What purpose does the US Airforce serve?

[FedRebel]

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.

Case in point in 1992 TAC was given custody of SAC's bombers and charged with their proper operation, the now ACC has a tiny problem of bombers flying around with nuclear ordinance by accident.

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

Personally I think the whole naval ranking system thing for Sci/Fi space militaries is just cliche and only exists to make things easier for hack writers (is it 'Colonel' or 'kernel'?) and for a generally less knowledgeable audience to understand and not get confused with

Since a real "Space Force" would evolve from the Air Force it would utilize the Air Force's ranking system (i.e. how the USAF kept the army ranking system instead of creating their own.)

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

Easy now, that's McNamara like thinking

[MKSheppard]

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

Actually, there already is a US Space Force. It's the US Air Force.

Gen. Thomas D. White, the Chief of Staff of the USAF wrote these words in 1959:

To control space we must not only be able to go through it with vehicles that travel from point to point, but we must be able to stay in space with human beings who can carry out jobs efficiently.

I look upon the Air Force's interest and ventures into space as being as logical and natural as when men of old in sailing ships first ventured forth from the inland seas into the great oceans. As these ancient seafarers gained knowledge of the inland seas and learned more about the elements, they built larger ships and ventured farther away from land. This achievement required men who had learned the many things there were to know about the inland seas. Similarly, ventures into outer space require men who know the air. There are no barriers between air and space. Air and space are an indivisible field of operations.

Air Force progress toward space has been evolutionary-the natural development and extension of speed, altitude, and sustained flight. These qualities have been our stock in trade throughout the fifty years of Air Force history. We have strived continually to fly faster, to fly higher, and to remain airborne longer.

When Maj. Rudolph W. Schroeder, back in 1920 set an altitude record of 33,113 feet, he gave impetus to knowledge that enabled Capt. Iven Kincheloe to take the Bell X-2 to 126,200 feet-thirty-six years later.

When Gen. Billy Mitchell set a speed record of 222.96 mph for one kilometer in 1922, he traveled approximately five times as fast as Orville Wright traveled on his initial flight-but only one-eighth as fast as Col. Frank Everest flew the X-2 in 1956.

[MKSheppard]

Since a real "Space Force" would evolve from the Air Force it would utilize the Air Force's ranking system (i.e. how the USAF kept the army ranking system instead of creating their own.)

Actually, I expect the big battle of the 2100s to be between the USAF and US Navy over control of Space based assets. The USN will probably claim that due to it's long history of building and operating complex manned assets for long periods of time independent of bases, they should get the job for long range spacecraft.

The USAF of course, will fiercely contest this, claiming that they, because they are the AIR FORCE, have a natural right to Space.

Meanwhile, the Army will just be sitting by the sidelines with an amused grin on it's face as it builds a large fleet of interplanetary freighters, unnoticed by everyone

[Sea Skimmer]

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)

The threat of a surprise Iranian or even Pakistani air attack, or cruise missiles or random UAVs appearing is more then enough reason to keep a robust air to air load out on planes. By arming every plane for air to air we avoid the need to fly dedicated combat air patrols. Anyway we fly enough fighter bomber sorties per day, 30-40 over Iraq and about 30 over Afghanistan that the endurance of any one aircraft can’t be that big a deal. Our troops already enjoy simply absurdly more air support on a more closely coordinated basis then has ever before existed.

[Raptor 597]

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)

The threat of a surprise Iranian or even Pakistani air attack, or cruise missiles or random UAVs appearing is more then enough reason to keep a robust air to air load out on planes. By arming every plane for air to air we avoid the need to fly dedicated combat air patrols. Anyway we fly enough fighter bomber sorties per day, 30-40 over Iraq and about 30 over Afghanistan that the endurance of any one aircraft can’t be that big a deal. Our troops already enjoy simply absurdly more air support on a more closely coordinated basis then has ever before existed.

This is true, I can't speak in real details because of OPSEC but the amount of support is unreal. My Cav Troop in a podunk area of medium value to OIF and we've got excellent air support our ops. It adds so much to the arsenal, the Air Force is needed as a force multiplier and as a cordon ability.

[Kanastrous]

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.

During "Iraqi Freedom" USAF B-52s were used to area-bomb Iraqi military formations in the open, which sounds like a sort of 'large-scale bombing campaign' that would have been difficult to execute using a carrier air wing's ground-attack assets, or those of more than one carrier air wing.

