"Space Force all the way!"

1) The USAF mission includes space superiority, reconnaissance be it inside or above the atmosphere.

2) All of the services need organic capabilities for certain functions such as sanitation or weather. An asset like a satellite can be shared and, to cut costs and slim management, it's best to let one service or the other manage certain satellites be they weather, reconnaissance, communication or navigation. Having one service be in charge of all leads to problems with prioritization. An example is when the USAF took away the Army's CAS assets. The USAF then prioritized air superiority over CAS leaving the grunts on without adequate air support. This created problems and eventually ended with the A-10...which the USAF always hated and now is only in the Reserves. That problem is one reason the Marine Corps retains an air arm.

 

It would be different than their primary mission, just like when the Air Force was created in 1947.

Not really. Army gets its weather support from the Air Force and weather support to the Army is completely different than that to the Air Force. The Air Force is more concerned with flying weather while the Army is more concerned with getting stuck in the mud..

But with totally different methods and vehicles. Similar in name only.

 

I fail to see what point you are trying to make here. Are you for or against spitting the USAF into two parts?

 

Yeah, I'm sure the Aviation units in the Army don't care at all about flying weather. Nor does ADA.

 

More Air Force weather support is provided to the ground units than the flying units.

As I said before several times, I am not convinced one way or the other. There are advantages and disadvantages in both approaches. Too pick or discount either approach based on Trump suggesting it is wrong.

 

Yes, and the Army has its own weather support in addition to what it shares with the Air Force.

 

It's just too funny because we already have a space force. It's called the air force. There is no need for another division of the military when we haven't been back to the moon for 50 years.

 

The army does not have its own operational weather units. They are basically a climatologist unit. The Air Force provides operational weather support to each unit division level and up and a few regiments along with air fields.

 

It's not that simple. Due to the 1940s split between the USA and USAF, the Air Force was given the major responsibility of providing weather for both, but others services and agencies also provide weather. IMO, splitting the USSF off weakens both. After 9/11, DHS was created to put several agencies under one roof to avoid the problem we are discussing here: Subdividing agencies/services and creating smaller, weaker forces and increasing communication and prioritization problems between them.


https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/34-81/ch2.htm
The global mission of the United States Armed Forces requires an extensive network of weather observers, analysts, and forecasters. The network consists of the national weather services of each friendly country, our own National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and weather or environmental units within the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.....

....The Air Force provides the bulk of weather support required by the Army. AR 115-10/AFR 105-3 specifies each service's functions and responsibilities associated with that support.

AIR FORCE
The USAF Chief of Staff, through the Military Airlift Commander (MAC) Air Weather Service (AWS), provides--

• Weather personnel with the technical training and skills necessary to support their Army customer.
• Direct weather support for EAC, corps, divisions, separate brigades, aviation brigades, regiments, and groups according to jointly agreed upon tactical doctrine and operational support concepts.
• Weather training for Army personnel assigned to take limited surface weather observations in support of Air Force forecasting operations, or in support of Army ATC operations.
• The general effect of weather on systems, tactics, and operations based on critical threshold values identified by the Army.
• Weather observations, forecasts, staff support, and timely warnings of expected weather that may adversely affect operations or that could be a hazard to personnel or materiel.
• Weather support products for use in soil trafficability and hydrographical prediction.
• Unique and specialized meteorological observations and forecasts of data elements not include in standard surface weather observations or critical values on request.
• Climatological support for tactical missions, IPB, and tactical decision aids.

ARMY
The US Army provides--

• Surface observations forward of division command elements and all upper-air observations. This does not preclude the Air Force from placing personnel in forward areas to collect and relay weather information and to take weather observations.
• Critical or threshold values for determining the weather effects on systems, tactics, or operations.
• The assessment of the impact of weather effects on systems, tactics, or operations.
• Trafficability and hydrographic forecasts.
• Weather communications circuits from the Defense Communications System (DCS) interface point to tactical locations.

