Independent Air Forces - Were they ever a good idea?

**Aussiegunner** · 07 Nov 10,, 14:00

I was reading an opinion recently that suggested that the RAF may have pushed for the early retirement of the UK's Harrier force in order to protect it's "independent" assets like the Tornado, rather than prioritise an asset which validate the RN's continued use of aircraft carrier. Whether or not this is true, it wouldn't be the first time that an airforce has tried to shaft an army or a navy with respect to their aviation needs. The constant battle by the US Army to get the USAF to maintain CAS assets like the A-10 springs to mind, as does the RAF's traditional rivalry with the RN WRT aircraft carriers.

This has me wondering, given that most air missions which are conducted in modern war seem to be done so with the intention of influencing a ground or naval action, would we have been better to leave airforces integrated with armies? Perhaps it would give naval and ground force supreme commanders more power to get the air support they need, while stopping the airforces from trying to constantly gear their forcemix towards their "independent" functions such as national air defence and strategic bombing, both of which form an absolute minority of missions.

This was the way it was during WW2 with the USAAF and from what I can gather, the US Army did not neglect the strategic bombing and (to the extent that it was relevant to the US at that time) the air defence missions, they just prioritised them alongside their other actions.

Thoughts?

**William Paris** · 07 Nov 10,, 14:52

Aussiegunner,
I think it is a matter of the proper mix. I believe Air Forces such as the UK and US should be concentrating solely on Air Superiority, and of course the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (U.S. Strategic Bombers and ICBMs), and Strategic Airlift. They should set the conditions to control Air Space and prevent the enemy from operating in it. Leave the CAS, and Tactical Air Support/Transport under the control of the ground forces since they are thier primary customers. I believe most modern navies should also have an effective Air Arm but I believe their mission should be to support the Navy in Maritime operations (i.e ASW, SAR, Air Superiority, in the vicinity of the Fleet, Transport etc.) and a Strike Capability in support of Marine Forces. I am a firm believer in decentralizing assets down to the lowest level for effectiveness and not allowing Air Forces to have a monopoly on anything that flies. This is my two cents worth and hope I am making some sense after a long day and about 5 cups of coffee.

Regards,
Bill

**Chogy** · 07 Nov 10,, 15:29

I think Bill makes some good points. Great Britains air arm was independent long before the USAF. I'm of the belief that the advent of the nuke, and in particular the influence of Curtis LeMay, created an environment that in the 1950's, placed the atom bomb and its delivery vehicles at the top of the acquisition heap. Tactical air suffered extremely. The bomber jocks were the glamor boys of their time.

Coordination with the Army suffered as a result. Remember Grenada? Even then, combined arms operations suffered from such basics as incompatible radios. It has come a long way since, but there are still problems.

One other issue is multi-role aircraft. One day they are dropping JDAMs in support of ground forces, the next, they are executing a pure sweep. Who controls them?

**Jimmy** · 07 Nov 10,, 22:04

The Army didn't have the best record with fixed-wing CAS when they did control it. Military politics being what they are today, there's no reason to believe it would work any better.

**bigross86** · 07 Nov 10,, 22:54

Even a so-called integrated Air Force, like the IDF still had massive problems in the Lebanon War. Pilots which had supposedly trained with ground troops and special FAC's barely spoke the same language.

**Aussiegunner** · 08 Nov 10,, 06:23

Originally Posted by Chogy

One other issue is multi-role aircraft. One day they are dropping JDAMs in support of ground forces, the next, they are executing a pure sweep. Who controls them?

That is a key point, especially nowdays because most assets are "multi-role". Consider the B-1B which is supposed to be a strategic bomber, but gets its workout nowdays doing loitering bombardment of insurgents in remote locations like Afghanistan. Why does that asset need to be in a "strategic only" airforce structure?

I think the reality is that we see very little true strategic work from airpower nowdays. To me strategic air operations involve reconnoitring and destroying an enemy nation's industrial base and population centres, and defending against somebody else doing the same. What percentage of missions in modern wars actually involve that? An absolute minority I would say, with most missions being tactical strike, interdiction, recon or CAS ... all of which attempt to influence the ground battle, or counter air which attempts to prevent the other mission. Put the air power in the hands of those who use it the most I say.

