Quote:
Originally Posted by wabpilot
Because the army has a different mission and does not want to become the USMC.
Certainly the air force could be reduced by the A-10 squadrons without doing any real harm. I would call the A-10 a light attack aircraft. Others have suggested the air force be relieved of its ICBM force as this is really just fixed artillery. Artillery is something the army is very good at. That really just leaves medium attack, strike, air defense and air transport as meaningful air force missions. If we do away with strike (nuclear) or transfer it to the navy (where it belongs) the air force becomes nothing but a very big cargo airline. I don't subscribe to that theory, other than moving nuclear strike to the navy and closing up the ICBM force. We should bargain these away as quickly as our diplomats can round up some arguably sober Russians to negotiate with. But, that is a different discussion for a different day.
|
Yeah I had considered the idea of putting A-10s under Army control, but I guess I belong to the school of the thought that the AF should handle all fixed-wing aviation, maybe cause thats how we do it in Australia. Hell I'd have no issue with all Aircraft belonging to the RAAF with units, equipment and personnel being placed under Army and Navy command through the ADF Operational Commands, but we're much more joint than the US Armed Forces (seeing as how we're one organization).
As for Army control of ICBMs, I guess that would be a pretty pure interpretation of MacNamara's 'triad' concept. Army ICBMs (Strategic Artillery I guess), USN SLBMs and USAF Bombers with Nukes on board. Then again, would it make so much difference really? Like the Armie's concern appears to be on the Battlefield, and ICBMs aren't really practicle battlefield weapons.