Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

CoS: Air Power Most Deadly Component

F-15E-web.jpg

What’s more effective in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan: air power or boots on the ground.

Well if you ask the Air Force Chief of staff, he’ll tell you it’s his aircraft providing the greatest combat punch.

“[Air Force] Secretary [Michael] Wynne asked the staff last week to look at which component has had the biggest effect on attrition of hostiles. Staff came back and said ‘it looks like the air component is killing bad guys at a higher rate than anyone else…’ I have anecdotal evidence from the staff that says airpower is the most lethal of the components in wrapping up bad guys.”

“…As far as numbers of people killed, as far as wrapping up bad guys and as far as delivering a kinetic effect the air component – which also includes Marine and Navy air, by the way – is the most lethal of the components. I have not seen those numbers … but I thought that was a useful observation…”

I considered that position – which Moseley revealed during an April 24 interview - this morning when I saw the latest air power summery from Southwest Asia on the Air Force Web site:

4/25/2007 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNEWS) -- Coalition airpower supported coalition ground forces in Iraq and International Security Assistance Force troops in Afghanistan in the following operations April 24, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.

In Afghanistan, an Air Force B-1B Lancer provided overwatch for a coalition convoy near Qarah Bagh. No attacks were reported after the B-1B's arrival.

U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets provided a show of force for a coalition forces position near Saraw. A joint terminal attack controller confirmed it was successful and no further attacks were reported. The aircrews also provided overwatch for a coalition patrol in the same area.

French M-2000 Mirages provided a show of force for a coalition forces position near Asadabad. No attacks were reported after the M-2000s arrived.

In total, 41 close-air-support missions were flown in support of ISAF and Afghan security forces, reconstruction activities and route patrols.

Nine Air Force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan. Additionally, four U.S. Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.

In Iraq, Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons searched for mortar positions and improvised explosive device activity near Baghdad. The pilots were then assigned to look for anti-Iraqi militia hiding nearby. They reported the coordinates of three hot spots.

Other F-16s performed armed overwatch for coalition forces who received small-arms fire near Salman Pak. The pilots reported three individuals hiding along a fence near a mosque.

Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs provided a show of force, releasing multiple flares, for a raid near Baqubah by coalition forces. A JTAC reported the show of force was successful. The pilots also provided reconnaissance in the area and reported suspicious activity to a JTAC.

F/A-18s provided a show of force, releasing multiple flares, for coalition forces receiving small-arms fire near Yusufiyah. A JTAC confirmed it was successful and no further attacks were reported.

RAF GR-4 Tornados provided overwatch to look for snipers for a explosive ordnance disposal team near Yusufiyah. The aircrews then were assigned to look for a truck involved in an engagement with coalition forces. The aircrew found a truck matching the description of the truck in the attack, at a building nearby. Individuals were reported to be unloading objects from the truck.

Other GR-4s provided shows of force for coalition forces near a crowd of approximately 250 people near Baghdad. A JTAC confirmed it dispersed the crowd and no attacks were reported.

In total, coalition aircraft flew 55 close-air-support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions supported coalition ground forces, protected key infrastructure, watched over reconstruction activities and helped to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.

Fifteen Air Force, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Iraq. Additionally, three Air Force and RAF fighter aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.

Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and C-17 Globemaster IIIs provided intra-theater heavy airlift support, helping to sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. More than 125 airlift sorties were flown; nearly 410 tons of cargo were delivered, and approximately 2,200 passengers were transported.

Coalition C-130 crews from Australia, Canada, Iraq, Japan and South Korea flew in support of OIF or OEF.

On April 22, Air Force, French and RAF tankers flew 50 sorties and off-loaded more than 3 million pounds of fuel.

Now, I don’t see any bomb dropping in there. But I’m willing to bet soldiers and Marines have been mixing it up in both Iraq and Afghanistan today, with more lethal effects than popping a few flares to disperse a crowd.

I wonder what the ground-pounders will say about Moseley’s – and the USAF secretary’s - conviction that airpower is killing more bad guys than Joes and Leathernecks.

-- Christian

Comments

Go over to the MNF-I website and click on the incident reports. NOTE: They do not report all the insurgent kills, but the reports will cover some insurgent kills. And the reports cover how many kills there were and what weapon was used. Air power, fixed wing and helicopters, kill a lot of bad guys. Small arm fire from ground troops kill alot of bad guys. Artillery kills a few. It is a lot of reading but worth the time to get a real idea of operations there in Iraq; and how much the media ignores.

Posted by: KJB43 at April 30, 2007 02:43 PM


I like how everyone forgets about the OV-10 Broncoes they used to have. Granted they can be shot down by MANPADs and bombers cannot.

Even a A-10 is likely to produce the same deterrent effect as a B-1B. If the terrorists ever figure out how long it takes to coordinate a bombing strike with the air force from the ground they just might make the attack regardless of the bomber's presence. It's not like the bomber can instantly attack like in a computer game.

Posted by: Charles at April 29, 2007 05:34 PM


How much does it cost to have a convoy protected by a B-1B?


Posted by: hans at April 27, 2007 02:25 PM


Air power may have the positive in lethality and lower attrition to personnel, but infantry is the only way to strangle the enemy. Aircraft are hated, Infantry are feared.

Posted by: commodore at April 26, 2007 11:03 PM


New conflicts are only inevitable if you elect warmonger politicians. Elect politicians that actually have fought in war and seen people dying on the ground instead - they will avoid useless wars.

