U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-27-2018, 11:31 AM
 
18,653 posts, read 10,224,321 times
Reputation: 18349

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
There certainly can be a space force, even with existing treaties. Military activities do not necessarily mean kinetic activities. Space is a separate domain of warfare and current US doctrine clearly treats it as distinct from air.

The Air Force is focused on fighter pilots with butts in seats and, as a poor and less sexy relation, drones. I don’t see the kind of focus or resources on the critical space domain. Focus means adequate doctrine, training, operations, funding, and personnel systems. When you’re all about the next fighter, that is easy to get left behind as it relates to space-and generally is, to the point the other services felt the need to develop their own space capability. That wasn’t because the USAF was knocking it out of the park as it relates to space.
Having myself been involved with the SAC staff battles to keep the SR-71 flying during the 80s, I'm well aware of the budget competitions of Air Force mafias.

I can imagine it happening, but I haven't actually seen any figures indicating that's happening with regard to the Air Force performing space activities. .

However, a separate military service, must, for sure, include kinetic activities or it doesn't really have a reason to exist. I've not seen a single argument actually proposed showing something that should have happened that did not happen...not as could be shown in the late 40s with regard to the Army Air Corps.

Show me a failure

Quote:
I think saying the ‘Army didn’t know how to use it’ (AirPower) is accurate, but saying AirPower was more naturally a corps asset and shouldn’t have been in division is an incomplete argument. How do you know that was the ‘right’ answer rather than ‘an’ answer? It may have changed with the focus on brigades (haven’t looked it up lately), but at one time when Divisions were the focus Artillery successfully existed as an asset at BOTH corps and division. That wasn’t necessarily right and every other model wrong-it was a reasonably effective choice. I submit Air at division rather than corps wasn’t absolutely wrong-it was a choice.
The RAF at the same time was doing it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2018, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
2,666 posts, read 4,473,435 times
Reputation: 4282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Having myself been involved with the SAC staff battles to keep the SR-71 flying during the 80s, I'm well aware of the budget competitions of Air Force mafias.

I can imagine it happening, but I haven't actually seen any figures indicating that's happening with regard to the Air Force performing space activities. .

However, a separate military service, must, for sure, include kinetic activities or it doesn't really have a reason to exist. I've not seen a single argument actually proposed showing something that should have happened that did not happen...not as could be shown in the late 40s with regard to the Army Air Corps.

Show me a failure



The RAF at the same time was doing it right.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree that you *must* have a kinetic mission to be a military service. Clearly the President and some amount of the government also disagrees with you-as do some (not all) national security academics:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-we-need-space-force

Lack of failure is not a raging success, as I tell my son when he gets a C, and the British military is not the American military. What worked for them isn’t proof it was the only way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
2,804 posts, read 1,789,081 times
Reputation: 3081
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
Well, look at this way.


West Point is part of the Department of the Army and, hence their budget.


Colorado Springs (right?) is part of the Department of the Air Force and, hence their budget.


Would you want to be paying for the education of someone else's officers?

I suppose that depends on one's experiences.

I remember Andrews as a good place for space A flights out of the NAF (and a good place to lose it all if one said the wrong things in ear shot of Secretaries) and a wonderful working relationship with their MWD unit.
re the bolded; I think what you meant to say is that The Air Force Academy is a Dept of the Air Force, hence its budget.

Colorado Springs is a home rule municipality, a city separate from The Air Force Academy. It was founded in 1871 and did not include any significant military personnel until WW1 and did not have any bases in the region until WW2. The AFA initiated classes in 1955 at Lowry AFB in Denver and did not move into its facility near Colo Spgs until it was completed in 1958. At this time, The AFA was 15 miles from Colo Spgs. At present, the city of Colo Spgs very nearly surrounds The AFA, expect for its mountainous western edge.

The United States Military Academy, or West Point as it is commonly known, was originally conceived as a military outpost in 1778 and is the oldest continuously occupied military post in the United State that is still only a census designated place and not an official town or city, despite the growth of the US Military Academy within it.

Last edited by TCHP; 12-27-2018 at 05:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 06:01 PM
 
18,653 posts, read 10,224,321 times
Reputation: 18349
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
I’ll have to respectfully disagree that you *must* have a kinetic mission to be a military service. Clearly the President and some amount of the government also disagrees with you-as do some (not all) national security academics:
Yeah, and his Secretary of Defense walked out on him, so the fact that the president thinks it's a good idea doesn't buy much.

Here is the stone, cold fact in the military: Things that shoot take precedence over things that don't. A "military service" that doesn't shoot isn't a military service. It will always be begging for money because real combat forces will always take precedence.

As I said, I've been in those scrapes before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 06:07 PM
 
18,653 posts, read 10,224,321 times
Reputation: 18349
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCHP View Post
re the bolded; I think what you meant to say is that The Air Force Academy is a Dept of the Air Force, hence its budget.
No, she said what she meant. The Air Force is a department, the Air Force Academy is a command within the Department of the Air Force. But because it's a command within the Air Force and because the Air Force needs officers, the Department of the Air Force budgets the Academy.

