fm SWC Admin -- this discussion spawned from this thread after this post. Definitely on to something, just not "Non Cents"...
----------------

Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
S.E. the whole idea of assigning assets whether they be air,land or sea based upon your mission makes a whole lot of sense as opposed to way it is done now. I think the concepts of Air force, Land force, Sea force are obsolete. As you suggest they should be mission forces and they should have any and all vehicles air,land,sea to accomplish the mission.
Pardon me for moving this discussion almost completely off topic...

However, an additional advantage is that it would likely lead to cheaper weapons systems. No longer would the Military-Industrial Complex be bent on producing a fighter-interceptor-bomber-reconnaisance-tanker-EW-FAC(A)/TAC(A) aircraft (like the F-18). Rather than have jacks-of-all-trades, we would have more lower-cost platforms with specialized somewhat specialized crews. Remember, the original F-16 was a reaction against the movement to "missionize" the hell out of aircraft so as to create a very basic, extremely lethal, agile, and lightweight fighter.

Not that Boyd is god, but he would have preferred simple, lightweight, and lethal to the missionized monstrosities of multipurpose aircraft we fly today.

Furthermore, the crews of these aircraft would be imbued with the ethos of the forces they support, rather than the bureaucracy that writes their fitreps and pays their bills. This is probably the greatest benefit

Allow me to heave this derailed conversation back on the tracks...