Military AI Works

Looks like another round of bickering over support for the ground troops by the AF. It will never be resolved, this is just the latest round. Of course the bottom line is Budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washi ... &ref=world

The Shortsighted Approach Replaces Jointness: The Army has created its own mini Air Force in Iraq, apparently with the full blessing of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, reports the New York Times. The news is only now leaking out; however, according to NYT, the Army established this new aviation task force, focused primarily on aerial surveillance, at Camp Speicher in Iraq last summer. Gates has criticized the Air Force for not putting more unmanned aerial vehicles in theater, but USAF has strained within its existing budget to put all available Predator UAV assets--airmen and machines--in the fight ahead of a changing DOD-imposed timeline. The Iraq unit employs civilian Beech C-12 aircraft, loaded with reconnaissance sensors, and small, medium, and larger UAVs--all in touch with Apache attack helicopters and armored infantry units via radio and on call for commanders at brigade level and below. The Times also notes that the Army is pressing Pentagon officials to OK funding for another aviation task force for Afghanistan

From AF Daily Report 23 Jun 08

I read about this on a blog the other day...

I say good for the big A. No one knows better what they want/need in terms of air support and if they're not satisfied with how it's being done than they should attempt to create their own method of supplying it.

Aside from a slightly bruised ego, the USAF should be pleased with it as well. Give them the UAVs and let WOs and NCOs from the Army fly them.

When you dismiss all the emotion from it; it really boils down to command and control and ability to run the system. But when you get out of the field, it becomes budget, politics and ego. Someday we will realize it all comes out of one $$ pot but that is a long way off I think. Down at the unit level it works OK if you are given the resource. But Units aren't the ones who advocate, lobby, and allocate the bucks to buy systems. They have to hope the "higher HQ" looks out for them and buys what they need.

So, are you saying give it all to the AF because they have the bulk necessary to musle thru appropriations bills, and that the Army doesn't?

Probably and historically true! However, the AF will, as it has in the past, always tend towards the bigger, more glorious, systems, where as the thing the troop commander at battalion or company level needs, is far less complicated, smaller, less costly and totally dedicated to the unit in need.

The AF should have all of the power and glory that they can handle, but it would be nice if the local unit could have the assests they determine they need as well. Local units are interested in the next few hundred yards. The AF is looking at the next few hundred/thousand miles. Both need to be done, so why not just let it happen.

I remember when the AF took the Caribou away from the Army. They just dumped the birds and left the mission uncovered. The Army adapted and improvised. Looks like the same is happening again!

Ron

For whatever reason(my uneducated guess is because the USAF is born from the USA), the USAF has zealously guarded their role in CAS for the USA. However, it seems at the same time behind closed doors the USAF doesn't want to be moving mud in CAS. They tolerate strafing tanks and other vehicles but doing donuts in the sky searching for invisible people inside caves seems outside of desired skill set.

I'm of the opinion, anything that is manned and flown(and not from a carrier) should belong to the USAF. Everything UAV related doesn't do much for the USAF(as a whole) but enhances the battlefield perspective for USA, USMC and other ground special operatives. I'm not understanding why the USAF won't relent in their desire to control the UAVs. The people who get stuck flying them don't want to be there, the people who want to be pilots don't want to fly them and the information gained from them more readily helps ground troops than it does aircraft. In a perfect world, Joint Operations would be more cohesive and all sides would be satisfied but as of right now, that's just not happening. Again, let WOs and NCOs(SNCOs) fly the UAVs in the Army and everyone wins.

Ok as some one who is active USAF, been to Iraq and seen the job the civilain aviation contractor are doing I have to honestly say it is better for the Army to contract this mission out. I can't really get in to the details of what they are exactly doing, but it is better for the Army to have positive control over these assets. That way the commander on the ground can decide where and how he deploys these assets to meet his needs in real-time.

The heart of the whole thing is tactics and Doctrine. In WW2 and in Korea they used consolidated air wings that were assigned to a particular area. That meant some guys sat on their airpatch and others were over-whelmed. We got away from that (but have somewhat returned to the idea). It also relates to centralized versus distributed use of any resources. Every USA unit would like to have dedicated assets, artillery, air, logistics. You can work that way in a small theater with a limited enemy and a very specific objective. In a decentralized operation where units are engaged over a wide area at about the same level of combat it would be difficult to support everyone at the same time. I think that is partly why the AF has problems meeting every tasking with the limited UAVs available. The solution there is a centralized allocation of assets depending on some criteria (established by the supported guys). IIRC troops in contact are at the top of the list. Perhaps what we are really seeing is a Command and Control issue. Going to the AF for support may involve another layer of control that delays the process. That kind of issue can be resolved with procedural methods. That takes cooperation and clear understanding of roles and missions. Not an easy task at any time.

Now if we can go back about 20 years and get the Army to buy A-10's, I would be like a pig (Hawg) in heaven!

SMOC wrote:I'm of the opinion, anything that is manned and flown(and not from a carrier) should belong to the USAF..

That's a very typical Air Farce view. I'm discinctly of the opinion the Air Force should stick to air to air and leave everything else to the Army (or Navy).

Again, let WOs and NCOs(SNCOs) fly the UAVs in the Army and everyone wins.

