I agree. That the Army provides a large part of the training infrastructure for Marine training says that when it’s recognized that duplication can be unnecessary there is money to be saved.
“Army” aviation is limited to rotary wing assets for the most part. This is some kind of agreement that really isn’t in the interest of a ground campaign. Now the Air Force wants to do away with the A-10, and I think that plan was part of the recent DOD budget.
The F35 replacement is plagued with problems and isn’t ready to replace, and some say won’t be without a redesign that will increase the cost of this 100 million per unit aircraft. The A-10, on the other hand, costs about 12 million a copy. The comparison of cost is different than a comparison of capabilities, and some don’t think the F35 can pick up all that the A-10 does.
So, what reason is there for not having the Army have its own fixed wing assets to go with its rotary wing when the Marines have their own air assets?
It has nothing to do with effective combat. It has to do with “turf issues.”
It seems weird that our Airborne, Rangers, Special Forces, are always having to depend on assets from another branch of the service to be able to operate, and even train.
Today we have the Army depending on the Air Force.