Never thought of that!

[tfbncc]

'Nuff said.

[Vonz90]

An inconvenient truth that I often have to remind my USAF and USN friends of: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurp ... 41216.aspx

The fact of the matter is that wars are still ultimately won by the ground forces. As the army likes to point out, the ultimate air superiority weapon is your infantry occupying the enemy air bases. Everyone else (the navy and air force) is there to support the infantry in actually winning the war.

True, that is why both Hitler and Napoleon defeated the Brits with their superior ground Armies and why we just marched into Tokyo after Pearl Harbor.

[D5CAV]

True, that is why both Hitler and Napoleon defeated the Brits with their superior ground Armies and why we just marched into Tokyo after Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, I must have missed the part where the RAF struck the decisive blow at Waterloo. That must have been after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

I'm not questioning the value of air power. I'm questioning why the US Army, the largest branch of the US Armed forces, is not allowed to have its own fixed wing air assets.

As the OP pointed out, the USN's ground forces get their own air assets.

To be accurate, it's not the USN's army, it's the USN's corp.

It takes at least two divisions to make a corp, and it takes at least two corp to make an army. The US Army has multiple armies

[PawPaw]

It takes at least two divisions to make a corp, and it takes at least two corp to make an army. The US Army has multiple armies

I haven't looked at the order of battle for some time, but I doubt we could field more than one Army. Generally, a Corps TO&E has three divisions, and a Corps might have as many as fine divisions, depending on the mission. Just exactly how many divisions do we have today? I'm not sure.

I'm questioning why the US Army, the largest branch of the US Armed forces, is not allowed to have its own fixed wing air assets.

Because under the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966, the Army gave up it's fixed wing assets and the Air Force divested it's rotor-wing assets. Basically, the Army got all the helicopters and the airspace under 5000 feet. The Air Force got the fixed wing and airspace over 5000 feet. The Army was allowed to have certain administrative fixed wing aircraft for transporting commanders and other personnel over those distances where rotor-wing aircraft were not effective. That's why every Army post has a couple Beech Queen-Air's on the ramp. I'm sure that they're using something newer these days.

[randy]

...and the Air Force divested it's rotor-wing assets.

Except for SAR, Spec Ops, and administrative functions (support of the ICBM fields for instance). No actual "combat" helos (such as Apaches), self defense by SAR/SOW birds doesn't count.

[Termite]

That's why every Army post has a couple Beech [strike]Queen-Air's[/strike] KingAir 200s/350s/1900s(AKA C-12 series)on the ramp.

[Jericho941]

As the OP pointed out, the USN's ground forces get their own air assets.

And you can see how well that works out. It's quite infamously a source of pride and woe that a Marine always has something to say about how they're the poor, redheaded stepchild and if you wanted logistics, you should've joined the Army. Et cetera. And now they're on the hook for the most ridiculous, expensive version of the patently absurdly expensive F-35. I mean, I like to make fun of the V-22 as much as the next guy, but at least it works like it's supposed to, with relatively few teething problems once it hit the real world. But after the long battle to make that thing happen, the F-35B is cruel and unusual punishment. I'm sure there are a lot of Marines with ideas on where that money could be better spent.

I would humbly suggest that anyone believing that ceding the fixed-wing CAS mission to the Army would fix everything take a short break to review the long and storied history of the Army Ordnance Board.

[First Shirt]

As the OP pointed out, the USN's ground forces get their own air assets.

And you can see how well that works out. It's quite infamously a source of pride and woe that a Marine always has something to say about how they're the poor, redheaded stepchild and if you wanted logistics, you should've joined the Army. Et cetera. And now they're on the hook for the most ridiculous, expensive version of the patently absurdly expensive F-35. I mean, I like to make fun of the V-22 as much as the next guy, but at least it works like it's supposed to, with relatively few teething problems once it hit the real world. But after the long battle to make that thing happen, the F-35B is cruel and unusual punishment. I'm sure there are a lot of Marines with ideas on where that money could be better spent.
I would humbly suggest that anyone believing that ceding the fixed-wing CAS mission to the Army would fix everything take a short break to review the long and storied history of the Army Ordnance Board.

Amen, Brother!! Preach the word!!!!
The Army has a long and glorious history of f**king up a cast-iron jackass, and I have no doubt that they could do as much damage to the CAS mission as a crate full of SA-7 Strelya missiles.

[D5CAV]

As the OP pointed out, the USN's ground forces get their own air assets.

And you can see how well that works out. It's quite infamously a source of pride and woe that a Marine always has something to say about how they're the poor, redheaded stepchild and if you wanted logistics, you should've joined the Army. Et cetera. And now they're on the hook for the most ridiculous, expensive version of the patently absurdly expensive F-35. I mean, I like to make fun of the V-22 as much as the next guy, but at least it works like it's supposed to, with relatively few teething problems once it hit the real world. But after the long battle to make that thing happen, the F-35B is cruel and unusual punishment. I'm sure there are a lot of Marines with ideas on where that money could be better spent.

I would humbly suggest that anyone believing that ceding the fixed-wing CAS mission to the Army would fix everything take a short break to review the long and storied history of the Army Ordnance Board.

1. F35 is not my idea of a CAS platform. I'm fine with the USAF doing TAC air superiority, SAC and MAC. All yours, baby! BTW I never understood the purpose of USMC fighter squadrons. Cobras and Harriers I understand, but USMC F18s? Anyway, not my dog and not my fight.

2. I got to fly the V22 simulator. Yeah, I'm a pilot, but on my dime. Very nice flight characteristics. I asked if the US Army was getting any. I was told no because the USAF classified it as fixed wing. US Army still gets to have its own air insertion assets, but they have to be pure rotor wing. Because of a bureaucratic ruling, not because the V22 isn't a useful piece of kit.

3. While we're on the subject of hidebound procurement bureaucracies, of which I'll be first to admit the US Army leads the pack, but the USN, USAF and USMC are following close on its heels. So the USAF has procurement programs for new fighters, bombers and transports. What's there for CAS? The A10 is so old, it actually had a WW2 German CAS pilot as a design consultant.

We are not debating that the US Army needs its own air assets. You seem happy to cede Apaches and Blackhawks to the Army. On our side we don't wet our pants and go crying to Congress when a few Blackhawks have USAF painted on them, and aren't being flown by US Army pilots.

We are confusing mission with tools. The US Army already does much of its own CAS, but with short payload, short range and short loiter Apaches.

Again, what is the big deal in adding fixed wing assets to the US Army's tool kit?

[Greg]

Marines have F-18's because Guadalcanal. More generally, expeditionary forces need air superiority too.