Replies

There’s probably some good economic reasons to make this happen. It will be interesting to watch. For decades now there have been arguments in the Pentagon giving rationale for combining our Armed Forces invarious configurations, but the entrenched bureaucracies protecting their turf have successfully fought off any serious efforts. If you just look at Procurement and Training, the savings could be enormous.

At the same time, the US has the best Naval Air Force in the world. I believe there is a reason to keep them seperate from our Air Force. They each have their place.

The savings would be an illusion considering the increased costs of the multi-role training necessary to cover mission specific requiremnts of each branch of service.

The Army has one overall mission it trains for. The Marines have one overall mission it trains for. The Air Force has one overall mission it trains for and the Navy also has one overall mission.

But they are four distinctly separate missions. It is more economical and efficient to train four separate groups in four separate missions than it is to try and train one large group in four separate missions.

The U.S. Navy discovered this back in the 1800's when they tried to replace the Marines with Blue Jackets, that is sailors who could perform the duties of Marines. Because of mission and training requirements, the Blue Jackets began acting more like Marines and less like sailors. In the end, Blue Jackets were really Marines.

I suspect the RAF will find the same thing if they try to take over the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The RAF will find that it is not within their budget to train all pilots for both air superiority operations and sea-control operations. Thus, they will have to train two separate groups of pilots. In the end, all those RAF pilots serving on carriers will simply become the new "naval aviators."

"If you just look at Procurement and Training, the savings could be enormous." Ok.. I can see it that way.. But this retired Air Force Guy can also bring up this truth in the statements being said when its in regards to the US Armed Forces. If the USAF and the US Navy Aviation are to combined.. its going to cost the US quite a bit of money as aircraft age.. even more so than it would today.

The F-18 fighter is a good weapon system.. but in reality it is a short legged fighter compared to the F-22/F-15/F-16 series of weapons. The Naval version of the upcoming F-35 has a different range than the USAF Version.. Also.. if your going to have the USAF and the USN combined Air assets.. what of the Marine Corps? The AV-8B and the F-35C are ALSO different in range and use than the others..

So we combine.. and then start buying aircraft that can operate from carriers? That will cost Billions.. But it would provide employment to the aircraft industry. But the US is talking about limiting aircraft carriers too.. even bring the fleet down to 10.. with a possibility of going to even 8 down the road.

One size fits all concept sounds great for Procurement and Training but capability is the key.. Basically.. the USAF has to operate from farther ranges from their threat areas than the USN who can move the carriers at will. Air Refueling aircraft in either category of assets are due for replacement and are caught in political in-fighting today. Also.. are you going to combine USAF, USN, USMC, and USA assets to one big air arm?

I would think in the short term combining our service aviation assets would cost money that we as a nation today can not afford.

There’s probably some good economic reasons to make this happen. It will be interesting to watch. For decades now there have been arguments in the Pentagon giving rationale for combining our Armed Forces invarious configurations, but the entrenched bureaucracies protecting their turf have successfully fought off any serious efforts. If you just look at Procurement and Training, the savings could be enormous.

The savings are only to be found in areas where there is actually commonality, and to a vast extent this has already occurred. Primary training is now a joint operation, and weapons are almost totally universal. It is hard to see where any greater savings could be had in giving Naval Aviation over the USAF.