I've been meaning to comment about this piece at TAP, which is a few weeks old, but I haven't had time to give it much thought. Among many other problems, though, one thing really jumps out at me; it has absolutely no mention of space, or who should handle it. That by itself makes it hard to take the rest seriously.

Unfortunately, I read the whole thing and the comments too.

The only thing more impressive than the author's ignorance of the past is his ignorance of the present. He cherry picks campaigns, states because the enemy did not surrender the campaign failed. Of course the intent of the campaign and any other external factor is superfluous to his analysis.

On the positive the spelling and the grammar looked okay.

As a watcher of Star Trek, I'd say give the role of space warfare to the Navy. When we get all those big battleship sized starships (any day now) the strategy will be closer to Jutland or Midway than the WWII bomber campaign. ;)

OK, here's my memory of Air Force vs boots on the ground.

My father was in the AF during the late 40's and early 50's and I remember him and his friends talking about this as long as I can remember. Several of those men remembered first hand the creation of the AF and were split over that idea of a separate AF from the get go.

This argument isn't new, it isn't right or wrong and it's probably not going to go away. Ever.

I can tell you that abolishing all the services for a combined force in Canada is NOT working well. That from a friend from Long Island now living there who married to a Canadian national. He has neices and nephews who were in service before and since the combination. It cost a bunch of money and there are few if any savings.

So I'm doubtful of killing the AF based solely based on this current fracas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't have a good idea here. It appears to me that there are natural divisions both by role (type of service or mission), and by region. The latter is necessary to most effectively use soldiers and military equipment together (the "combined arms" approach). The former however is necessary for a lot of longer timeframe requirements like planning new weapons systems or training soldiers on new equipment or tactics. In the US, we have the armed forces divided both by branch and by command.

It strikes me that no matter how you do it, you will end up with similar divisions of bureaucracy in an effective army. For what it's worth, one sees the same in international businesses. This seems a sign to me that overall shuffling of the bureaucracy isn't going to generate the sort of reforms that people are expecting.

However, I do see a reform that would be more effective. That is increasing the mobility between services. For example, I haven't heard of a single case where someone has served directly in multiple branches. While it'd be silly to train an air force pilot and then have them serve as a standard marine grunt, it still makes sense to have some movement between the armed forces so that your future leadership gets experience in many areas.

I might be missing this due to my ignorance of military matters, but I don't see evidence of mixing in the US military. The branches seem very stratified.

For example, I haven't heard of a single case where someone has served directly in multiple branches.

I'm not sure what 'directly' means. I can think of a dozen Marines I served with who were prior service Army. Montel Williams enlisted in the Marines, then attended USNA and spent a few years in the Navy.

The military addresses your concerns by mandating 'joint' tours - that is requiring an officer to service in a joint command. As an example a grunt from the Marines would work for CENTCOM for two years, working with and for officers and enlisted from other services.

For example, I haven't heard of a single case where someone has served directly in multiple branches.

I served as a paratrooper (Airborne Infantry) in the Army. I then served as a communications specialist in the Air Force. After completing a college degree, I served in satellite and space operations as an Air Force officer.

The article is crap from the word go.

I'm not sure a Navy metaphor really works. Navy ships are filled to the gills with sailers, most of whom are there for the multiple watches and to handle damage control so the whole thing doesn't go down. A lot man guns. None of which is the same for space.

Assuming we don't have hyperspace or something we'll probably have smaller crews, more like a B-52 than a destroyer.

And tactics, I'm not sure either metaphor would works well. The spaceships are fast but their course impossibly complicated to change making them sitting ducks if seen. So stealth is probably required, as is jamming and missiles, but both navy/air force use these things.

What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare

Professor Farley's description of the Air Force is quite outdated. It would have been accurate the 60's and even into the 70's, but the revolt of the "fighter mafia" changed all that. (This is described very well by General Chuck Horner states in "Every Man a Tiger.")

The bomber generals and Doctor Strangelove types are no longer running the show, and the doctrine of "strategic bombing" is no longer in vogue. As General Horner states, the distinction between "tactical" and "strategic" missions is meaningless to the warfighter. Professor Farley's discussion of Air Force missions in those terms is about as up-to-date as describing heat transfer in terms of phlogiston.

Regarding what to do about space, that's an excellent question.

The organization known as "Space Command" originally consisted mostly of satellite operators. After SAC was disolved, the ballistic missile crews were merged into Space Command. The resulting organization is really the American counterpart of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces.

Culturally, ballistic missile officers and the satellite operators are very similar. One group is trained to sit in missile control rooms waiting to push a button and destroy the world; the other to sit in satellite control rooms waiting to push a button and deploy a solar panel or switch a transponder on. It's similar to the mission control culture in Houston or JPL. They are not warfighters, so it's not surprising that there's very little support at Space Command for military spaceplane and other systems that would use space for actual warfighting.

The warfighters, on the other hand, don't have a lot of respect for Space Command, partly because of all the budget overruns in unmanned. One fighter pilot who has stars on his shoulders and notches on his gun said to me, "When has Space Command ever killed anyone who wasn't on our side?"

For military space to advance beyond communication satellites and ICBMs, we need to look beyond Space Command and get the warfighters involved. Learn to sell space to the warfighters (fighter pilots). That's the level of support needed to make the change happen. (Remember: Space Command is not the Air Force, it merely works for the Air Force. Air Combat Command *is* the Air Force.)

One fighter pilot who has stars on his shoulders and notches on his gun said to me, "When has Space Command ever killed anyone who wasn't on our side?"

Is that an accurate quote?

When has a fighter pilot been able to fly his plane without log support? Known where to find the bad guys without intel? Been able to do his thing without sat coms or imagery?

Warfighters are great - they do the trigger pulling. But trigger pulling wins battles - logistics wins the war.

When has a fighter pilot been able to fly his plane without log support? Known where to find the bad guys without intel?

Don't know. Where did you read that they were able to?

Warfighters are great - they do the trigger pulling. But trigger pulling wins battles - logistics wins the war.

What does that have to do with Space Command? Logistics for the warfighter is provided by Air Mobility Command. The only logistics Space Command does is for themselves (launching satellites). They haven't developed space transports to provide logistics for the warfighter. Or shown any interest in it (beyond the level of a small-scale study for the Marine Corps).

The main systems Space Command operates (ICBMs, Keyhole satellites) have little to with warfighting. KH satellites were developed primarly to verify arms control agreements. The fact that they sometimes turn out to be useful for other things is almost accidental. When a theater commander wants timely intel, he turns to reconnaissance aircraft. Space Command has dragged its heels the development of tac sats to support the warfighter, and their idea of operationally responsive space is putting conventional warheads on ICBMs.

Theater commanders have said they want to be able to call in space support the same way they can call in air support, but Space Command is not doing a lot to enable that. Nor is reasonable to expect them to, given their history and culture.