DBWI-Independent US Air Force after WWII

IOTL, the United States government briefly considered replacing the USAAF with an independent air force after WWII, but ultimately decided against it. What if they had decided otherwise?
 
Honestly, not that much. The USAAF is about as much a part of the Army as the Marines are part of the Navy these days, and it's been like that since WW2.
 
You'd probably have scrapped the Warthog by now. That's a plane that's really good for ground support but an independent air force tends to go for flashier, faster stuff and the Warthog is... not. A hypothetical AAF would've replaced it years ago
 
wow, that would have been such a waste of money. The Army Ground Forces and the Army Air Forces save massively both using the Army Service Forces. An independent Air Force like the RAF would have meant creating an entire support system and really why bother?

Besides, it took years for the Army to finally get the same air support from the Army Air Force that the Marines were getting from their air wings. Those bomber guys were always trying to build more and more heavy bombers and it wasn't until the Army started deploying their Jupiter missiles and later Atlas Missiles that they finally got the Army Air Force to shut up about it. We never needed more than a few B52s anyway, and the B47 and B36 were both of limited use or required suicide missions to reach their targets and the B58 and B1 were both white elephants. Good thing the Army made sure the AAF built transport planes, helicopters and ground support aircraft too and who knows if an independent air force would ever have done so in the numbers the US needed.

Thank goodness that idea died when Hap Arnold did in 1944 after his 2nd heart attack
 
Would the United States-class carriers still be built? They may have been superseded in their original nuclear deterrent role by the ballistic missile submarine, but USS United States and her sisters still gave good service from Vietnam all the way to the Gulf War.
 
That's a good question - but with only five supercarriers, the USN was never able to do all that much with them. The backbone of the fleet is still the medium-sized carrier, I don't see how the USAAF getting its independence would affect that.

Unless of course the Air Force got all jealous and demanded that it controlled all aircraft, the way the RAF and Luftwaffe did. I can see that meaning the USN loses carriers altogether, or that the USAF demands control of them. In that case, the USN might be forced to build and operate many more supercarriers, maybe only twelve or fifteen. It's hard to see how the USN would be able to support the forward presence it does now with that few ships, much less provide the ASW cover.

As far as air support goes, I'm still astounded that Army Ground Forces pulled that off. Ask anyone in the USAAF, the A-10 is a liability. They'd be much better off if they'd been allowed the F-16s and A-7s they wanted, battlefield interdiction works much better than close air support. There's a reason the Marines have stuck with helicopters and fast-movers.
 
That's a good question - but with only five supercarriers, the USN was never able to do all that much with them. The backbone of the fleet is still the medium-sized carrier, I don't see how the USAAF getting its independence would affect that.

I wouldn't call the Gettysburg class "medium"-they're actually roughly the same size as the old Midway class. Hell the so-called "light carriers", the Ranger class, are as big as the WW2 Yorktown class.
 
I wouldn't call the Gettysburg class "medium"-they're actually roughly the same size as the old Midway class. Hell the so-called "light carriers", the Ranger class, are as big as the WW2 Yorktown class.

Medium relative to what the USN wanted. The proposed NIMITZ class carriers were freaking monsters.
 
Medium relative to what the USN wanted. The proposed NIMITZ class carriers were freaking monsters.

The design that was actually built was only slightly smaller-it's basically a nuclear-powered version of the abandoned Forrestal-class design from the 1950s.
 
I'm wondering if a independant air force would be some how split, the way naval aviation is split between the Marines & Navy. That is both are part of the Dept of the Navy but there are different sub sets administering & training them. A independant air force might have a stratigic command for predominatly air operations, such as stratigic bombing and its support echelon, and a ground support command that is oriented towards and integrated with the Army Ground Forces at mission critical points.
 