And it's correct that the article and quotes centered around airpower being the primary killer.
Artillery and/or mortars claimed that in industrial age conflicts, but Afghanistan is a special case due to transportation issues.

I'd like to mention that this "move to contact, call in firepower, pursuit" tactic is likely not the most effective, but only the one with minimal casualties.
It should not be considered as tactic for major wars - "bombardment kills, infantry occupies" is what the French told the inexperienced American officers in 1917 and was even back then not state-of-the-art.
Mishaps like Tora Bora and so on where poorly equipped and trained light infantry was able to escape despite being 'encircled' by superior forces with modern technology should have been a warning call.

We shouldn't overemphasize recent combat experiences but put them together with older experiences to a greater picture. Airpower cana chieve great things, but it does only excel in certain scenarios, as do mechanized forces, light infantry and artillery as well.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at April 26, 2007 06:06 PM


Not once in the above article was it stated that AirPower is winning the war "alone". It said "MOST deadly component" not ONLY deadly component. To think that aircraft aren't helping overpowered coalition ground troops is ridiculous. What do you think air strikes are called in for? Eliminating as much of the enemy as possible to clear the way for ground troops. While the Soldiers and Marines may be calling in air strikes during fire fights, the Air Force Combat Controllers are calling in air strikes from the ground prior to fire fights, to open up the battlefield for Army and Marine units coming in later. However, I will say that Air Power was much more prevalent for the initial push into Iraq. Are squadrons of new Raptors needed immediately? Probably not. It is true that better protected ground vehicles are the immediate need. But for future conflicts (which are inevitable) new aircrafts are needed. 50 year old troop and cargo transporters, and 20 year old fighters just aren't going to cut it anymore. What if we were using 20 year old body armor, which was non existent. Or maybe we could stop ordering Humv's and break out the old Willy's Jeeps.

Posted by: Tuck at April 26, 2007 05:24 PM


You guys ever play Axis & Allies?
Planes could not take ground on their own....

Still holds true.
Air power is expensive.... and didn't help them win Vietnam.... this sort of thing will lead to the same 'faith in air power'

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at April 26, 2007 04:15 PM


Smells like someone is really worried about his share of the pie...Cancel one f-22 and you've funded the entire production build of Mine Resistant Vehicles for both the Army and Marine Corps! Can we say funding desperation syndrome!!!????

Posted by: Solomon at April 26, 2007 02:23 PM


This is the same type of hype and foolish thinking that caused the stalemate against Hezbullah last summer and Kosovo in 1999. Unless you're using nukes, you cannot win a war without putting boots on the ground. It's a foolish PR stunt to get more funding for sexy aircraft that will never fly below 20k in a combat zone.

Foolish drivel

Posted by: Buick93 at April 26, 2007 02:08 PM


I wonder if the pilots are able to figure out which house the enemy is hiding in? More than likely there is a soldier on the ground directing the pilot on where to deliver the ordinance. With fewer soldiers, the pilots would have fewer targets. But to suggest that air power alone can win a war, especially an insurgency, is silly.

Posted by: Brian Rose at April 26, 2007 01:47 PM


Now, before i start, you need to know that I like the idea of the new Raptor. Ok, so what the AF dudes need to do istead of spending all their damn money on squadron(sp?) upon squadron of stealthy Raptors, they should develop a gunship with bombing capabilities and that is highly menouverable. We need air support, but to support the guys on the ground and to send in bombs before they get their. Throw a Skittle dispenser on it, and there will be no aircraft more useful in our inventory.

Posted by: Billy Big Spuds at April 26, 2007 01:41 PM



So what happened with the 'Tora Bora 2' showdown advertised earlier this week - Surely the bad guys can't have got away with this sort of air superiority bearing down on them?

Airpower is nice, but after a certain point (reached long ago), I'd say the extra billions are better spent on boots on the ground.

Posted by: Wembley at April 26, 2007 01:38 PM


Which continues to prove my point, we need the A-10 and not the F-35. Thank you.

Posted by: Grandjester at April 26, 2007 01:30 PM


What is the point of this article? Shocking, the USAF can easily drop bombs on targets and kill dozens of bad guys. It is not like they're locked in air-air battles with some Mig's. I thought that is the point of Jointness. Ground troops spot the enemy and call in the Air Force to take them out. Fire power and Air power are the only advantages we have. Nevertheless, bombing to victory is a myth. Anyway, killing people doesn't win 4GW.

I am amazed by the irony in Iraq. US Advantage: We have Death from Above. Can't be stopped. Iraqi Insurgents Advantage: They have Death from below (IED's). Can't be stopped. Who is 'winning' again?

Posted by: BT at April 26, 2007 01:14 PM


That war isn't about attrition.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at April 26, 2007 12:55 PM


“[Air Force] Secretary [Michael] Wynne asked the staff last week to look at which component has had the biggest effect on attrition of hostiles. Staff came back and said ‘it looks like the air component is putting holes in the sand, though occasionally we scare some bad guys pretty good. A week ago Tuesday we managed to gib a Taliban mortar crew who were so amazed that they'd actually found a range and were hitting stuff that they forgot the 'scoot' part.'"

I don't think you're ever gonna hear that. It's his job (these days) to talk about what an awesome job his service is doing.

Posted by: mike at April 26, 2007 12:41 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.