[MCH]

Given the track record of inter-service cooperation and interoperability, particularly in the area of ISR, God help the other services if the AF gets hold of what should be their own organic eyes and ears that can be quickly applied to their unique needs.

My guess is the "thank you for filing your flight access request. We will get back to you within a 48-72 hour period and make certain that there are no air assets" scenario would be a very real danger. The tactical needs of ground force protection vs. the typically more strategic needs of the AF are very different. Giving the AF control over organic Army/Navy/USMC ISR assets would be kind of like being told you can't have a gun to protect your own home, and being given a phone instead to call the police if you're in danger.

[rlmorel]

I agree completely. This is an issue that if not handled correctly could cost the lives of our military personnel.

I thought you stated it well.

[xuberalles]

This is ridiculous red-tape beauracracy. I understand the necessity of coordination, but to be effective decisions need to be made an acted upon instantaneously. Isn’t this the information age?

[cpdiii]

Given the track record of inter-service cooperation and interoperability, particularly in the area of ISR, God help the other services if the AF gets hold of what should be their own organic eyes and ears that can be quickly applied to their unique needs.

You are very correct, sir. With the exception of Strategic Air Command (SAC) the role of the Air Force is to support the Army Grunt or Marine on the ground. Those pilots should be United States Army Pilots. SAC has a different mission and should be separate. If it is in support of the man on the ground it should be Army.

I think I am "gonna get" flamed.

[Roy Tucker]

Would someone at the right pay level in the JCS put an end to this inter-service turf war while we are at a time of war? This will cost lives.

[thefactor]

did someone say dogfight?

[centurion316]

Given the Air Force track record of support to the Army, the Army has every right to call the ball on this unadulterated grab for dollars and power.

They are living up to their new motto: “We won’t fight and you can’t make us” The USAF has a real problem trying to convince soldiers and Marines who have been fighting their guts out for the past 4 years that they are still a part of the Armed Forces. This remark does not apply to the Air Force enlisted combat air controllers and security police who are fighting side by side with their smelly Army and Marine brethern - only the perfumed princes wearing wing who populate the POAC.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The scarf wearing prima donnas in the Chair Force can FOAD.

[holden]

That something is "embroiled in controversy" is not a legitimate argument, of itself, lest one give a critic two bites at the apple for only one ticket.

Criticism bears the burden of actually being substantive, lest we fall prey to, "Some think it's not been done very well plus there have been many complaints! (Yeah, well, so what if they were all mine, he he?)".

HF

[timer]

That’s part of the CIC’s job : bash general’s heads together. Patton had no problem doing that.

[familyop]

We need a solid top command under Army generals. When soldiers call for fire or any other support, they should get that.

[RobbyS]

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.

[Babu]

The Air Force' argument is actually ridiculous. Does the AF have to go to Army and/or the Marines to be issued a sidearm and/or ammunition for it? Of course not!

So why should the Air Force have complete control over all assets that fly?

They shouldn't.

[Rembrandt]

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.

[Mike Darancette]

In tactical battlefield situations the drones should be under the charge of the ground forces.

[ran20]

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.

[sauropod]

Good points.

‘Pod.

[kms61]

the USAF wants all the UAV’s for itself. Operated by officers, no doubt.

[Ronin]

Letting the zoomies win this fight would be a nightmare for the other services. The Air Force abandoned close air support because it wasn’t sexy enough for their fighter-jock mentality, forcing the Army and Marines to sneak their programs in by the backdoor.

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.

[JSteff]

Bump for later.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Does executive agency really = tactical control of acquired weapon systems? I don’t see it that way.