NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a funny little thing I found on globalsecurity.org. Any guesses?

The NavY!!!!!!!!!


I have no idea I'm just saying that because I'm in it :)

I'm gonna guess Navy but I'm not sure. :?

Nope. It is, what I believe, the most irrelevant branch of the military today. The Air Force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm

Nope. It is, what I believe, the most irrelevant branch of the military today. The Air Force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htmLargest in what sense? People, or most money spent on them?

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?

I can't even try to argue that the marines and navy combined are bigger personnel wise. :( (Active Duty of course)

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?
The Navy has the largest naval airforce in the world. I really do think that the Air Force must be eliminated, and all Air Force missions are picked up by the other three branches.
Besides, air power can be of only some help in guerilla wars, and most of that is done by the Army.

Nope. It is, what I believe, the most irrelevant branch of the military today. The Air Force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm

I would say army but it appears that the answer was given!

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?
The Navy has the largest naval airforce in the world. I really do think that the Air Force must be eliminated, and all Air Force missions are picked up by the other three branches.
Besides, air power can be of only some help in guerilla wars, and most of that is done by the Army.



Yes thats true...the navy does have the largest AF in the world. But the Navy AF would be nothing without me!! :P

Nope. It is, what I believe, the most irrelevant branch of the military today. The Air Force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htmLargest in what sense? People, or most money spent on them?
The Air Force does get a ton of money to develope and build their myriad of planes. Besides, if so many are enlisted in the Air Force, they probably pay the most in salaries.

Nope. It is, what I believe, the most irrelevant branch of the military today. The Air Force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htmLargest in what sense? People, or most money spent on them?
The Air Force does get a ton of money to develope and build their myriad of planes. Besides, if so many are enlisted in the Air Force, they probably pay the most in salaries.

don't tell my dad that, he'd kill you! LOL!!!

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?
The Navy has the largest naval airforce in the world. I really do think that the Air Force must be eliminated, and all Air Force missions are picked up by the other three branches.
Besides, air power can be of only some help in guerilla wars, and most of that is done by the Army.



Yes thats true...the navy does have the largest AF in the world. But the Navy AF would be nothing without me!! :P
Not only that, but another thing I've heard is that an aircraft carrier provides more air firepower than most small countries. Britain has three carriers, France has two, and about eight other navies have one each. The US has twelve, more than enough airpower to serve our needs.

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?
The Navy has the largest naval airforce in the world. I really do think that the Air Force must be eliminated, and all Air Force missions are picked up by the other three branches.
Besides, air power can be of only some help in guerilla wars, and most of that is done by the Army.



Yes thats true...the navy does have the largest AF in the world. But the Navy AF would be nothing without me!! :P
Not only that, but another thing I've heard is that an aircraft carrier provides more air firepower than most small countries. Britain has three carriers, France has two, and about eight other navies have one each. The US has twelve, more than enough airpower to serve our needs.

You forget one thing when you say that the navy has all the airpower a nation needs. Actually, you forget several things. You forget about the B-52 and every other aircraft that can't be launched off of a boat. (B-52, F-117, F-15, B-1, B-2, etc). If the navy took over all of the Air Force operations, then all planes that can't get off of a carrier deck would be scrapped. The point of specialization in the branches of the military is to keep the braches focused on being the best in a particular area. The Navy is supposed to be very good at blowing up ships. The Army is supposed to be the best at...ok, so the Army expands over everything, but their focus is supposed to be ground warfare. The Marines are supposed to be the best killing machines they can be. Finally the Air Force is supposed to encompase everything that flies. The only exception is the planes flown off of carriers. The Air Force does have a key role in our nation's military forces, the Navy isn't ment to equip pilots to fly ground operations, the Army doesn't need to expand to anything else, and the Marines need to focus on their killing. If anything, the Marines need to start training in zero gravity combat so that they can start equiping Space Marines. It is never to early to start training them you know.

Who cares! :roll:

This is about as interesting as comparing genitalia size. Amusing only for the small minded.

Who cares! :roll:

This is about as interesting as comparing genitalia size. Amusing only for the small minded.

That sounds like something a man/woman with small genitalia would say.

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?
The Navy has the largest naval airforce in the world. I really do think that the Air Force must be eliminated, and all Air Force missions are picked up by the other three branches.
Besides, air power can be of only some help in guerilla wars, and most of that is done by the Army.



