8 ms·

I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look up US

I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look up US air units/forces, there is a bunch of stuff left to the national guards, marines etc. and flying is obviously something to be taken seriously. And it looks like they are more likely to screw it up or take it less seriously.

aspaceman 7y ago
The various forces do different things in the air. I'm not super knowledgeable about this, so someone might have more details. Air Force is general flight missions. They tend towards support and recon. Navy is focused on carrier support and sea missions. Marines are focused on CAS and both land and sea missions. Lot of helicopters as well. So each branch takes different responsibilities. I don't think this is an issue of Marines not being good enough to fly, as there are very talented Marine pilots around the world. Instead, these Marines weren't being given the resources and training they needed, and were being ignored by the higher chain. The argument that Marines don't take things as seriously is a little ridiculous.
- andreareina 7y ago
  CAS = close air support?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Correct.
- remedan 7y ago
  >Marines weren't being given the resources and training they needed, and were being ignored by the higher chain. To me this says that the Marines high enough to make decisions do indeed not take things seriously enough.
- eaandkw 7y ago
  You should look up the MAGTF concept. Pilots are pilots and they are all very well trained. The Marines generally deploy in a fully functional unit that has a ground element, support element, and air element. There are different sizes of MAGTFs that can support various levels of operations anywhere in the world. One of the many advantages of the MAGTF is that everyone is speaking the same "language" and using the same playbook making communication a lot easier.
  - aspaceman 7y ago
    Thank you for reminding me of this weird word hah. Been a while since I’ve heard about MAGTF
- maxerickson 7y ago
  The US Army also flies helicopters. Specialization is inevitable in an organization as large and complicated as the US military, and it's worth considering whether the service level split is the better way to manage it, especially at the top where it would be better for the decision makers to have diversified experience than to be in-fighting.
redis_mlc 7y ago
> why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? The priorities aka politics of each military branch are different. Canonical example: At Guadalcanal in WW2, the Navy was supposed to land supplies and support the Marines, but when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left - with most supplies still aboard. The Marines are still mad about that 75 years later. In more recent times, the problem is that the Air Force doesn't want to fly low and risk AF pilots - ie. provide CAS. And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time.
- nradov 7y ago
  This is also one of the main reasons why the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program ended up as such an expensive mess. The Marines insisted on getting their own VSTOL variant to provide CAS from amphibious ships so that they wouldn't have to rely on the Navy. And that forced the use of a huge single engine instead of smaller twin engines, making it less aerodynamic (shorter range) and less survivable for other missions. Designing and testing the VSTOL capabilities drove up development costs tremendously and delayed the entire program for years.
  - greedo 7y ago
    Funny thing. Those F-35Bs fly off Navy ships. Marines have always relied on the Navy.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Initially, sure, just like they rely on the ships to get them to the beach. Early priority is often to seize an airfield, though. F-35Bs can happily fly off a land field.
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        They can but why sacrifice fuel and weapons capacity for a VTOL engine you don’t need in that case? Once the airfield is captured you would want to immediately swap out those B’s for A’s. They are the wrong tool for operating from an airfield.
useful 7y ago
I saw a proposal a long time ago on TEDx or something on how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. The premise was that the supply and support mission should be handled by the department of state in times of peace and the department of war in war. Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought it was a nice way of approaching the rest of the world. In reality, the most effective militaries in history have been the ones where everyone can fight.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Arguably the people "fighting" wars (or at least vulnerable to incoming fire) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible, replaced by drones of various sorts. Strategic bombing has never recognised this distinction, anyway. Both sides in WW2 spent extensive effort bombing each other's supply lines and factories. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the notorious Benghazi incident, etc: does that count as "fighting"? Most of the US wars since WW2 have been lost during the occupation phase due to the difficulties of COIN. There's no glamour of "fighting" there, it consists of spending years going to work in an office but never forgetting to check under your car. > Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. There is no such thing as peacetime for the United States. https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-... Edit: while I was writing this comment, protestors have stormed the US embassy in Baghdad. Do the embassy staff count as "fighting"?
  - arethuza 7y ago
    "should be reduced to as close to zero" Isn't it already less than 10% for most militaries?
  - 7y ago
neurobashing 7y ago
It makes for better unit cohesion - Marines can train with Marines, and at least in theory everyone will eg know everyone's radio freqs and call signs and so on. (In practice, lol no not even close) Also specific to the Marines is the idea of delivering a fully-operational fighting force anywhere in the world in a short time: infantry, armor, artillery, CAS. Marines even have their own specops (Recon). So while the Marines rely on the Navy for transport (the Marines are a part of the Navy, after all) their land warfare doctrine calls for combined arms. Can't have CAS if the wingwipers are busy doing top-cover 100 miles out from your beach assault.
- potta_coffee 7y ago
  Marine forward observers are also pilots.
potta_coffee 7y ago
Marine aviation is really pretty good. There are bad stories of mistakes made by all the branches. The Marines prefer to support their own operations and it makes sense. Specifically, Marine aviation is specifically oriented toward missions conducted by the Marines.

