Forum: Air Power

This is what I think the military should be based on what their names bring to mind, at least when I was a kid, these were the first things to pop into my mind when I heard each sevices' name:

Navy= Boats
Army= Tanks
Airforce= Flying
Marines= Confusing, cause you want to think "boats" but that's already taken.

I'm not trying to be ignorant, just wondering how everything is mixed up.

I don't understand why the Marines have planes, but since they do, you'd think they would be on carriers which they are, but then what are Navy pilots for?

F-16.net Sponsor

And when you get the answer, call the pentagon!

Cylon

When you ask why Marines fly on aircraft carriers are you referring to the guys on the LHD and LHA class Amphibious assaut ships or the CVNs?

For both I have an answer.

The Marine Corps flies much of their aircraft on amphibious ships because such Fighting forces are organized as part of a MAGTF (Marine Air-Ground Task Force) the entire complement of Airplanes, Grunts, Tanks, etc will be organized in such a MAGTF, wether it be one large Mareine Expeditionary Force (MEF), a smaller Marine Exped'ry Brigade (MEB), or an even smaller Marine Exped'ry Unit (MEU). This is kind of a way for the Marines to Operate on their own.... Ask a Marine and he'll brag that one MEF can Take over a Small Country. At least thats what he said to me...

And as to the issue of Marines on CVWs... The Dept of the Navy has decided to Integrate the Navy and Marine Corps TACAIR assets by doing away with one Legacy hornet squadron and Putting in one form the Marine Corps in its place. This is supposedly a cost-effective way fo the two services to employ thier air assets and maintain the 2 Legacy Hornet sqadrons required on each CVW until the F-35 replaces them.

As to why other services fly...

The Army flies for the same reason the Marine Corps does. To support thier brothers on the ground without having to ask another service to provide Basic Air Support.

The Air Force... ya know, I cant' think of one good reason that the Air Force should have needed its own service...

The Navy flies because:

The advantage of being able to operate fro an Aircraft carrier provides Flexible airpower that the other services Simply cannot provide sometimes (or sometimes just not as fast as they are needed)
The Navy's Patrol and Sea Control Aircraft (P-3s, SH-60s, and S-3s) provide the Air power needed to Monitor the Waters that our Forces operate in
There are some jobs that Air Force jsut can't do or some jobs that a Naval Aviator can do 10 times better, faster and more efficiently.
Air Force guys don't like flying over water (they get confused as to which blue mass is water and which is the sky)

ram816 wrote:

The Air Force... Ya know, I cant' think of one good reason that the Air Force should have needed its own service...

Because we didn't wanna be in the f*cking Army, that's why! Razz

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded! (Preferably, by an Air Force troop) Wink

Ram, thank you for your complete answer.
And Cylon, lay off the beers.

Wender, I think there might be a couple of other good reasons for each branch of the armed forces to have their own air power. First, there's the brotherhood aspect and I don't mean to diminish the comradeship that all members of the armed forces share. The guys you're supporting are members of the same branches of the service as you are. Second, there's the reduction in rivalry at other times. Think about the incredible headache that would result if you tried to tell the Navy that they wouldn't have their own pilots on board, but instead would have Air Force pilots Shocked

. Then there's the financial aspect to it. The Navy has to make sure all of its fixed wing pilots are carrier qualified, which requires extra training in that specialty. This would seriously increase the cost of training every fixed wing air force pilot since they would probably switch between types of aircraft at some point in their careers. If you didn't train all your pilots (or only trained the ones who would fly off carriers), you might as well let the Navy have its own air arm. Then there's the familiarity with one's own service that you get by having members of a certain service fly with that group. Every Army aviator has been through the same basic training as every other Army guy and the same goes for the Navy etc. Two Cents

PS - Wender, I wouldn't tick Cylon off too much as he has access to Vipers (just kidding, of course) Wink

!

TC wrote "Because we didn't wanna be in the f*cking Army, that's why!"

LMAO

Amen Brother!

