Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Navy vs Air Force

JFACC is indeed the king in a joint environment and the ATO rules the Air...BUT, when/IF a host country is nice enough to allow us the time and effort to pre-stage tankers, logistics, golf courses and O' Clubs the AF needs in order to start operations, but when the [bleep], the first thing the NCC asks is "where are the carriers." During the first Gulf War and Saddam went over the wire into Kuwait, the Kitty Hawk was there within 18 hrs pretty much daring the Iraquis to violate Saudi Airspace and within a week, two more Carriers were there with air power.

Further, if one were to count the number of times Naval Aviation was employed since WWII through today and compare it to AF use, well, it ain't even in the same universe. Or take a look at kill ratios in Vietnam. As to the A-10 vs FA/18, hey, I HATE the Hornet so no skin of my nose there, but the reality is the AF HATES the A-10 and the CAS mission and the F-22 validates that. Besides, my mother can land on a 10K runway.... jorge

? In multiple places I've been the JFACC has been other than USAF, in fact on one it was a Brit Jaguar guy.

There's lots of tanking from other than USAF tankers out there. Brit VC-10's and there's a heck of lot of Marine C-130's giving gas, especially to Harriers and Helo's. Tanking off a C-130 in a Prowler is a pain in the ass.. Pull up, put the flaps and slats rto 20 degrees and quickly pull the flaps/slat circuit breaker so you get the flaps to slide aft, giving you extra wing area but before the slats come out or the flaps go down increasing your drag count.

LOL, I like that.

Well now,I'm not sure of this story and I haven't run it past Snopes, so if it's wrong let me know. Being an Army aviator I really don't have a dog in the fight so I'll tell it like I heard it.

Due to the "First come, first serve" clause and the fact that the Navy came to be long before the Air Force, and because the Navy sailed to distant lands and made port amidst exotic women with strange customs,it was the Navy what invented the condom with use of a sheep's bladder.

Sometime later and due to similar needs, the Air Force improved the invention by removing it from the sheep first.

And while I'm at it I'll relate another unverified story that has a ring of truth to it.

LITTLE KNOWN TIDBIT OF NAVAL HISTORY...
The U. S. S.. Constitution (Old Ironsides), as a combat vessel, carried 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no evaporators (i.e. fresh water distillers).

However, let it be noted that according to her ship's log, "On July 27, 1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum."

Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."
Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum.

Then she headed for the Azores , arriving there 12 November.. She provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine.

On 18 November, she set sail for England . In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchant ships, salvaging only the rum aboard each.

By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Nevertheless, although unarmed she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland . Her landing party captured a whisky distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons of single malt Scotchaboard by dawn. Then she headed home.
The U. S. S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, no food, no powder,no rum, no wine,no whisky, and 38,600 gallons of water.

GO NAVY!

We can frame these kind of arguments to benefit either service, we both know that.

The Air Force flew nearly 60% of the sorties in Desert Storm, despite only having 50% of the assets and shot down 90% of the air to air kills in the war. Nevermind that we also supplied the overwhelming majority of supplies and equipment to the theater.

And even the fact that we flew the majority of sorties is misleading, as the tonnage we dropped on ground units with our F-111's, B-52's and B-1's dwarfed the tonnage dropped by the Navy.

The Air Force was also the first to drop bombs in Desert Storm, because we had the only asset that could be trusted to get in undetected and take out major C3 sites before they knew what was coming.

The fact is Naval Aviation is not as efficient as the Air Force. You simply cannot turn your aircraft around off a carrier as fast as we can and in a war with a real enemy, you have to hold back more assets than we do, for CAP.



I sincerely doubt this one, but again, it's how we frame the statement. Are we talking combat sorties since WWII? Because there is no way the Navy leads that one.

You simply can't count the occasional skirmish with a Banana Republic like two Libyan Mig-23's and compare those to Major wars.

USAF flew the overwhelming majority of missions in the Berlin Airlift.
USAF flew the overwhelming majority of sorties in Vietnam.
USAF flew the majority of sorties in Desert Storm.
USAF flew the overwhelming majority of sorties in the Korean War.
USAF has flown the overwhelming majority of combat sorties since WWII.

USAF also, through SAC, made sure the Cold War was kept cold while we were playing in those other wars.

