5 ms·

I am from Europe. Can someone explain why the US Navy has so much presence in the air, why isn't that the purview of the US Air Force?

ojbyrne 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t...
chrisseaton 4y ago
They fly from naval aircraft carriers. Exactly the same in European countries with carriers - naval aviators usually come from the navy. (The UK now also hosts Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps on carriers.)
- dboreham 4y ago
  The Fleet Air Arm sill exists fwiw.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Isn't that basically what I just said? The UK also has naval aviators, just like the US.
phalangion 4y ago
Because of aircraft carriers. Those are the purview of the Navy, and are a mobile base of operations.
random314 4y ago
In world war 2, naval strategy shifted from battleships to becoming aircraft carriers. The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft. The US Airforce needs a land base and small aircraft that has to travel longer distances. It's not tactically advantageous.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft. That's not true - naval ships are also used to launch missiles, to land marines, to sweep for mines, to fight other ships trying to do these things, etc. It's not even true that carriers only do attack. They also do fighter roles, anti-submarine, helicopter platforms, air defence platforms, etc.
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  > The ~~only~~ main role of naval ships in modern warfare is to ~~carry~~ support and defend aircraft carriers. FTY
  - indymike 4y ago
    Not really. Submarines are a thing, and they have significant offensive capability that is completely independent of a carrier.
    - todd8 4y ago
      Aircraft carriers sail with a group of support ships ringing the carrier miles away. These include destroyers and missile cruisers. A rear admiral manages them in close coordination with the carrier captain. Under a separate chain of command submarines accompany these carrier groups to aid in detection and prevention of threats to the carrier group. As I understand it there is no communication between the surface ships and these invisible partners.
      - indymike 4y ago
        Some subs do sail as part of a carrier battle group, but most subs are either hunting other subs, or are on deterrent patrol. Ballistic missile sub have substantial firepower, and are much more survivable, and therefore, the less visible and most important part of a Navy's deterrent mission.
fakethenews2022 4y ago
Aircraft carriers for force projection. The US Navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. The US Navy broken out from the US armed forces would be the second biggest air force in the world.
likeabbas 4y ago
Copy pasted from a Reddit thread: > The main differences are Navy pilots focus on maritime strike missions and anti submarine warfare. Strike missions involve the carrier air wing which is embarked. All of the squadrons in the air wing are responsible for supporting the fighter aircraft in their strikes off of the carrier. It is essentially a forward deployed force. > As for ASW we have P-8s which do strategic anti sub warfare. These focus on strategic issues and tracking subs. > Air force isn't a maritime strike operation like the navy is. They can focus more on single operations such as bombing, air to air, etc. The navy uses on strike aircraft for a multitude of missions while the Air Force uses multiple aircraft for different missions. > Air Force is also responsible for something called Internal Air Defense (IADS). This is basically intercepting aircraft that try and attack the United States. If anyone tried to bomb us and crossed into our air space the Air Force would be ready to scramble and send fighters up to stop them.
fmakunbound 4y ago
Basically all our taxes go to military. The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Basically all our taxes go to military. This isn't true - defence is like 16% of Federal spending, and not even all of that is the military. > The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not. And this isn't relevant either for this context. It's argued for some specific issues, such as production of main battle tanks, but the explanation for that is to maintain manufacturing capability. Naval aviation is pretty clear capability requirement in the modern operating environment - it's how we'd defend for example Taiwan - and isn't due to the reasons you're saying.
- TheGigaChad 4y ago
dudul 4y ago
Nothing to do with Europe vs US. It's just that the US has many more carriers than any European country. In European countries with aircraft carriers its the same. The pilots belong to the Navy.
throway98752343 4y ago
Same question about why the US's navy marines fought in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan far from any beaches, rather than leaving the land warfare to the US army.
- afterburner 4y ago
  Marines are trained as vanguard forces, first into the fight. It's a whole extra set of things to know and psyche yourself up for.
  - sydthrowaway 4y ago
    Are the Marines like the Sardaukar?
    - Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
      yes, by law
  - todd8 4y ago
    I met a mechanic working on a jet engine pulled from a fighter in the repair facility of a US aircraft carrier (his biceps were as thick as my legs); I asked him why he was wearing a Marine pattern camouflage uniform. He explained that he was a Marine just on loan to the Navy because they needed an additional jet mechanic on the ship. He told me that unlike the Navy sailors he had his gear bag with him and was ready to be dropped ashore to engage in hostilities at a moments notice.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 4y ago
Aircraft carriers project US force 'anywhere'. It's politically complicated to just 'put an airbase somewhere'. This is going to change as Carriers become more difficult to defend. But then so is everything.
- afterburner 4y ago
  Carriers have always been hard to defend in open total war. The fact that they are useful in relative peacetime has largely to do with nuclear deterrence, and the US's overwhelming naval and air superiority over most of its opponents. If a serious opponent starts sinking US aircraft carriers, then the war is already escalating far beyond that level.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Carriers become more difficult to defend Carriers are also very difficult to sink. And that's if you even manage to get past their countermeasures and actually manage to land clean hits. You need to be really lucky or the fleet command needs to be really incompetent.
laverya 4y ago
Because aircraft turned out to be very very very good at killing ships in the 1940s, and the best way to deliver those (short ranged, when you compare to the Pacific) planes to where your enemies ships happened to be was to build an airstrip on a ship and then send that ship relatively close to the ships you wanted to kill. And because ships are owned by the Navy, and the planes flying off those ships are killing the Navy's direct opponents, and the actual aircraft in question are specific to the Navy... It makes sense for the people flying the planes to be Navy too.
ydnaclementine 4y ago
The US has the two best air forces, the US Airforce and the US Navy
- devoutsalsa 4y ago
  Fun fact: the US Army has more aircraft than the Air Force or navy. Also, the marines have fighters, too.
  - afterburner 4y ago
    The army has a ton of helicopters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft#Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_m...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
maxerickson 4y ago
Tradition.
billfruit 4y ago
In addition to that, even the US Marines has its own air wing with their own fighter aircraft even. Is there a compelling reason why Marines need to fly air combat missions.
cafard 4y ago
Lobbying/inter-service politics is part of it. In WW II, the separation paid off. The British Fleet Air Arm flew lightly modified RAF aircraft, which were great for many things, but not for carrier operations. The US Navy would not pay for aircraft that could not take off from and land on carriers very well. In the 1960s, the Pentagon imagined the F-111 as an all-purpose, all-service plane. Some USN captain told a congressional committee that it would not work, so becoming a hero to his peers and losing an prospect of promotion to flag rank.