Yes thats true...the navy does have the largest AF in the world. But the Navy AF would be nothing without me!! :P
Not only that, but another thing I've heard is that an aircraft carrier provides more air firepower than most small countries. Britain has three carriers, France has two, and about eight other navies have one each. The US has twelve, more than enough airpower to serve our needs.

You forget one thing when you say that the navy has all the airpower a nation needs. Actually, you forget several things. You forget about the B-52 and every other aircraft that can't be launched off of a boat. (B-52, F-117, F-15, B-1, B-2, etc). If the navy took over all of the Air Force operations, then all planes that can't get off of a carrier deck would be scrapped. The point of specialization in the branches of the military is to keep the braches focused on being the best in a particular area. The Navy is supposed to be very good at blowing up ships. The Army is supposed to be the best at...ok, so the Army expands over everything, but their focus is supposed to be ground warfare. The Marines are supposed to be the best killing machines they can be. Finally the Air Force is supposed to encompase everything that flies. The only exception is the planes flown off of carriers. The Air Force does have a key role in our nation's military forces, the Navy isn't ment to equip pilots to fly ground operations, the Army doesn't need to expand to anything else, and the Marines need to focus on their killing. If anything, the Marines need to start training in zero gravity combat so that they can start equiping Space Marines. It is never to early to start training them you know.


The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan the newest carrier in the American Fleet can launch B-2's if it uses the catapult to launch from the very back all the way up to the nose of the ship. It is also able to have them land.

The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan the newest carrier in the American Fleet can launch B-2's if it uses the catapult to launch from the very back all the way up to the nose of the ship. It is also able to have them land.


This has to some kind of sick joke. Esspecially insensitive when that particular vessel is named for a Man who has departed the realm of the Living.

JiangGuo

The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan the newest carrier in the American Fleet can launch B-2's if it uses the catapult to launch from the very back all the way up to the nose of the ship. It is also able to have them land.


This has to some kind of sick joke. Esspecially insensitive when that particular vessel is named for a Man who has departed the realm of the Living.

JiangGuo


The B-2 powers up to full throttle then the catapult launches it at over 100 mph. When it lands they use 25, 56' inch around Steel Wires thus bringing the B-2 to a stop. Though the B-2 rear rasies in the air a little no harm is done.

Did you even watch the Iraq war? Air power is key. If you don't know that...well...then you don't know any modern war tactics then do you?
The Navy has the largest naval airforce in the world. I really do think that the Air Force must be eliminated, and all Air Force missions are picked up by the other three branches.
Besides, air power can be of only some help in guerilla wars, and most of that is done by the Army.



Yes thats true...the navy does have the largest AF in the world. But the Navy AF would be nothing without me!! :P
Not only that, but another thing I've heard is that an aircraft carrier provides more air firepower than most small countries. Britain has three carriers, France has two, and about eight other navies have one each. The US has twelve, more than enough airpower to serve our needs.

You forget one thing when you say that the navy has all the airpower a nation needs. Actually, you forget several things. You forget about the B-52 and every other aircraft that can't be launched off of a boat. (B-52, F-117, F-15, B-1, B-2, etc). If the navy took over all of the Air Force operations, then all planes that can't get off of a carrier deck would be scrapped. The point of specialization in the branches of the military is to keep the braches focused on being the best in a particular area. The Navy is supposed to be very good at blowing up ships. The Army is supposed to be the best at...ok, so the Army expands over everything, but their focus is supposed to be ground warfare. The Marines are supposed to be the best killing machines they can be. Finally the Air Force is supposed to encompase everything that flies. The only exception is the planes flown off of carriers. The Air Force does have a key role in our nation's military forces, the Navy isn't ment to equip pilots to fly ground operations, the Army doesn't need to expand to anything else, and the Marines need to focus on their killing. If anything, the Marines need to start training in zero gravity combat so that they can start equiping Space Marines. It is never to early to start training them you know.
I conviniently forgot them for a reason. Aircraft carriers are to launch only aircraft carrier based ships. If there is no airforce, however, the Army can take over operation of land based fighters and bombers.
My logic? Air operations exist solely for the purpose of supporting ground operations. Any air-to-air combat is now very rare, and besides, air-to-air engagements by the military haven't been lost since the Vietnam war. The Army can find very good use using these bombers more as their instrument, and less as something they need to request for through military channels.
Besides, WWII, the greatest air war ever, was fought without the US creating an independent branch for an air force.

