traveller29071985
New Member
One of the curious feature of first-tier militaries, that that their different branches and arms occupy near-identical domains in terms of capability and mission role.
In an multi-series, I will try to explore this issue. In my first part, I will try to briefly seek out what kind of duplicative capabilities do various services possess.
In Part 2, I will analyse at how such overlapping roles and missions of service branches of non-western autocracies tend to be viewed by western observers at a means of “coup-proofing”.
In Part 3, I will briefly look at the Marine forces of Asia-Pacific countries, in terms of duplicative capabilities.
Part 1
An example of overlap would the Soviet Air Defence Forces, which not just possess its own array of AAA and SAMs, but a fleet of fighter jets that in numbers alone, easily dwarf the fleet strength of many other nations.
Interestingly, many large navies that have its own fleet of fixed wing aircraft, also tend to have its own aviation branch, examples include India, Japan, UK, Spain, Italy. In other cases, where rotary-wing aircraft, or better known as helicopters, are deployed to ships, the ownership and operation of said helicopters resided with the Air Force, for example, the Israel’s Defence Force.
There are two different potential causes when looking at this; do service branches develop in-house capabilites because of operational efficiencies (i.e it is better to keep everything in-house), or is it a matter of organizational politics, i.e inter-service rivalry between the different services?
There is also a matter of available funding.
The US is an outlier. Their Army has its own aviation branch, which admittedly consist mostly of helicopters, but in numbers alone, is larger than most countries’ air forces, and there have even been calls to permit the US army’s aviation branch to operate its own CAS fixed-wing aircraft.
On the flip side, the US Navy has its own aviation branch, and it’s sister service, the USMC, has its own aviation branch, operating not just its own aircraft that support Marine Ground operations, but also operating in domains that appear to be in the jurisdiction of the US Navy’s aviation branch, Marine Fighter Attack Squadrons, operating F-4 Phantom IIs, and F/A-18 Hornets, not just from land-based Marine bases, but from USN Aircraft carriers, such as flying off F-4 Phantoms and F/A-18 Hornets off US Aircraft Carriers.
Interestingly, when I ask this question on reddit, asking about the risks of inefficiencies and the lack of coordination, most replies indicate that this is a good thing, claiming that it helps to boost capabilities, although most skip replying the part of my question where I asked about the areas of inefficiencies and fiscal wastage from overlapping jurisdiction.
In any case, it is probably that most things boil down to both politics and the availability of money. After World War 2, during the formation of the National Security Act of the 1947, there were calls to abolish the Marines, while on the aviation side, there was a similar tussle between the poto-USAF and USN aviation over the role of land-based naval aviation. Even after the NSA 1947, the so-called “Key West Agreement” was the result of the USAF and US army compromising over what the USAF seen as the US Army intruding into its domain.
I would appreciate any hindsights that fellow forummers here share. Pls feel free to post your comments and thoughts in this thread.
In Part 2, I will see how such overlapping domains tended to be viewed as "coup proofing" in non-western autocracies.
For Part 3, I will look into the role of Non-Western Marine forces in Asia-Pacific countries, and in particular, I will look into the political impetus that underpin their creation – and the factors that enable their continued existence of the following branches:
References and Citations
In an multi-series, I will try to explore this issue. In my first part, I will try to briefly seek out what kind of duplicative capabilities do various services possess.
In Part 2, I will analyse at how such overlapping roles and missions of service branches of non-western autocracies tend to be viewed by western observers at a means of “coup-proofing”.
In Part 3, I will briefly look at the Marine forces of Asia-Pacific countries, in terms of duplicative capabilities.
Part 1
An example of overlap would the Soviet Air Defence Forces, which not just possess its own array of AAA and SAMs, but a fleet of fighter jets that in numbers alone, easily dwarf the fleet strength of many other nations.
Interestingly, many large navies that have its own fleet of fixed wing aircraft, also tend to have its own aviation branch, examples include India, Japan, UK, Spain, Italy. In other cases, where rotary-wing aircraft, or better known as helicopters, are deployed to ships, the ownership and operation of said helicopters resided with the Air Force, for example, the Israel’s Defence Force.