aspaceman 7y ago

The various forces do different things in the air. I'm not super knowledgeable about this, so someone might have more details. Air Force is general flight missions. They tend towards support and recon. Navy is focused on carrier support and sea missions. Marines are focused on CAS and both land and sea missions. Lot of helicopters as well. So each branch takes different responsibilities. I don't think this is an issue of Marines not being good enough to fly, as there are very talented Marine pilots around the world. Instead, these Marines weren't being given the resources and training they needed, and were being ignored by the higher chain. The argument that Marines don't take things as seriously is a little ridiculous.

andreareina 7y ago
CAS = close air support?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Correct.
remedan 7y ago
>Marines weren't being given the resources and training they needed, and were being ignored by the higher chain. To me this says that the Marines high enough to make decisions do indeed not take things seriously enough.
eaandkw 7y ago
You should look up the MAGTF concept. Pilots are pilots and they are all very well trained. The Marines generally deploy in a fully functional unit that has a ground element, support element, and air element. There are different sizes of MAGTFs that can support various levels of operations anywhere in the world. One of the many advantages of the MAGTF is that everyone is speaking the same "language" and using the same playbook making communication a lot easier.
- aspaceman 7y ago
  Thank you for reminding me of this weird word hah. Been a while since I’ve heard about MAGTF
maxerickson 7y ago
The US Army also flies helicopters. Specialization is inevitable in an organization as large and complicated as the US military, and it's worth considering whether the service level split is the better way to manage it, especially at the top where it would be better for the decision makers to have diversified experience than to be in-fighting.

redis_mlc 7y ago

> why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? The priorities aka politics of each military branch are different. Canonical example: At Guadalcanal in WW2, the Navy was supposed to land supplies and support the Marines, but when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left - with most supplies still aboard. The Marines are still mad about that 75 years later. In more recent times, the problem is that the Air Force doesn't want to fly low and risk AF pilots - ie. provide CAS. And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time.

nradov 7y ago
This is also one of the main reasons why the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program ended up as such an expensive mess. The Marines insisted on getting their own VSTOL variant to provide CAS from amphibious ships so that they wouldn't have to rely on the Navy. And that forced the use of a huge single engine instead of smaller twin engines, making it less aerodynamic (shorter range) and less survivable for other missions. Designing and testing the VSTOL capabilities drove up development costs tremendously and delayed the entire program for years.
- greedo 7y ago
  Funny thing. Those F-35Bs fly off Navy ships. Marines have always relied on the Navy.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Initially, sure, just like they rely on the ships to get them to the beach. Early priority is often to seize an airfield, though. F-35Bs can happily fly off a land field.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      They can but why sacrifice fuel and weapons capacity for a VTOL engine you don’t need in that case? Once the airfield is captured you would want to immediately swap out those B’s for A’s. They are the wrong tool for operating from an airfield.

useful 7y ago

I saw a proposal a long time ago on TEDx or something on how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. The premise was that the supply and support mission should be handled by the department of state in times of peace and the department of war in war. Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought it was a nice way of approaching the rest of the world. In reality, the most effective militaries in history have been the ones where everyone can fight.

pjc50 7y ago
> how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Arguably the people "fighting" wars (or at least vulnerable to incoming fire) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible, replaced by drones of various sorts. Strategic bombing has never recognised this distinction, anyway. Both sides in WW2 spent extensive effort bombing each other's supply lines and factories. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the notorious Benghazi incident, etc: does that count as "fighting"? Most of the US wars since WW2 have been lost during the occupation phase due to the difficulties of COIN. There's no glamour of "fighting" there, it consists of spending years going to work in an office but never forgetting to check under your car. > Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. There is no such thing as peacetime for the United States. https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-... Edit: while I was writing this comment, protestors have stormed the US embassy in Baghdad. Do the embassy staff count as "fighting"?
- arethuza 7y ago
  "should be reduced to as close to zero" Isn't it already less than 10% for most militaries?
- 7y ago

neurobashing 7y ago

It makes for better unit cohesion - Marines can train with Marines, and at least in theory everyone will eg know everyone's radio freqs and call signs and so on. (In practice, lol no not even close) Also specific to the Marines is the idea of delivering a fully-operational fighting force anywhere in the world in a short time: infantry, armor, artillery, CAS. Marines even have their own specops (Recon). So while the Marines rely on the Navy for transport (the Marines are a part of the Navy, after all) their land warfare doctrine calls for combined arms. Can't have CAS if the wingwipers are busy doing top-cover 100 miles out from your beach assault.

potta_coffee 7y ago
Marine forward observers are also pilots.

potta_coffee 7y ago

Marine aviation is really pretty good. There are bad stories of mistakes made by all the branches. The Marines prefer to support their own operations and it makes sense. Specifically, Marine aviation is specifically oriented toward missions conducted by the Marines.