Now that the Evil Empire is dead and gone, why do we have a seperate service called the “AIR FORCE”? You may recall, that from 1914 till 1954?, the AIR FORCE was part of the US Army-it was in fact the USAAF. To my knowledge, this did not cause any gross problems. Well, now in this era of budget cuts, can we afford a seperate service? Why not merge the Army and Air Force again? We could at least close one service academy, and reduce the number of generals. Also, the air force seems to be reverting to its poriginal mission-ground support (see the Gulf War). Strategic bombing isn’t an option today, so why not just bring back the old USAAF?
(ducks to avoid the rotten fruit being thrown at him!)
I have no hard information on the topic, but I thought I’d throw in my two cents.
The USAF serves more purposes than simply supporting ground troops. As an example, note what Stealth fighter/bombers were able to do during the Persian Gulf and Bosnian conflicts. Degrading your enemy’s command-and-control capabilities plays a vital role in today’s warfare.
I also think merging the USAF with the US Army would be a massive undertaking, likely to incur more costs in the short- and medium-term, with no long-term guarantee of savings. (The Army will still want air cover, so planes will still be produced. They’ll just change the specs to focus more on ground support.)
Administrative costs might decrease over time, but you’ll still have to have a large group of people dedicated to storing, maintaining and repairing the planes themselves and their ordnance. Not to mention flying, of course. Best-case scenario, you might be able to reduce a few USAF general-level positions. I doubt that’d provide much in the way of savings.
Finally, don’t forget that in terms of potential threats, there’s still a huge communist country in the world. China has the capability to create a lot of problems. Not saying they would – just looking at possibilities.
I think it’s time that the U.S. Army received its own fixed-wing aircraft arm, as the Navy and the Marine Corps have, and one way to do that would be to do a massive transfer of Air Force ground-support and air superiority resources over to the Army.
But there is still a need for an independent Air Force. Organizations like SAC are better off as part of an independent Air Force; if SAC were part of the Army it woould probably be neglected. The era of strategic bombing is not over, unfortunately for the world, and that requires both long-range bombers and a separate air superiority wing to protect those bombers.
Everything depends on Mission. The Army and Marines have fixed-wing platforms for one thing: Close air support of their ground forces. The Navy is a little different: Fleet Defense. The Air Force primarily uses fixed-wing assets for Air Superiority. Different missions, and different needs.
Well, SAC was done away with in 1991. The current assets were split up into ACC (Air Combat Command), SPACECOM (Space Command), and STRATCOM (US Strategc Command). We still have missiles on alert, but the B-52s have since stood down after the Cold War ended. But the neat thing is that we can launch a B-52, drop a lot of ordnance anywhere in the world, and return that jet to the same base.
egkelly, The USAF broke off from the Army in 1947. Less than two years later, the Berlin Airlift happened. It all boils down to mission. The Army handles the land, the Navy handles the sea (with Marines as security and ‘naval infantry’), and the Air Force handles the skies and space. The different branches are just too specialized to lump them together. . .
Tripler- currently Minot AFB, ND.
Call it job security.
Oops, one last tidbit: Who would handle Space Assets? The potentially big question in the next 50 years is “Will we have a US Space Force?” if we go exploring. . .
Trip
Thank you for the corrections, Tripler; my knowledge is clearly out of date.
Please clarify one thing for me: you say “The Army and Marines have fixed-wing platforms for one thing: Close air support.” It was my impression that the Army (as opposed to the Marines) had no fixed-wing aircraft of its own, and that even for long-range airlift the Army was dependent on the Air Force. Is this (or was it ever) true?
It was my feeling that the Air Force/Army rivalry had led to such decisions as the retirement of the A-10 “Warthog,” one of the best close support aircraft ever developed, but unattractive to the fighter-pilot-dominated Air Force.
Good point about the space assets also; my offhand thought is that there would probably be less redundancy and rivalry if they stayed in the Air Force under SPACECOM.
Just for reference, we had an interesting discussion on military service consolidation a few months ago in the 2 Armies, 2 Navies & 4 Air Forces? thread.
The mission of the Navy’s aircraft is not fleet defense. A Fleet is built around an aircraft carrier, as this is the most important vessel the Navy has. In WWII, you would have been correct, now you are not.
Read Tom Clancy’s books, especially Red Storm Rising and Debt of Honor for facsinating hypothetical looks at the use of the Navy during a modern war.
Anyhow, to address the OP, there is too much rivalry now between the branches of our Armed Forces to successfully merge the Army and Airforce. The subordinate Airforce and its officers would become the whipping boys of the Army.
I beg to differ-how was it that WWII was carried out by the USAAF? What would be the big deal-it is like the navy and the marine corps. In any case, there is so much duplication anyway, that they might as well be the same force.
I thought that the A-10’s got en extension to around the year 2020. Is that not correct?
I think we call that tiny little organization NASA
And the offensive/defensive satelites that are/will be up there are run by the NSA/CIA/Airforce.
Since these guys are pretty well entrenched, I think things will stay along those lines for the foreseeable future.
