What purpose does the US Airforce serve?

[Mr Bean]

A question to the board in general, I've placed this in N&P because of the "P" the huge political side of this. But this is the OP in one short line.

"What purpose, or function or requirement, does the United States Air force serve, that the US Army or US Navy could not preform. IE what job can the US Airforce do that the Army or Navy would be unable to preform?"


Both historically and particulate since the end of the Cold War if not the end of WWII there seems to be no real reason to maintain a separate branch of the military as specific as the Air force. I've huge arguments against the Marines as well but It's been contented quite well in fact that the Marines and Army's mindset are vastly different from each other, the Marines are quick, as air mobile as possible, designed to be the first on the beach's or the first in theater while the Army is focused on fighting war's and occupying ground. No one man can be the master of all types of war so the separation of the Army and Marines makes sense both from a handling perspective and a training perspective.

Meanwhile the Air force seems to exist only for four possible purposes, SAC(Which is largely defunct now), Large scale bombing campaigns(Which we don't do anymore), the support of one of the other three branches, and special projects which they air force was given for whatever reason.

Why do we need an Air force Branch?
This is both a military and political question.

[thejester]

Because the other services don't have the vision to build a force structure capable of mounting a serious, independent air campaign.

Or something. You could mount the same argument for any branch of the service - why have a separate army and marine corps, for example?

[Qwerty 42]

Bombing and SAC may not be used now, but in the event of a war with a technologically equivalent opponent, those strategic concepts may see resurgence.

[thejester]

Ghetto edit: heh, that'll teach me not to read the OP in full. I would guess the differences in terms of thinking you outlined between the Army and the USMC would also be used by the Air Force to justify their existence - rather than being purely a tool of support for other arms, as it seen by (say) the Army, air power can also be a means of achieving national objectives by itself.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think that it comes down to mentality as well. The Navy currently operates the next largest group of fighters and fighter/bombers so they are the best comparison point for mentality and they are not built or deisgned to be used as instruments of theater air superiority.

Its certainly somehting to think that we will no longer have any big wars, that there will be no more Koreas or Vietnams but I doubt that we have a future facing us where the US will only face forces so lacking in air power and air defense that we could overwhelm them just with carrier based strikes. I would much rather we don't get into the fight the last war mentality. There is a very real ad potential need for a force deisgned to gain and maintain constant theater wide air superioriy both offensive and defensive.

The Navy lacks the mentality to do this largely because it has to defend its carrier...which is not part of the land based theater. Automatically this means that carrier based aviation cannot devote itself to fully ensuring that land-based forces fight under neutral skies because it has to maintain its own seperate line of defense. Now where we to turn the problme over to the Army it devolves to another mentality thing...CAS. Much as Marine aviation has honed CAS down to an art as a matter of mentality the same would likely be true of an Army Air Corps, or at least it would receive inordinate pressure to do so. We need a force that maintains offensive theater air supriority and that means bombing raids, enemy air defense supression AND CAS but if you leave the Air Force in the hands of the Army i don't think you will get the balance of the three.

Now that being said I would think that there is some value in divorcing Transportation/Airlift from Air Force control (just as I would divorce Sealift from Navy control) and create an independent branch that is established solely for Airlift/Sealift but I don't see that much value in completely eliminating the Air Force or subsumming it in another branch.

[Broomstick]

Originally, the air force WAS part of the army - the army air corps, to be precise.

However, we do still conduct bombing campaigns, even if the exact nature of them changes. The air force, if I understand correctly, is also looking towards space (I suppose if we get a US Space Force we'll need to add another side to that building in Washington and call it the Hexagon ).

If the navy focuses on doing things at sea, and the army on doing things on land, then why not a force concentrating on doing things in the air?

[Block]

I'd just like to point out that the Army focuses on doing things in the worst possible way on land If you want it done right you call the Marines.

[MKSheppard]

I'd just like to point out that the Army focuses on doing things in the worst possible way on land If you want it done right you call the Marines.

Which is why the majority of amphibious operations in the Pacific Theater, and the largest battles were Marine led....right?

Oh wait, who am I kidding, the Army conducted more amphibious operations and fought the biggest battles (take a look at Leyte), while the Marines got their rep by killing isolated japanese garrisons with little organic fire support or any chance of resupply.

[Adrian Laguna]

The Air Force, as Broomstick point out, was originally part of the Army. The reason the Army Air Corps was separated into the Air Force was because it was simply too dammed big to continue being part of the Army. Having independent branches with different areas of responsibility allows each branch to focus on that area, and for the various responsibilities to not become muddled.

