Forum: Air Power

Airmen as 'light infantry' may hinder AF mission

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123037176Commentary by Lt. Col. Gerald Goodfellow
28th Operations Group

1/10/2007 - ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, S.D. (ACCNS) -- Every couple of weeks I have the pleasure of briefing Ellsworth Air Force Base's newest first-term Airmen. Every time I brief these young Airmen, I make the point that the majority of our day-to-day focus here in the 28th Bomb Wing is to put "Bombs on Target from B-1 Bombers."

However, since Sept. 11 many Ellsworth Airmen have participated in combat operations that do not have anything to do with putting bombs on target from B-1s. In fact, Airmen from across Ellsworth have filled ground force combat gaps and taken part in harrowing firefights and missions in support of ground (mostly Army) forces through "in-lieu-of" taskings. I deeply respect the Airmen from Ellsworth who are, in many cases, heroically supporting our current wars on the ground. It is a fortunate situation that Air Force Airmen can support the joint fight and add to America's security in ways we did not imagine in the past. It is also fortunate for the other services' ground forces that we can "prop up" their capabilities by supporting them through these "in-lieu-of" taskings.

These kinds of taskings are not what most of us expected when we joined the Air Force. However, these are taskings that we are now being given and it is reassuring to me that we, as professional Airmen, will continue to carry them out with the same professionalism and dedication we aspire to when we "put bombs on target" from B-1s. This dedication and professionalism is what makes me feel fortunate to be part of the Ellsworth team and a Service, the U.S. Air Force, which has so selflessly supported these taskings. However, at some point the military community as a whole will need to take a hard look at the "in-lieu-of" taskings concept, and determine if Airmen should continue to perform these kinds of taskings.

I personally hope that all the services are currently striving to organize in a way that will largely prevent Air Force personnel from conducting "in-lieu-of" taskings in the future. This is because I do not believe the Air Force should be in the business of fighting combat operations on the ground. For example, although today it is a necessity, I do not believe in the long-run any Army or Air Force general officer will determine that it is in America's best security interests to continue to have Airmen driving trucks in Army convoys. As Air Force Doctrine Document 1 points out, the role of the Air Force spelled out by law in the National Security Act of 1947 is to "Organize, train, and equip aviation forces for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. This basic charter has essentially remained unchanged to the present."

America has branches of the service that specialize in ground combat and those services should perform those roles as directed by law just as the Air Force should perform its roles as directed by law. Ground warfare is not a role of the Air Force beyond some very specialized duties all of which are spelled out in Air Force doctrine, which include: force protection of air assets on the ground where they are most vulnerable, special operations to enhance air warfare, civil engineering functions (to include combat engineers), etc.

The last sentence of the current Air Force mission statement boils down very succinctly what I hope we continue to concentrate on in the Air Force: "...to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace." I believe our piece of that mission here at Ellsworth is flying and fighting from B-1s, and meeting our additional Air Force responsibilities to man expeditionary Air Force units with expeditionary combat support forces to support the larger overall Air Force mission. Ideally, I believe everybody stationed at Ellsworth from the wing commander to the Airmen in civil engineering, maintenance, flight kitchen, personnel, bomb squadrons, etc., should be stationed at Ellsworth to support our B-1 and expeditionary combat support mission. I do understand that Airmen at Ellsworth will continue to fill "in-lieu-of" taskings for the foreseeable future. However, I also hope we can support these taskings without diminishing B-1 or Air Force capabilities. In fact, anybody who seriously considers combat for a living realizes the Air Force's importance to the joint fight, and would never want to see Air Force capabilities diminished. In a nutshell:

"Who controls the air controls the fight. When all the sterile debates between Soldiers and Airmen are set aside, this hard reality remains. It has been more than fifty years since U.S. forces faced an enemy willing and able to contest control of the airspace over the battlefield. We can't count on that condition to endure automatically. Were it to change, the offensive rapidity demonstrated so vividly in this war would become virtually infeasible. The Army and Marine Corps thus have a vested interest in the continued unchallenged superiority of their Air Force, Navy, and Marine Air partners, and acknowledging that interest needn't and shouldn't be seen as undermining their own strategic importance."

