Did you sit in our super nice, VIP only palletized airline seats? I suppose they are better than a cargo net, but yeesh, when I was there they were pretty hammered, looked like they had been through hell with the soldiers we were bringing home.

SPHeel,

Those statements really do a job on doctrine and national strategy. I don't think I can agree with it no matter your definition of air power. I may be misreading your post but I think the statement needs some polish.

Combat, in it ultimate form, is a real estate transaction. I agree the Navy can be largely support when delivering the US's most dagerous weapon to the beachhead but that is not it's primary mission. Freedom of the seas is top and cannot be done by any other service.

The USAF might bring the bulk of overland air power but the Navy has the maritime.

SC

Not exactly sure what they were. I figure there were maybe 9-10 probably more wide and a handfull deep. They were airline coach like seats if I remember correctly that sat in the very front center of the cargo bay.

Stepchild,

In no way am I diminishing any other service as its own entity. As I said we all bring something to the fight. You prove my point in your statement though when you mention freedom of the seas. In the Navy you are a sailor first. You may not feel that way but the service sees you that way. In the Air Force we are fliers first. There is no boat or ship to command in our future, and no platoon to lead. Command in the Air Force for pilots is being in charge of planes, people that support planes, or people who support people who support planes. Missiles and Space not withstanding, our only mission is air power, and it is stated right in our basic doctrine. You cannot say the same about any other service. The guys on here that criticize the Air Force who are in the Air Force do so in response to leadership that has forgotten that fact.

SPH,
You are incorrect in the way the Navy views us squids, Navy is power projection from the sea, but not exclusive to the sea. Not all that long ago, Navy thought battleships alone could do that with 14 in guns blasting the shore. Some dude called Billy Mitchell handed the Navy (as you think of them) a big bruising a few years ago.
Reason aircraft carriers exist. It allows US presidents to get power (air, etc) projection into areas the US cannot get landbased entry. Also, we need effective fleet defense( the B Mitchell thing pops up again). The Navy can loiter in intl waters and deliver a punch quicker than USAF depending upon circumstances. It is simply power projection from the most effective source, if it is airpower, then sometimes Navy is most effective. Ideally, USAF can provide the resource. Flexibility is key. Cost effectiveness also an issue. As stated: reason we need all services, reason we have organic capabilty within each service to be ready to respond now with resources on hand.

In a word, yes. However, I think their role should be altered somewhat.

Like SaltyDog said, the purpose of Naval Aviation is to enhance the Navy's power projection capability and also to support the fleet. There shouldn't be any doubt from anyone on this forum about the usefulness of aviation assets for offense and defense so it really helps the Navy to have aviation in both of those areas when floating in the middle of the ocean or approaching land where we have no other military presence - be it jets or helos depending on the threat.

Marines have aviation to support the Marine mission in a similar fashion. Every Marine is an infantryman first so their pilots can be more in tune with the understanding of the needs of the guys on the ground. More so than a Navy pilot can and more so than an Air Force pilot can for an Army soldier.

The Air Force is necessary if for no other reason than I wouldn't trust the Army with space and nukes (only because I don't think they would put the proper importance on it). Though of course there was just the recent AJ SNAFU with some nukes. Personally I would like to see the Army have more control over fixed wing close air support assets. There really is no replacement for the A-10 (F-35 can in no way, shape, or form do nearly what an A-10 can do) and if it weren't for the Army screaming like crazy several years ago the AF would have scrapped the A-10s. The main problem with the AF is that they don't see CAS as a air superiority mission.

I think the AF should have the space stuff, nukes, airlift, and fighters. I think the Army should have control of their own fixed wing CAS assets in a way that is similar to the way the Marines do it.

I am in the Navy and I know a lot of Marines. I have also been in close working relationship with the Army and the Air Force with what is going on right now. I can say with absolutely certainty that the folks who are the best at actually getting stuff done are the Marines. Just my opinion based on no kidding observation.

SPH,

I didn't take your post as a shot towards any service. I liked it even though I disagree with some of it. It is a great discussion of military future in the forever changing world. Keep 'em coming.

As for the sailor first part you are right on the money. I got tired of hearing that when I enjoyed wearing the flight more than the khakis at times!

As for USAF leadership, I cannot let you take that by yourself. Many Navy leaders are a bit lost themselves and need to be refocused.

All good discussion.

SC

And a good thing we did get our battleship butts kicked! Doctrine may have NEVER changed!

Well I am glad to hear that you are happy with the discussion and feel the way you do. I couldnt tell. I went through Corpus with the Navy for my advanced portion of pilot training and heard enough "why does the Air Force need to exist?" crap from the Navy guys that whenever a thread or discussion like this comes up, I get my spine up and start shooting. We need an Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all working together to get the job done.

Now, more importantly ;), do we really need the NEX, AAFES, Marine and a Coast Guard Exchange services all operating independently? I say no. I am all for getting rid of those as independent services...what a waste. Imagine the savings we could all have with a DOD exchange service that operated like the commissary!!!!

Getting rid of the Navy might have an Constitutional issue-not the Air Force.