[Mr Bean]

Everyone knows the Space forces will consist of Naval Officers and Space Marines where is their room in space for the Air-Force?

More to the point I would think that Air Superiority would be part of the Army's mission, If you control the skies your tanks are safe to roam and kill, if you control the skies your hunter-Helio's are free to engage concentrations of troops.

Is that whole "combined arms" thing to hard for them? I question the efficiency of a branch devoted specifically to keeping the skies clear to the exclusion of all other tasks on the battlefield.

Fotenote/Tangent I remember an Army Times piece a few months back complaining that the Airforce was keeping stander anti-air combat loads on CAS tasked planess which could have been swapped for more fuel pods to keep the birds on station longer

[SirNitram]

Pretty much, the Air Force's purpose seems to be 'Keep big military-industrial firms swimming in cheques in perpetuality' and 'Make big promises about low-cost military action and then demand more/better tech(Reinforcing the first) when the cost turns out not that low'.

[MKSheppard]

Fotenote/Tangent I remember an Army Times piece a few months back complaining that the Airforce was keeping stander anti-air combat loads on CAS tasked planess which could have been swapped for more fuel pods to keep the birds on station longer

Adding a pair of AIM-9s or a pair of AIM-120s doesn't cost you that much in payload because they go on the lighter stressed hardpoints, which can only handle x pounds; and allows the planes to do more than just "bomb the ground", if the need arises.

[MKSheppard]

Pretty much, the Air Force's purpose seems to be 'Keep big military-industrial firms swimming in cheques in perpetuality' and 'Make big promises about low-cost military action and then demand more/better tech(Reinforcing the first) when the cost turns out not that low'.

And US troops have not come under sustained enemy air attack since about late 1942 for a very good reason; while our enemies always come under sustained air attack from our planes. Gee, could it be those billions we've spent on aerospace development to have the best weapons systems that the bleeding edge can afford?

[Mr Bean]

Adding a pair of AIM-9s or a pair of AIM-120s doesn't cost you that much in payload because they go on the lighter stressed hardpoints, which can only handle x pounds; and allows the planes to do more than just "bomb the ground", if the need arises.

But they by definition decrease flight time because of the extra weight means less time over the target area. I'm not talking about carrying just two missiles but rather apparently standard load out of six. The reason I prefraced this with tangent was becaue it was a written piece I can't quote from and it's not important to the main topic(Why the Airforce should exist)

[SirNitram]

Pretty much, the Air Force's purpose seems to be 'Keep big military-industrial firms swimming in cheques in perpetuality' and 'Make big promises about low-cost military action and then demand more/better tech(Reinforcing the first) when the cost turns out not that low'.

And US troops have not come under sustained enemy air attack since about late 1942 for a very good reason; while our enemies always come under sustained air attack from our planes. Gee, could it be those billions we've spent on aerospace development to have the best weapons systems that the bleeding edge can afford?

If you were more honest, I'd expect you to give some reason why this could only be possible with the Air Force and never, ever from simply putting the funds into the other services with organic air support.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'd just like to point out that the Army focuses on doing things in the worst possible way on land If you want it done right you call the Marines.

Which is why the majority of amphibious operations in the Pacific Theater, and the largest battles were Marine led....right?

Oh wait, who am I kidding, the Army conducted more amphibious operations and fought the biggest battles (take a look at Leyte), while the Marines got their rep by killing isolated japanese garrisons with little organic fire support or any chance of resupply.

hey now, the Marines also managed to pick up the Mercenary force that the USARMYAIRFORCE lent China before we we're officially involved in that war. (drools over P40s and Corsairs)

[Block]

Basically it's because of the way funds get allocated. An airforce that was part of the Army would more than likely be funded in such a way that ground attack and close air support would be their main missions, thus not as effective at air superiority and strategic bombardment. Another big reason would be the training and organizational mentality of such a force. They just wouldn't think in the same manner as an independant air force, and it's very hard to explain why, just something in the military mindset and internal politics.

[thejester]

More to the point I would think that Air Superiority would be part of the Army's mission, If you control the skies your tanks are safe to roam and kill, if you control the skies your hunter-Helio's are free to engage concentrations of troops.

That would be the thinking that the USAF would argue should keep it independent. You're seeing airpower purely as a device to help land forces rather as something that can achieve goals on its own merits.