[Medic]

The differences in mindsets between the branches of:
1) armor
2) infantry
3) cavalry (or scouts)
4) artillery
and skill-qualifications like:
1) air-assault (rappelling out of helicopters and other things)
2) airborne (jumping out of perfectly good airplanes)
3) Ranger (actually I think they're a branch... not sure, but there are Ranger Battalions so that makes them more like a branch: they have their own units)
and Special Forces, all just within the Army, make weak -- very, very weak -- the idea that the U.S.M.C. deserves a more independent status than USAF, who if nothing else, gets natural purview of space-based assets.
(ALL of the above branches / skill qualifications MOS's have individuals who have stubborn pride in their particular area of expertise; adding "Marine" onto the above list would be a marginal difference, it'd just be one more MOS in the US Army that thought it was better than all the rest)

There IS NO distinction between air and space except which is supposedly drawn up in treaties so we don't 'weaponize' space. Air is higher than ground and space higher than air; are we to seriously draw an invisible line at a particular altitude in the sky that is sufficiently above normal air-breathing aircrafts' ceilings but below a low-earth orbit where spy-satellites and other assets reside? How about when technology moves the former's altitude closer to the latter? When they intersect and then diverge? It's a ludicrous distinction, nothing like the difference between a "Marine" and a "Soldier" which basically amounts to a different PT test and different colored-uniforms -- they both close with, engage and destroy enemies of the United States in close combat.

[phongn]

Er, the air and space environment are very different beasts.

[MKSheppard]

Er, the air and space environment are very different beasts.

Not really. At 80,000 feet and above, the life support requirements for a manned aircraft are virtually indistinguishable from those for a spacecraft; and if it wasn't for John Boyd and a bunch of other "Reformists", we would've been operating in that regime for the last forty years...

[phongn]

Not really. At 80,000 feet and above, the life support requirements for a manned aircraft are virtually indistinguishable from those for a spacecraft; and if it wasn't for John Boyd and a bunch of other "Reformists", we would've been operating in that regime for the last forty years...

Well, near-planet operations presumably would be similar, but deep-space might have a fight between the Navy and the AF, as you mentioned.

[RedImperator]

Would there be value in re-creating the Army Air Corps for transport and close air support, while leaving the Air Force air superiority and strategic bombing, or would that just wind up wasting a lot of money on duplicate bureaucracies and competing programs?

[Broomstick]

I think that would result in waste and duplication.

[Knife]

Would there be value in re-creating the Army Air Corps for transport and close air support, while leaving the Air Force air superiority and strategic bombing, or would that just wind up wasting a lot of money on duplicate bureaucracies and competing programs?

I think that idea has merit. Considering the US army does have a helichopter fleet for CIFS, nothing says they can't expand that to fixed wing aircraft for CAS operations with other assets for tactical and logistical support. In that respect, it wouldn't be that much different than USMC airwings.

It would relieve the Air Force of tactical conerns so they could indeed focus on strategic operations; bombing, air superiority, spaced based operations etc...

[Coyote]

Would there be value in re-creating the Army Air Corps for transport and close air support, while leaving the Air Force air superiority and strategic bombing, or would that just wind up wasting a lot of money on duplicate bureaucracies and competing programs?

No, this would actually be ideal, IMO.

[Knife]

I think that would result in waste and duplication.

Not necessarily if you keep tactical assets with the army and strategic with the Air Force. Granted, you'll have some of the same birds in each but not necessarily for the same role so it's not really duplication.

CIFS and CAS are not really the same thing as Air Superiority at all even though some of the same aircraft can do it.

[CmdrWilkens]

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.

Ummm Grenada? Also Lebanon was within their mission as well (at least initially until it turned into a clusterfuck thanks to politics and nobody building an exit strategy). There was also the amphibious strike that was planned against the Shatt-al Arab which got cancelled moreso due to the navy than the Marines. There was the intervention in Haiti and Somalia.

Seriously Mark for someone who claims to know warighting history you should understand a couple things such as:
1) The Marine Corps mision is not ONLY amphibious operations
2) They HAVE engaged in amphibious operations even since Korea


Going back to your point in regards to WWII I would put it this way 100% of Marine Coprs divisions engaged in amphibious operations including the most ciritcal ones (read also Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo, etc). What percent of Army divisions engage in amphibious operations? I won't hesitate to admit that Inchon was also half Marine and half Army but the LEAD was Marine Corps just as the LEAD in almost all Pacific Operations was Marine Corps, given the percent of available combat arms they represented this entails a disproportionate committment to amphibious operations. Stating that the Army committed to major amphibious landings and therefore specializes in it is like saying the armored relief columns in Somalia were participating in SpecOps missions and are therefore specialized in them.

[thejester]

Going back to your point in regards to WWII I would put it this way 100% of Marine Coprs divisions engaged in amphibious operations including the most ciritcal ones (read also Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo, etc). What percent of Army divisions engage in amphibious operations? I won't hesitate to admit that Inchon was also half Marine and half Army but the LEAD was Marine Corps just as the LEAD in almost all Pacific Operations was Marine Corps, given the percent of available combat arms they represented this entails a disproportionate committment to amphibious operations.

