MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Cutting off nose to spite face.. About normal.
Having worked with both Navy and USAF ISR/ELINT, what, in your opinion, is the value in duplicating that function across multiple services vs cost savings of not doing so? I can tell you what it did to the VAQ realm was increased workload and optempo, but the mission still gets done and capabilities have continued to modernize.
I think the short version of that is "They don't care about the maritime environment...". The Air Force has shown time and again that they are perfectly happy to "divest" themselves of any mission that is being done as well...or better...by other services. Immediately after Desert Storm, there was an active intent to try and give/sell/divest A-10s to anyone who would take them...non-pointy-nosed airplanes doing CAS was just not what they wanted to see when they looked in the mirror. Same-same EF-111's and "Wild Weasel" F-4s. Let the Navy/USMC do that stuff. Hung onto F-16CJs because they looked okay in the mirror, I guess...Well, here are a few things I'd point out...the Air Force is completely inept in producing maritime ISR. They don't fundamentally understand that requirements and priorities of a CSG decision maker, they don't understand the geometry challenges, aircraft positioning constraints etc, etc, etc...that come with providing realtime intelligence to a maritime asset. (Think SOH transit all the way to Alpha Strike...) Additionally, the Air Force, being perhaps more entrenched in dogma/habit/bureaucratic tape than the Navy, is unlikely to ever integrate well...
That sounds like a training/doctrinal issue vice a capabilities deficit, and to be fair, I would guess that the RJ community would level a similar littany of grievances against VQ. Not that it's insignificant, but I would argue that it's cheaper to address the shortfall with training than it is to develop and field an otherwise redundant T/M/S. I suppose that in a perfect world, we'd all have our service specific/organic ISR platforms. Given the purple-oriented culture and constrained resources, that mindset is swimming against the stream.
Not having looked at the relevant budgetary data, I'll have to relegate this thought to the hypothetical, but if I were to invoke the principle of comparative advantage, allowing the USN to specialize in the VAQ mission while USAF specializes in the VQ/RJ mission might be a more efficient use of resources. We decry the "jack of all trades/master of none" mentality in our VFA community's platform. That might apply at the service level as well. Food for thought, at any rate.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The Marines amphibious and expeditionary capabilities are derived from more than just doctrine or training. There are a whole host of platforms, equipment, gear they have to do that mission that the Army doesn't. I'm sure one of the Marines can speak more intelligently to that, but I don't think it's an apt comparrison.You know Brett...the more I think about it, the more unsure I feel about this strictly being a training issue...to reply with one of your favorite logical devices, the slippery slope...
Marines are just a duplicate capability of the Army. The only difference is training. Why bother?
Marines are just a duplicate capability of the Army. The only difference is training. Why bother?
I dunno, I think he's serious - at least in a rhetorical sense.