OK, I’m thoroughly confused now. I thought NASA was a civilian agency, not under DoD.
P.S. about the Warthog: this website http://home.pix.za/sv/sv000003/more/a10more.html says that the A-10 was due for phase-out in the early '90s and was granted a reprieve for the Gulf War. Whether that reprieve lasts until 2020, I don’t know.
The air force is independent for the very reason that it performs independent tasks. The Army and Marines do have their own air assets because it’s quicker and more effective to have that integrated with the guys that need it, not to mention that they have different ideas on what sort of training makes a good CAS pilot…but when it comes to understanding all things air in the bigger picture, including strategic and logistic operations, the USAF are the folks to turn to. Since the Army and Marines have practically non-existant air defense, achievining and strongly maintaining air superiority is a full-time, critically important priority, and a dedicated service bent on that goal is fully justified. Politically, the USAF is the poster child of the US Armed Forces…think back to Desert Storm PR…the Army was only visible by images of guys trucking into/out of planes, or tanks rolling along spewing dust roostertails. The Navy was launching missiles over the horizon. The Marines were practically nonexistant (from a PR standpoint), but the Air Force? Oh, the many, many clips of “smart bomb” impacts and nose camera footage. It distanced the American public from the realities of war, and helped everyone forget that people were fighting, killing and dying. It was a big pat on the back, and politicians LOVE that. Ain’t nobody gunna mess with the USAF.
But anyway, on to the Thunderbolt. The A-10 is in limbo because the Air Force wanted to hand off that dedicated CAS craft to someone else, but they weren’t willing to hand over the funding/personnel that goes with it, and the Army certainly wasn’t willing to foot the bill itself. In the midst of all the hoopla over that, some folks started asking questions if the A-10 was really worth the effort. It oculd be reasonably argued that it’s an obsolete and risky platform (especially compared to helicopters or high-altitude fast movers) whose specialized role of thinning out mass quantities of advancing tanks isn’t needed anymore, since the Red armor boogeyman is gone.
In a climate of decreasing military budgets and even more sharply decreasing tolerance for casualties, a dedicated platform designed to throw itself into the jaws of the beast isn’t exactly high on the list of priorities. Even delicious pet projects like the Air Force’s JSF and F-22, or the Marines’ Osprey, or the Army’s Interim Armored Vehicle, or the Navy’s Seawolf, are getting cut back due to funding shortages, so the A-10s place as a somewhat redundant platform intended for a nasty, massive war isn’t all that desirable now that the chances of a nasty, massive war seem slim to none. (but then, people said that after WW1, too…)
The Army does have fixed-wing assets, but these are essentially light utility, recon, “spotter” and Electronic Warfare aircraft. The Army’s LR airlift IS provided by USAF. The 82nd jumps out of USAF planes.
Which is not to say the Army Aviation folks will in all cases just sit there waiting for the guys in the blue suits – specially if it doesn’t look like they’ll come up with something soon. When the Av branch was reconstituted in the 1980s, a lot of text was written in Army journals and magazines about how one of the things on their to-do list was training Cobra and Apache pilots in Air-to-Air, since the presumption was that in wartime the fighter jocks may have their hands too full with commie MiGs to take out all enemy helos and CAS aircraft.
Back from two days of travelling. . .
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Demise *
**
True . . . However, a majority of their mission is Air Superiority for Fleet Defense. You have to defend the A/C as you say “this is the most important vessel the Navy has.” I defy you to find any aircraft mission the Navy performs (for itself, not the USMC) that is not in some way directly related to Fleet Defense.
And Clancy’s good, but remember, he’s still a civilian. Get into some of them courses in colleges. They’re pretty cool . . .
Also, the Army does have very few fixed-wing organic units. However, these guys are so few in number that they don’t really contribute to a huge massed formation’s (division, brigade, battalion, company) efforts in the long run . . .
My $0.02
Tripler
First of all, greetings to all! New comer here to the SDMB and have enjoyed reading everyone’s opinions on “ABOLISHING THE AIR FORCE”! Somethings else to consider:
(1) Why don’t we consolidate all service branches into one? After all, the “Red” threat is no longer present, why do we need separate armed force branches? The short answer is: call it what you want, one or three branches, you still need people to carry out essentially the same missions that are being carried out now! It’s a matter of semantic!
(2) It’s true that the main “RED” threat is gone but things are more unstable now than ever before. Take a look at Israel, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and China (just to name a few)!
(3) Consolidation is not feasible due to doctrinal differences among the services. Today, there are still many Army officers in command positions who know little to nothing about “air power” or “air doctrine” and vice versa for the AF dudes! The rivalries are there but I think they’re more constructive rather than destructive!
(4) Finally, can we further stream-line our armed force? Probably yes but at what cost? Until the U.S. has a clearly defined foreign policy, it is difficult to combine/consolidate/modify our armed force!
NASA is does not take orders from the DoD, and is considered a civlian agency. The DoD does have indirect influence on what NASA does, though. For example, when the Space Shuttle was being designed, the DoD told NASA that The Shuttle had to have above a certain cargo capacity and also specified the cargo bay dimensions.