In WWII I believe the British and the Germans, maybe even Russia and Japan, had independant air forces. Luftwaffe, Royal Air Force, maybe the Imperial Air Force for Japan, I'll look in to those.

actually your wrong on that, according to that site, the airforce DOES hve the most actice personal right now (because of the Iraqi War) but the Army actually has a higher total amount and has almost the same amount of the other 3 branches combined

I conviniently forgot them for a reason. Aircraft carriers are to launch only aircraft carrier based ships. If there is no airforce, however, the Army can take over operation of land based fighters and bombers.
My logic? Air operations exist solely for the purpose of supporting ground operations. Any air-to-air combat is now very rare, and besides, air-to-air engagements by the military haven't been lost since the Vietnam war. The Army can find very good use using these bombers more as their instrument, and less as something they need to request for through military channels.
Besides, WWII, the greatest air war ever, was fought without the US creating an independent branch for an air force.

The Air Force was created as a direct result of the need for an Air Force. In a war against another modern, the airplane no longer takes a support role. The enemy would be equipped with equally advanced aircraft that must be countered to start supporting ground forces. In a war against an mostly land based army, then having no extra military branch is fine, but when the enemy has the same stuff (technologically anyways) you need an extra branch of the military to effectively deal with them. The Army has already branched out into enough areas, and separate Air Force is needed in the event we enter a war against a militarily equal power.

I conviniently forgot them for a reason. Aircraft carriers are to launch only aircraft carrier based ships. If there is no airforce, however, the Army can take over operation of land based fighters and bombers.
My logic? Air operations exist solely for the purpose of supporting ground operations. Any air-to-air combat is now very rare, and besides, air-to-air engagements by the military haven't been lost since the Vietnam war. The Army can find very good use using these bombers more as their instrument, and less as something they need to request for through military channels.
Besides, WWII, the greatest air war ever, was fought without the US creating an independent branch for an air force.

The Air Force was created as a direct result of the need for an Air Force. In a war against another modern, the airplane no longer takes a support role. The enemy would be equipped with equally advanced aircraft that must be countered to start supporting ground forces. In a war against an mostly land based army, then having no extra military branch is fine, but when the enemy has the same stuff (technologically anyways) you need an extra branch of the military to effectively deal with them. The Army has already branched out into enough areas, and separate Air Force is needed in the event we enter a war against a militarily equal power.
In that case, then, naval air forces will meet eachother in trying to blow up the enemy's ships. They'll fight, but the Navy is more focused on destroying ships, right?
The air forces of the Army and Marines can act the same way. Their aircraft won't be designed solely for uses as supporting roles, as air superiority will always be an issue. But that hasn't been the main use of aircraft in a while. No airplane has ever lost in air-to-air combat in the past thirty years, but technology to shoot down other planes is getting better and better. Besides, in our current military situation, planes have been playing more of a supportive role. Even air-to-air combat can be argued as being a supportive role. After all, air forces fight eachother so that the other won't bomb targets on the ground.
Perhaps one day, a strong, indepent air force will be needed. But I don't see it being necessary in our current situation, and I don't see it as a neccessity for years to come. No one, with the possible exception of the Israelis, can match our Air Force in either size or technology. Even if their was no Air Force branch, enemy air forces would probably wind up defeated by either SAMs, or naval air forces. Targets, btw, would probably still be bombed by Army aircraft or helicopter gunships.

In that case, then, naval air forces will meet eachother in trying to blow up the enemy's ships. They'll fight, but the Navy is more focused on destroying ships, right?
The air forces of the Army and Marines can act the same way. Their aircraft won't be designed solely for uses as supporting roles, as air superiority will always be an issue. But that hasn't been the main use of aircraft in a while. No airplane has ever lost in air-to-air combat in the past thirty years, but technology to shoot down other planes is getting better and better. Besides, in our current military situation, planes have been playing more of a supportive role. Even air-to-air combat can be argued as being a supportive role. After all, air forces fight eachother so that the other won't bomb targets on the ground.
Perhaps one day, a strong, indepent air force will be needed. But I don't see it being necessary in our current situation, and I don't see it as a neccessity for years to come. No one, with the possible exception of the Israelis, can match our Air Force in either size or technology. Even if their was no Air Force branch, enemy air forces would probably wind up defeated by either SAMs, or naval air forces. Targets, btw, would probably still be bombed by Army aircraft or helicopter gunships.

