Are you sure?
Posted on 08/19/2007 7:31:22 PM PDT by MCH
Amen. Tactical Air Command has always been the step-child of the flyboys. A plane like the A-10 is not glamorous enough for most of them.
So why should the Air Force have complete control over all assets that fly?
They shouldn't.
You’re right, but they are part of a culture that has gotten seriously off track. My father-in-law, a command pilot in B-24’s and B-17s of the 8th Air Force just shakes his head in disbelief.
I would flame you, but it isn’t worth the effort.
Having worked some of these problems recently - on the ground in Afghanistan - the problem is that the Army often doesn’t know how to employ air assets to take full advantage of their mobility. It does no good to have an ISR asset droning over your small piece of airspace indefinitely waiting for some action to develop while someone 60 miles away is getting hammered and needs the asset you are holding on to.
Since air assets are time limited - they can only stay airborne so long - they are limited in their ability to employ. And since they are also highly mobile, it makes more sense FOR THE GUYS ON THE GROUND to have these limited assets pushed out as needed rather than burning holes where no fighting is going on.
And yes, it would have helped if the ARMY would have planned their operations more than a few hours out. And that comment came from an Army BDE/CC, who was frustrated that his battalion CCs didn’t plan their patrols in a way that would allow him to give them the support they needed.
Having spent a year in country as a Bde FSO, y’all are 0 mils. The worst thing in the world is to turn anything over to the Air Force. Their O-6s are just scared that they will be put out of the ISR business forever by an Army / USMC E-4.
By the way, if you want to check out the Air Force’s worst nightmare, look up Guided MLRS and 155mm Excalibur. No 3 day ATO, no e-mailing the CAOC for permission, no “Bingo fuel, so sorry”. Just another good fire mission and dead Ts.
Lot of good men would have been dead without the “Chair Force” coming to their rescue.
The reason we have the Navy, the Marines, the Army and the Air Force is that they each have a separate, distinct mission.
Sometimes those missions overlap but often they do not overlap. Trying to force-fit a “one size fits all” solution to a budget issue is foolish, but that’s why we Navy Vets refer to them as the Air Farce.
Having worked around USAF guys carrying guns around (and having been one myself), it MIGHT be a good idea. And in fact, USAF folks going into ground roles go to the US Army for training in using sidearms and M4s before deploying.
But I’ve watched BN/CCs bicker over who gets what air asset when in reality they were just about 20 miles apart - so the right (read that USAF answer) is that whoever had a need AT THE TIME should get the assets. Fortunately, both BDE & Division understood that...
lol, a hijack that doesn’t include immigration, I approve.
I guess that is why the USAF isn’t spending money upgrading the A-10 to the A-10C...oh wait, we are.
And I guess that is why the USAF hasn’t spent any money buying targeting pods designed to support folks on the ground, or using tools like ROVER...oh wait, we are.
you'd think someone would tell them to lay off that saying for a bit.
but hey, at the very least my highjack was a bump!
Could happen. I think the incoming chairman of the JCS is an admiral, and the deputy chairman is a Marine aviator.
That is the reason the international space station exists using russian cooperation.
Maybe that because fifteen years ago no one at Ramstein —none of the jetjockies—had a kind world to say about the A-10s based a Sembach. The plain fact is that they didn’t want to fly them. Close air support is not only less glamorous than interceptors or even miultiengineer. it is more dangerous and you have to work with the Army.
Why do I get the feeling Congress ordered the Air Force to upgrade and spend the money, and, that the Air Force didn’t want to?
Odd. About 90% of the pilots I’ve known (mostly F-4/F-111/F-16 types) think it would be a blast to fly. But it is also true that now, unlike 10 years ago, the F-15E & F-16 can do an excellent job at CAS. Both the Litening and Sniper targeting pods are great CAS tools.
You can feel what you want, but I never saw any indication that was true when I was working with the program. 15 years ago, I think you would have been right - but I think GW1 actually changed a few minds in the USAF, and 15 years later many of those changed minds have stars on their shoulders.
In tactical battlefield situations the drones should be under the charge of the ground forces.
The real objection seems to be that those who do will probably not make rank. The pilots, of course, have an edge over the missle people, or did. Those who flew high speed jets occupy the same place that the cavalry once did in the Army. This is their business until it impacts on the other services and their ability to perform their missions. It always takes war to change things. The problem is that even in wartime, resources are limited.
Are you sure?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.