America benefits a lot from air superiority. American troops have enjoyed the benefits of air support and the denial of air support to enemies since 1944. But with modern artillery, is it enough to win ground campaigns if you merely deny an enemy air support? Should the Army as the consumer be allowed to decide the mix of aircraft and ground-based fires that provide fire support under the umbrella of the Air Force air superiority mission?
I've written
that if you deny an enemy with superior air power the ability to use
their air power, you can dominate ground warfare if you have superior
artillery. Gaining your own air superiority is irrelevant in that situation.
That's Russia's plan against NATO. Russia screwed up many military tasks in their invasion of Ukraine. But this worked:
NATO nations have been studying operations in Ukraine to extract useful lessons for defending themselves in a future war. One important vulnerability was the ease with which airbases and the aircraft there can be destroyed by short-range ballistic missiles.
More dispersal airfields, fast runway repair capabilities, and hardened aircraft shelters are needed in the face of that threat to keep our air power in the fight. Not just missile defenses.
But we have to consider whether expensive aircraft are the way to provide ground forces in contact with the enemy with timely fire support. I mean, the Air Force doesn't seem to care about using expensive stealth aircraft to put explodey things on enemies near the Army.
Seriously, actively not caring.
The use of drones in Ukraine for all kinds of troops support bolsters my view that the Air Force should give up the role, personnel, and funding for close air support in favor of building a new Army Air Corps with the ground support mission that includes--but is not restricted to--drones.
Let the Army decide if it wants drones, attack helicopters, or simple or advanced fixed wing ground attack aircraft. I'll guess that attack helicopters suddenly lose favor when they aren't the only strike aircraft the Army can have.
This Army Air Corps 2.0 could include the drone combat air patrol air defense mission against enemy drones in the "brown skies" over Army maneuver units at the tip of the spear, as I argued for in Army magazine.
And more general purpose artillery, of course. The God of War demands it. And longer range, of course.
The Army would then provide most of the kinetic assets for a black box of effects support for troops in contact with the enemy.
Let the Air Force focus on air superiority and deeper ground attack missions away from the battlefields (in addition to other responsibilities away from the battlefield). And I don't care that the Air Force already had part of its job carved out by Space Force. Boo friggin' hoo, says the Army that once had an Army Air Force. It's not my fault the Air Force let go of the space mission to a separate service. I wanted to give it to the Air Force.
Perhaps with total financial responsibility for fire support, the Army will decide that long-range ground-based fires--including hypersonic missiles--are superior to advanced aircraft for most long-range support missions. And if that is most effective, that's how we should provide fire support for Army troops.
So maybe we should build an Army Fires Corps 1.0 instead of an Army Air Corps 2.0.
UPDATE: The Army is discussing with allies in a summit in Poland how to use HIMARS and MLRS systems:
“We see this as the underpinning of an expanded ability to fight with joint fires in support of large-scale combat operations,” V Corps commander Lt. Gen. John S. Kolasheski said in a statement Wednesday.
And this is interesting:
“The HIMARS can go on C-130 and C-17 (cargo planes) and be transported around the European theater and make a big impact,” he said in the statement.
Why not just let the Army fly an aircraft able to fire rockets at ground targets if that mobility is needed? Why go through the trouble of asking the Air Force to move a wheeled rocket vehicle with scarce airlift?
And if the Army wants some of its own cargo planes to move HIMARS, let that be an Army decision based on how to best use their fires support appropriations.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
