This article was posted on Military.com, seems pretty "out there" to me. Makes you wonder though - what would become of us...
Quote
Fed up with unnecessary gold-plated fighter jet programs, the service's impatience with counter-insurgency and its anti-China rhetoric, back in August I proposed the disbanding of the U.S. Air Force. The air service's missions could be folded into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps without any loss in national power -- and we'd benefit from cuts to Pentagon overhead.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,154578,00.html
I'm a zoomie at heart, and with emotions aside, I almost agree!
Why was the Air Force created? My opinion is that the race for air superiority was growing too large and too fast for the Army to continue to handle efficiently. So, when the purpose that something was created for is no longer prudent, the normal process (in a corprate world) would be to cut out or close down that area.
From what I see on the Discovery Channel, heh, the Navy can hit any point on earth with almost any type of ordinance the USAF has - and do it from a mobile base. It just seems more efficient than setting up bases either domestically or foreign. Trust me, I have to bite my lip to compliment the Navy! I once heard that the Navy had more air sorties going at any one time than the Air Force.
If the Army was more like the Marine Corps, and became as multi-oriented in both amphibious and air operations as they are with ground stuff, the USMC might be obsolete too... at least by name.
I don't mean to get anyone's GI undies up in a bunch, but thinking outside the box without emotional attachment makes a two-branch service viable!
Butttttttt..... who's going to take on the Space portion of the military? Well, it was the Marines in the Alien movies and Star Trek seems to be the Navy.
Anyway, something to theorize about.
-Ace
never happen. The closest that will ever come is the creation of ONE "Super-Academy" for All military officers and those selected to be the civilian leadership of the FED Govt.
We need an AF so that those of us not in the AF have a nice place to stay when we are traveling, vacationing with family etc. Between AF Lodging and Army/ Navy Lodging, AF beats everything hands down.
Well... then there's that! heh
Between billeting and mess, the USAF is the Hilton of the American Military.
I didn't even think about the academy deal, that an interesting spin! It certainly would work. Of course, it's the emotions and traditions of the academies that will probably keep them what they are... not changing decades of history for the sake of efficientcy or effectiveness.
-Ace
Quote from: alamrcn on November 02, 2007, 07:34:42 PMFrom what I see on the Discovery Channel, heh, the Navy can hit any point on earth with almost any type of ordinance the USAF has - and do it from a mobile base. It just seems more efficient than setting up bases either domestically or foreign. Trust me, I have to bite my lip to compliment the Navy! I once heard that the Navy had more air sorties going at any one time than the Air Force.
Well, the Navy thing might have some validity, but they have no tanker fleet. Dependence of the AF fleet has been an issue during the Gulf War. It's kinda hard to land KC-10s and KC-135s on those little mobile bases.
I say...
...let the Air Force be taken over by the Navy. Then, we will be the US Navel Auxiliary and we will have to install tailhooks nosehooks on our 172s and practice carrier operations!
(music in the background swells, doo-doo-doo-doo On-Ward-To-The-Danger-Zone-dah dah doo dah)
I am flying in one hour!
Quote from: SarDragon on November 02, 2007, 07:57:59 PM
It's kinda hard to land KC-10s and KC-135s on those little mobile bases.
I'd be willing to give it a try. They'd just need to put a hook on the end of the boom, and move the island tower over a little more.
The Navy does have some refuelers, but they're little bitty ones. I believe they're mainly for the "extra 50 gallons to get you home" type deal, correct? Marines have some KC-130s as well, but we don't talk about them. They're special.
Although, they could set it up like in the movie "Stealth", where they have a bunch of zeppelin looking things doing holding patterns all over the world for refueling. That'd be neat, except when someone blows it up.
I think the AF will stay right where it is. If anything, the AF should be doing more of the flying, and the other services worrying more about their specialties. Army rotor wing, while important, has no reason to be with the Army when it could be done with the AF. All the services are supposed to play together well anyway, right? Leave the air component in the AF.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on November 02, 2007, 08:07:53 PM
...let the Air Force be taken over by the Navy. Then, we will be the US Navy Auxiliary and we will have to install tailhooks on our 172s and practice carrier operations!
