Nooooooooo! It's a sign of the apocalypse!
I have no doubt that reducing to 1 would cripple the effectiveness of the Marines.
We are not a Hyperpower because we have 'four' air-forces, or because the US has the world's largetst economy, the largest defense budget, countless nuclear weapons and the largest Navy, Army and AirForce and Marine Corps.
You know you are hyperpower when you have a Navy, which has an Army, which has an AirForce. Thank God for redundancy...
dvwjr
Does anyone understand the difference in the Missions is these Services.
Old hats want to differentiate between Annapolis, West Point and the AF Academy but a "warrior" is a "warrior"! Combine them all and mucho money would be saved.
Battle commanders (land or sea) need their own air assets. They do not need to have their air requests put on a list in the central air power office letting some air power weenie decide if that commander's request is a higher priority than what air power had planned for that day.
Using that logic, why have an army and a marines....they're both just land forces? Ans: because the sea commander sometimes needs to occupy land, and he needs to do it on his own schedule, not that of the chief of staff of the army.
Wrong. In the late '40s the USAF tried to do just that shortly after their inception.
Each service has unique needs and missions. If the Army uses some boats to patrol the Tigris or Euphrates in Iraq, why get the Navy involved? Naval aviation has developed uniquely as well. Want to kill retention? Just ask Air Force types to give up cushy shore bases for sea duty.
This would be repeating the mistake of the British when they consolidated all air forces under the RAF after WW1. It ended up with the Navy getting the short end of the stick. Would the new combined AF be as attentive to carrier operations and ground support? Or would they go off baying down the high tech trail while ignoring sea air control and support of the ground pounders? Would they dedicate pilots and funding to helicopters, or make the assumption that their supersonic fighters and stealth bombers will be ok?
Each service having their own air sections makes more sense to me. They can then specialize in their respective areas. The Marine flyboys make a fetish of close ground support and are considered the best in the world at it. The Army has made a science of helicopter operations and the Navy cannot be matched for getting air power anywhere there's enough water to float a carrier.
The nazis and soviets also had monolithic air forces that while were good, were not as good or as flexible as the 4 individual American air services. Look how poorly the nazis did naval support and how poorly the soviets did at trying to develop a carrier force. Both had some naval aircraft, but in virtually every case they were planes designed to operate from land bases and not as good as the American navy's planes.
Not these tradition fights again!!!
Me too, close air support is a tricky business. The more intense the comraderie the better.
How incredibly stupid. The answer _is_ in infrastructure, including coordination _between_ the services where overlaps occur. Not in throwing out with the bathwater as full consolidation would be.
When I went to Lajes AB in the Azores, they had an interesting set up: The permanently stationed aircraft belonged to the Navy, the Army had a terminal tugboat unit, and the Air Force provided all the ground vehicles. It seemed to work.
If this is another stab at the F-22, ungh. We really need that plane.. it is only a matter of time before the SU-37s and other new, advanced fighters really begin to outnumber and outgun us.
No
In fact the Army should be given the Air Force's A-10s
IMO
No there are no good reasons for giving the AF all the aviation.
1) We don't fight wars from 8 to 5 with weekends off.
2) Blue uniforms SUCK
3) In the Air Force, if you are not a fighter pilot you are a lesser creature. So air to ground missions and helos would be totally neglected.
Nooooooooo! It's a sign of the apocalypse!
There is a eallysimple answer for this question: If it aint broke dont fix it. Its fine the way it is.
It ain't broke don't fix it.
The Air Force doesn't now nor has it ever claimed a right to monopolize military aviation.
Most folks simply forget about the United States Coast Guard - not realizing that we are a branch of the Armed Forces. We also have fixed-wing and rotor aircraft but I don't think anyone would ever consider Coast Guard Aviation as being an air force.
Back in the early '60s there was a congressional attempt to find out why all branches of the military could not wear the same uniform, I suppose to save money. Vietnam heated up and the idea was forgotten. But at that time the howls of protest could be heard everywhere... and that was from just the officer corp. No one bothered to ask me what I thought at the time; ...which was ...one zipper was more user friendly than 13 buttons.