Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Command of Airpower Message-ID: <1990Nov30.021534.8045@cbnews.att.com> Date: 30 Nov 90 02:15:34 GMT References: <1990Nov29.002331.18628@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA Lines: 96 Approved: military@att.att.com From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1990Nov29.002331.18628@cbnews.att.com>, crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes... ^ ^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. ^ ^>From this, I conclude that the air force should command *all* aircraft, ^including all helicopters. I am assuming that you refer to Apaches with this statement and not the "utility" choppers. I disagree here. There is a lot of flexibility is you allow units to have organic movement (and firepower) capability. Putting these at the "theater" level is counter-productive. Move the unit if you have to...not shift 10 choppers here to there. Yes, you buy a little streamlining at the cost of a lot of felixibility. The conceptual use of CAS and Helicopter assets is very similar to the deployment of other artillery assets and land transport. In concept an Apache is more similar to a M1 than a F16. A Blackhawk is more similar to a M113 than a C130. Anyway I digress and am arguing a slightly different concept anyway (Air Mobile). The Apache is one of the best tank killing aircraft of any type in our inventory. Your arguement that the role that Apache plays on the battlefield can more cheaply be filled by a fixed wing aircraft is debatable. For one you can stage Apaches closer to the front on makeshift fields. This leads to better overall response time. It also uses terrain much better than fixed wing aircraft. Add the fact that any high-tech aricraft costs lots of money I hardly see how you're going to save cash by replacing an Apache by an A16. Especially when they fill different niches. ^- 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. They have different design ideas AND missions. The Air Force wants dogfighters and the Navy wants to kill Backfires before they reach 250nm. They should use the same basic designs but they sure cant use the same exact aircraft. Naval variants of aircraft are much heavier than their land versions. You also run into the problem of objectives. When the Navy looks at the problem of air assets they are limited by how many aircraft a carrier can carry. So you buy the best you can because the cost of the carrier and supporting ships outweighs the cost of buying that extra bit. The Air Force is looking at (in some cases) quantity and wants a high low mix of aircraft. Lots of cheap (relatively) F16s and far fewer F15s. ^- 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. Maybe. But conceptually a helicopter is closer to a tank than an airplane (in use). And the helicopter is merely a form of a standoff weapon to a frigate. You don't want to group assets on the basis of maintenance and training. You want to group them with commanders who know how to use them. ^- Better coordination of air assets than the current multi-force structure ^ provides. No. Sorry, but we already have problems with coodination with ground units and ships. Are you seriously proposing to put ASW helicoptors under Air Force control? Why? How does this coordinate air assets better? ^ ^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. No...this way you get a mess. I'd really like to see you chain of command here. How does a FFG captain rate against the air force cmdr? Does he have to "request" an attack on a possible contact? Given your earlier statement that these units should be under "theater" control does he have to request launching authority from some Air Force command center? "Sorry...launch denied. Your aircraft have been designated to fly our General in from Washington." Not a happy situation ;-). ^ ^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 ] Yep. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.