I'd try that too. No need for a hook though. With those carriers moving at flank speed into the wind on landing, you'd have maybe a 10-15kt forward ground speed.
No chance of happening.
Different missions & capabilites: therefore different strategic mindsets. Becomes crystal clear once you delve in-depth into each of them.
No offense to anyone, but to the learned & enlightened, this thread has the tone of "Who kicks butt more: Superman or Spiderman?"
Combined service academy-Australia has one, but their total force is but a fraction of ours.
Steve, I will take your post as mostly tongue-in-cheek, but address a couple of things anyway.
There was barely room to land the C-130 back in the 60s, and that was with most of the air wing not on board. More
here (http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp).
A KC-10 is 33 feet wider, and would take moving the island a lot! The KC-135 is actually 3 feet narrower, but requires a lot more runway. All in all, it is very impractical.
QuoteThe Navy does have some refuelers, but they're little bitty ones. I believe they're mainly for the "extra 50 gallons to get you home" type deal, correct?
All of the aerial refueling capacity in the Navy is from "Buddy Stores". These are 300 gallon drop tanks fitted with a hose reel that can be carried by properly outfitted a/c. Yeah, "get you home" is about all that will do.
QuoteMarines have some KC-130s as well, but we don't talk about them. They're special.
The C-130 in the carrier landing test was a K model, with the refueling pods removed. The test was oriented toward getting cargo aboard, not being home base for a big tanker.
QuoteC-172 on carriers - I'd try that too. No need for a hook though. With those carriers moving at flank speed into the wind on landing, you'd have maybe a 10-15kt forward ground speed.
There was an O-1 landing on the Midway during Operation Frequent Wind. He didn't use very much of the deck at all. And there was no need to go to flank, either.
As someone else put it in another write up,
"For example, Farley would abolish the Air Force but adds that "some elements of tactical airpower would pass to the Marine Corps." If the United States does not need its own air force, why the bloody hell does the US Navy's own army need its own air force?"
It's a good point, I think.
Well I have always advocated getting rid of ALL of the branches, at least as currently configured.
No Navy, or Army, or Air Force. Instead the only patch you would wear would say "U.S. Military" and based on skillset and need you could be posted on a ship, or an air base, or in an infantry unit.
Really and truly, as someone mentioned, get a bit more amphibious and joint-ops and you can do away with the Marines. I also never understood why the ground-pounders best air support weapon, the A10, was under the control of the Air Force!
Canada tried going purple.
How did it work?
This is all from memory from too many classes but here goes.
USAF: Strategic Bombing (especially the Strategic Bombing campaign over Germany) was the key to getting the USAF created as a separate service. They also recognized the improvement over having all the fighter assets controlled centrally in a theater with decentralized execution.
USA: An agreement in the 1950's (?) give the Army the right to use rotor-wing aircraft for combat and fixed-wing light aircraft for transport of key personnel and courier service. It has evolved to include fixed-wing recon. The Army is also heavily involved in UAVs.
USN: Carrier Air Wing plus land based recon and anti-submarine aircraft. They also operate a small fleet of transport aircraft to support personnel movement and a small amount of material movement.
USMC: Primarily devoted to the close air support mission. That role has expanded with the battlefield air interdiction mission. Transport aircraft are mainly used at the tactical level in direct support of Marine requirements. Marine aviators fly just about everything the Navy flys.
IMHO, the USAF really has nothing to worry about. We have an entire major command devoted to Strategic Airlift. Our tanker force has no equal in the world. Land-based fighters provide lots of advantages compared to carrier based aircraft. Aim High ;)
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on November 03, 2007, 01:38:21 AM
I also never understood why the ground-pounders best air support weapon, the A10, was under the control of the Air Force!
Roles of fixed wing assets for both the Army and Air Force were defined and agreed upon by the Army Air Force Chiefs of staff in 1967, transferring all C-7 Caribou transports to the USAF, and limiting the OV-1 Mohawk (the only fixed wing aircraft with weaponry at that time) to battlefield surveillance and observation.
To truly understand the capabilities and limitations of each of the services, as well as the procurement and employment of assets, one must be familiar with each of the service's respective missions and doctrines.
Quote from: MIKE on November 03, 2007, 01:39:58 AM
Canada tried going purple.