I should probably state that I am an individual who favors a restructuring of the military in the sense that I think that each branch should be even more specialized in their roles. I feel that the marines should stick to ground combat with a small support group of transport helicopters and SuperCobras. I don't like combination of marines and aircraft. The Army can stay pretty generalized because it is designed to encompass the skills of the basic infantryman. I would like to see many of the other branches special forces programs moved into the Marines though. I am a man that likes each of the branches separate and highly specialized in their fields, with the exception of the Army which should contain the basic infantry. I think the Navy should be adept at naval warfare in all of its aspects (perhaps carrying a complement of specialized Air Force pilots on board to fly the planes). I think the Air Force should know everything about air warfare. I think the Marines should keep their skill at killing things. I also think that the two of us are of very different opinions on the nature of war.

America is in the Guiness book of world records nfor having the largest navy. Communist china has the largest military though.

When I first enlisted in the Army it had the most personnel, had more water going vessels than the Navy and more air craft than the Air Force. That was a long time ago. But I do believe counting reserves, guard and active the Army still has more.

Nope. It is, what I believe, the most irrelevant branch of the military today. The Air Force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htmWhat is to be done if air power is needed to far from shore for carrier based aircraft to reach? What would be done if heavy bombers are needed?

The Navy airforce has more airplanes than the Air Force, and it can do everything that the Air Force can do, except for the bombers.

The Army has more boats than the Navy, but doesn't have more ships. Get the difference? Ships=cruisers, aircraft carriers. Boats=rivercraft, landing vessels.

Anyways, the Chair Force should simply be combined to the army again. It would be a lot simpler.

In that case, then, naval air forces will meet eachother in trying to blow up the enemy's ships. They'll fight, but the Navy is more focused on destroying ships, right?
The air forces of the Army and Marines can act the same way. Their aircraft won't be designed solely for uses as supporting roles, as air superiority will always be an issue. But that hasn't been the main use of aircraft in a while. No airplane has ever lost in air-to-air combat in the past thirty years, but technology to shoot down other planes is getting better and better. Besides, in our current military situation, planes have been playing more of a supportive role. Even air-to-air combat can be argued as being a supportive role. After all, air forces fight eachother so that the other won't bomb targets on the ground.
Perhaps one day, a strong, indepent air force will be needed. But I don't see it being necessary in our current situation, and I don't see it as a neccessity for years to come. No one, with the possible exception of the Israelis, can match our Air Force in either size or technology. Even if their was no Air Force branch, enemy air forces would probably wind up defeated by either SAMs, or naval air forces. Targets, btw, would probably still be bombed by Army aircraft or helicopter gunships.

I should probably state that I am an individual who favors a restructuring of the military in the sense that I think that each branch should be even more specialized in their roles. I feel that the marines should stick to ground combat with a small support group of transport helicopters and SuperCobras. I don't like combination of marines and aircraft. The Army can stay pretty generalized because it is designed to encompass the skills of the basic infantryman. I would like to see many of the other branches special forces programs moved into the Marines though. I am a man that likes each of the branches separate and highly specialized in their fields, with the exception of the Army which should contain the basic infantry. I think the Navy should be adept at naval warfare in all of its aspects (perhaps carrying a complement of specialized Air Force pilots on board to fly the planes). I think the Air Force should know everything about air warfare. I think the Marines should keep their skill at killing things. I also think that the two of us are of very different opinions on the nature of war.
Yes we do. I believe that the army should remain generalized, but aquire more of an airforce at their command. Perhaps two or three bombers a brigade would work wonders, if they had a few fighters to back them up. The Navy and the Marines are technically two branches, but they both share a secretary of the Navy. They really should act as one, as they currently play a huge role in eachother's effectiveness. I'm not saying that an ensign should have command of a platoon, but the point where naval officers can command marines should be lower, and their operations, both land and sea, should be further in sync. Of course, the marines should be kept for amphibious operations, occupation (which they are very good at historically), and a few other things. The army is the branch, however, that has to operate inland. If an air force is needed for anything, it should be just a few fighters for escort, but each branch of service can probably handle its own cargo planes and tankers. I also believe that the army should have the lead in the developing field of space weaponry.