SPECIAL OPERATIONS
Comments (8)
DAGRE teams make sense in that Airmen soldiers need to protect the CV-22s and MC-130s that make up AFSOC. During an Evac, nothing would be worse if the evacuees cannot escape due to lack of organic firepower (similar to Bruce Willis's movie, "Tears of the Sun"). USAF PJs might provide some covering fire, but having DAGRE ensures a specialized offensive/defensive element with carbines, rifles, and machine guns will be on the ground providing pinpoint covering fire for the aircraft that aircrews cannot do with their miniguns and machine guns. Someone needs to stay behind and guard the aircraft that flew in for the rescue and aircrews cannot be expected to do this, let alone expect them to dismount the heavy machine guns off the aircraft for ground protection (nearly impossible).
Cenebar at 8:28 AM
This is a continual problem. The Air Force had a major problem in Vietnam, for example, because the ground security structure developed was focused only on securing permanent bases, with a naïve assumption that expeditionary security would be provided by the Army or an indigenous host nation. It never fully adapted during that conflict to providing adequate security at in theater bases, relying on scrounged weapons and vehicles, ad hoc augmentees from other Air Force units at the base (my Dad, who had a rigger AFSC at the time, was an augmentee at Ton Son Nhut during Tet - and probably a fortunate pick-up as he had prior service as a rigger and light weapons expert with the 10th SFG(A) , including a six month prior tour at Nha Trang and A Schau. I say fortunate because a lot of airmen during that time frame received NO tactical or weapons training in basic). To this day I still have doubts that the collective mindset of the Air Force has grappled with the fact that it needs to have not just adequate security for permanent basis, but also the excess capacity to provide security at forward airfields it operates out of.
The Air Force is not alone in having such blind spots. The Army never seems to learn its lesson regarding the need for civil affairs and constabulary type units. They aren't as glamorous as infantry and armored formations - but the Army has needed them in EVERY war they have ever fought and never had enough. The Navy has dangerously cut its ASW forces over the past decade or so - carriers get a lot of headlines, but you need to screen them - and logistics convoys, amphibious groups, etc. DoD needs to pull its head out and realize that they need to consider a TRUE total force concept.
Sounds exactly like AMC’s Phoenix Raven program. That started in the 90s.
Rob Price at 10:03 AM
The army isn’t capable of securing air craft. Birds require varying levels and types of security depending on the situation. Not to mention actually working on a functioning flight line without hurting yourself or breaking something incredibly expensive.
DAGRE and Raven are pretty similar, biggest difference is Raven tend to land on air fields and DAGRE gets a bunch of silly gunfighter training.
DAGRE is a cool program but it’s not quite what the Air Force is selling it as.
To several of the comments above in re depending on the Army for air base defense: as long ago as 1950 at Kimpo AB we learned that this contention was and is tragically untrue. This was revisited time and again in VN p, the sand box and today. USAF SP/SF have been the Air Forces infantry since Korea. I suggest you familiarize yourself with applicable history such as tha of Safeside, SPECS, GLCM, et al.
Jim Yearsley at 1:03 PMTo the Army guy who made the first comment. What do you mean you have “received” Ranger training? Sounds like your not a graduate. Regarding Security Forces receiving that training, you do realize it’s a leadership course and most graduates don’t go to Bart, but take what they learn back to their units?
Michael O’Neill at 6:44 PMTo the army guy talking about ranger school, for the most part USAF do not take spots away from Army soldiers . It's your school, you guys get preference to fill slots obviously. When there are open slots and they can't get them filled by a soldier that's when they slide an airman into the slot. You guys lose nothing, since you had no one to fill that slot. Better to slide an airman that can get quality training and take it back to their unit. Also no, we don't rely on the Army for ground defense and we haven't since 1947....if that was the case than we would just go back to being the Army Air Corps.
RS at 9:56 AM
This is complicated
cd at 3:03 PMI am army. Fast movers were always great but a problem to get. The marines have close air support. So should the army. Organic, not AF. I have received ranger training. While I appreciate AF needs to defend itself, ranger training is 90% not applicable and a waste of a training slot. Were it up to me, I would give army A-10's and the equivalent, give the corp/army commander organic army air support, set up a liason when AF fast burners with high caliber where needed, and not let AF use slots intended for ground guys like ranger school. They have no business on the ground except to defend their birds. And just like we rely on them for air support, they can rely on us for ground defense.