Seems more like a macho contest for powers/budgets, rather than anything grounded in common sense. :2c:
Like was mentioned before...
Ground launched weapon? Army
Air launched weapon? Air Force
Ship launched weapon? Navy
Will there be some overlap as technology evolves? Sure. There already is, i.e., Navy's tomahawk capability from ships, and air launched cruise missiles (which can be air launched by both services.)
Both fly far over the horizon, both go boom in the end. Should one divest itself of this capability, just because the other says so? Nope.
With a war against China inevitable at some point, even if limited to a short burst of conventional warfare somewhere in the SCS - having a bit of overlap is a good thing.
Like also mentioned previously, anything more than roughly 4km is 'over the horizon'. So where do you really draw the line?
With over 5300 aircraft in it's inventory, including high end fighter jets, cargo planes to resupply US military forces all over the world, Global Strike responsibilities, air-refuelling tasks, ICBM deployment and security, etc etc - I feel the USAF truly has a complex and critical global role already.
Do they really want to sit in the mud with us, just so they can fire a few 155mm rounds because they'll land over the horizon? Be bothered with all of the radio compatibility issues, training issues, etc etc? I highly doubt it. Nobody joins the Air Force so they can sleep in the mud - that's half the appeal of the Air Force in the first place.
It's just about budget & power. :2c:
Like was mentioned before...
Ground launched weapon? Army
Air launched weapon? Air Force
Ship launched weapon? Navy
Will there be some overlap as technology evolves? Sure. There already is, i.e., Navy's tomahawk capability from ships, and air launched cruise missiles (which can be air launched by both services.)
Both fly far over the horizon, both go boom in the end. Should one divest itself of this capability, just because the other says so? Nope.
With a war against China inevitable at some point, even if limited to a short burst of conventional warfare somewhere in the SCS - having a bit of overlap is a good thing.
Like also mentioned previously, anything more than roughly 4km is 'over the horizon'. So where do you really draw the line?
With over 5300 aircraft in it's inventory, including high end fighter jets, cargo planes to resupply US military forces all over the world, Global Strike responsibilities, air-refuelling tasks, ICBM deployment and security, etc etc - I feel the USAF truly has a complex and critical global role already.
Do they really want to sit in the mud with us, just so they can fire a few 155mm rounds because they'll land over the horizon? Be bothered with all of the radio compatibility issues, training issues, etc etc? I highly doubt it. Nobody joins the Air Force so they can sleep in the mud - that's half the appeal of the Air Force in the first place.
It's just about budget & power. :2c:
