Should Uncle Sam have one air force instead of four?

MySA.com ^ | 04/28/2005 | Robert S. Dudney

[Gunrunner2]

>>I'm just rattling your cage about all the "fighter" stuff.<<

NOW you tell me.

[SampleMan]

Context of MSM question...

First, the shooting through schools. I think the movie was "Johnny Danerously" or something like that. A guy pulls a enormous handgun out of his jacket and someone says, "Man what is that!" to which he responds, "It's an 88 magnum, it shoots through schools."

Well my buddy and I were listening to some MSM idiot reporter asking an A-10 pilot fresh from a mission (pointing at the gun muzzle on the A-10), "So what is this thing and what does it do?" Of course this was also when the MSM was reporting outside the "Baby Milk Factory". We immediately both thought the same thing regarding an appropriate answer, "That there, is a 30mm cannon, it shoots through schools."

I'm very familiar with the nice IR qualities of high-bypass. Its also nice having them outside of the fuselage.

[Cvengr]

We should only have one air force for the same reasons only one service should be in charge of any and all types of computer systems in the military services.

[Gunrunner2]

Yeah.. I can see the connection. Some of the dumbest questions ever are from MSM, and the sad thing is. . .I expect dumb questions because the MSM has no clue, no knowledge, no awareness of the subject they are supposed to be reporting on, and it doesn't matter if they have no idea about the subject, as long as a republican is for it (or conservative), they are against it.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Incorrect. Something you failed to learn at Canoe U., obviously. Marines and squids both serve in the sea service. Although I had the misfortune of having to serve with a number of mediocre and lackluster squids, along with a few excellent ones, I didn't serve in the same naval service that they did. You can flap your gums as long as you like and it won't change that fact. The Marine Corps and the navy are two separate and distinct branches of the military which happen to report directly to the same appointed civilian leader.

[A.A. Cunningham]

No. The frogs retired the F-8 in 1999.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200008/ai_n8921368

[A.A. Cunningham]

If he did then he's contradicting himself. The Marines didn't want the A-10 when they were supposed to get some of them in 1991 and they don't want them now. The Corps wants to get to one tactical airframe.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I can see at least one advantage of having different branches of the services, whether it be air forces, or ground troops or whatever. We all have heard the old adage about generals preparing to figh the last war. If you have one force, and the powers to be guess wrong, your entire military establishment is weakened. If you have one force that makes better decisions, even if it is a numerically smaller one like the Marine Corps, when the fit hits the shan they `are better prepared to fight and the other services can learn from them.

The same goes true for the fight for resources. Even with inefficiencies, the various factions fighting for money helps keep a balance where no one aspect is ignored as it might be with one great, monolithic command structure.

[SampleMan]

Interesting how they "just happen" to report to the SECNAV. Kinda like the Army just happens to report to the Secretary of the Army.

What an amazing coincidence!!!!

[xzins]

The agreement between the army and the air force is that the army takes rotary and the air force takes fixed wing.

For the bombs, one has to deal with the air force. It's a good working compromise if the results of our last few wars are any indication.

Therefore, the army doesn't get the jets. In that case, it has to send up an air support request, and if rejected, has to work it with the theater commander who is above the supporting air expeditionary force and in control of all forces.

[Gunrunner2]

>>In that case, it has to send up an air support request, and if rejected, has to work it with the theater commander who is above the supporting air expeditionary force and in control of all forces.<<

The Army determines apportionment for "their" sorties, not the Air Force (JFACC); therefore, a) if there is a disagreement on apportionment then the various Corps/Division/Brigade commanders take it up with the LCC commander. If it is for CAS, then there is the immediate TARN. As I said earlier, I have never seen an Immediate request go unanswered.

[Gunrunner2]

>>The Marines didn't want the A-10 when they were supposed to get some of them in 1991<<

I am going to have to ask you to provide proof that they ever were offered the A-10. Really.

[Mr Rogers]

Gotta believe the Army understand the requirements, necessities and importance of blowing up enemy tanks and artillery much better than the USAF.

But they don't understand flying. I spent 2 years as an ALO, and there is no idea WORSE than letting the Army control airpower. They understand the need (as does the USAF guy with them on the ground!), but they don't have clue one about how to deliver it.

Well, maybe Hillary as Pres is a worse idea, but...

[A.A. Cunningham]

You'll have to search through the Congressional Record to find the directive from the Armed Services Committee and my copy of Proceedings that dealt with this is archived in storage but the following deals with the issue, albeit in a rudimentary manner. You are aware that the Air Force wanted to begin getting rid of the A-10 prior to Desert Storm aren't you?

'In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A's and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.

However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CAS mission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed.'

[Mr Rogers]

The F-16, equipped with SADL/MIDS and 3rd gen targeting pods, is a great CAS platform. Even its 'legs' have gotten longer with time.

[A.A. Cunningham]

You have a firm grasp of the obvious. No wonder you are a squid.

[RFEngineer]

The inter-service rivalry apparent on this thread means that all is well.......If everyone agreed, THEN I'd be worried.

[Gunrunner2]

Never were "ordered" by congress. If you think there ever was such an order, and because you made the allegation, please cite the congressional record.

The congress cannot "order" the executive branch to transfer assets from one service to another. That would violate all sorts of laws (and common-sense). Likely the reporters you read have no clue about the aircraft nor its mission(s). Can you imagine the congress ordering the Navy to turn over aircraft carriers to the USAF? Same thing. It's nonsense, as well as stepping all over the separation of powers and the role of the Commander-in-Chief.

As far as being aware of the history and future of the aircraft. . .*snort*. . .read my bio, Bucko.

As far as "ordering" the USAF to retain the A-10 for the CAS mission, again, who said so and, again, the reporter hasn't a clue.

The A-10 was assuming the role of the O/A-10, as in airborne FAC. . .hence the O/A-10 designation. Same jet, just different emphasis in training squares.

Details, please. You make the allegations now provide the official record.

I'll stand by. . .

[SampleMan]

Thanks for the complement! And might I say, you have a curious fixation with the mundane, but I wouldn't want to credit that to the entire USMC.

Take a long breath and smile. There are people out there ready to fly jetliners into skyscrapers. I'm not one of them.

[AF_Blue]

A replacement for which aircraft?