WI in 1947 the USAF never came into existence?

HelloLegend · Dec 12, 2006

Why do we need an Air Force anyway? The Army has helicopters.
The Navy and Marines both have Strikefighter Jets. Surely one of the services could have operated the B-52s, and operated the missile silos.

How would America be different if the US Air Force never was?

Xen · Dec 12, 2006

Im a little on the biased side, considering I am a Veteran of the Air Force. I know alot of people, especially older veterans who seem to think if it floats its Navy, if it is on the ground Army, if it flies Air Force.

You wont get rid of the Air Force as a whole, but the best thing you can do is keep it part of the Army, the Army Air Corps. It would be a lot like the Marine Corps is now days, it will virtually be its own service, but still part of the Army.

Matt · Dec 12, 2006

I'll check my anti-Air Force bias at the door. In the post-war world the United States needs an Air Force. It is possible, even desireable to keep the AF in the same department as the Army, ala the Marine Corp/Navy relationship in the Department of the Navy. Two equal and seperate services under the supervision of the same department level should, in theory, increase interdepartment cooperation. That's something that was missing in the early years of the USAF.

So instead of the present arrangement of the Department of the Air Force, Department of the Army, and Department of the Navy under the Department of Defense, there is just the Department of War and Department of the Navy.

aktarian · Dec 12, 2006

Probably more planes for CAS. USAF hates CAS and would axe A-10 if it could and concentrate on strategic bombing and winning air superiority (so it can strategically bomb).

Perhaps division similar to Soviet Union? Frontal aviation (fighters, tactical bombers), Long Range aviation (strategic bombers) and strategic rocket forces (ICBMs) (plus other such as transport....)

Matt · Dec 12, 2006

aktarian said:
Probably more planes for CAS. USAF hates CAS and would axe A-10 if it could and concentrate on strategic bombing and winning air superiority (so it can strategically bomb).

Perhaps division similar to Soviet Union? Frontal aviation (fighters, tactical bombers), Long Range aviation (strategic bombers) and strategic rocket forces (ICBMs) (plus other such as transport....)

How about an agreement in the late 50s to early 60s that allows the Army to operation fixed wing aircraft in support of ground troops.

zoomar · Dec 12, 2006

While pretty unlikely, given the importance of long range strategic bombing in the USAAF during WW2, alternative possibilities could have been:

(1) separating out only what eventually became the Strategic Air Command (SAC) as a separate branch, referred to as the "Strategic Air Force", with Army retain a robust fixed-wing airforce for tactical deployment and logistics. With rise of ICBM this would become analagous to Soviet rocket forces.

(2) Placing all strategic air capabilities within the Department of the Navy (rationale being that the Navy has historically been the nation's main "strategic" service)...yes, unlikely to impossible, but cool.

DuQuense · Dec 12, 2006

Agree about the CAS. The USAF prefers the Flashly Big Toys to the work a day Tools needed.

If a low level CAS part of the AAC suvives, perhaps the, Patrol Navy, would have been able to survive, Instead of todays Flashy Big Toy Navy.

Landshark · Dec 12, 2006

Matt said:
How about an agreement in the late 50s to early 60s that allows the Army to operation fixed wing aircraft in support of ground troops.

I think the USArmy tried this in the 60's. I swear I've seen pics of a Skyhawk or one of those Fiat G planes with US roundels and ARMY written on the side.

Johnestauffer · Dec 13, 2006

The Navy has it's own 'air force' (both carrier & land based) as the the Marine Corp.
Even the Army has it's own air force (both fixed wing & rotary)
Both are tailored to the specific needs of the service and the overall national strategy.
So essentially we have a situation where every service (including the Coast Guard) has it's own avaition component.
In some cases they share resources, in other cases they have unique equipment.
Given this model, maybe breaking out the Air Force as a 'stand alone' element was not necessarily the best idea.