Formation of the United-States Air-Force

[KJ_Lesnick]

Brian 'da Basher,

In the case of a major power such as the U.S., you'd positively want to keep aircraft carriers so you could project power on a global scale.

Understood

Whether to use the Navy or Air Force for CAS usually depends on the location of the targets, availablity of assets and their range and logistics.

I'm wondering if prior to the Korean War the USAF didn't think CAS was even necessary at all and that bombers could do everything and simply annihilate the enemy and that would be it.  I'm not trying to sound redundant or repetative.

I don't think any military purposely limits the CAS role but may forced to do with less because of other requirements.

I have read in many sources that the USAF was really averse to using CAS in any significant capacity and preferred to focus on strategic warfare only.

[Geoff]

Brian 'da Basher,

<snip>

The Navy did most close air support initially, but the Air Force stepped in with P-51s and F-80s close behind.

So the USN believed in CAS more than the USAF?  Why did they believe in doing it more?  They had nuclear weapons (or at least were developing proposals for nuclear weapons delivery the A3D, the P6M)?

I think it was more a question of expediency, not support for the CAS role. The Navy already had carriers close by and could get more on station quickly, whereas the Air Force had few dedicated assets available in Japan, and what was there was limited by range. There's a very good book and film called God is My Co-Pilot written by a P-51 pilot who flew a lot of CAS missions that's worth a look. The P-51 ws able to do the job, but its inline engine was vulnerable to ground fire.

Brian da Basher

I think the USMC air assets were/are taylored to support the USMC's ground forces, so maybe the Navy already had a different mindset to the USAF?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Geoff,

Good point. 

Hypothetically if the USAF was formed out of the Naval Air-Corps units and Army Air Force units and merged all into each other, do you think assuming the guys from the USN had sufficient sway within the new organization there would have been a desire for them to protect the Marines (keep in mind the Naval Aviation would include marine aviators)?

[Geoff]

If the USN had enough sway within the political set up then yes, a balanced and capable force is theoretically possible. But I suspect the USMC would have got a very low priority from Air Force budget holders and might even be put under Army control, becoming "Naval Infantry" or perhaps a much smaller organisation? Except in time of conventional warfare when an awful lot of reinventing the wheel would take place.
In the same way the US had to retrofit guns to their missile armed fighters in Vietnam to deal with the turning dogfights the politically ordered rules of engagement forced on them.
I also suspect the Air Force would have tried even harder to remain the primary nuclear deterent force for longer, diverting resourses away from the carrier based bomber projects that predated the SLBMs until the nuclear weapons became smaller in size and yeild making their tactical use possible.
But nuclear weapons were not an option in Korea as it was feared their use could escalate into a global nuclear war.
It all boils down to political will and influence in the end.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Geoff,

If the USN had enough sway within the political set up then yes, a balanced and capable force is theoretically possible.

Where would the USN have to have sufficient sway for that to work?

But I suspect the USMC would have got a very low priority from Air Force budget holders and might even be put under Army control, becoming "Naval Infantry" or perhaps a much smaller organisation?

That is an interesting point, the USMC would only have a use as an amphibious force.  Otherwise it would be relegated under Army most likely... at least that's how I see it (I'd like to hear if anybody else has any opinions here).

Except in time of conventional warfare when an awful lot of reinventing the wheel would take place.

How would re-inventing of the wheel have to be accomplished?

I also suspect the Air Force would have tried even harder to remain the primary nuclear deterent force for longer, diverting resourses away from the carrier based bomber projects that predated the SLBMs until the nuclear weapons became smaller in size and yeild making their tactical use possible.

Even if the USN had sufficient sway?  If the USN didn't have the luxury of having carrier aviation under it's complete control, wouldn't they have went to cruise-missiles and ballistic missiles earlier?  Would sea-planes still be under the USN, as they would be part boat and part aircraft?  Or would they still be under the Air Force's control?

I could imagine the USAF and USN would still have some vested interest in the carriers to some degree as they are USN ships and would also be sea-borne airbases, though I'm not 100 percent sure...

