# "America does not need the Air Force" - does Canada?



## dimsum (15 Aug 2013)

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ff4662469f95

Pretty provocative, but really is it such a bad thing?  Case in point:  The Auroras (P-3 Orion) are an Air Force asset in Canada and Australia, but a Naval asset in many other forces with almost exactly the same job.  

In a simplistic Canadian view, anything that would operate over land normally (Tac Hel, short-range airlift) would go to Army Aviation, while the rest (fighters, strat airlift, tankers, LRP, MH) go a Fleet Air Arm.  SAR would a bit weird but not really covered in the scope of the article, since the US have the USCG for that.  

Of course, the massive caveat would be that the existing Flight Safety, CRM, etc. culture remains.  If anything, in Canada that would be easier than most b/c so many of our common institutions (training, etc.) are already combined.  

I'm putting on my bunker gear in prep for the massive flame-fest coming in 3...2...1...  >


----------



## chrisf (15 Aug 2013)

Given that we only have one unified force, aside from saving a bit of money on DEUs, would it even make much of a difference?


----------



## GAP (15 Aug 2013)

The main argument for the creation/sustainment  of the USAF was the "bomber" mentality. 

For the most part that is a bygone era...


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Aug 2013)

I'm afraid all that would be accomplished, besides causing a boom for the acme pips and crowns company and the peerless executive curl company, would be to create another bunch of headquarters. You would have the head of the army, and then you would need a head of land forces and a head of the army air force and then a transport brigade and a aviation brigade and a fighter brigade and on an on. And the same thing would happen with the navy.


----------



## GAP (15 Aug 2013)

Well...........yeah.....what else you gonna do with all those Generals and thingys....


----------



## jeffb (15 Aug 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> The main argument for the creation/sustainment  of the USAF was the "bomber" mentality.
> 
> For the most part that is a bygone era...



This was mainly the issue in the US and it was specific to strategic bombers. The USAF traces it roots through the Strategic Bomber Survey done at the close and just after the Second World War. Even with the formation of the USAF there was little interest within the USAF, and to a certain extent this still exists, in tactical aviation. The main emphasis was on strategic bombers (B-36 followed by B-52, B1, B2, etc) and the shooting down of enemy strategic bombers. I'd point to the USAF constantly trying to get rid of the A-10 and half-assed approach to the AC-130 platform as a modern examples of this. 

I think that shutting down the air force in either country is basically a waste of time. Better to spend more effort strengthening joint doctrine and having governments develop more expertise in deciding what is is they want their military to accomplish. This very basic first step is often done poorly so military issues in the west tend to drift from crisis to crisis and fun new toy to fun new toy without being nested within a larger national strategy that is based on national interests. 

Pips and crowns, areas being renamed divisions and standing down/ activating units is all window dressing in my opinion.


----------



## McG (17 Aug 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Pips and crowns, areas being renamed divisions and standing down/ activating units is all window dressing in my opinion.


Permanently changing command relationships is more than window dressing.  That is tinkering with how the drivetrain works.  It matters.


----------



## Bert (18 Aug 2013)

American application of force, the need to protect the country and the desire to project power globally, so differs from the Canadian perspective and force structure.  The article in the first post doesn't seem to recognize the contribution and AOR of the air national guard of each US state and equates the air components of the Marine Corps with the US Army.  Marine air is more integrated in naval to land ops than the army.  The USAF does fall into a strategic niche, but whether you call it the USAF or not, some organization going to have to do it.  

Canada doesn't have an air national guard for domestic defence (excluding NORAD) or the need/ability to globally project power.   Would be comparing apples to oranges to me.


----------



## q_1966 (18 Aug 2013)

Are you suggesting a Fleet Air Arm for the RCN and an Airforce similar to the United States Army Air Corps (attached to the Canadian Army) rather than having a distinct RCAF.


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Aug 2013)

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting a Fleet Air Arm for the RCN and an Airforce similar to the United States Army Air Corps (attached to the Canadian Army) rather than having a distinct RCAF.



Yes.


I believe helicopters should return to the Canadian Army, fighters remain in RCAF hands, and nautical air systems (UAVs, SeaKing or Sea-whatever) be in the hands of RCN. Eventually, we should expand to have a carrier group and have carrier launch/jump jets branded as RCN while standard Fighter/Bomber/Multi-role remain RCAF.

The RCAF would be required to maintain NORAD requirements while releaving the need stresses off the Navy when they require air systems.

Aurora, Arcturus - Navy
Herc, Globemaster, Helos - Army
Fighters, Bombers, CAS - AirForce


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Aug 2013)

Wasn't something like this part of the big reorganization of the 60's and 70's, putting the F-5 fighters as an organic part of Mobile Command? I seem to remember that the helicopters of 10 TAG were also under full command of Mobile Command for a while. But I think that the associated Operational Training Units fell under Training Command.

The senior land commander having command of fighters and helicopters didn't last for long, and it was abandoned when Air Command stood up, but it should be noted that Canada was drifting along these lines for a while, and made a deliberate choice not to go there.


----------



## McG (23 Aug 2013)

The article is really just proposing a US foray into limited unification.  My experience working in a US joint environment is that a lot of manpower and resources go into maintaining the separate service stovepipes, and there are many barriers to communication based on uniform colour while ignoring position function and job requirements.


----------



## pthebeau (24 Nov 2013)

I can't see it being very useful in terms of operations in general.  The RCAF hasn't shown any issues integrating with either element (unless you're trying to get air force kit ), since squadrons are more or less attached to an army or navy base if they're specific to their operations.  I can't imagine it working drastically different by making the aircraft part of the element instead of permanently attached to it.

The training system would also probably not be very different as pilots (for example) would likely start with some general training, and would get more specific as they approach operational quals.

I can see the "who pays for what" aspect getting funky, but at the end of the day, no point in spending money changing stuff that works...unless, of course, you have an obsession with renaming everything around you... :


----------



## Transporter (25 Nov 2013)

Mods... Please move this to the "What's the dumbest thing you heard said today" thread...  ;D


----------



## Loachman (25 Nov 2013)

pthebeau said:
			
		

> I can't see it being very useful in terms of operations in general.  The RCAF hasn't shown any issues integrating with either element (unless you're trying to get air force kit ), since squadrons are more or less attached to an army or navy base if they're specific to their operations.  I can't imagine it working drastically different by making the aircraft part of the element instead of permanently attached to it.
> 
> The training system would also probably not be very different as pilots (for example) would likely start with some general training, and would get more specific as they approach operational quals.
> 
> I can see the "who pays for what" aspect getting funky, but at the end of the day, no point in spending money changing stuff that works...unless, of course, you have an obsession with renaming everything around you... :



This is based upon how much personal experience and observation?


----------



## Lightguns (25 Nov 2013)

Inter service humour aside, yes we need a separate AF. Air Ops would go the way of our heavy anti tank capacity. Disbanded because someone wanted the PYs for their own pet.


----------