The above statement from the April 24, 2003 Washington Post was written by retired Col. Richard Sinnreich during the first weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom. What makes the statement so compelling is the fact that Colonel Sinnreich is not an Air Force officer but a former Army officer, who served at the Army's School for Advanced Military Studies, as its director between 1985 and 1987. SAMS is perhaps the Army's premier school for training officers with the abilities to solve complex war related problems.

In America's current wars the Air Force has found itself in a situation where it, in effect, has to pay for and train its Airmen to serve ground duty (a form of "light infantry", to quote Gen. Ronald Keys, Air Combat Command commander) and then pay to supply that light infantry with items from bullet proof vests to armored vehicles to keep them safe. In the future I hope the Air Force can stop doing this because I, like Colonel Sinnreich, believe the Air Force and our nation have a vested interest in retaining the ability to gain and maintain air superiority in our future wars. Further, I believe the Air Force should spend its money on capabilities that will ensure future air dominance. When the Air Force loses manpower or defense money because it has to fill unanticipated gaps in sister service capabilities, the Air Force is put at a disadvantage when it comes to modernizing its own capabilities.

I find myself in a dilemma when it comes to "in-lieu-of" taskings. I'm so very proud when I hear the stories of the firefights and tough ground combat that Ellsworth Airmen are performing as part of their "in-lieu-of" service. However, I also understand that supporting non-Air Force roles for prolonged periods could in the long run prove detrimental to the Air Force and America's overall security. This is why it is so important that we at Ellsworth continue to find ways to work smarter to fulfill our "bombs on target" mission while we continue to support the other kinds of taskings we receive.

F-16.net Sponsor

Interesting article. All Airmen taken out of their primary duties, trained in ground combat skills, and then performing the "light infantry" mission (i.e. convoy, resupply missions, etc. and extremely well) should be commended.

I also agree with General Ron Keys's assessment that taking these Airmen out of their primary duties for a prolonged period of time and training and equipping them for ground combat ops (which costs $$$) is a big concern too.

I first read about this over a month ago in one of the Janes news briefs. To me.... this is a serious abuse of the military! It is not just airmen being used to increase the number of light infantry on the ground, artillery personnel are also being given a couple weeks training then sent out on ground patrols.
The former president (in between chasing skirts) signed legislation that allowed businesses to terminate reservist who have been on active duty for more than six months!

The USMC is so low on personnel that reservist are not being allowed to end their reserve status, regardless of the original commitment. Right now, once a Marine always a Marine!

Adrian

Geez, we used to complain about having to stand fireguard for refueling...

Best Regards,

JoeSambor wrote:

Geez, we used to complain about having to stand fireguard for refueling...

Best Regards,

Yeah Joe, but complaining is just what we do. And we're all pretty good at it...

Mike

I always thought of it less as "complaining" and more as "making an observation". I wasn't a complainer, I was an observer. By the way, great picture of Mike Hare. I knew him at Spang.

Best Regards,

This is a really stupid idea. When did it start? When Jumper was AFCOS? What AFSCs will be tasked for these jobs?

Oh yeah, and didn't that rule about Reservists being terminated get overturned? I believe that falls under the Soldiers and Sailors' Relief Act.

USAF logistics troops have done some great work in the convoy escort role. However they are not trained ground troops, the quicky John Wayne course they go through isn't enough. If we are to have Luftwaffe ground forces like in WWII, then we need to turn USAF basic training into a harder effort. And not more in line with the Army, but our basic should be that of the Marines. This ground mission indirectly ties in with other expeditionary warfare mindsets. The one Gen. Jumper idea that we should get some STOVL JSF for USAF.... and since the new rescue requirement for USAF is a modified CH-47, we need to get some of these plain jane for logistics hauling to a pure STOVL/VTOL bare base that has USAF:

STOVL JSF
CH-47 (plain version for cargo/utility)
V-22 (plain version for cargo/utility).
Have an expeditionary warfare Wing that has these three airframes in it.

Lets not do this USAF expeditionary warfare stuff halfway on the long distance roadmap.

