This one was pretty good:
Posted on 04/28/2005 3:23:19 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
WASHINGTON — Army Lt. Gen. David Barno, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, had the task of covering that huge country with just 18,000 troops.
It was possible to do so, he observed, because "airpower from all the services ... have given ground forces ... the ability to operate in smaller units and respond quicker, with more accurate weaponry, than at any other point in history."
Over the last 15 years, many have come to regard airpower as the key to victory, in war zones ranging from the gulf to the Balkans, from Afghanistan to Iraq. Fighter forces, in particular, have proved to be effective, destroying defended targets, supporting fast-moving land forces and dominating the sky.
Yet serious questions keep cropping up. Is the size of the tactical fighter fleet about right or is it "excessive"? The USAF fighter force has fallen from 37 to 20 wings. Navy and Marine Corps aviation arms have shrunk, too.
Top Pentagon leaders claim the armed services invest too much in fighters. They see air dominance as one area in which the U.S. has "excessive overmatch." The new National Defense Strategy, released March 1, suggests cutting some of the overmatch so as to better fund new capabilities and expand ground forces.
According to "Inside the Navy," a newsletter, Deputy Defense Secretary-designate Gordon England recently told reporters he sees great potential in "integrating" Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Army aviation. England left no doubt about the basic objective: "If you can gain efficiencies in tactical forces," he said, "what else can you do with the money?"
Any such move now could pit the Air Force, the Navy/Marine team, and, to a degree, the Army against each other, conceivably igniting a dustup over roles.
The last such tussle came in the mid-1990s. It was sparked by Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who lamented, among other things, that America's was "the only military in the world with four air forces." A blue-ribbon Commission on Roles and Missions, or CORM, spent more than a year pondering the subject.
The commission found the supposed "problem" proved to be largely illusory. CORM in 1995 reported, "Inefficiencies attributed to the so-called 'four air forces' were mostly in the infrastructure, not on the battlefield."
Second, CORM concluded that a little redundancy isn't a bad thing. A recent case in point: the pivotal role played by naval air in the first weeks of war in Afghanistan — a remote, landlocked nation far outside the Navy's usual mission focus.
Third, overlap fosters interservice competition, often resulting in better systems or concepts of operations, whether they concern close air support, long-range strike or something else.
The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.
Even so, there are sound reasons to make the Air Force the "keeper" of the tactical aviation art. The air arms of the other services are limited; their primary purpose is to perform missions tied directly to their basic land power, sea power or amphibious roles.
Yet, Pentagon officials should be cautious before tampering too much with the current size and structure of the services' tactical air forces.
They would do well to heed the admonition of Gen. Gregory Martin, who has commanded U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the Air Force Materiel Command and who recently warned:
"Nothing works without air and space dominance. Nothing. We don't want to assume that we will always have it. We want to always understand what it takes to get it, and we want to make sure we are building the systems that will give it to us."
He does when he wants a ride.
Seriously, I sure remember a lot of my fellow midshipmen becoming Marines.
I will take your comment as a hint to revise mine though. The USN and Marine Corps are parts of the same naval service.
Isn't working now with the Army (ground support) failing to get good funding and designs from the USAF (fighter-bomber-missile-space-communications) mind-set. O Marines go it alone with the Harrier.
GREAT!
I was specifically thinking of the F-14 vs. F-15, and the F-16 vs. the F/A-18. To the best of what I've read, the F-14 and F-15 had the same mission and much the same performance, although each had its advantages. Same with the F-16 vs. the F/A-18. Heck, the F/A-18 was originally the F-17 Cobra, and it lost the USAF competition with the F-16. The taxpayers would have been better served had the USN and USAF decided together on two of the four. Sure, there's arguments pro and con for each aircraft, but in the end, it came down to "I don't wanna play with somebody else's toys."
If you recall, the Rangers in Grenada (or was it Panama? I don't recall aright) had to use their telephone credit cards to call back through Ft. Bragg to get Navy gunfire support, because their radios didn't talk to each other. The USMC was using PRC-77s *long* after the Army got SINCGARS, and the two won't talk to each other if the SINCGARS is transmitting in the red.
Are the French still using the F-8 ?
"Help me out here, but has a Navy admiral has ever ordered a Marine operation to hold land (maybe a port seizure that I'm forgetting about somewhere?) without it being essentially a joint operation? The island hopping campaign of WWII comes to mind as a possibility, but they were still conceived and planned as joint operations."