There are two different potential causes when looking at this; do service branches develop in-house capabilites because of operational efficiencies (i.e it is better to keep everything in-house), or is it a matter of organizational politics, i.e inter-service rivalry between the different services?
There is also a matter of available funding.
The US is an outlier. Their Army has its own aviation branch, which admittedly consist mostly of helicopters, but in numbers alone, is larger than most countries’ air forces, and there have even been calls to permit the US army’s aviation branch to operate its own CAS fixed-wing aircraft.
On the flip side, the US Navy has its own aviation branch, and it’s sister service, the USMC, has its own aviation branch, operating not just its own aircraft that support Marine Ground operations, but also operating in domains that appear to be in the jurisdiction of the US Navy’s aviation branch, Marine Fighter Attack Squadrons, operating F-4 Phantom IIs, and F/A-18 Hornets, not just from land-based Marine bases, but from USN Aircraft carriers, such as flying off F-4 Phantoms and F/A-18 Hornets off US Aircraft Carriers.
Interestingly, when I ask this question on reddit, asking about the risks of inefficiencies and the lack of coordination, most replies indicate that this is a good thing, claiming that it helps to boost capabilities, although most skip replying the part of my question where I asked about the areas of inefficiencies and fiscal wastage from overlapping jurisdiction.
In any case, it is probably that most things boil down to both politics and the availability of money. After World War 2, during the formation of the National Security Act of the 1947, there were calls to abolish the Marines, while on the aviation side, there was a similar tussle between the poto-USAF and USN aviation over the role of land-based naval aviation. Even after the NSA 1947, the so-called “Key West Agreement” was the result of the USAF and US army compromising over what the USAF seen as the US Army intruding into its domain.
I would appreciate any hindsights that fellow forummers here share. Pls feel free to post your comments and thoughts in this thread.
In Part 2, I will see how such overlapping domains tended to be viewed as "coup proofing" in non-western autocracies.
For Part 3, I will look into the role of Non-Western Marine forces in Asia-Pacific countries, and in particular, I will look into the political impetus that underpin their creation – and the factors that enable their continued existence of the following branches:
References and Citations
- Inventory of SAMs of Soviet Air Defence Forces: Soviet Air Defence Forces - Wikipedia
- Soviet Air Defence Forces Fighter Fleet: Soviet Air Defence Forces - Wikipedia
- Indian Naval Air Arm: Indian Naval Air Arm - Wikipedia
- Japanese Navy Fleet Air Force (JMSDF): Fleet Air Force (JMSDF) - Wikipedia
- UK Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm: Fleet Air Arm - Wikipedia
- Spanish Naval Air Arm: Spanish Navy - Wikipedia
- Italian Navy Aviation: Italian Navy Aviation - Wikipedia
- Israel Navy Aircraft: Israeli Navy - Wikipedia
- US Army Aircraft Inventory: List of active United States military aircraft - Wikipedia
- Slaying the Unicorn: The Army and Fixed-Wing Attack: Slaying the Unicorn: The Army and Fixed-Wing Attack - War on the Rocks
- Marine Fighter Attack Squadrons: List of active United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons - Wikipedia
- F-4 Phantom operated by USMC: United States Marine Corps Aviation - Wikipedia
- F-18 Operation by USMC: United States Marine Corps Aviation - Wikipedia
- USMC F-4 Phantom VMFA-323 Air Wing on USS Coral Sea: VMFA-323 - Wikipedia
- USMC F-18 Phantom VMFA-314 Air Wing on USS Coral Sea : VMFA-314 - Wikipedia
- Semper Fidelis: Defending the Marine Corps: Semper Fidelis: Defending the Marine Corps
- How the US Navy retained control over land-based naval viation: How the Air Force Got Its Start 72 Years Ago
- Marine Corps University > Research > Marine Corps History Division > Frequently Requested Topics > Historical Documents, Orders and Speeches > The National Security Act of 1947
- “Treaty” between US Army and USAF: This was the Army and Air Force 'treaty' on aircraft - We Are The Mighty