[Geoff]

I think they would need the influence right at the top where decisions about the strategic use of forces are made so DoD, the Senate, and the President.
By reinventing the wheel I ment where the situation requires a mobile balanced force to intervene on the ground, but the forces you have (theoretically) are mainly designed to destroy the enemy from the air and not occupy their ground. (Hmm I'm sorry I am not expressing this right)
I think you are right about the development of the submarine launched cruise missiles earlier.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Geoff,

I think they would need the influence right at the top where decisions about the strategic use of forces are made so DoD, the Senate, and the President.

You mean like the Chief of Staff?  Or close?  Or would they have to have in one form or another close connections to the DoD, Senate and President?

By reinventing the wheel I ment where the situation requires a mobile balanced force to intervene on the ground, but the forces you have (theoretically) are mainly designed to destroy the enemy from the air and not occupy their ground. (Hmm I'm sorry I am not expressing this right)

Which forces?  The USAF as it was?  Or the WHIF concept I'm talking about?

I think you are right about the development of the submarine launched cruise missiles earlier.

Do you think the earlier development of cruise missiles would have lead to an earlier development of UCAV's in general?  (You don't have to answer that, but if you could venture a guess, it would be interesting to discuss)

Would such an Air-Force as described include sea-planes?  Or would that still be under USN control?


KJ Lesnick

[Geoff]

In order -
Yes right to the top.
Your Wif concept.
Not sure about the earlier development of UCAV's that sort of depends as much on the devlopment of the intergrated circuit and computing power. Unless you went for a lower tech version earlier - soert of a big version of Bullpup or Martel.
As for seaplanes you could end up with the same sort of set-up as Italy, naval planes with air force crews. I suspect it's more important who sets the tasks for that air unit rather than the ultimate control over it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Geoff,

Yes right to the top.

Wouldn't the Army Air Force guys end up doing everything they could to prevent an independant Air Force if a bunch of ex-naval aviator admirals would end up in charge of the newly formed air-force?  The Army Air Force was far more fond of splitting off and forming their own independant Air Force than the Navy, and wanted this for years.  If they wouldn't be in charge wouldn't they do everything they could to kill it?

Your Wif concept.

The Army, Marine Corps would handle the infantry roles, the idea would be to use the Air Force for close-air support to protect them

Not sure about the earlier development of UCAV's that sort of depends as much on the devlopment of the intergrated circuit and computing power. Unless you went for a lower tech version earlier - soert of a big version of Bullpup or Martel.

Do you think the development would be earlier than the Bullpup and Martel?

As for seaplanes you could end up with the same sort of set-up as Italy, naval planes with air force crews. I suspect it's more important who sets the tasks for that air unit rather than the ultimate control over it.

Do you think that would actually be a logical set-up?  The USN would really be horrified at giving up all air-power, this would at least allow them to keep assets that operate off the water, everything that operates off land or a carrier deck (which is basically a mobile airbase) would be Air Force.  Your idea may work though

[Geoff]

1,Yes good point - I was thinking the AF generals would call the shots - it could go the other way as you say.

2, Agreed.

3, Possibly earlier yes. The Germans had a TV guided anti-ship missile in WW2.

4, No it's not logical, and is probably the worst way of doing it - I was giving it as an example of how daft this can get in real life. It's much more logical for the navy to have control of the airpower they need to carry out their assigned tasks. But the assigned tasks depend on the political decisions of the Chiefs of Staff and the Government.

I was thinking that IF the AF held the budget strings in the early 50's for all airpower when there appeared to be a leaning towards the use of strategic airpower as the nations' "big stick", as in B-36's, B-52's, etc to the loss of the naval carriers, and the more conventional warfighting roles such as CAS. So I was not suggesting it as a good idea. More that the politics of the time if I have understood them would lead to an unbalanced and unworkable situation in a conventional war such as Korea if the AF had control od all airpower. Sorry didn't mean to confuse you.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Geoff,

1,Yes good point - I was thinking the AF generals would call the shots - it could go the other way as you say.

