“Why was the Air Force not a separate body in the US as well as Japan in World War II?…
didn’t the British and Germans have a separate air force much earlier?”

There must be military history books and theses galore on this subject; without knowing what they say, my guess is that questions of both domestic and intra-military politics played as much of a role as the issue of what doctrinal organization was/is considered “correct”.

By “politics”, for purposes of this discussion I mean who gets to control the manpower and the budget. In May 1918 the British Army generals and Royal Navy admirals were at the heighth of having plenty of both, yet the Germans were on the attack on the Western front and close to a breakthrough (the “Friedensturm” series of offensives).

So much so that I’m guessing the generals and admirals felt they probably couln’t adequate control everything using traditional organization structures, thus this contributed to the perceived need to set up an independent air service:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H....._Air_Force

So the British were first with a separate Air Force, in May 1918. Interestingly, the US Army separated its own air service from the Signal Corps that same month, making it into an independent branch of the Army (though not a separate service). Perhaps they were influenced by the British example; I’m sure the Army was having similar problems of control due to its rapid expansion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....Air_Forces

The foundation of the German Luftwaffe in 1935 was under different circumstances as it was an “original” organization formed as of 1935 (the WWI Imperial German air service having been dissolved by the Versailles Treaty and Germany was not allowed any air force during the Weimar period).

Goering was of course a WWI German flyer, and having been one of the original supporters of Hitler he was allowed a free hand to organize the Luftwaffe the way he wanted to. Goering became IMO a prime example of a bureaucratic “empire builer”; Goering’s Luftwaffe controlled some organizations that in other countries were not normally the province of the Air Force (the extensive German anti-aircraft artillery units were part of the Luftwaffe, also the German paratroop units, also I think the Luftwaffe ran the POW camps for captured Allied flyers; in the US military, these were functions controlled by the US Army).

Also, Goering never allowed the formation of an independent naval air arm similar to the ones of the British and American navies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe

The details given above about the founding of the ROK Air Force are most interesting and deserve IMO further documentation; someone who knows should log into wikipedia and write up individual articles on these Korean founders, to supplement the wiki article about the ROK AF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....._Air_Force

Assuming of course that they (or their descendants) are not currently under investigation as “collaborators” for their service in Imperial Japanese aviation units during WWII.

Of course, if any of them had any “kills” of US/allied (Chinese? Russian?) aircraft credited to them while in Japanese service, perhaps it would now serve to enhance their standing with large portions of the ROK public(?) Their story deserves to be told in any case, from a “western” perspective (by that I mean their own individual “take” on their experiences, both how they felt about it at the time and how they saw it in retrospect).

If they regret such service now, fine; if they remain defiantly proud of it why that would be interesting to hear about as well.

The early airpower theorists such as Italy’s Giulio Douhet, Britain’s Hugh Trenchard and America’s Billy Mitchell were very charismatic and strong-willed characters who saw the aircraft as a unique instrument capable of changing the face of warfare with the capability to conduct strategic bombing behind entrenched enemy lines. But Army commanders of the time saw the aircraft basically as ‘flying guns’ to support the fighting of ground troops (what is now called close air support). Since airpower was/is a finite resource, the Army was reluctant to relinquish control of its planes to a separate service that wouldn’t regard air support as its first priority.

Hugh Trenchard was successful in pushing through his views and creating the RAF, but Mitchell, despite his best efforts, wasn’t able to create a separate U.S. air force. That came much later, and it was only after a defeat at the hands of Rommel at the Battle of Kasserine Pass that the U.S. came to realize the importance of centralizing control over its airpower.

This is just speculation, but the UK might have been more receptive of the strategic role of aircraft due to its location. A British military commander wouldn’t draw lines in the mud for armies to fight over - he would try to prevent ground forces from landing on Britain at all, and taking the fight to the enemy would entail aircraft taking off from Britain to attack continental Europe. This might have promoted a more strategically oriented mindset amongst Britain’s military and political leaders.

Yes, the UK and Germany had separate air forces long before the US formed the US Air Force. The UK’s Royal Flying Corps was formed in 1912, and merged with the Royal Naval Air Service to form the Royal Air Force in 1918. The Royal Air Force is the oldest independent air force in the world.

The German Luftwaffe started as a branch of the Army, being formed in 1910 as the Luftstreitkräfte. After WWI, it was disbanded as part of the Versailles Treaty obligations, but Hitler reformed the air service in 1935 as a separate service, the Luftwaffe.

Do you happen to have an update on Korea’s possible procurement of the F-35?

Thank you WangKon936.

To answer you question, the ROKAF has finalized its requirements for the third phase of the FX Project. For reference, phase 1 was for 40 F-15Ks and phase 2 was for 20 F-15Ks.

The third phase calls for the procurement of 60 single or twin engined 5th generation stealth fighter with an internal weapons bay, which leaves the door open for the F-22, F-35 or Korea’s proposed indigenious 5th generation fighter, the KFX.

The procurement process is expected to begin on 2010.

Also, here’s a link to a post regarding the “sanitized” version of the F-35. The version that the ROKAF will get should it order the F-35.

http://bemil.chosun.com/brd/vi.....;num=38648

I understand the base at Daegu has switched to F-15 which will certainly help the locals get some sleep.

I also recall seeing an F-4 in the war musaem in Seoul. It really was the culmination of the 1950s mantra of “bigger is better.” The thing reminded me of the old adage “a camel is a horse designed by a committee.” To design something so huge as a fighter, without a gun no less, was not the greatest idea.

All in all a good post. Do you happen to have an update on Korea’s possible procurement of the F-35? I know that the F-22 is out of the question for the time being.

With reference to wjk’s first query above, I would offer that as the future USAF developed in size and importance from the Army Signal Corps Air Service, its tie to the U.S. Army was at a progressively higher level, until by the start of WW2, the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Forces were tied together only at the War Department, much as the U.S. Marine Corps was tied to the U.S. Navy at the Department of the Navy. The Department of Defense, subsuming the War and Navy departments, together with the creation of an independent Air Force, only came about with the National Defense Act of 1947.