I think the mission ( Iraq ) sux. But it is the mission and we don't have a choice. USAF deployed people are something to be extremely pround of.

CH-47s are the absolute last thing I had expected (read that, hoped) would come into AF service. If you had asked me 7 years ago, I would've thought the $hit-hooks would be heading to AMARC by now. It's time we got more of these big, slow choppers off of the front lines. I know they have a useful mission, but they're RPG and MANPAD fodder.

It's time to get AF troops out of Army billets, and get them back into their REAL AFSCs. If the Army has a problem with that, then they should either:

Recruit more troops (unpopular with the "Why are we here?" folks).

Cross-train more existing troops into those necessary billets (unpopular with those in the Army).

Extend more Guard/Reserve deployments (the most unpopular option with seemingly everyone).

Or, they should've extended the "Blue to Green" transfers (unpopular with those in the AF and some in Congress).

We could take the USAF expeditionary warfare mindset even further. Have USAF take over control of the Patriot weapon systems. This is not meant to be a slight against our hard working Army. What this would do is allow us to better tie in net-centric theater defense and that of course means having some defense against theater ballistic missiles. This would make air defense decisions at the theater combat headquarters, easier to coordinate. Think about that one. A side benefit from this is Army could turn those Patriot manpower slots into something better needed like ground fighters.

The expeditionary wing airframes I mentioned above should be "salty" too. STOVL JSF will probably have this out of the box. V-22 and CH-47 would need to be spec'd out to this standard. This allows the airframe to better endure salt water environs. We also want this expeditionary wing to have the ability, when needed to be placed aboard Navy ships. Not to really base out of, but to interact with, for logistics issues. This would be a nice option to have to call upon if ever a joint operation required this. Ship qualified landing and take off for at least the V-22 and CH-47 sould be considered.
This would also come in handy when the expeditionary wing is tasked for disaster relieve either foreign or domestic. The make up of this wing would also copy/paste nicely to a Guard organization.(i.e. a nice handful of light combat jets, and helos and V-22 for state disaster relief or other tasked logistics duties.

I would leave how many wings we should have organized like this up to the pros, but a few wouldn't hurt.

TC wrote:

CH-47s are the absolute last thing I had expected (read that, hoped) would come into AF service. If you had asked me 7 years ago, I would've thought the $hit-hooks would be heading to AMARC by now. It's time we got more of these big, slow choppers off of the front lines. I know they have a useful mission, but they're RPG and MANPAD fodder.

It's time to get AF troops out of Army billets, and get them back into their REAL AFSCs. If the Army has a problem with that, then they should either:

Recruit more troops (unpopular with the "Why are we here?" folks).

Cross-train more existing troops into those necessary billets (unpopular with those in the Army).

Extend more Guard/Reserve deployments (the most unpopular option with seemingly everyone).

Or, they should've extended the "Blue to Green" transfers (unpopular with those in the AF and some in Congress).

Any helos are at some kind of risk. We will always need rescue helos. Having helos for a logistics support function for a STOVL/VTOL only bare base isn't a bad thing. They can lift a lot and would be handy for moving munitions and fuel bladders just to name one thing. Occasional sky hook duties for helping CE set up a bare base. They are now back in production, so new airframes aren't a problem.
In my idea for the wing mentioned above, V-22 can't do it all and CH-47 can't do it all but they would compliment each other well. Where part of the wing is back at a major logistics hub that is serviced by big airlifters, V-22 can make quick runs from the bare base to there as needed. CH-47 is better for heavy lift hover to be setting up the next bare base in a hop-scotch fashion while strike ops are running out of the current base.
Yes the Army has problems with hair on them. My whole idea of this is that I want the USAF to always be conspicuously relevant to current and future needs. This will be more important when budgets start being cut even more. And that is going to happen. An expeditionary warfare wing has a better chance of winning the war-by-PowerPoint up all the way through congress.

Of the about 32,000 airman we have deployed in OIF and OEF... somewhere around 7700 are doing Army taskings. What the solution is to that, given the Army is in a serious tailspin in several areas of leadership/management, I have no clue. Luftwaffe ground formations it is then. That is somewhere between a brigade and division strength.