My question is the same for all time. How do we best defend this nation? If the Air Force is part of that, it remains a vital part of the triumvirate. If not, they should be absorbed elsewhere.
Which outfit is doing the Lord's work preparing for the next war, or even later in this one. Is the Air Force providing needed innovation to help keep us one step ahead of the bad guys? Can the Air Force do things the Army, Navy and Marines can't and aren't interested in developing?
Would we be better off with just one branch of the military? What would you call it? The United States Military? Heck, maybe that's the right direction.
“Would we be better off with just one branch of the military? What would you call it? The United States Military? Heck, maybe that’s the right direction.”
Canada tried that and it didn’t work real well. While they’re still a “unified” service, they backtracked and gave the branches separate uniforms again.
My problem with the Air Force is that too many of their brain trust still have Billy Mitchell’s mentality; air power alone can win wars, and other services are basically outmoded, should be shrunk, and have a portion of their budgets sent to the Air Force. That’s why I think absorbing a semi-independent USAF into the Department of the Army is a good idea. With the advent of submarine launched ballistic missiles, the Air Force lost exclusivity of the nuclear mission anyway, so that mission isn’t a reason for complete independence anymore. Also, both services should use West Point for officer training, and that would get their thinking on the same page, where it should be. There’s a place for independent strategic missions, but the vast majority of USAF’s job is in fact supporting Army objectives anyway; air superiority is for keeping enemy aircraft from doing harm to ground troops. Tactical air is for dropping bombs in support of those same troops. And transport is mainly for supplying those troops. The days when SAC took up half of USAF’s mission (and resources) are long gone, and are never coming back. USAF should return to some of its USAAF roots.
Which outfit is doing the Lord’s work preparing for the next war,
My bet is they all are. I was AF, but I recognize the value of each service and the fact that each has particular missions that are not duplicated by other branches.
The AF has the unsung refuelers whose mission of getting other aircraft to fly longer and further than their design allowed before having to land is pretty unique, and logistically a miracle.
Iraq is not a nonstop destination for aircraft unrefueled. Especially fighter aircraft. Anyone think that air refueling is going away anytime soon?
We have had some new bombers like the B-1 and B-2 but narry a new refueler since the sixties, ok maybe a few KC-10’s. Yes they put new engines on the old 135’s, which was a great idea and paying great dividends, but since the acquisition of the tanker, the force has been decreasing in numbers ever since, and I’m betting the call for AR is close to the max capability.
There are other really unique missions, like Reconaissance Hurricane Hunters, Medical Evacuation, VIP flights, Airborne Command and Control, and a host of other important and necessary roles for aircraft and crew.
Actually, we have achieved much better blending of forces under the current structure that results from Goldwater-Nichols which did a lot to diminish the separate voices and competing demands of the separate services.
Well, the USAF was developed in large cause to the efforts of Gen. Billy Mitchell, who was courts-martialed for releasing the results of bombing tests that he conducted to prove the necessity of a stronger air power. The Army was sealing them to protect their own dominance of air power.
In a sense there is a healthy degree of fighting within the branches, which requires each to make a case for its own survival as a unique force.
I am sure that there will be several realignments over the course of the next 100 years, as the methods of warfare change.
Being an Air Force vet, I obviously see the need for the Air Force as its own DoD branch. It is true that the Navy/Marines and Army each have their own forms of air power, but this makes sense because their uses of their own forms of air power support their missions directly.
There are reasons that the Navy uses the aircraft on the aircraft carrier, and just for the sake of cutting red tape, those planes need to be under the control of the Navy. The Army needs to maintain control of their helicopters. Because the Marines fall under the Department of the Navy, it makes sense for the Department of the Navy to maintain control and use of the Harrier, etc.
The Air Force has always relied on the need for more permanent bases, usually farther back from the battle lines. With this, they can use radar and respond quickly to an air threat. The nature of the US Army requires them to be at the front, which does not provide the necessary security to the aircraft that our military uses. It does not take long for an enemy aircraft (stealth or flying under radar) to take out a whole squadron of aircraft. Furthermore, I’d like to see a bomber land on an aircraft carrier.