 

The point is that with the Air Force providing that support, the army is getting short changed. The Air Force does not truly understand the needs of the army and how to satisfy those needs. That is because the weather support to the army is diluted and the emphasis is on support to the Air Force. By the time the Air Force weather personnel finally learn what they need to know, they are moved on to another assignment.

The same may occur with the Air Force providing the needs of the space command. It may not fully understand and appreciate the needs of the space mission.

 

With CAS, I agree. Weather, it depends. It's data, thus accessible to all even though the USAF runs it. I fail to see how weather support is diluted and twisted to support the Air Force over the Army. As noted earlier, weather services are provided from several sources including USAF weather stations and USN ships at sea.

 

You see, that is exactly the same as the weather support to the Army. I am sure the Air Force understands the needs of the Army better than you do, but it still falls short.. It involves such questions as what is the effect of rainfall on tractionability? For some soil, it improves the traction and in other soils it bogs down. How many tanks can run down a muddy road before it turns into a quagmire? These are of absolutely no interest to an Air Force unit, but it is critical for the army. It is a completely different science for the Air Force and they receive little or no training before they walk through the door. This is after the Air Force has been providing this support for over seventy years. Why do you think it will do any better when they are trying to support a space force? You get away their area of expertise and primary interest and support goes to hell.

 

Possibly. Why do you assume you know better than either? Were you in the Army?

The effect of rainfall on traction isn't a weather problem, it's an engineering problem. Talk to the folks at Aberdeen, not some tech in a USAF weather station since he/she is unlike to know anything about various soils in different parts of the world.

I fail to see why you are so geared up about this. Please explain what you think should be done.

Army brat, brother Army, I was the black sheep by going into the Marine Corps as a CH-46 pilot then the Naval Reserve as a T-34C instructor pilot. I've had some experience with weather but never cared about where it originated. Just that it was accurate.

 

I am retired form the Air Force. I also spent three years with USArrmyEurope/Seventh Army in Heidelberg Germany after Vietnam. I would say I am more qualified than most.

It may be an engineering problem, but the first question the general asks after a rain in the forward area is going to be whether he can move his tanks. It is the weather man who finally answers the question because he is the one standing in front of the general. If that weather man says not to ask him, that will likely be the last question asked of that general because he will be gone. After a few years, the weather guy gets very familiar with soils. By the time the engineer gets around to it, the tanks are either stuck or moved on.

 

The weatherman tells the general the chances of rain and how much. He doesn't advise the general if his tanks can traverse the area. That's the decision of the general and his armored commanders.

Similarly, the weather man tells me the forecast weather, not whether or not I can fly my helicopter through it.

 

That would be nice, if that were true. It is the decision of the general of whether to move his tanks, but it will be the weather briefing which tells him whether it is possible.

 

http://notesonthenwo.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/starship-troopers-1.jpg

jus sayin

 

Are drugs involved? (-:

 

Exactly my point. The general makes the decision, not the weather guesser.

 

Your point missed my point.

 

How is that different from intel briefings, an air support briefing, terrain briefing and any other briefings provided to the general?

Wrong, it won't be the weather guesser who provides that information nor tells the general if he can move his tanks.

In 21 years of service, I never met a weather guesser who could tell me if it was safe to land my helicopter on any patch of terrain. Maybe they have better magic over at the USAF...or the Army's generals are a whole lot dumber, but I doubt either one.

 

Tell that to the poor Air Force captain and four star James Polk. General Polk was under the impression that Air Force captain weather guesser ought to know, especially since there was no army engineer in the room. I am not even sure there were any engineers in the MTO&E for USAREUR/7A.

 

Huh?

BTW, it's the engineers who designed the tanks and aircraft, not the weather guessers.

 

They designed them, but they were ten thousand miles away and not in the same briefing room. General Polk had this nasty habit of expecting answers from the people who briefed him.

 

Dude, the engineers designed my helicopter, but it's not the weather guesser who tells me if the soil in the LZ will hold it.

Why are you so vested in this? Was that your MOS? Weatherman? It's an important position and any operation is a team effort. However, don't let it go to your head that the weather guesser is running the op.