Back then (WW II) the Marines were more of a Department of the Navy Corps and less of an independent entity. ADM Nimitz had no problem telling them where to go and when in the Pacific. Their change in status came when the Army and Army Air Corps (reborn U. S. Air Force) tried to out muscle the Navy in the newly born Department of Defense. The politicians finally gave the USMC a vote to offset the Army/Army Air Corps majority. Just put the Air Force back into the Army and many problems would be resolved.
Anybody that thinks this is a good idea knows nothing about military objectives.
Why don't you tell us, sir?
Yes, and quite often you have different elements of the same service with differing equipment as well. Simply combining everyone won't solve that problem, good Joint headwork helps though.
5. Does anyone know why the Air Force became the Air Force and not part of the Army?
SAC and MAC.
Have you noticed that this is a controversial subject?
"The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.
No, not entirely – but they fought against the Army arming it’s helicopters and succeeded in limiting Army aviation to rotary wing when it lost that fight." I thought they authorized the Army to fly Piper Cubs also?
Navy/Marine aviation can't be replaced or replicated by the Air Force. There are no clubs on an air craft carrier.
This one was pretty good:
I understand your reasoning, but the facts do not support your assumptions.
The F-14 was primarily designed as a fleet defense fighter. It was a Grumman "spinoff" of the F-111 (TFX) concept that the Navy rejected. It provides three "layers" of defense: Beyond visual range (BVR) with the Phoenix missile system. The Phoenix is primarily a cruise missile carrier killer. Intermediate range defense is provided with the AIM-7 Sparrow or AMRAAM. Finally self defense/close in defense is provided with the AIM-9 Sidewinder. The F-14 also has a gun. In all cases the purpose of the Tomcat is to provide the weapon system platform to protect the fleet against unmanned and manned threats. The Tomcat could be controlled by data link to Aegis or airborne command and control systems. In that sense it was more like the F-102/F-106 SAGE system.
The F-15 was designed from the ground-up as an air superiority fighter. While the AIM-7/AMRAAM and the AIM-9 are common systems with the F-14 it has an entirely different mission. It was designed to outfly anything it opposed while the pilot was in MK1 eyeball contact with the enemy. The F-15E was designed from the basic F-15 platform to provide a huge strike capability. It is still a formidable air combat fighter even when all bombed up.
The story is similar with the F-16 and F-18. The F-16 was intended to be a low cost "expendible" force expansion air combat fighter. They were never planned to be as good as they are in multirole capabilities. That was a very pleasant surprise to USAF planners. The Navy is emulating that with the F-18.
Here at Yuma we constantly see F-18s going through WTI all bombed up. The are a strike fighter with ACM capability. As the F-14 retires, they are assuming the fleet defense role with much more limited intercepter capabilities. As they assume this role they are approximating the F-16 mission, but they are doing it from a 15 year "backload" meaning the mission is thrust on the F-18 rather that the F-18 being designed for the mission.
Not to mention an army with more boats than it's navy.
No grudges, sir. But I studied real hard to be a good wrench on those birds, only to lose them before I ever got the chace. I still got to ride in 'em a lot. They just said Air Force on the tail. Good plane. Did the job it was designed to do and did it very well.
Sgt. Beelzepug
You cannot win on the ground unless you own the air!
Presonally, I'd like as many Air Arms as possible. Which is why the Navy has aircraft carriers, which Marines also fly planes off of and onto.
The Army gave up its Fixed Wing Capability during the early days of Vietnam. Where the Army took over nearly all helicopter operations. While the Air Force retained and expanded its Aircraft operations. That seperation of capabilities is still in effect.
Which might explain the Army's desire to retain the recently nixed Commanche helicopter. Which was basically as Close Air Support and fighter aircraft with a rotor on top.
The Air Force was the only service with three seperate Missions and Commands. SAC (Strategic Air Command. Which has evolved into Bomber Command) the old Curtis LeMay Cold Warriors who enforced Mutual Assured Destruction daily, when not dropping bombs North of the DMZ during Vietnam.
TAC (Tactical Air Command. Which is now Fighter Command) Self-explanitory.
MAC (Military Airlift Command. Which is now Air Mobility Command) Hauling troops and cargo to all points of the world.
All three of these Commands went through their recent PC'ed name changes during the Clinton Administration.
Jack.
Even recon aircraft have to be rotary wing. The change came during the Viet Nam War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.