Another Department, such as the Army or the Navy is not going to budget for Air Force officers. That is to say, they're not going to provide the logistics to support that function.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
2,666 posts, read 4,473,435 times
Reputation: 4282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Yeah, and his Secretary of Defense walked out on him, so the fact that the president thinks it's a good idea doesn't buy much.

Here is the stone, cold fact in the military: Things that shoot take precedence over things that don't. A "military service" that doesn't shoot isn't a military service. It will always be begging for money because real combat forces will always take precedence.

As I said, I've been in those scrapes before.
In the end, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I submit your comment about ‘things that shoot take precedence over things that don’t’, coming from a former USAF officer, totally encapsulates the institutional prejudice against space that means the Air Force (as a service) won’t-indeed, can’t-be responsible and effective at manning, equipping, or training an effective space-focused capability. Culturally, the Army wants combat Brigades. The Navy wants ships. And you guys want planes. None of those are particularly effective in space.

I’ve done more than a bit of time in combatant commands, service component commands, and Army specific commands myself. Your experience appears to be different than mine in a geographic combatant command, where I saw rampant inter-service parochialism and kind of poo-pooing of anything not directly related to ‘core’ service missions. I simply don’t believe, based on personal observation, that the USAF cares very much about space. Or, more accurately, it cares, but only so it can use money likely best used for space, for more planes.

Last edited by GeorgiaTransplant; 12-27-2018 at 07:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 10:29 PM
 
18,653 posts, read 10,224,321 times
Reputation: 18349
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
In the end, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I submit your comment about ‘things that shoot take precedence over things that don’t’, coming from a former USAF officer, totally encapsulates the institutional prejudice against space that means the Air Force (as a service) won’t-indeed, can’t-be responsible and effective at manning, equipping, or training an effective space-focused capability. Culturally, the Army wants combat Brigades. The Navy wants ships. And you guys want planes. None of those are particularly effective in space.

I’ve done more than a bit of time in combatant commands, service component commands, and Army specific commands myself. Your experience appears to be different than mine in a geographic combatant command, where I saw rampant inter-service parochialism and kind of poo-pooing of anything not directly related to ‘core’ service missions. I simply don’t believe, based on personal observation, that the USAF cares very much about space. Or, more accurately, it cares, but only so it can use money likely best used for space, for more planes.
You're talking about setting up a whole new branch of military service. Training bases, logistics, equipment, operational locations...and this while the DoD is still effectively under sequestration, and the Air Force is only able to launch 70% of its planes on any given day. The Air Force can easily argue that they can't afford to hack an entirely new branch of service out of their hide without having planes fall from the sky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2018, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,168 posts, read 5,011,661 times
Reputation: 7833
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCHP View Post
re the bolded; I think what you meant to say is that The Air Force Academy is a Dept of the Air Force, hence its budget.

Colorado Springs is a home rule municipality, a city separate from The Air Force Academy. It was founded in 1871 and did not include any significant military personnel until WW1 and did not have any bases in the region until WW2. The AFA initiated classes in 1955 at Lowry AFB in Denver and did not move into its facility near Colo Spgs until it was completed in 1958. At this time, The AFA was 15 miles from Colo Spgs. At present, the city of Colo Spgs very nearly surrounds The AFA, expect for its mountainous western edge.

The United States Military Academy, or West Point as it is commonly known, was originally conceived as a military outpost in 1778 and is the oldest continuously occupied military post in the United State that is still only a census designated place and not an official town or city, despite the growth of the US Military Academy within it.

Oh, take it easy! I was just being lazy, non specific.


Ie, lots of people call the Naval Academy "Annapolis" even though, exactly, one belongs to the Navy and another is the state capital of Maryland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2018, 11:28 AM
 
Location: SW OK (AZ Native)
15,108 posts, read 6,910,120 times
Reputation: 6699
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
Oh, take it easy! I was just being lazy, non specific.


Ie, lots of people call the Naval Academy "Annapolis" even though, exactly, one belongs to the Navy and another is the state capital of Maryland.
And those of us in the Air Force called the Academy "The Zoo" or "The Springs".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2018, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,168 posts, read 5,011,661 times
Reputation: 7833
Quote:
Originally Posted by SluggoF16 View Post
And those of us in the Air Force called the Academy "The Zoo" or "The Springs".

Oh, I'm sure.


I didn't have many dealings with officer candidates but the few and far between are memorable.



As a dirty little jobs officer in the fleet, escorting them around on summer cruise fell to me and others. There is a "game" (or was) called NAVTAG and it is to teach young officers how to handle the first 5 minutes of the war. So I was there as the enemy, having a ball since I was an EWO who knew all the things by memory, against the midshipmen. Until......Ring, Ring, Liberty Bell! and POOF, off they disappeared!


At another time, well, "You are not God's Gift to everyone and you will obey the safety regulations by not riding in the back of the pickup truck." Of course, it wasn't said to them like that but I do wonder how they felt when my gate sentry told them to get out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top