[Beowulf]

Why have seperate services at all? What job can the Army do that the Marines can't absorb?

The Air Force exist primarily due to a need to have a force focused on the needs of an air service. Yes, SAC is dead, but the components that made it up still exist (in ACC, AFSPC and STRATCOM), and there is an argument that it needs to come back. Witness the resignation of the CSAF and SECAF. Most of what they resigned over would never have happened in the days of SAC.

If the Air Force was merged back into the Army, then it's likely that it'd have to compete for funding with other parts of the Army. As such, only those parts that actually support the Army's core competencies will end up being fully funded. You'd see a lot of air to mud planes, and possibly transports. Aerial tankers wouldn't be part of the plan, nor air superiority fighters or heavy bombers.

The army mindset also works against air power. The terrain of the air is different. There are no fronts, no flanks, no chokepoints, no lines. Control is epheremal. The bomber will always get through (well, not always, but it's extremely difficult to stop an air attack completely). Defense has no advantage, but rather a severe disadvantage. And army men with no concept of how an air war must be conducted will be put in charge of it. It's happened before, and will happen again. There'd be planes dedicated to certain parts of the tactical theater, which sounds like a great idea, except that those planes could be more effectively used in another part.

The only way around that is to put the airmen into a seperate organization within the Army. At that point you've effectively created a branch within the Army. You might as well just make it a seperate co-equal branch.

[MKSheppard]

If you were more honest, I'd expect you to give some reason why this could only be possible with the Air Force and never, ever from simply putting the funds into the other services with organic air support.

Because it has been done before, and it didn't work.

I've got the Standard Aircraft Characteristics for both the A and B model Harriers (the pet project of the US Marines) here along with a ton of other aircraft, and it's a sad tale.

AV-8A Harrier

Hi-Hi-Hi Strike Pattern (most fuel efficient)
5 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 271 nm combat radius with 2,500 lbs of bombs
3 x Mk 82 Snakeyes and 2 x 120 gallon tanks - 405 nm combat radius with 1,500 lbs of bombs

Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi Strike Pattern:
3 x Mk 82 Snakeyes and 2 x 120 gallon tanks - 203 nm combat radius with 1,500 lbs of bombs

Lo-Lo-Lo Strike Pattern:
5 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 113 nm combat radius with 2,500 lbs of bombs
3 x Mk 82 Snakeyes and 2 x 120 gallon tanks - 175 nm combat radius with 1,500 lbs of bombs

Combat Air Patrol:
2 x AIM-9G Sidewinders: 100 nm combat radius, with 56 minute loiter time.

Such a great performance ain't it? We gave the Marines a shitload of money to improve the Harrier, leading to the AV-8B version:

AV-8B Harrier II

Close Air Support (1 hour loiter at 5,000 ft)
6 x Mk 82 Snakeyes + Gun - 192 nm combat radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs

Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi Strike Pattern:
6 x Mk 82 Snakeyes + Gun - 282 nm combat radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakeyes + Gun + 2 x 300 gallon tanks - 460 nm combat radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
4 x AGM-65 Mavericks + Gun - 274 nm combat radius

Lo-Lo-Lo Strike Pattern:
6 x Mk 82 Snakeyes + Gun - 192 nm combat radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakeyes + Gun + 2 x 300 gallon tanks - 294 nm combat radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
4 x AGM-65 Mavericks + Gun - 189 nm combat radius

Combat Air Patrol:
4 x AIM-9s + Gun - 150 nm radius with 89 minute loiter time.

Lets take a look at oh, I dunno.....the A-7A Corsair II; ordered by the USN, and then adopted by the USAF to replace their A-1 Skyraiders....This is BTW, the 1967 version, going up against the 1980s AV-8B....

A-7A Corsair II

Close Air Support (1 hour loiter at 5,000 ft)
6 x Mk 82 Snakeeyes - 540 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakees and 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks - 785 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
18 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 260 nm radius with 9,000 lbs of bombs

Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi Strike Pattern:
6 x Mk 82 Snakeeyes - 610 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakees and 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks - 860 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
18 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 385 nm radius with 9,000 lbs of bombs

Lo-Lo-Lo Strike Pattern:
6 x Mk 82 Snakeeyes - 410 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakees and 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks - 580 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
18 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 320 nm radius with 9,000 lbs of bombs

There's no listing for Combat Air Patrol for the A-7 Corsair, but this is mainly because of mission differences -- the Marines wanted the AV-8 to act as fighters for their Amphibs, while the A-7 is flown as a light strike plane. In any event, you can load four AIM-9 Sidewinders onto the A-7 it's listed as a approved store for Stations 1, 8, 4 and 5.

