Negative ROI on prestige online programs

It was, from 1947 until 1994, an adaptation of the Army uniform. Then Merrill McPeak became Chief of Staff and tried to introduce insignia on the sleeves (like most other air forces in the world, and like most navies, too). But that got reversed when he retired. Still, IIRC, the dress uniform went from four buttons (Army) to three, which is better.

Space Force only makes sense if there is a material difference that make specializing in space different from aeronautics. This was the rationale for splitting the Air Force away from the Army--we needed to be out from under their dogma (okay, "doctrine") and to form our own to take on unique challenges the Army could not fathom. (Like the nuclear triad and long-range bombing.)

So, is space so different from air? Personally, I don't think so. Dumb insignia and enlisted grade names, too.

 

Speaking as Navy, I think there is enough difference to warrant a seperate service. For one thing, very very few Space Force personnel will ever be anything but ground staff. We aren't going to build 500 Space Force manned fighter capsules. The Air Force does its combat-y things in person. Space Force will also concern itself with satellite warfare (let's call it what it is), something very different than air superiority. The training will be different, the mission will be different, the means will be different. My opinion FWIW.

 

Then again, I've never really understood why there's Navy Air and Marine Corps Air. Flying is flying.

EDIT: Come to think of it, why is there a Marine Corps at all?

 

I think the original intent was navy is purely water, army is purely land, and marines are sort of a special force that can do a little of both to act as a bridge between army & navy. I think that's gotten a bit muddled over the years, though.

 

This reminds me of a meme I saw that said something like:

World's largest Air Force: US Air Force
World's second largest Air Force: US Navy

There's lots to criticize about the US (and I do!) but I do appreciate that military superiority.

 

Oh, probably. And knowing the Navy as I do, we probably insisted on our own land and air capabilities just so we wouldn't have to actually cooperate with anyone else.

 

That's changing rapidly with the implementation of drones.

Also, remember that we're still two-thirds of the nuclear triad.

 

In the end, it takes ground-pounders to actually occupy...

 

Yes it does and throughout history attempts to win solely through air power have not been completely successful.

 

You can't conquer a country with air power alone. We've seen examples of that from the Battle of Britain to the present day. But you CAN achieve military objectives using air power alone, as long as one of those objectives isn't to conquer and occupy a country.