Is the Army committing a jointness sin by taking a mission the Air Force is supposed to carry out?
The Army's long-range strike capabilities "needlessly duplicate" Air Force capabilities?
Reducing excessive overlap across the services in this manner is exactly what is needed if DoD is to transform for great power competition and conflict with tightening budgets. However, it appears the Army is taking the opposite approach, at least for its strike forces. According to General McConville, the Army will invest billions to develop new surface-to-surface weapons and its own ISR, communication networks, and other systems needed to locate and attack targets over long ranges. This will allow the Army to attack the same targets that Air Force bombers and fighters can strike today, including Chinese A2/AD threats. In other words, the Army wants new long-range strike capabilities that would make them, in a sense, a second Air Force even as it claims it is doing so in the name of “jointness.”
And there are advantages to the Air Force for the Army's developing capabilities, as I wrote here:
Yes, long-range Army missiles could complement the Air Force. Army missiles that suppress air defenses could enable the Air Force to operate more effectively. But have no doubt the missiles are a replacement for close air support that the Army does not trust the Air Force wants to provide when the Army needs it. There's a good reason for that mistrust.
I'd be happy if the Army could spend money on other things. But the Army understands that the Air Force won't necessarily be where the Army needs it, when it needs it. Hence long-range fires.
I can totally see Army helicopters and drones on deep strike missions
using the long-range Army fires to pave the way for their movement and
to magnify direct fire at the objective without needing Air Force
support that may not arrive when needed.
I hate to say that. The Air Force was outstanding in providing fire support in Iraq and Afghanistan. The close air support was good enough to banish Army gallows humor about who the Air Force was aiming at.
And heck, it's still outstanding when other missions don't compete:
U.S. airpower continues to play a role in the ongoing fight against the remnants of the Islamic State.
At least one U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle was “part of coalition forces which conducted air strikes at request and approval of government of Iraq,” a defense official told Military Times Saturday afternoon.
But with a return to great power threats and the elevation of conventional warfare, Air Force priorities are changing and the Army has little choice unless it wants to do without the missions the Air Force won't prioritize.
Also, the Navy isn't about to object to Army shore-based strike assets assisting them. So I imagine the Air Force advocates will be alone on this objection.
UPDATE: The Air Force has a new mission statement. But the Army shouldn't worry because the Air Force consulted a wide spectrum across the Department of Defense to craft it:
“As we developed this new mission statement, we consulted Airmen from across the entire spectrum – enlisted, officers, reservists, guardsmen and civilians,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.
It'll be fine, I'm sure.
UPDATE: Refuting some of the BS reasons for opposing the Army initiative.