**Chunder** · 08 Nov 10,, 11:11

I think one could demonstrate that the biggest hindrances to getting capable working platforms and foward projected airpower of the US and the U.K is their respective air forces themselves.
The amount of money that gets spent on fast jets for the Airforces, particularly in the U.K - for the return they provide is abismal.
In the USAF's it's is treated like the gold standard for future aircraft development. Sucking funds away from the Navy.
USAF's examples off the top of my head are, Air refuelling, F-22, F-16/F-18 funding.

Both US & UK Air arms have a lot to answer for in their approach to denying flexibility to their respective nations, as opposed to improving it. Design for the carrier - and work from there. When that actually happens, E.G A7 , F4, you get somewhere. You don't suffer "Capability Gap" or Lack of platforms because of political considerations & basing issues, the air arm does not consider that the Navy/Marines uses P&D and that is far more operationally flexible than boom for your fast jets, You don't gobble up all the funds leaving congress/parliament paralysed when you have to develop a "Navy version" as opposed to a land version.

Why does the Air force treat it's tankers only in consideration of it's own fast jets & not the Navy's , One, or the other?

In fact, why should the air forces fast jet fleet receive any development funding separate from that of the Navies? What specific environment could possibly be envisaged where the USAF deserves something the Navy does not.

**Jimmy** · 08 Nov 10,, 16:27

Originally Posted by Chunder

I think one could demonstrate that the biggest hindrances to getting capable working platforms and foward projected airpower of the US and the U.K is their respective air forces themselves.
The amount of money that gets spent on fast jets for the Airforces, particularly in the U.K - for the return they provide is abismal.
In the USAF's it's is treated like the gold standard for future aircraft development. Sucking funds away from the Navy.
USAF's examples off the top of my head are, Air refuelling, F-22, F-16/F-18 funding.

Without air superiority, you lose. You can't airdrop, airlift, helivac, provide CAS, defend against CAS, or provide any noticable airspace denial to the enemy. Good luck with a carrier air wing or two providing any kind of sustained operations.

Both US & UK Air arms have a lot to answer for in their approach to denying flexibility to their respective nations, as opposed to improving it. Design for the carrier - and work from there. When that actually happens, E.G A7 , F4, you get somewhere. You don't suffer "Capability Gap" or Lack of platforms because of political considerations & basing issues,

When the A7 and F4 were designed, the US had two to three times as many carriers as it has now. You had a lot more deck space to work with, so you could have more specialized air fleets. That's not an option anymore. Even if you disbanded the Air Force, you're not going to build enough modern carriers with the "savings" to overcome the shortfalls. If anything, a land-based force allows for more specialization. As far as beddown/basing concerns, you have the exact same problem if your trouble-spot isn't in easy range of a carrier. What happens if it's 1000 miles from the nearest open water? What happens if your nearest carrier is a week away when things flare up?

the air arm does not consider that the Navy/Marines uses P&D and that is far more operationally flexible than boom for your fast jets,

That's ridiculous. A fighter is the only aircraft that can take gas through a P&D system in a way you could call "effective." So you might as well scrap all the heavy bombers, the Iron Triad, and all your airlifters, because they'll burn gas faster than they can sip through that garden hose setup. Good luck topping off a B-1 from a buddy-tanking Hornet. Even fighters take longer to refuel. Sorry, but in this case the Navy has the clearly inferior system (I'll cover naval design compromises later).

You don't gobble up all the funds leaving congress/parliament paralysed when you have to develop a "Navy version" as opposed to a land version.

I sort of agree with this one. Let the Navy and Air Force design their own aircraft. The F-35A, B, and C are different aircraft despite the politicians' desires...and because of those desires, these aircraft cost FAR more than they should. I suspect it would've been cheaper to let the Navy and AF go their separate ways.

Why does the Air force treat it's tankers only in consideration of it's own fast jets & not the Navy's , One, or the other?

I'm not sure what this means. Every USAF tanker can refuel Navy aircraft. Most KC-135s would have to configured for this prior to takeoff (it is an either/or issue), but this is regularly done in current operations if a better platform (KC-10 or MPRS-equipped 135) is not available.

In fact, why should the air forces fast jet fleet receive any development funding separate from that of the Navies? What specific environment could possibly be envisaged where the USAF deserves something the Navy does not.