They are still purple. However, their forces are divided into Ground, Air, and Naval Commands. They are also much smaller - they are currently planning on expanding the regular forces to 75,000 people. Officers also have to become fluent in English and French.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on November 03, 2007, 01:38:21 AM
I also never understood why the ground-pounders best air support weapon, the A10, was under the control of the Air Force!
The USAF was in the process of transferring the A-10 to the Army (because it wasn't sexy enough??) just prior to the first Gulf War. The success of the A-10 in the Gulf War caused them to re-think that decision.
so you guys get your panties bunched up because a guy repeats a BLOG from another blog SITE
This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Ares Weblog.
GIVE ME A BREAK, MAYBE WE SHOULD DEBATE CUSTERS TACTICS AT THE LITTLE BIG HORN
Quote from: Short Field on November 03, 2007, 02:32:39 AM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on November 03, 2007, 01:38:21 AM
I also never understood why the ground-pounders best air support weapon, the A10, was under the control of the Air Force!
The USAF was in the process of transferring the A-10 to the Army (because it wasn't sexy enough??) just prior to the first Gulf War. The success of the A-10 in the Gulf War caused them to re-think that decision.
That urban legend started when an Army Aviator submitted a position paper that was published in 'Army Aviation Digest' in 1984: I remember reading the article when it came out: it was of particular interest to the Army OV-1 Mohawk community (of which I was a part) because there was talk of retiring them in favor of mounting sensor pods (in addition to the weapons systems) on the A-10.
That fueled a thesis by an Army Officer who in 1990-91 wrote his CGSC Master's thesis on the formation of a combined A-10/AH-64 Close Air Support Brigade, which was also in response to the fact that the role of the A-10 was in queston, as the Cold War doctrine of "AirLand Battle" was being scrapped.
Even as the Gulf War was in full swing, DoD was bracing for massive spending cutbacks. Refit and Army Aviation organizational infrastructure funding requiremments were too great at the time, not to mention that in the face of a shrinking defense budget, all the services hung on to those assets they already had.
The idea was dropped.
If I were 22 again... with 20/15 vision again... bright crystal clear night vision again with no floaters... and I was smart enough not to wait to be a pilot until I was 45... geez... I'd really, really, want to be an A-10 pilot... if I wasn't good enough to get the A-10 then I might settle for AC-130 or B-52... if I were 22 again...
...now I just consider myself lucky to get to fly a 172 with a valid ES purpose...
Quote from: SJFedor on November 02, 2007, 08:11:09 PM
them. They're special.
If anything, the AF should be doing more of the flying, and the other services worrying more about their specialties. Army rotor wing, while important, has no reason to be with the Army when it could be done with the AF. All the services are supposed to play together well anyway, right? Leave the air component in the AF.
Naval air force projection is a highly specialized capability...one we're not likely to see USAF get into.
As for USAF handling Army rotary wing missions, the entire reason Army Aviation developed was because the AF of the late 40s through early 60s wanted no part of anything that served in a 'ground troop support' role....they wanted jet bombers, jet fighters, and missiles...period.
Hence Army Aviation, which essentially is their 'air attack' arm.
I don't know if this is completely true, but I've been told be a NG recruiter and a Marine that my son who wants to be an AF fighter pilot has a better chance of flying in all of the other branches than the AF. So far I'm taking it with a grain of salt since they're trying to recruit him. Although I have found it odd that the Navy seems to fly so much, I would have thought that the AF would fly from Navy ships, the way the Marines deploy from them. Branches working together...
Seems to me that all this hypothesizing is pretty far off. I can only imagine that the decision to overhaul the entire armed forces would only happen on the tails of some massive and huge negative occurance. just my 2ยข...
The Air Force offers the DoD certain specialization that other branches just cannot deliver.
First of all... the USAF has global reach. Yes, the Navy can cover the oceans and seas given enough time for their ships to reach the destination and given that those ships will be allowed to enter the waters without challenge. A journey from Norfolk/San Diego to the Indian Ocean would take many days while it only takes hours for a flight of B-1s, B-52s or B-2s to get from their bases in CONUS to say... Diego Garcia. Those USAF bombers are able to cover the entire world with those munitions. Just say where. Why? Because the USAF has long range heavy bombers. Navy does not and cannot since those bombers and most other USAF aircraft cannot take off from carriers. They simply weren't designed for it.