My dad was in the Army Air Corp (navigator B-25) serving in the Pacific during WWII. Had a brother in the Army in Vietnam. Had a brother on the Nimitz. Had another brother in the Army... If I wanted to sleep in a tent I'd go camping! Can't necessarily say that's been the case the past few years but I think you get my drift. Don't get me wrong though, I've got a lot of respect for our fellow service members.

I do believe the seperation of the Air Force from the Army was a clash in expenditures. Therefore, making a seperate budget to ensure adequate funds went to the flying crowd. How do you get tactical nukes to the target? On a tank?

I wonder how many carriers you'd need to provide airlift... Oh, that's right... A C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-135, or KC-10 won't fit/can't land on a carrier. Just shaking my head on that one. There aren't enough carriers for all the fighters you need around the world as well... so we would have land based Navy and Marines? Doesn't quite fit the mold does it.

Additionally, in todays ops everyone is working together and realize that to be successful they have to.

Have a great day!
Chickenlegs

Parrothead wrote:

PS - Wender, I wouldn't tick Cylon off too much as he has access to Vipers (just kidding, of course) Wink

!

Lol, I don't want to piss off Cylon, I like him actually, and I've tried to get him to give me a ride on a Viper but no luck so far Sad

chickenlegs wrote:

I wonder how many carriers you'd need to provide airlift... Oh, that's right... A C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-135, or KC-10 won't fit/can't land on a carrier.

They did land/take off a C-130 off of the Carl Vinson just to prove they could do it. they had to use JATO rockets and didn't really have a place to put it when it was there, but they did it...

But I agree with you. The navy needs a small wing for fleet defence and for quick strikes when the airforce just isn't there. (such as when some navy seals are in trouble) but we all know that our air force does 85% of the flying...

Actually, that test of the Herc on the carrier happened while Carl Vinson was STILL ALIVE! The test happened in the 1960s. They took off without JATO bottles too. Of course, I don't think it had a heavy payload (if any at all) and they figured out that with a full flight deck, it never would have worked.

swanee is right though. The Navy does perform quick strikes. What they can't do is trans-theater bombing, heavy bombing, or global airlift. swanee is also right that the AF does most of the flying.

We do the most flying, and we can actually land planes without jarring your fillings loose! Razz

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

I think its more to specialization

I recently read some information on William "Billy" Mitchell. He was a big advocate for having a specialized force for Air Power. He believed that with Air Power you could rule the sea and land. We know this to be true today. Back in the day they had enlisted flyiers, and there was a crash involving the derigible "shenendoha" (spelling?). After this crash General mitchel publicly ridiculed the leadership of the armed services and he was courtmarsheled for this.

That History behind us, we know that to control the sky it takes a great deal of support to make that happen. To move all the equipment all the people all the supplies and munitions you need rapid mobility of your assets. Getting it there on a ship just isn't making it. So this is why we have an airforce.

To the question at hand; Each of the services have their own airpower to support a small force to accomplish a quick mission. If we were to employ the airforce everytime there was a police action in some armpit of the earth it would criple how we do buisness, and our people would be deployed much longer than they are now. So the kind of airpower you employ is directly related to the scope of the mission.

Any Canadians around here? I like how they do their armed services. If it flies, it belongs to their AF. If it floats, it belongs to their Navy. And if it carries a gun and sleeps in the mud, it belongs to their Army. Of course the Army and Navy need air support too but their AF covers all of that. There AF is large enough to compensate the other branches and on that note, their branches are less beurocratic so that things can get moved through quicker. (Because now your dealing with 2-3 branches an operation, not just one) I makes sense, and its easy to work out, but I wonder if its really practical? Any friends from the north to comment on their military's efficiency out there?

-Aaron

I thought all of the Canadian military was now under "Canadian Armed Forces", and that separate services were eliminated. If you look up a pic of the Snowbirds aircraft, I believe that's what is painted on, not "RCAF"

edited for this link
http://www.rcaf.com/history/unification/index.php

What is this I hear about Cylon giving free rides in Vipers? Laughing

Forum: Air Power

Why do other services fly?