The design that was actually built was only slightly smaller-it's basically a nuclear-powered version of the abandoned Forrestal-class design from the 1950s.
And they only got a few of those, too - nuclear power forced them to be unaffordably large. The MIDWAY/GETTYSBURG sized ships are far more economical.
I'm wondering if a independant air force would be some how split, the way naval aviation is split between the Marines & Navy. That is both are part of the Dept of the Navy but there are different sub sets administering & training them. A independant air force might have a stratigic command for predominatly air operations, such as stratigic bombing and its support echelon, and a ground support command that is oriented towards and integrated with the Army Ground Forces at mission critical points.
Hm, entirely possible - you'd effectively be looking at the Strategic Air Forces breaking away and setting up their own shop. It would look something like the Soviet setup in that case. Especially since I imagine the Air Defense Forces would make their own independence. Then you'd wind up with

  • The US Army Air Force doing tactical missions. That would look much like OTL, with a mix of F-16s, A-7s and A-10s.
  • The US Strategic Air Force doing strategic bombing - they might try to take the Missile Artillery Corps and its' ICBMs with them, not sure about that. I know there's been a lot of debate within the Army about ownership if the missiles, it would only get uglier ITTL.
  • The US Air Defense Force flying fighter-interceptors and operating the NIKE missiles. I wonder if they'd get the F-15 in any decent numbers - they'd need them in a way that the USAAF doesn't.
That's a scenario that has a lot going for it. You'd probably need something like the British Ministry of Aviation to deconflict the requirements of five air forces once you get the Navy and Marine Corps involved. Maybe that would avoid some of the duplication. You can't even tell the F9U and the F-16 apart unless you look closely, and the A-7 is actually based on Vought's competitor to the A4J!
 
And they only got a few of those, too - nuclear power forced them to be unaffordably large. The MIDWAY/GETTYSBURG sized ships are far more economical.

But the Gettysburg class is nuclear-powered too.


OOC:The Charles de Gaulle disproves your idea.
 
But the Gettysburg class is nuclear-powered too.
Indeed she is. At 60,000 tonnes, she's right on the cusp of getting away with nuclear power, thanks to the inexorable growth of ships over time. Whether they'll be a success remains to be seen.
OOC:The Charles de Gaulle disproves your idea.
OOC: Mostly a prestige project. Her planned sister ship was abandoned as too expensive and subsequent discussions for PA2 reverted to conventional power - even when it was much larger than CHARLES DE GAULLE. That ought to tell you something. Multiple USN design studies over about 30 years IOTL found that nuclear power didn't really make sense on ships much smaller than a FORRESTAL. They actually took it to the extreme and found that a 25,000-ton nuclear carrier wouldn't be able to fit any aircraft.
 

jahenders

Banned
Then we probably wouldn't have gone to a single US Defense Force (USDF) akin to what Canada did. After all, the efficiency arguments that were used to defeat a separate AF led almost inexorably to the conclusion that it would make more sense to have one USDF.
 
Then we probably wouldn't have gone to a single US Defense Force (USDF) akin to what Canada did. After all, the efficiency arguments that were used to defeat a separate AF led almost inexorably to the conclusion that it would make more sense to have one USDF.

OOC: Dude, there's nothing in the previous posts to support this idea.
 
I can't see Congress setting up strategic Missile Command in 1972 in that case, as a independent air force would take that job for itself.
 
Indeed she is. At 60,000 tonnes, she's right on the cusp of getting away with nuclear power, thanks to the inexorable growth of ships over time. Whether they'll be a success remains to be seen.

The previous Bunker Hill-class was pretty successful, even though there was only three of them compared to seven of the Gettysburg class.
 
I'm not suggesting there is. I'm suggesting that if the idea of an independent AF was quashed, it might have led to a further integration of the other services.

OTL Sec Def Louis Johnson was trying to have it both ways. He supported a independant Air force, but was working hard co consolidated everything else. ie: the Navy was to hand the Marines over to the Army and the designation Marine would be eliminated. There was a idea for a consolidated medical service, national logistics/support service, communications, ect... had all those proposals for efficiency been carried out there would have been three seperate services in name only.
 
OTL Sec Def Louis Johnson was trying to have it both ways. He supported a independant Air force, but was working hard co consolidated everything else. ie: the Navy was to hand the Marines over to the Army and the designation Marine would be eliminated. There was a idea for a consolidated medical service, national logistics/support service, communications, ect... had all those proposals for efficiency been carried out there would have been three seperate services in name only.

rather like the canadian forces or as seen in various places post coldwar increasing jointery in various things ( including for example the ability of the Royal Navy to provide a field hospital)
 
Top