Homeland defense, point defense, or rapid deployment beyond the range of a CBG due to range from open water or the CBG just being out the area (though you could argue that it's just as easy to forward deploy naval assets to land bases, I suppose). Persistant global attack, air bridge defense (depending on the length), any significant sustained operations more than a couple hundred miles from the CBG, etc. There are plenty of scenarios where naval aviation is not the best answer. In this case, the Navy is the service with the special needs. Naval aviation inherently has restrictions that land-based aviation doesn't. Range, payload, size...these are all concerns that add up and quickly degrade aircraft capabilities. Look at every carrier-based fighter since the F-4 and compare it to it's land-based counterpart and you'll find a series of superior land-based platforms.

Believe it or not, I had an even longer rebuttal, but when I clicked "Post Quick Reply" it just reloaded the page. You could say I'm a bit annoyed, so my reply probably sounds a bit snarkier than intended.

**Chunder** · 08 Nov 10,, 18:44

As a complete Irony, i just spent an hour and a bit typing a reply, accidently hit the back button... lost everything.

Jimmy - I think you have misunderstood my thinking and no I don't find your responce snarky... My original post when written was in a heavily dazed state. Had a blood test done today and the arteries contracted few jabs later and it was off with the birdies. Wasn't particularly feeling great as it was so needed "help" getting home! was looking for something to do, so posted.

**LGB** · 08 Nov 10,, 21:51

Once upon a time an air force could engage in it's own strategic operations. It would be difficult to argue during the Cold War that the USAF, for example, did not benefit from independent status. Today one could argue that an air force mostly existing as a support for either ground or naval forces really should not be an independent service. There are of course many in the USAF that still see air power alone as able to decide a conflict and thus keeping the service is required.

One might observe the US has 6 air forces: USAF, USN, USMC, US Army, SOCOM, and USCG. Five fly C-130's and the one that doesn't would like something similar. It's impossible to argue this level of duplication does not come at a significant financial penalty. Moreover, it's difficult to believe there is no force structure redundancy. Does the US, for example, require or can afford the current force structure for tactical aircraft?

On the other side of the ledger one could argue that the RN losing control of most of the FAA to the RAF is exactly why the Sea Harrier force was retired early and without replacement and why they are losing the rest of the Harriers and MPA Nimrods in favor of RAF Tornadoes. One could also argue that the cost effective ground support Jaguar force was retired early in favor of more expensive tactical fighters that do not do a better job at ground support and in fact cost more resulting in less support for ground forces.

**Jimmy** · 08 Nov 10,, 23:38

Originally Posted by Chunder

As a complete Irony, i just spent an hour and a bit typing a reply, accidently hit the back button... lost everything.

Jimmy - I think you have misunderstood my thinking and no I don't find your responce snarky... My original post when written was in a heavily dazed state. Had a blood test done today and the arteries contracted few jabs later and it was off with the birdies. Wasn't particularly feeling great as it was so needed "help" getting home! was looking for something to do, so posted.

I was wondering what was going on...didn't seem like one of your usual posts. lol

Originally Posted by LGB

Once upon a time an air force could engage in it's own strategic operations. It would be difficult to argue during the Cold War that the USAF, for example, did not benefit from independent status. Today one could argue that an air force mostly existing as a support for either ground or naval forces really should not be an independent service. There are of course many in the USAF that still see air power alone as able to decide a conflict and thus keeping the service is required.

Nobody thinks that, not seriously. The era of Curtis LeMay and unrestricted strategic bombing is past. Without air power, victory is impossible in any form of conventional war against an adversary better than third world.

[quote]One might observe the US has 6 air forces: USAF, USN, USMC, US Army, SOCOM, and USCG. Five fly C-130's and the one that doesn't would like something similar. It's impossible to argue this level of duplication does not come at a significant financial penalty. Moreover, it's difficult to believe there is no force structure redundancy. Does the US, for example, require or can afford the current force structure for tactical aircraft?The biggest deterrent in the world is either the USAF or USN, depending on where the adversary is. Not the Army, not the Marines. Certainly not SOCOM.

Your list of "air forces" forgot news agencies, police departments, Grand Canyon tours, and medevac services. The AF and Navy are the only two that belong on the same list. Army Aviation is generally rotary-wing airlift, CAS, and surveillance, and kept organic to local units...on a small scale this works well. The Marines support the Marines, and will only assist other services if forced to. Generally their assets (which are not numerous) are kept within a USMC area of responsibility...the arguments for rolling Marine aviation into another service are the same arguments for rolling the Marines into the Army and are equally ridiculous. SOCOM's assets and personnel belong to the services. The Coast Guard is a law enforcement agency, and the vast majority of it's aircraft are used for civilian search and rescue.