Lots of powder blue Kool-Aid there Foxbat.

I'm relaxing on vacation in Rhode Island and don't want to get into but I will point out, if you want to get technical, that the first weapons fired during ODS were US Army Apaches shooting up radar sites.

The Navy and the USAF have very different versions of air to air. The USAF throws lots of fighters up on CAP and the Navy simply escorts the strikers in and out. The USAF wrote the Air Tasking Order and made damn sure that they were going to be where the air to air action happened. The USN had two opportunities, maybe three, In one n F/A-18 shot down both his attackers then went on and hit his ground target. In the second, the VF-84 Tomcats were called off so a Saudi Eagle (flown by a Saudi Prince) could get his kills.

As far as strike cycles, those missions flown by B-2's from Missouri or B-52's from Louisiana half way around the world are not exactly high-cycle.

The USAF is now sending newly winged pilots direct to Predators. I'm sure they'll be giving them Air Medals for it next.

I know the ex-Navy guys can land a 727 a lot better.

Your "turnaround" statement is way off the mark. When we held war games (and in Lybia for example) our turnaround mission sortie was considerably faster. As far as hldong back assets for CAP, depends on the mission of course and just one carrier on station severely limits that as does the "one deep" endurance of the flight deck crews and one carrier can become vulnerable but then again we can just withdraw. Everything else you said is spot on. Once a conflict starts, of course one would expect the AF to run the "air show" after all it is the AF. What I was referring to is the amount of time Naval Aviation was called upon in a national crisis. Check the USN/USAF kill ratio in Vietnam Vs MiGs, not nessesarily a "Banana Republic."

When I was involved in the "money wars" in the Pentagon, we used to compare what the AF spent on Wheelus AFB and building the USS Saratoga. We all know where Wheelus is and how much we used it as compared to the many times the Saratoga was employed in the national interest. Bottom line is Naval Aviation is a tactical enterprise with a totally different mindset than the AF as a whole. Here's another huge philosophical difference between the two: The Air Force mentality and doctrine is guided by a huge library of SOPs and Regulations and if it is NOT found in any of their Pubs well you CAN'T do it. The Navy (and USMC) has one rather thin bool called 3710 and if it NOT in there, well then feel free to do it. It's a huge difference--not to mention that issue regarding tailhooks....

There was some small arms fire by some Army Airborne units, even before that, but let's stick to the subject at hand.

This was a very misleading claim.



As to the B-2's, not really relevant is it?
You don't fly 60% of the sorties with 50% of the assets unless you are more efficient. Not sure how that can be spun any other way.

A coupls of more thoughts while I think of them; In terms of the Cold War and SAC, totally apples and oranges. Naval Aviation had ZERO role in the TRIAD, we didn't need to, we had SSBNs. More on turnaround times, during El Dorado Canyon (Lybia) in 86, the AF was forced to fly their F-111s all the way from the UK, requiring many tedious, air-crew tiring tanking missions while the Navy with two carriers on scene flew continuous "Flex deck" operations with about a 15-20 turnaround time, no issues there. When I was CHief OF Staff and the Navy Training Wing in Pensacola where we also emply AF Training assets, I was given the opportunity to fly and instruct on the AF's T-1. I lasted ONE flight. The rigid checklist intensive training was too much for thsis old aviator. In the Navy when you show up to your first Squadron as a Lt (jg) or even as an Ensign (0-1) it's not long before you are given the "keys" and over the horizon you go. Contrast that with the AF where it takes years to attain the latitude and flexibility we give our nuggett aviators. Like I said, totally different mindset. Not nessesarily better, but out of nessesity a lot more flexible and totally less corporate. jorge

jorge - that attitude is prevalent in the enlisted jobs as well. Once thing that really shocked me - I mean flat out shocked me, was how much like children the AF treated their folks.

In the Navy - you graduate boot, you're a sailor and respected by your "elder" enlisted until proven otherwise. Didn't seem to be the case in the other branches (Marines we the same as Navy tho) with the AF being the worse.

Sure you can. 50% of the assets when yo add in the Brits, Saudis, French etc that were part of the ATO, plus when you add all of the other than "green ink" combat sorties? When the Navy runs Flex Deck, there is just no faster turn around. Trust me on that. Speaking of B-2s, there ain't w whole lot of things more exciting than flying that hog in full Zone FIve Burner at 500 FEET with Terrain Following engaged. Forget the rush, just watching the FUEL TOTALIZER gauge is enough to give anybody a woody.

Teal: The AF is a hugely professional and smooth organization but it is just to rigid and top heavy (at least in my experience) for this old Navy puke. jorge

That doesn't explain how USAF flew 60% of the sorties with 50% of the assets.

I'm not sure I see where you're going with the "amount of time...called upon.."? If USAF flew the majority of combat sorties since WWII, then what "amount of time" are we talking about? Cuban Missiles crisis? That was USAF F-101's that discovered the canisters and site prep. Libya? We were there with you. Vietnam, Korea? We already know the sortie share. Berlin? USAF. How many SR-71, U-2 flights over enemy territory during the Cold War? How about Berlin for lunch flights? Etc., Etc.

When it's all hashed out, you just can't claim we weren't in the same universe for combat time or sorties, the numbers aren't there.

You're correct of course on kill ratios in Nam. USAF screwed the pooch on the tactics of Air Combat heading into Vietnam, but I wasn't arguing that. We still flew a hell of a lot more combat sorties in Vietnam so obviously I wasn't calling that a Banana Republic.

I love you guys, but don't crap on me. I was there in Desert Storm working 12/12's targeting missions and sweating my ass off in an NBC suit and hoping Saddam didn't lose him mind and send a Scud my way. We're everything we all joke about, but we also took our jobs real serious.

Teal, my friend. I've mentioned to you before, you were on an AF training base, the mother of Air Force training bases. The difference between Lackland and Goodfellow and the REAL Air Force is night and day.

It's too bad you didn't do a tour in USAFE, you would have seen a very different Air Force than you saw.

Foxbat - I'm talking San Angelo and DLI, where one would EXPECT there to be a short leash on everyone. It was above and beyond what I would have expected. I'm also talking about Lackland where people have already been in the AF for 2.5 years and aren't even on Lackland proper but the annex.

You had senior AF people who had been away and back treating other AF people who had been in 2+ years like they were a recruit fresh off the bus and this was in the SCIF, not the parade ground. It wasn't just one or 2 people either.


I saw it to an extent in the USA too but once a guy had his beret - he was okay. Little weird that I wasn't allowed to talk to them or hang out with them prior to them winning there beret with flash but I don't know - that's an Army thing.

From my friends still in - it's changed some at DLI, perhaps it was a CO thing but the annex sure wasn't. Hell I was treated better by the AF folks than they treated their own. There was a huge culture of "who's got the largest c*ck".

Not crapping on you at all and if I gave that impression I apologize. Naval Air can't compete with AF's volume of sorties, no way, but that DEsert Storm Figure is deceiving but that's not the issue. What I was referring to was the number of times Navy Carriers responded to international crises during the post WWII era. Of course the AF flew more once the crap hit the fan. Like I said, two totally different missions, but take it from someone who was heavily involved in sorties flown vs turnaround time, the carrier Flex Deck has no equal. But in that regard where the AF has it all over a carrier is in SUSTAINABILITY. We are limited to the endurance of the flight deck crew (we Have only ONE Air Boss for example) and we can usually go for about 44-48 hrs before we just drop dead whereas the AF can go virtually forever from an unopposed Airfield.

San Angelo is Goodfellow AFB. It's an ATC (training base) just like Lackland. The Air Force is (was) huge, our ATC bases were training bases alone. Sure you had some real world missions on a few of them, like Lackland but where you worked had originally been controlled out by ESC Kelly AFB next store, until BRAC killed it. Lackland got it by default.

Even though some units are real on those bases, they were still ATC Command bases and a base reflects the MAJCOM they are. ATC bases are regimented, stiff, unflexible and run by douchebags that failed at their original AFSC and went to ATC where they could bully recruits and trainees.

I did my Reserve duty next door at Kelly AFB for 4 years. I despised even going to Lackland to shop. I would have rather been stationed at a remote in Shemya Alaska than at Lackland.

I went to Lackland to go home (lived on base - backed up against the fence towards whatever it's called that fixes the big cargo planes these days) and to buy liquor. That was it.