Second... the USAF ensures global reach. Sure, the Navy F-18 can fly far and attack hard, but it probably won't make it there without refueling and aside from minor refueling work of S-3 Vikings which can help out if you're close to a carrier and joker fuel, you need the support of USAF tankers which can fly anywhere in the world and loiter in the area for hours on end, looking for customers. It is the USAF's heavy KC-10 Extenders and KC-135 Stratotankers that allow for current operational ability and reach of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and NATO fixed wing aircraft. Sorry, I didn't mention the C-130 tanker guys, but that job is also done by Marines, so it's not exclusive to USAF.
Third... Global Mobility. The USAF is the only service with the ability to move other services timely, efficiently and globally. No other service has intercontinental reach when it comes to air mobility. It takes the Navy and the civillian fleet weeks to load, carry, and unload stores and equipment and although it is very cost efficient, it just isn't able to keep up with today's combat demands on time. Today's combat happens in hours and days, not months and years. With a strong fleet of C-5s, C-17s, and C-130s, the USAF is able to move the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and anyone else with lightning speed, precision, and most importantly, safety.
Add to that the fact that USAF has almost exclusive control over cybercombat, space operations, and unmanned systems and you have many reasons why USAF should remain its own branch.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 03, 2007, 06:33:06 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on November 02, 2007, 08:11:09 PM
them. They're special.
If anything, the AF should be doing more of the flying, and the other services worrying more about their specialties. Army rotor wing, while important, has no reason to be with the Army when it could be done with the AF. All the services are supposed to play together well anyway, right? Leave the air component in the AF.
Naval air force projection is a highly specialized capability...one we're not likely to see USAF get into.
As for USAF handling Army rotary wing missions, the entire reason Army Aviation developed was because the AF of the late 40s through early 60s wanted no part of anything that served in a 'ground troop support' role....they wanted jet bombers, jet fighters, and missiles...period.
Hence Army Aviation, which essentially is their 'air attack' arm.
Agreed! Plus, are AF pilots really joining to fly helicopters? NO....
Anyway.....with the latest round of BRAC.....we have seen the DOD say "AF you will NOW support the Army by locating your planes at projection platform locations". POPE and Fort Bragg is one example. Joint bases are going to be the common scene within 20 years.
Having flown both USAF and US Army (80% of my time Army), here's my tongue-in-cheek, semi-serious opinion (aka, my $.02). Disbanding the USAF would be a superb idea for the following reasons:
1. USAF has never come to terms with their separation from the Army. The constant uniform changes in a never-ending effort to look "less Army" has now come full circle. Is anyone buying the new service uniform as somehow being Air Force???? USAF should go the last few steps and adopt the old pinks-and-greens Army uniform.
2. Due to the anxieties of 1, USAF went so far to become less Army that they actually came close to being near-Navy (Oh that McPeak uniform was truly something, wasn't it?).
3. If they merge with the Army, they'll get to wear winged-props again and be reintroduced to all those vulgar and unsavory traditions they left behind with the Army when USAF decided to become a world of civilized gentlemen. :angel:
4. Per #3, newly corrupted, former USAF types would regain their lust for blowing things up, moving mud, and generally making nuisances of themselves on the battlefield and in local bars. Yes, you might even get to shoot down a few planes in the process or at least get to run the base commanders pants up the flagpole.
5. Yes. All this could be done by simply adding the "A" back in the name -- USAF becomes USAAF again. Think of it!
6. Lest you think the days of old were gone forever. Rest assured that Army Aviation has continued the hard-fighting, hard-drinking traditions that made the USAAF what it was!
In retrospect, maybe all services should be merged with the Army. The Army has more aircraft than the USAF and more ships than the Navy! >:D
No animals were harmed in the forming of this opinion. And yes, it's a joke. All branches of the service do a [darn] fine job.
QuoteI say...
...let the Air Force be taken over by the Navy. Then, we will be the US Navel Auxiliary and we will have to install tailhooks nosehooks on our 172s and practice carrier operations!
Speaking of short takoffs and landings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppC1JqOy7YM&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppC1JqOy7YM&NR=1)