Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Command of Airpower
Message-ID: <1990Nov29.002331.18628@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 29 Nov 90 00:23:31 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department
Lines: 46
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl)
If we accept the range principle of weapon command as valid (see my posting
"Range Principle of Weapon Command"), then aircraft, which have a range of
several hundred miles, should be commanded at the theater level.  When
commanding aircraft at the theater level, it makes little difference in terms
of command and control whether the aircraft are part of the air force or part
of the army.  However, in terms of training, maintenance, and operations it
makes a lot of sense to have the air power organized separately.  The labels
"Army Air Corps" and "Air Force" make little practical difference.

>From this, I conclude that the air force should command *all* aircraft,
including all helicopters.  This includes the air units currently in the army,
navy, and marine corps.  (I am assuming the US structure, adjust as needed for
other countries.)  The approach has a number of advantages.
- There is less incentive to place functionality inappropriately in
  helicopters.  The US Army appears to spend extraordinary effort to place
  capability in helicopters that might be better placed on fixed-wing
  aircraft.  (They can't have fixed-wing aircraft so they make helicopters
  that cost as much as jets.)
- There is likely to be less unproductive duplication in the development of
  aircraft.  The US Air Force and US Navy insist on ignoring the aircraft
  developed by the other, which means production runs are short and expensive.
- There is more integration of training and maintenance efforts.  Flying and
  fixing helicopters is probably much closer to that of fixed wing aircraft
  than that of tanks or frigates.
- Better coordination of air assets than the current multi-force structure
  provides.

With this approach you get naval air power by attaching naval-qualified air
force units to various ships, just as the air force attaches units to land
bases.

Is placing all aircraft in a single service the best approach?  What are the
other arguments for and against?  (I'm presuming that since this is
SCI.military, we can discuss force structures that may not be politically
feasible.)

[mod.note:  It pushes the envelope a bit, but I think it's worth
considering here.  - Bill ]

-- 
  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-9499	University of Rochester
		      crowl@cs.rochester.edu	Computer Science Department
		 ...!rutgers!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627