I agree, and would broaden the argument. Consider David Friedman's essay "The Economics of War" http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/ ... of_war.htm. He points out that in a land battle, each soldier can either stand and fight, or run away. Much of the organization, tradition, and training of an army is intended to ensure that he fights.rjaypeters wrote:I think which model (e.g. air force or navy) will prevail will depend on the nature of the operations undertaken. Long-endurance, independent commands? The navies of the world do that kind of work. Short missions which are dependent on relatively local and centralized resources? Air forces operate in this fashion.
The navy has a different problem, in that a sailor cannot walk away from the battle. However, he has to be motivated to keep up his equipment and training so he can fight when needed.
The air force has a different problem yet, in that the vast majority of airmen are never even close to the battle. They need motivation to keep up equipment and training to ensure the effectiveness of the few people in flight crews that do go into battle.
If operations turn out to be more like the robot exploration of Mars (i.e. where at the end of the shift the pilots go home to their families), then it sounds right for the air force. But if it requires people in space for weeks or months at a time, it'll be a navy job.