Is the U.S. Military Affordable

[Uboat509]

OK, but what's a "strategic bomber?"
Do the Air Force still operate the transport aircraft?

I was simply refering to anything that is not a ground attack aircraft.

If you're arguing for the status-quo, then OK, but I was seeking not to default to the "Air Force is too stupid to operate aircraft for the Army."
If that is the case, it has to be explained, as the reason you're not doing it.

Too stupid? Not at all, but they do tend to have different priorities. What is important to the Army is not necessarily important to the AF and vice versa. We are culturally very different organizations with different mindsets. I honestly believe that parochialism has more to do with the air force desire to control all air assets, than does any overriding belief that they can do a better job. The AF would rather spend money on the next generation of air superiority fighter than a new ground attack aircraft. The Army makes up for that with attack helicopters but if we send "everything that flies" over to the AF then you create additional levels of coordination and command to further complicate any operations requiring air support, which these days means pretty much any operation since, at the very least you would have to coordinate for MEDEVAC support if nothing else. The bottom line is that at a time when we are creating (recreating) combined arms formations that have all support, or at least most of it, organic to the unit, it doesn't make much sense to take all of the air assets away and give them to another service.