Posted on 08/19/2007 7:31:22 PM PDT by MCH
Does it apply to the deployed pilots and aircrew who are flying their asses off over Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere? They certainly want to take it to the bad guys. BTW, what is a "POAC"?
Change those decals to “Army”, and there’s not much difference...
I think this is a power grab attempt by the airforce out of desperation. Whats got to scare the procurement generals is UAV’s cost a fraction of the cost to purchase and operate then the other aircraft. Like 1/20-1/50th.
As they get more and more capable, especially in this war against guerillas who don’t have advanced equipment of their own.. the army and marines will do more and more of the airstrikes and formerly typical airforce jobs. Without need for the airforce. Then comes the pressure to cut down new procurement for the airforce of the 250 million dollar planes, and give that money to the army. To get more bang for their buck.
No disrespect towards my Army brethren and not wanting to get into a discussion of doctrine, but there is a world of difference in how the Army and Air Force do business.
Good points.
‘Pod.
the USAF wants all the UAV’s for itself. Operated by officers, no doubt.
They worked their butts off to kill Army aviation back in the sixties even though they had no interest in buying the aircraft and doing it themselves.
Now that UAVs are turning out to be much more useful and flexible than anyone had ever suspected, the Air Force is determined to get a hammerlock on them.
The alternative will be to become even less relevant in the future.
BUMP!
Bump for later.
Does executive agency really = tactical control of acquired weapon systems? I don’t see it that way.
If only because you are incredibly behind the times. SAC hasn't existed since the early 90's.
Yeah...ok. *snicker*
IMHO, the entire debate is very similar to Communications and Data control within the staff ranks.
At senior field to flag rank officer levels, within staff planning functions, there has always been a tendency for particular staff officers to lay claim to all resources in theater under their charge to unify their control of those resources.
With respect to aviation assets, the arguments are operational and tactical and strategic. From the grunt perspective, the resources need to be directly attached to their units, decentralized control, centralized command.
Same may be said of computers and wireless comm. Local users need their utility as tools to perform their work, whereas broader policy makers see them as the resources available to manage, and without centralized management, they fear loss of efficiency and control.
IMHO, perhaps the issues need to resolved at higher levels, maintaining certain resources remain dedicated as part of the T/E of lower echelon units to retain their unit integrity, not to be reassigned by staff organizations to other priorities.
A MAGTF without its air, isn’t a MAGTF anymore, nor is a VMU squadron supporting the MAGTF when reassigned to a higher headquarters.
Same arguments apply to the Army and Air Force. WRT aviation assets, it also gets more complicated attempting to deconflict air control within remote areas. It is as nutty as sending in black op units into the AOA without coordination with that JTF Commander/Staff.
Thanks for your thoughtful addition to the debate.
Pentagon Officer's Athletic Club (actually, it is now the PAC)
Our friend needs to forward his complaints to the weather, trans, logistics, intel, PJ and others that are on the ground supporting AF and ILO missions.
I call BS on many accounts...the first beign that there hasn't been a TAC since the early 90s. So many experts on this thread.
Right up to the point where your communications satellite meets with a "mishap", leaving all your drones without controllers.
Given anti-satellite capabilities demonstrated by the Chinese, who wants to bet American lives that they won't sell anti-satellite technology to Iran, Pakistan, or whoever we get to fight next?
No kidding. I especially liked the references to SAC and TAC. Who knew that they were still around? I also read in one post that the AF has abandoned CAS. We have? That's news to me.
It's funny that none of these experts have said anything about airspace deconfliction with all of these UAVs, even though it was mentioned in the article.
Not from me brother. There is no reason for a separate Air Force. They should be integrated into the ground and naval forces. All the Air Force guys will scream and insist that there is a real need for a separate service but it's just another layer of officers.
Ground forces do not know how to employ aircraft. Not at the tactical level, and certainly not at the strategic. I’ve spent more than enough time on the ground with the US Army to know that most of their officers think in 2 dimensions, and rarely more than 50 miles from wherever they are at.
I say that having spent a lot of time trying to explain how a single aircraft can support efforts in 2 brigades, or more commonly trying to explain to battalions that aircraft can’t sit above them for 8 hours waiting for something to happen, while fights are going on 50 miles away.
The most common response was, “You’ll do anything we want.” This led me to believe many Army officers never took high school physics.
And having watch the US Army run helicopter resupply, I thank God the USAF runs the air bridge to Iraq and Afghanistan!
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.