Very generous of you! So I should tell my Coropral pilots that they're incapable of flying the aircraft they're currently flying? I was a Corporal pilot, I amassed my first 1200 hrs before making SNCO.

Some people need to take the blinkers off.

CelticWarrior wrote:That's a very typical Air Farce view. I'm discinctly of the opinion the Air Force should stick to air to air and leave everything else to the Army (or Navy).

Fair enough... you are entitled to your own opinion. However, that would make it the Air to Air Force instead of the Air Force. The point of an Air Force, more specifically the USAF, it not only to achieve air to air superiority but air to ground as well. It would be pretty silly to allow the USA, USN or USMC the bombing resources and still call the Air Force the Air Force. But I reiterate, you've made your opinion known... in a friendly way too.

CelticWarrior wrote:Very generous of you! So I should tell my Coropral pilots that they're incapable of flying the aircraft they're currently flying? I was a Corporal pilot, I amassed my first 1200 hrs before making SNCO.

Some people need to take the blinkers off.

Please point out anywhere in my statement where I made any derogatory or disparaging remarks about those enlisted or NCOs. You won't find any. I'm aware what grades make up the backbone of the US military. Typically, on this side of the pond though, those with a certain number of years of experience are the ones they task to perform such job duties. And if you listen to the Army, flying UAVs is a plum job. However, if they want to give it to an E-4, more power to them.

Looking forward to your reply... from your soap box.

CelticWarrior wrote:

SMOC wrote:I'm of the opinion, anything that is manned and flown(and not from a carrier) should belong to the USAF..

That's a very typical Air Farce view. I'm discinctly of the opinion the Air Force should stick to air to air and leave everything else to the Army (or Navy).

Again, let WOs and NCOs(SNCOs) fly the UAVs in the Army and everyone wins.

Very generous of you! So I should tell my Coropral pilots that they're incapable of flying the aircraft they're currently flying? I was a Corporal pilot, I amassed my first 1200 hrs before making SNCO.

Some people need to take the blinkers off.

OK-No buffs, Bones or B-2s needed?? Take away the F-15C and F-16 CAS and interdiction and SEAD? Any use for A-10s, TR-1s?

Wow, this debate is getting a bit intense here.

What I think we are forgetting is that something needed to be done, in a local situation, and surprisingly the resources were obtained and managed well, as I understand it.
Now my feeling here is that remarkable flexibility was shown here. Now what you don't want to do is spoil that by trying to legislate for future unknown situations. What you have to do is allow for, when circumstances dictate, the local commander to obtain resources and assign responsibility for command and control as he decides best.

It is the only logical, flexible option. After all this is a tactical planning situation not a strategic one.

Good comment Firebird. But it also illustrates the same kinds of arguments that come up when it comes to service rivalries in terms of budget and force allocations, etc. While cooperation on the field is vital. It often creates issues such as this if money is involved. I am sure similar issues led Gates to fire the two top AF officials. Surprisingly 'Jointness" is another buzzword that often comes up to justify a system. All the ballyhoo about the new airlift requirements is an example.

You see these issues pop up intra-service as well. I know that Navy SPECWAR was looking at their own mini-subs for infiltration but that got alot of flak from the regular sub forces.

This issue is nearly 100 years old in the US. From the time the first "aeroplane" was purchased, control of the asset was disputed. Everyone wanted it, wanted to control it, and wanted the budgetary power and prestige that went with it.

By the end of WW2, air weaponry was considered to be such a specialized weapon/type of warfare that the argument for a separate serive won out -- only to be complicated further when the missile age was entered. Major disagreements over budgets, prestige and control ended with the USAF abandoning any claim to control ***all*** non-Navy helicopters but wresting control of all non-tactical/non-sea-launched nukes away from the ARmy and Navy. The reasons were simple - helos have zero prestige and a smaller budget - hence less power in the USAF's view - thus, less influence with Congress. Also, the USAF has traditionally had the relatively myopic view that "we can sit 15,000 feet above you and bomb you to death with absolute impunity" (witness the "air war" over Yugoslavia during the Clinton Administration).

Ultimately, the man on the ground could give a rat's ptootie who supports him close air wise so long as that support is on-time, on-target, and always available when called for. This is what they have with artillery, the reasoning goes. Why not with "just another weapon?"

The Army lost its fight for continuous control of its own fixed-wing close air support long ago while the Marines have managed to retain theirs due to the power and influence waged by the Navy in inter-service budget fights with Congress. However, the Navy continues to resent the fact that they do not have absolute control over Marine Air when Marine Air Wings are embarked on carriers. Marine pilots have been known to fly Marine-support missions after catapulting off the deck rather than what was briefed and called for by carrier personnel.

The fact that a single infantryman is almost always considered "expendable" and immediately replaceable while no ship or aircraft is is probably the reason for the Army's loss of control. The Marines abilit to retain control is mostly based on the argument to the Navy, "you (US Navy) neither can nor want to do what we do and will sail away leaving us to fend for ourselves ashore again - just as you did multiple times in WW2. So we MUST have our own air power dedicated to support us when you bug out."

These comments are based solely on my own experience and study of inter-service rivalries.