Army cutbacks prompt questions about vulnerabilities to air threats.

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.

A sizeable reduction planned for the Army's air-and-missile-defense force is touted by proponents as a necessary move that reflects the realities of current conflicts. But critics worry that the cutbacks will leave ground combat units more vulnerable to aerial attacks, and increasingly dependent on Air Force and Navy weapons to protect them from enemy missiles.

Under the reorganization, the Army will convert its 10 active-duty divisions into 48 independent brigades. The current air-defense force, composed of 10 battalions of about 500 soldiers each, will be downsized to four battalions. These four units will be melded with the Army's 10 Patriot air-missile defense battalions. The members of the remaining six battalions will be reassigned to other Army occupations now in higher demand, such as military police and infantry.

With the expectation that the Air Force and Navy will be in control of the air space in future wars, the Army decided that 10 air-defense battalions was a luxury it could not afford.

"Looking at what the Air Force can deliver, we decided to take some risk and we took it," said Gen. Kevin Byrnes, who heads the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

But experts warn that, even though the Air Force has proved it can achieve "air superiority," it is not clear what that term means exactly, noted a retired air-defense officer who did not want to be quoted by name. "When they say 'air superiority,' where is that? In what regime? What targets are included?" he asked.

The Air Force typically has focused on eliminating the threats from surface-to-air missiles, but the Army expects that most threats will come from unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles. "In my opinion, there is a capability gap that an enemy can exploit," the retired officer said. For that reason, he opposes the Army's decision to eliminate air-defense battalions. "The air defense community has fewer and fewer units to take out UAVs and cruise missiles."

Maj. Gen. Michael A. Vane, commander of the Army Artillery School, downplayed the significance of the cutbacks, describing them as part of the "transformation" under way in the Army. "Every one of us is a product of our background," he said. "That makes us good at what we do, but it also holds us back."

As expected, traditional thinkers in the Army will find it hard to accept that the Air Force and the Navy can offer the same or better protection than ground-based air defense. "Some of us are used to doing it from...