Gunwise, it's even worse for the Harriers:

AV-8A: 2 x 30mm Guns in Gun Pod with 200 rounds
AV-8B: 2 x 25mm Guns in Gun Pod with 300 rounds
A-7A: 2 x 20mm Guns with 500 rounds or 680 rounds

Put simply, the A-7 SLUF flies faster, further and higher with three times the bombload, and carries between 2 and 3 times the gun ammunition of the Harrier, and crashes much less often.

Hell, if you think the A-7 is a unfair comparison to the Harrier; lets go to a 1950s piston engined aircraft -- the A-1H/J Skyraider!

Close Air Support (1 hour loiter at 5,000 ft)
6 x Mk 82 Snakeeyes - 320nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakees and 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks - 800 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
16 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 203nm radius with 8,000 lbs of bombs

Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi Strike Pattern:
6 x Mk 82 Snakeeyes - 360nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakees and 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks - 890nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
16 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 270nm radius with 8,000 lbs of bombs

Lo-Lo-Lo Strike Pattern:
6 x Mk 82 Snakeeyes - 390nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
6 x Mk 82 Snakees and 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks - 945 nm radius with 3,000 lbs of bombs
16 x Mk 82 Snakeyes - 195nm radius with 8,000 lbs of bombs

I think I'll stop here. Put simply, the Marines are the worst service to expect anything from; the Army had much more sense -- in the 1960s, they actually did try to acquire the following aircraft for use as CAS aircraft:

• Fiat G.91
• Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
• Northrop N-156F (the aircraft evaluated by the Army was later rebuilt as the F-5 Freedom Fighter prototype).

And later, Army pilots formed part of the Multinational Harrier test group -- the Army wisely decided not to pursue further development or acquistion of the type, while the Marines did; and from above, we know how THAT turned out.

Anyway; it's inevitable that the Army will once again have an Army Air Corps flying F-15 performance level aircraft by 2030, while the USAF flies Mach 5 hypersonic fighters at 125,000 feet, due to various service needs.

[MKSheppard]

I've huge arguments against the Marines as well but It's been contented quite well in fact that the Marines and Army's mindset are vastly different from each other

Nope. The USMC is literally Army Junior in Iraq now. When's the last time they actually did their mission -- execute amphibious landings against a hostile shore? All their combat since Korea has been conventional fighting.

[Block]

I've huge arguments against the Marines as well but It's been contented quite well in fact that the Marines and Army's mindset are vastly different from each other

Nope. The USMC is literally Army Junior in Iraq now. When's the last time they actually did their mission -- execute amphibious landings against a hostile shore? All their combat since Korea has been conventional fighting.

Somalia actually, but who's counting? Besides that, you've clearly proven you know dick about the Marines. The Marines mission now is much broader, and is basically to be a rapid response force. You can call that being the Army jr. except that they do it better with fewer resources than the Army ever has and that they made the adjustment first, but again, who's counting?

[Mr Bean]

Nope. The USMC is literally Army Junior in Iraq now. When's the last time they actually did their mission -- execute amphibious landings against a hostile shore? All their combat since Korea has been conventional fighting.

Yes now, because were not set up to conduct an occupation, we are set up to fight a war.

Iraq has fucked up many a plan, that's beside the point.

[MKSheppard]

Somalia actually, but who's counting?

You call a landing into the television lights of the international media a "hostile shore"?

Besides that, you've clearly proven you know dick about the Marines.

No, I actually study things, not buy into Marine hyperbole.

You can call that being the Army jr. except that they do it better with fewer resources than the Army ever has

If they're so great managing resources, then why are the first two Major USMC Procurement programs on a level comparable with the other services' development programs such giant stinking piles of crap?

The Marines can only manage a program when the majority of the work has been done already for them by someone else -- and when the weapons systems are not too complex -- the LVTP-7 series is basically a light armored box with very little in the way of complex subsystems.

[MKSheppard]

Put bluntly, the US Marine Corps does not have the programmatic experience or skill within their "corporate" base, as it is, to manage large, complex weapons systems development -- a direct result of their retarded "Everyone is a Rifleman and Shoots!" mindset, which appeals to people whose grasp of tactics begins with the etch-a-sketch box and pretty lines.