USMC certainly wasn't the lead in almost all Pacific operations - US Army made landings without a Marine presence throughout CARTWHEEL, as well the operations throughout the Phillipines. Then there's TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE, SHINGLE, DRAGOON and OVERLORD.

[Sea Skimmer]

Going back to your point in regards to WWII I would put it this way 100% of Marine Coprs divisions engaged in amphibious operations including the most ciritcal ones (read also Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo, etc). What percent of Army divisions engage in amphibious operations? I won't hesitate to admit that Inchon was also half Marine and half Army but the LEAD was Marine Corps just as the LEAD in almost all Pacific Operations was Marine Corps,

That’s nonsense. Are you just going to outright claim the Pacific war consisted of only the central Pacific line of advance now? The upper Solomon’s- New Britain-New New Guinea - Philippines axis was fought almost completely with US Army and British Commonwealth troops, and saw more amphibious landings then any other campaign in the war. Marine participation was limited to a raider battalion in New Georgia, alongside. five US Army divisions, while the 3rd Marine division went ashore in a remote part of Bougainville against opposition numbering in the dozens, only to be replaced by US Army divisions before the Japanese could even mount a full scale counter attack.

given the percent of available combat arms they represented this entails a disproportionate committment to amphibious operations.

Percent of available arms? After the end of 1942 the US Army consistently had over three times as many divisions in the Pacific as the Marines did, and at no time did Marine divisions outnumber Army units. This totally ignores the vastly greater combat and logistical support forces the Army brought with it too. The Marines had virtually no corps level troops, and couldn’t even dream of army formation level support.

Stating that the Army committed to major amphibious landings and therefore specializes in it is like saying the armored relief columns in Somalia were participating in SpecOps missions and are therefore specialized in them.

The US Army mounted more amphibious operations, its troops were required to backup numerous Marine landings, such as at Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Saipan, and it made all the largest landings by far. Yeah, the Army damn well could do an amphibious operation every bit as well as the Marines, and its ability to land and support a whole mechanized Army over a beach, vs. 1-3 Marine divisions with single tank battalions and towed artillery, is simply unmatched. The only inherent marine advantage was amtracks, and those early amtracks only matter when you have to climb over coral reefs.

The largest pure Marine Operation, and largest Marine operation period, was Iwo Jima, with two assault divisions and a third landed in support behind them. In contrast the US Army commitment for Operation Torch in 1942 was five divisions strong, about two divisions worth landing as assault troops including airborne forces. Husky was a six division landing for the US with 3 division in the assault force plus a Regimental Combat Team of airborne troops. Normandy was bigger still in terms of Army commitment both to the assault force and the overall force landed over the beach.

[CmdrWilkens]

Going back to your point in regards to WWII I would put it this way 100% of Marine Coprs divisions engaged in amphibious operations including the most ciritcal ones (read also Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo, etc). What percent of Army divisions engage in amphibious operations? I won't hesitate to admit that Inchon was also half Marine and half Army but the LEAD was Marine Corps just as the LEAD in almost all Pacific Operations was Marine Corps,

That’s nonsense. Are you just going to outright claim the Pacific war consisted of only the central Pacific line of advance now? The upper Solomon’s- New Britain-New New Guinea - Philippines axis was fought almost completely with US Army and British Commonwealth troops, and saw more amphibious landings then any other campaign in the war. Marine participation was limited to a raider battalion in New Georgia, alongside. five US Army divisions, while the 3rd Marine division went ashore in a remote part of Bougainville against opposition numbering in the dozens, only to be replaced by US Army divisions before the Japanese could even mount a full scale counter attack.

I'll admit to being a bit more of a POA rather than SWPA person so conceded on that end.

given the percent of available combat arms they represented this entails a disproportionate committment to amphibious operations.

Percent of available arms? After the end of 1942 the US Army consistently had over three times as many divisions in the Pacific as the Marines did, and at no time did Marine divisions outnumber Army units. This totally ignores the vastly greater combat and logistical support forces the Army brought with it too. The Marines had virtually no corps level troops, and couldn’t even dream of army formation level support.

Let me re-phrase that to make clearer my point: Count the number of US Army divisions PERIOD(67 ID +16 ArmD + 5 AirD + 2CavD + PhillipineDiv according to army.mil) for 91 total divisions , then count the number that were engaged in amphibious operations (which I don't know offhand), then divide those numbers to get the percent of US Army divisions that were involved in amphibious operations. Next take the number of USMC divisions (6) and then the number that were involved in amphibious operations (6) and divide to get the percent (100) involved.

[thejester]

But that doesn't mean anything - indeed, it proves Shep's point. The USMC 'specialised' in amphibious landings but was no more successful at it than line divisions who often made no more than one landing in their combat careers.