# More air power: Air Force or Navy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 4, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635 "2005-08-04T23:26:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/1 "2005-08-04T23:26:23Z")
Which has more air power? I suspect the AF, but is the Navy superior in any categories (fighters, etc.)? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/2 "2005-08-04T23:40:19Z")
If you count ballistic nuclear missles and conventional guided missles, Navy, hands down. The Navy’s force projection and direct strike abilities are unparalled by any other organization in the world. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/3 "2005-08-04T23:49:15Z")
Actually, aren’t the Land based Minutemen under AF control? That would certainly give them a leg up to the nuke department. Not to mention any Nuclear armed B-52’s of the old SAC. I will say that, if you need to hit something anywhere in the world that is near the ocean, go with the Navy. If a B-52 base is withen range, AF might have the edge. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/4 "2005-08-05T00:03:35Z")
I’m pretty sure the navy has fewer fighters as there are a limited number of carriers to base them on and the squadrons are 10-12 planes, smaller than a typical airforce sqaudron. I would say the AF has the most total power but as **HPL** said it isn’t always that simple. ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/5 "2005-08-05T00:15:28Z")
Fighters or no, the [current conversion of SSBNs to SSGNs](http://www.gdeb.com/programs/ssgn/) represents a staggering increase in the Navy’s conventional strike capability. Imagine what **154** [TLAMs](http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-toma.html) could do to a potential enemy state. And that is just from one Ohio class submarine. When her [Los Angeles class escorts](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm) disgorge their combined TLAMS, it’s gonna hurt. ---
**Author:** ![douglips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/6 "2005-08-05T02:32:40Z")
The Air Force [says they have about 6000 aircraft](http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_background.asp), and according to wikipedia, the Navy [has about 4000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/7 "2005-08-05T02:37:15Z")
I say we let 'em fight it out. ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/8 "2005-08-05T03:12:10Z")
Yeah, we could let the AF fighters go up against the Navy fighters…but keep in mind that the F-14 [the few that are left ☹] is the only aircraft capable of carrying the AIM54, and a single Tomcat can engage 6 AF fighters before they could even think of firing their AMRAAMs. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-air-power-air-force-or-navy/315635/9 "2005-08-05T16:01:18Z")
> [@BlakeTyner](#): > > Yeah, we could let the AF fighters go up against the Navy fighters…but keep in mind that the F-14 [the few that are left ☹] is the only aircraft capable of carrying the AIM54, and a single Tomcat can engage 6 AF fighters before they could even think of firing their AMRAAMs. I think I am somewhat qualified to answer this question. I served six years in the navy as an aviation fire control tech - radar/weapons system specialist. My specialties were AWG-9, AWG-15 and ASN-92 the weapons and primary navigation systems on the F-14. Taking into account what I know of the F-14’s capabilities let me just say **BAHAHAHAHA!!!** Criminy I think I wet my pants. Seriously he F-14 was a capable airplane and though advanced for its day it came into service at the tail end of the Vietnam war. The multiple target capability is to put it kindly overrated. Yes, the AWG-9 can track multiple targets by scanning a search pattern and letting the computer extrapolate the position and velocity of each target between sweeps provided they didn’t maneuver too much. This is hampered somewhat by the the planar array antenna having to physically move to scan which is not nearly as fast as modern antennas which can sweep electronically without moving. The next problem with multiple targets is that you have to shoot fairly soon so all the targets are still within the radar’s relatively narrow sweep range. You can’t track or engage targets that are too far separated from the axis of the plane. The AIM-54 is a heavy missile, about 1,000lb. The burn time of the motor is relatively short so most of the flight is a ballistic trajectory. Any maneuvering bleeds kinetic energy that it can’t get back. No biggie if your target is flying in a straight line but any target that knows he is being tracked will try to evade and probably can do so given enough time. For this reason it was often said the AIM-54 might be most effective against cruise missiles. There are severe logistic problems in just putting six AIM-54 missiles on the plane. I never in my career saw LAU-93 launchers mounted on the glove vane positions of an F-14. There was no shipboard device that could safely lift the missile high enough to mount them there I was told. No problem on shore but F-14s don’t operate from shore. There are four belly positions but this requires a multi purpose weapons rail in addition to the LAU-93 and that combination weighs a thousand pounds. This isn’t a problem for the two forward stations but mounting AIM-54s on the aft stations put 4,000 pounds at the aft end of the plane and anyone who has flown much knows an aft CG makes a plane more unstable. I don’t think I ever saw missiles mounted there on a carrier based plane. The only time I am aware of that an F-14 engaged six targets with Phoenix was a test done by the manufacturer and even then I don’t think it hit all six drones.