Over the 1990s, I was certainly a critic of the Air Force despite my immense respect for their skills. I felt that the Air Force was unlikely to face any serious fighter opposition and that they should focus on supporting the Army (and Marines, too). Instead of lots of advanced fighters, we needed to focus on ground support and air transport.
But since the Afghanistan campaign and the Iraq War, the Air Force has lived up to my expectations of providing rapid and effective support to ground forces. The Times editorial is about 4 years out of date and rife with errors to boot. Do we need more A-10s as the editorial says? I think the Air Force is doing just fine with air support and while the A-10 should be kept around, isn't the role of coming in low and slow to take out tanks a less important mission now given the ability to plink tanks with GPS-guided bombs from the safety of high altitude? The idiotorial's (that started as a typo, but I think I'll keep it. And make it the title!) comments on C-130s being able to replace truck convoys is ignorant as well. Air lift can never and is not able to replace road or rail traffic. We do it in Afghanistan at a hefty price since roads are few not dangerous. In Iraq, airlift is only replacing a tiny percentage of the traffic on the ground. We need airlift so I'll give them partial credit, but the Times is truly clueless.
Their complaint that we should slim down the Air Force and ramp up the Army to make sure the Army has a 1:5 time ratio of Iraq duty to home duty is just silly. One, just because the Air Force is not needed as much right now in Iraq does not mean it is not needed for other war scenarios in the future. Are we to specialize our military for the war we are in right now in order to provide the Times team with fodder for a future editorial about the folly of preparing for the last war? So, gutting the Air Force is short-sighted. The editorial ignores that the Air Force is slimming down and is moving personnel to the Army in the Blue to Green program. In addition, even if you simply take the editorial as a call to enlarge the Army, we cannot rapidly expand the Army. It would take perhaps a decade to add 250,000 troops to get us to a ratio of 150,000 troops in Iraq with 750,000 out (for their 1:5 ratio), including mobilized reservists. If you just want active duty troops, add even more troops.
The Times also extols Navy aircraft as not needing land bases unlike Air Force units. This is just ignorant. Even in the early days of the Afghan campaign when Navy combat planes took the lead, they needed land-based Air Force tanker support and land-based search-and-rescue bases. Rapid replenishment of key munitions and spare parts also requires nearby land air bases, to transfer them to planes for carrier delivery. Their preference for unpiloted aircraft "that can be launched by remote control" is amazing. Their word choice makes it sound like they are cluless about UCAVs and I'd like to ask, just where are those unpiloted aircraft supposed to be based from? Shangra La? The long-range bomber aspect ignores that launching from Missouri is not ideal. Indeed, we have bases set up on Guam and Diego Garcia in order to support bombers overseas so they don't have to fly the long missions from the US. In addition, I find it odd that a paper so contemptuous of unilateral action seems to find it preferable to be able to operate without regional allies that make air base access necessary. Have they even thought this through?
The editorial complaint about the F/A-22 ignores some important facts. One, much of the cost is already spent (from development), so building zero units will have an impressive per-unit cost. Second, the military has already reduced the goal of 800+ fighters to enough for a couple wings and training/spares, as I've argued for several years now. A hedge against a Chinese threat or an unanticipated threat is surely justified even if a massive force with no enemies is not. I would like to point out that making that outstanding fighter an ersatz fighter-bomber is silly and reminds me of the Me-262 debacle of World War II when Hitler ordered the superb fighter to have bomb doors added. We have stealthy bomb droppers. The F-22 is an air superiority hedge.
The Times says that there is little likelihood of the reemergence of a high-tech superpower that can challenge our Air Force. I'd like to suggest that China is seeking a very narrowly focused high-tech air force that can keep us off their backs long enough to take Taiwan. If that happens, I imagine the Times would be quick to criticize for failing to anticipate that threat.
Finally, the Times concludes:
The Pentagon needs to reallocate its recruitment levels and spending accordingly, even if it means forcing the Air Force to accept a different role than the one it expected to have a decade or two ago.
The Air Force is adapting nicely to the role of providing fast and effective support to the ground forces; though I concede it is being dragged to some extent.
I suggest the Times reallocate its editorial positions to reflect what is true now and not what was reality four years ago.
The boys (and gals) in blue are doing just fine.