ojbyrne 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t...

chrisseaton 4y ago

They fly from naval aircraft carriers. Exactly the same in European countries with carriers - naval aviators usually come from the navy. (The UK now also hosts Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps on carriers.)

dboreham 4y ago
The Fleet Air Arm sill exists fwiw.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Isn't that basically what I just said? The UK also has naval aviators, just like the US.

phalangion 4y ago

Because of aircraft carriers. Those are the purview of the Navy, and are a mobile base of operations.

random314 4y ago

In world war 2, naval strategy shifted from battleships to becoming aircraft carriers. The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft. The US Airforce needs a land base and small aircraft that has to travel longer distances. It's not tactically advantageous.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft. That's not true - naval ships are also used to launch missiles, to land marines, to sweep for mines, to fight other ships trying to do these things, etc. It's not even true that carriers only do attack. They also do fighter roles, anti-submarine, helicopter platforms, air defence platforms, etc.
SkyMarshal 4y ago
> The ~~only~~ main role of naval ships in modern warfare is to ~~carry~~ support and defend aircraft carriers. FTY
- indymike 4y ago
  Not really. Submarines are a thing, and they have significant offensive capability that is completely independent of a carrier.
  - todd8 4y ago
    Aircraft carriers sail with a group of support ships ringing the carrier miles away. These include destroyers and missile cruisers. A rear admiral manages them in close coordination with the carrier captain. Under a separate chain of command submarines accompany these carrier groups to aid in detection and prevention of threats to the carrier group. As I understand it there is no communication between the surface ships and these invisible partners.
    - indymike 4y ago
      Some subs do sail as part of a carrier battle group, but most subs are either hunting other subs, or are on deterrent patrol. Ballistic missile sub have substantial firepower, and are much more survivable, and therefore, the less visible and most important part of a Navy's deterrent mission.

fakethenews2022 4y ago

Aircraft carriers for force projection. The US Navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. The US Navy broken out from the US armed forces would be the second biggest air force in the world.

