Out of random curiosity, do the Marine’s even still perform their original purpose? I mean, I’m sure ship-to-ship boarding actions aren’t a particularly large concern to the Navy anymore, but I’m sure they must still maintain a small number of armed personnel to guard sensitive parts of the ship, arrest unruly crew members, deal with trouble in ports and board ships stopped for smuggling and the like. Are these armed personnel still members of the Marine Corp, or does the Navy now have a separate sub-division to do what the Marines used to do?
Marines do ship board security.
Correct. In addition, part of the Fleet Marine Corps deploys on ships such as the LPH (Landing Platform Helicopter), which are Iwo Jima Class amphibious assault ships, carrying Harrier aircraft and helicopters piloted by Marines.
As has been mentioned, there were two branches: the army and navy. So why 5 today? Being an independent branch assures the branch will have its own political influence and thus command more money. Essentially, an independent branch has a seat at the table within government and commands more political clout that way (than just being a “division” within the branch). For instance, the air force argued in the 1920-30’s that air capability was the way of the future and needed for national security (always argue national security), but that potential was hindered by traditionalists within the Army (translate, we need more money allocated to airpower, but not enough of the money allocated to the Army is being given to us; with our own branch we’ll have our own direct flow of money.)
The same case was made for Special Forces having their own branch in the 1980’s (for counter-terrorism national security). Maybe it will be made again in light of the bin Laden mission and current GWOT, in which special forces excels at. I’ve always thought full might of the army/marines was too much to fight terrorists, and law enforcement not enough…special forces is just right.
Why not have a ‘military’ with separate divisions…tradition (coupled with the political influence to keep it that way). Likely originally based on the UK model which is even more sharply divided.
Aside from the cultural issues, you have the large issue of expertise. We have a hard enough time keeping our qualifications with everything that we’re supposed to be able to do in the Navy. If you start adding in other areas in which we’re supposed to be proficient, it starts taking away from the other areas. This consolidation idea never goes anywhere because while it’s an interesting theory to talk about, it doesn’t make sense on an operational level.
I would have to get used to the idea of members of the US Navy pulling me over on my boat to see if I was carrying enough life jackets. That type of function, however, could be turned over more to local police forces.
Joining the Army and the Navy doesn’t mean the sailors will suddenly be asked to drive tanks, you know. I mean, it’s not as if Air Force intelligence officers know how to fly planes or program computers - everyone has their own duties and qualifications. The only thing that will change is that some redundancies will be eliminated, and that you’ll have more cross-pollination.
The first question I’d ask is: What is the goal?
Not sure you’re saving any money by combining them, but you might lose some expertise. Flying off a carrier is not the same as flying off a runway for example. And the Army and Marine Corps have to separate and distinct missions.
Again, that’s not what we’re talking about here. The changes would be purely organizational and logistical; no indivdual MOS would have to change.
How do other nations use their carriers then? The Marines thing is purely US but the use of carriers isnt.
Competition, it’s the American way. Two or more groups, all trying to solve the same problem (how to kill effectively in this case), is not the most efficient way of doing things, its the way to get the best result. Many of the “solutions” the military develops don’t get real life testing until too late. It’s the nature of the business. Having two or more solutions ready is a good idea if you can afford it.
I’m not sure this is by design.
Quoth dtilque:
I added the weasel word because I thought there might be some aircraft operated by both services (wasn’t that supposed to be the idea behind the Joint Strike Fighter?). But even there, I imagine that there are significant modifications to the basic design for carrier operation.
As for other militaries which don’t make the distinction, I understand that they just make all of their planes carrier-capable, and just don’t worry about the specialized missions that can only be performed by non-carrier aircraft. That’s what they have us for, after all.
1)That would mean all air operations are sea-based, which is obviously false
2)That would also mean that all air operations throughout the world are carried with the assistance of the US. Not only the US dont lend their air force to their allies on all their military operations, but what about countries not allied wih the States? How does Russia proceed for example?
yes, you’re thinking of (I assume) of this: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia
There are significant differences between the different models.
What nation makes all of it’s aircraft carrier capable?
Marine Corps pilots go through six months of school with Marine officers getting all sorts of MOS’s, with everyone doing the same humps, rifle range, squad/platoon/company in the assault/defense/ambush training, whether they end up as a grunt, a data dink, or an F/A-18 pilot. Marine Pilot folks spent lots of cold rainy nights in fighting positions in northern VA.
That’s the Marines. You think an Air Force jet jockey gives a damn about a mud-pounder? The reason the Army has armed helicopters is because the Air Force couldn’t be bothered with actually supporting the people with boots on the ground.
They both use C-130s, but then just about everybody uses the C-130.
That’s it, we’re taking our A-10s and going home.
Warthog drivers are ground-pounders in their hearts. 
I knew someone would say that. If you look at the procurement history of the A-10 Thunderbolt, though, you’ll see that the Air Force had to be dragged into getting it kicking and screaming. It was the Army that really, really wanted them overhead.