There's no particular reason why air superiority fighters, long range bombers, aerial refueling tankers, and airdrop cargo haulers should all be under the same command just because they all fly. Clearly, two of those are for logistics, and two are for force projection.
I suspect that the existence of the military academies don't help in that respect.
Makes me wonder if the U.S. military is the next big institution to be "disrupted" by thousands of tiny startups, we just don't realize it because fortunately, everyone would rather have peace.
Do you have a source for that? Not because I'm challenging you, but because I'd like to read more on it.
https://stratechery.com/2016/apples-organizational-crossroad...
Also by personal experience at Google, which reorganized from functional lines to product lines when Larry took over as CEO in 2011.
There've also been a bunch of other articles about this. Selected reading material:
https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/functional-versus-unit...
http://thetechnalyzer.com/apples-functional-organization/
https://hbr.org/1968/11/organizational-choice-product-vs-fun...
https://a16z.com/2010/08/02/taking-the-mystery-out-of-scalin...
I'm perhaps overselling product organization as having "won" - the choice remains controversial, and the a16z article even explicitly says that it's basically a "pick your poison" situation where whichever choice you make will have drawbacks. But the general principle remains that product organization leads to more nimble products, while functional organization leads to more efficient functions. Perhaps the military's functional organization is a function (no pun intended) of it being peacetime, and the primary goal of Congress being to control costs.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1784731/regina-dugans-innovative...
JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) is a cross-functional mission-driven organization:
https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/deloitte-review/issue...