likeabbas 4y ago

Copy pasted from a Reddit thread: > The main differences are Navy pilots focus on maritime strike missions and anti submarine warfare. Strike missions involve the carrier air wing which is embarked. All of the squadrons in the air wing are responsible for supporting the fighter aircraft in their strikes off of the carrier. It is essentially a forward deployed force. > As for ASW we have P-8s which do strategic anti sub warfare. These focus on strategic issues and tracking subs. > Air force isn't a maritime strike operation like the navy is. They can focus more on single operations such as bombing, air to air, etc. The navy uses on strike aircraft for a multitude of missions while the Air Force uses multiple aircraft for different missions. > Air Force is also responsible for something called Internal Air Defense (IADS). This is basically intercepting aircraft that try and attack the United States. If anyone tried to bomb us and crossed into our air space the Air Force would be ready to scramble and send fighters up to stop them.

fmakunbound 4y ago

Basically all our taxes go to military. The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> Basically all our taxes go to military. This isn't true - defence is like 16% of Federal spending, and not even all of that is the military. > The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not. And this isn't relevant either for this context. It's argued for some specific issues, such as production of main battle tanks, but the explanation for that is to maintain manufacturing capability. Naval aviation is pretty clear capability requirement in the modern operating environment - it's how we'd defend for example Taiwan - and isn't due to the reasons you're saying.
TheGigaChad 4y ago

dudul 4y ago

Nothing to do with Europe vs US. It's just that the US has many more carriers than any European country. In European countries with aircraft carriers its the same. The pilots belong to the Navy.

throway98752343 4y ago

Same question about why the US's navy marines fought in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan far from any beaches, rather than leaving the land warfare to the US army.

afterburner 4y ago
Marines are trained as vanguard forces, first into the fight. It's a whole extra set of things to know and psyche yourself up for.
- sydthrowaway 4y ago
  Are the Marines like the Sardaukar?
  - Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
    yes, by law
- todd8 4y ago
  I met a mechanic working on a jet engine pulled from a fighter in the repair facility of a US aircraft carrier (his biceps were as thick as my legs); I asked him why he was wearing a Marine pattern camouflage uniform. He explained that he was a Marine just on loan to the Navy because they needed an additional jet mechanic on the ship. He told me that unlike the Navy sailors he had his gear bag with him and was ready to be dropped ashore to engage in hostilities at a moments notice.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 4y ago

Aircraft carriers project US force 'anywhere'. It's politically complicated to just 'put an airbase somewhere'. This is going to change as Carriers become more difficult to defend. But then so is everything.

afterburner 4y ago
Carriers have always been hard to defend in open total war. The fact that they are useful in relative peacetime has largely to do with nuclear deterrence, and the US's overwhelming naval and air superiority over most of its opponents. If a serious opponent starts sinking US aircraft carriers, then the war is already escalating far beyond that level.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Carriers become more difficult to defend Carriers are also very difficult to sink. And that's if you even manage to get past their countermeasures and actually manage to land clean hits. You need to be really lucky or the fleet command needs to be really incompetent.

laverya 4y ago

Because aircraft turned out to be very very very good at killing ships in the 1940s, and the best way to deliver those (short ranged, when you compare to the Pacific) planes to where your enemies ships happened to be was to build an airstrip on a ship and then send that ship relatively close to the ships you wanted to kill. And because ships are owned by the Navy, and the planes flying off those ships are killing the Navy's direct opponents, and the actual aircraft in question are specific to the Navy... It makes sense for the people flying the planes to be Navy too.

ydnaclementine 4y ago

The US has the two best air forces, the US Airforce and the US Navy

devoutsalsa 4y ago
Fun fact: the US Army has more aircraft than the Air Force or navy. Also, the marines have fighters, too.
- afterburner 4y ago
  The army has a ton of helicopters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft#Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_m...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

maxerickson 4y ago

Tradition.

billfruit 4y ago

In addition to that, even the US Marines has its own air wing with their own fighter aircraft even. Is there a compelling reason why Marines need to fly air combat missions.

cafard 4y ago

Lobbying/inter-service politics is part of it. In WW II, the separation paid off. The British Fleet Air Arm flew lightly modified RAF aircraft, which were great for many things, but not for carrier operations. The US Navy would not pay for aircraft that could not take off from and land on carriers very well. In the 1960s, the Pentagon imagined the F-111 as an all-purpose, all-service plane. Some USN captain told a congressional committee that it would not work, so becoming a hero to his peers and losing an prospect of promotion to flag rank.