why not?
Okay, gang. We have a lot of smart folks reading this blog. Does anyone care to take a shot at that question?

Update: While we're asking questions, here is another one. Look at the above picture, taken by the New York Times, of our air base in Kyrgyzstan. Notice the picture of the "working dog." What the hell kind of demon spawn dog is that?! Seriously, is it something we genetically crossed with a tiger or something?
Afghanistan, USAF

Capt. Bachelor, USAF

Only in the U.S. Air Force is there still a "Captain Bachelor". In the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, it's more like "Major Divorced-After-Four-Tours-in-Iraq" or "Captain-Leaving-the-Army-to-Have-a-Social-Life". U.S. Air Force Capt. Bachelor, a KC-10 Extender aircraft pilot from the 908th Expeditionary Aerial Refueling Squadron, flies the refueling track during a flight over Afghanistan on Dec. 10, 2008. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon, U.S. Air Force.

[h/t Phil]
USAF

Search