Most of the duplication actually saves money...your example of the C-130 is probably the most cost-effective cargo plane to every hit the sky. The fact that it has so many customers in the US and out have led to the production line being open for over 50 years with continuous improvements. It might be the most successful aircraft in history. Every customer you list has a different mission for those airplanes. AC-130 does not equal EC-130 does not equal HC-130 does not equal KC-130 does not equal WC-130. As far as the services using different aircraft...they have different jobs. The F-22 does not have the same mission as the F/A-18, or the AV8, or the AH-64.

On the other side of the ledger one could argue that the RN losing control of most of the FAA to the RAF is exactly why the Sea Harrier force was retired early and without replacement and why they are losing the rest of the Harriers and MPA Nimrods in favor of RAF Tornadoes. One could also argue that the cost effective ground support Jaguar force was retired early in favor of more expensive tactical fighters that do not do a better job at ground support and in fact cost more resulting in less support for ground forces.

Every RAF pilot I've met was glad to see the Jaguar go. Anecdotal, sure. But the Nimrods and EVERYTHING else the Brits own/want to own are being cut because David Cameron and his coalition have a serious case of "this war-itis."

**Kilo 2-3** · 09 Nov 10,, 01:07

I honestly don't think there's any one good answer to this question. Different nations and armed forces have different needs, missions/threats, regional concerns, organizational cultures. The solution that works best for the US or the UK may or may not be the best route for a small South American or African nation.

For militaries without the need and/or capability for air dominance, and/or a pressing insurgency/bushfire conflicts, an "army air arm" strikes me as a more sensible solution than a discreet air force. It conserves and focus resources to where they are most needed (moving mud), potentially improving communication by eliminating the inter-service aspect of the independent air force solution. Plus, the subordinate solution increases the likelihood that pilots will have had some prior ground combat training. Apparently the Quantico experience was a useful one for many Marines who went on to become WWII pilots.

However, I'm not so sure that subordinating air assets is such a wise idea for larger nations. More strategically- or macro-tactically-oriented missions tend to crop up the larger (and more internationally-interested) a nation and her military becomes. Suddenly it isn't just about lobbing a few 2.75" rockets at a couple of grass huts. The need to challenge air superiority, strike targets with precision and force, airlift men and large pieces of equipment, and take down sophisticated IADS, etc. begin to crop up. Institutionally, an army-lead air force doesn't strike me as the best setup to fulfill this mission.

Unfortunately, air forces aren't stellar and going down the street the other way either, as we've seen with the RAF's Harrier cuts and the USAF's decision to kill the aging (but arguably still useful) A-10.

Better joint leadership and communication, and stronger leadership from a more forward-thinking the MoD/DoD are probably a better solution than axing, modifying, or never forming independent air forces, at least in the case of larger nations. (Wonder how Gate's decision to slash JFCOM will affect overall joint co-operation within the US? My guess: adversely)

Plus, separate air forces have lead to some very interesting and useful developments. One wonders if LO/VLO, military satellites, cyberwarfare, etc. would have been developed as quickly had they been under the control of a branch which would have given them more peripheral value. Air forces, since they tend to be more technologically-oriented than Army/Marine forces (and possibly even certain Navy communities) seem to make good springboards for development and operating far more than just aircraft.

Just my two cents on the issue.

**Aussiegunner** · 09 Nov 10,, 01:28

Originally Posted by Kilo 2-3

Plus, separate air forces have lead to some very interesting and useful developments. One wonders if LO/VLO, military satellites, cyberwarfare, etc. would have been developed as quickly had they been under the control of a branch which would have given them more peripheral value. Air forces, since they tend to be more technologically-oriented than Army/Marine forces and possibly even certain Navy communities seem to make good springboards for development and operating far more than just aircraft.

I don't believe that one bit. The USN came up with the best fighter out of the many mach 2 types that emerged out of the 1950's, the F-4, and it went on to serve as the principal tactical fighter in all four (including the ANG) US organisations that operate fast jets. It also came up with the first truely long range, active AAM (Phoenix), the most successful SRAAM in history (Sidewinder), one of the most successful MRAAM's in history (Sparrow) arguably the best long range interceptor of all time (F-14), an advanced light strike aircraft which served in 3 services (the A-7) and was in the process of developing a stealthy strike aircraft (the A-12) before having the rug pulled out from under it at the end of the Cold War. The only thing stopping technological development in naval aviation is politics and economics.