So your idea was that the AF Generals would call the shots but the USN would be in influential positions to affect policy, or so deeply ingrained that it's values would be blended into such an Air Force?

2, Agreed.

So it all works?

3, Possibly earlier yes.

How much earlier would you speculate?  Would this have resulted in a much more rapid development of computer technology, or simply it's application?

The Germans had a TV guided anti-ship missile in WW2.

Really?  Was the US aware of this?  Did we pursue any such developments at the time?  I do remember hearing some interesting WW2 era guided bomb and drone proposals that the USAAF and USN created...

4, No it's not logical, and is probably the worst way of doing it - I was giving it as an example of how daft this can get in real life. It's much more logical for the navy to have control of the airpower they need to carry out their assigned tasks. But the assigned tasks depend on the political decisions of the Chiefs of Staff and the Government.

Would such a proposal have worked at the time?  Or such a concept have evolved into being?
- USAF controls all fixed wing assets operating off of bases
- Carriers are considered mobile air-bases.  They're still Navy Ships and Navy crewed (except for the air-wing)

Such a set-up would still allow the USN to retain some aviation (seaplanes)

I was thinking that IF the AF held the budget strings in the early 50's for all airpower when there appeared to be a leaning towards the use of strategic airpower as the nations' "big stick", as in B-36's, B-52's, etc to the loss of the naval carriers, and the more conventional warfighting roles such as CAS. So I was not suggesting it as a good idea. More that the politics of the time if I have understood them would lead to an unbalanced and unworkable situation in a conventional war such as Korea if the AF had control od all airpower. Sorry didn't mean to confuse you.

So carriers would have been scuttled and the use of Bombers would have been increased further?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Another question -- why wasn't the army worried about it's massive loss of strategic power after the USAF got autonomy from the Army, yet the USN would in this case?

[Sentinel Chicken]

Another question -- why wasn't the army worried about it's massive loss of strategic power after the USAF got autonomy from the Army, yet the USN would in this case?

It's not so much the Army was worried about losing strategic air power. All during the Second World War, the head of the USAAF, General Hap Arnold, was very conscious to cultivate the connections and relationships within the Army chain of command that would make an independent USAF possible- for example, winning the support of the Army Chief of Staff, General George Marshall, during WW2 basically made Marshall a supporter of an independent USAF.

At the end of World War 2, there really wasn't any other blue water carrier-capable navies around to rival the US Navy. But what the United States DID face in the post war period was the largest continental army and air force in the world, that of the Soviet Union. We demobilized- they didn't. Those in the Army saw an Air Force, independent or not, as a cost-effective means of counterbalancing the might of the Soviet Red Army worldwide. Some saw an independent Air Force as getting its own funding steam that wouldn't detract from the Army's own funding stream.

The Navy was scrambling in this period and that was one of the sagas that led to the "Revolt of the Admirals" and the controversy over the B-36 Peacemaker. Ironically in this time the Navy saw that that the only way to insure the survival of their carriers was to also assume the strategic deterrent mission, even while disparaging the B-36 before Congress.

Of course, that all changed when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950- suddenly the view of carriers changed from weapons of defeating blue water navies to weapons to project power ashore.

[GTX]

What factors lead to the United States Air-Force coming into being?  Why was only Army Aviation included and not Naval Aviation?

How is this topic Alternative History???  If we considered different scenarios etc, then fine, but that has not been evident - rather this seems to be simply 'sponging'. 

Why not just read a book - there are plenty to choose from:

Beyond the Wild Blue: A History of the U.S. Air Force, 1947-2007
U.S. Air Force: A Complete History
The Air Force

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sentinel Chicken,

Okay that makes sense why the Army didn't see the USAF as being a competitor.  Regarding the USN however, you're telling me they didn't realize the potential of using carriers to project air-power ashore prior to 1950?  That seems like a very natural evolution...


GTX,

If it really bothers you I can take it over to private message