Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

There is a flip side to the "common aircraft" pitch. Looking to the F-15 and F-22 development costs, it was known that any next-gen aircraft would be massively expensive to design. Funds for the development of three/four/five different aircraft would not be forthcoming. Everyone knew there was only room for two: another crack at replacing the B-52, and a light fighter-bomber program to compliment the F-22. Setting aside the B-52 thing, everyone wanted in on the fighter program. So the one-for-all concept wasn't pitched as a cheap option, but the only viable option to get anything. It avoided infighting between the various branches.

This is a uniquely American issue. The US has four or five different air forces. They all fight amongst each other for research and new toys. Other countries operate on the principal that "if it flies, it is airforce", which moots most all of this debate,

View on HN

> Other countries operate on the principal that "if it flies, it is airforce", which moots most all of this debate

Other countries have naval aviation don't they? What do you think the French fly off their carriers? What do you think the British plan to fly off theirs? (The British are actually planning to fly both Royal Air Force and Royal Navy aviators off theirs.) The British Royal Marines also sometimes fly fast air, when they have aircraft, but only as part of the Naval Service.

There are different approaches to naval aviation. On one end is the canadian approach, where the helicopters living on ships are run by entirely airforce crews. On the other is the American/Russian total separation of branches, to the point that navy pilots don't even call themselves pilots (Tom Cruise played a "naval aviator"). In the middle are solutions like the Australians, where all pilots are trained by the air force and are then transfered to naval aviation squadrons for type training.

All these countries have very different military cultures between air force and navy. Navies, people who drive ships, generally have more ridged rank structures. Airforces, groups that fly aircraft, delegate authority according to job descriptions. There are historical and practical reasons for this, mostly linked to minimum team sizes, but safe to say the two cultures can conflict. Keeping some degree of separation reduces conflicts and increases cooperation/safety.

> This is a uniquely American issue.

Russia is similar. Aerospace Forces, Airborne Forces, Navy, National Guards, Border Services operate aircrafts. Army used to have own aviation, but it was recently merged under Aerospace Forces.

Traditionally it's been a way of playing the odds- between the 5 different services one of them has probably done the right thing. But that only works when you have enough money to throw around.

The US has four or five different air forces.

Don't forget the 6th one, Space Force.

I'm all for the space force, but imho it should be called the "federation". And I cannot wait to see the pentagon expand into a hexagon.

In all seriousness, the various US armed forces all step over each other. The Navy has it's own air force, but the USAF also has its own navy (Google "Tyndall AFB"). The Coast guard has plenty of helicopters and the national guard has a bit of everything. They all operate different recruiters, different training schools, and maintain unique relations with foreign forces. It's a total mess compared to countries like Canada where all the forces train and fight together from day one at basic training.

Not to argue, but under what branch would you put the carrier fleet?

Why one branch?

When a Canadian ship sails with a helicopter, the ship is Navy. The helicopter, its aircrew, and all the servicing people, are airforce. Their navy (RCN) handles the ship stuff and their airforce (RCAF) all the flying stuff. So a US carrier could stay in the USN, while the air detachments would be handled by the USAF. This sort of cross-branch cooperation means everyone gets along. The navy doesn't get jealous of the airforce's new toys because everyone plays together. When favors are needed, everyone has buddies in the different branches and knows each other's abilities.

How well does that work on more than one ship with one helicopter? :D

As someone who knows nothing about the military, how hard would it be to have the carriers themselves operated by the navy, and have the aircraft operated by the airforce? The airforce pilots would obviously report to the ship's captain, but the training, maintenance, and everything else about the aircraft could be done by the airforce itself.

Well the first thing I can think of is that the crew would be split (care little about the other side), and would generally be less effective at executing orders because of constant competing/infighting :)

Putin would not look bad in Char Aznable's helmet.

The air force has long had plans to keep the B-52 fleet operational for a 95 year span (last B-52Hs from 1962 serving until 2050). They don't need a replacement for them unless Congress forces the issue.

Well they're already doing the B-21.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com