**Aussiegunner** · 09 Nov 10,, 01:54

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Without air superiority, you lose. You can't airdrop, airlift, helivac, provide CAS, defend against CAS, or provide any noticable airspace denial to the enemy. Good luck with a carrier air wing or two providing any kind of sustained operations.

When has the USN deployed one or two CBG's with the view to maintaining persistant air superiority? The standard practice is to deploy 5 or 6, more than enough in most instances.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

When the A7 and F4 were designed, the US had two to three times as many carriers as it has now. You had a lot more deck space to work with, so you could have more specialized air fleets. That's not an option anymore. Even if you disbanded the Air Force, you're not going to build enough modern carriers with the "savings" to overcome the shortfalls. If anything, a land-based force allows for more specialization.

Nimitz class aircraft carriers are two to three times the size of the Essex and Midway class carriers that dominated in those days and can carry two to three times the airwing. Not only the F-4 and A-7 were designed with the bigger carriers in mind, but so were the F-14 and A-6, it was only with the heritage F-18 that compromises started creeping in - and that was all to do with money. Think about it, in the 70's and 80's a task group of 5 carriers could deploy 120 F-14's, 120 A-7's/F-18's, 50 A-6's and supporting squadrons. That is more than enough to provide the bulk of the airpower required on most US operations which have been undertaken in recent times.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

As far as beddown/basing concerns, you have the exact same problem if your trouble-spot isn't in easy range of a carrier. What happens if it's 1000 miles from the nearest open water? What happens if your nearest carrier is a week away when things flare up?.

The problem in Afghanistan in the 2001 invasion was quite the opposite, most USAF Tac Air couldn't get into the place and it was replaced by USN aircraft operating from carriers, along with USMC and RAF Harriers, and the black sheep of the USAF family - the A-10 - forward deployed into the area. Apart from that the USAF's main contribution was support aircraft and strategic bombers. In the reverse instance where airbases are handier than the nearest sealanes, as you have mentioeed below naval air can cover that too. The aircraft just need to be flown off the carrier to the airbase in question and operate from land. You can't do the reverse with an F-15 or F-16.

That is why I reckon the F-22 should have been prioritised as a USN aircraft - it would have been far more operationally flexible. As it stands in instances where well located airbases are denied to the US, you can't effectively deploy a 5th gen fighter into the AO. That is potentially a major, major, major pain in the arse for a nation which relies so heavily on air dominance and doesn't like casualites.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Homeland defense, point defense, or rapid deployment beyond the range of a CBG due to range from open water or the CBG just being out the area (though you could argue that it's just as easy to forward deploy naval assets to land bases, I suppose). Persistant global attack, air bridge defense (depending on the length), any significant sustained operations more than a couple hundred miles from the CBG, etc. There are plenty of scenarios where naval aviation is not the best answer. In this case, the Navy is the service with the special needs. Naval aviation inherently has restrictions that land-based aviation doesn't. Range, payload, size...these are all concerns that add up and quickly degrade aircraft capabilities. Look at every carrier-based fighter since the F-4 and compare it to it's land-based counterpart and you'll find a series of superior land-based platforms

I would suggest that you might find a bunch of F-14 and F-18 drivers who would scoff at that suggestion. The F-14 was not inferior to the F-15, it was just optimised for the long range interception mission at which it was markedly superior and it is quite capable enough at air superiority to do the same job that the F-15 does. Comparing the F-16 to the F-18 in that manner is even more ridiculous, they are both pretty evenly matched with strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

Really, for a nation that usually conducts expeditionary warfare, USN and USMC should be the flag carriers and recieve the bulk of the funding when it comes to providing tactical airpower. At the moment it is the opposite, because the USAF has successfully spread the same misnomers that you are spreading now, and it frank,ly could come to bite you at some time in the next few decades. For example, what happens when the Japanese finally boot you out of Okinawa and when you want to contribute to the air defence of Taiwan, when all of the Taiwanese bases have been destroyed? It is a long trip for F-22's to have to run their CAP's from Guam.

**ZekeJones** · 09 Nov 10,, 03:00

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I
Every RAF pilot I've met was glad to see the Jaguar go. Anecdotal, sure. But the Nimrods and EVERYTHING else the Brits own/want to own are being cut because David Cameron and his coalition have a serious case of "this war-itis."

Sorta OT here, I thought the Jaguar was a respected aircraft. Were they happy to see it go because of age or was it something else?