Posted on 12/24/2010 10:27:22 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The U.S. Army is now receiving UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) similar to those used by the air force, but flown under different conditions, by a quite different type of crew. While air force Predators and Reapers are flown by officers, assisted by sergeants operating sensors, the army operators are mostly sergeants, with some warrant officers. The air force operators control their UAVs via satellite link from a base in the United States. Only the ground crews go overseas. But army operators and ground crews not only go overseas, but are assigned to a specific brigade, which they are a part of. That makes a big difference. When an army UAV operator provides overhead surveillance for troops, he often knows some of them. Even if he doesn't know them personally, he knows they are part of his brigade, and if anything goes very right, or wrong, he might receive a personal visit from those involved. With the air force operators, it's a job. With the army operators, it's personal. For this reason, the army has refused air force calls for all heavy (over one ton) UAVs to be pooled. The air force cannot understand the personal angle, but for the army and marines it's essential. Moreover, when there's a victory out there because of UAVs, it is for all to see in the UAV operations center, on big, flat screen displays. The response among the UAV operators is emotional, just as it is, in a more somber way, if there are problems down there.
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
Interesting!
The Army and Marines... using common sense, again.
Interesting. I forwarded the story on to my wonderful DH.
personally I like the idea of officer mission commanders, at least, because I don't want enlisted guys getting in trouble trying to meet the ROE criteria for remote weapons employment. It isn't a superiority thing, it is a looking out for the kids thing. You know if they screw up they are going to get hammered.
This year, army brigades overseas began receiving the new 1,500 kg MQ-1C UAV. Called Gray Eagle, until recently it was informally known as the Sky Warrior. This UAV will supplement, and eventually replace the current 159 kg/350 pound Shadow 200s. These aircraft carry day and night cameras, and laser designators, but usually no weapons. Most of the new army heavy UAVs delivered over the next five years will missile carrying MQ-1Cs. By 2015, the army will have over 500 MQ-1Cs.
*
Deadly and easy to replace. The next war will be flown with these guys supporting ground troops. At least there wont be a DADT gay UAV..
The USN is not plannng on using officers as UAV drivers and are going with senior enlisted as well. For a while the USAF wanted 1000hr pilots to drive UAVs, but seems to have backed off a bit from that.
Just let the Gunney Sarges and other NCO’s free & loose to defend our nation (& indeed the Western world) and there is little about which to worry.
CAP? AF all the way. Own the airspace so the low and slow can support the ground pounders. Bombs don't win wars. Bombs enable ground forces to more quickly shoot, move and communicate. But bombs by themselves don't win wars.
Boots on the ground taking and holding territory, and imposing our will wins wars.
/johnny
Johnny I trained hard with the Force. We are pretty damn smart and do ground force very hard.
“Deadly and easy to replace.”
Deadly, yes, easy to replace?????
Actually, General Atomics can’t make them fast enough, which is why there are more of the MC-12’s coming into the Afghan theatre.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090415.aspx
The demand is large.
Don’t say nothing. Merry Christmas!
During my second elistment, 18 years later (after 9-11, by the hair of my chinny, chin chin, based on age and waivers), and the whole Joint Task Force thing.... I gained some perspective. AF can't take care of Army boots or Marine boots nearly as well as Army or Marine close air support can. A Marine FAC on the ground with Marines talking to Marine pilots can do a better job than an AF para-jumper on the ground with Marines talking to Navy pilots. Although interservice operability is very important.
Personal opinion. But considered opinion.
Being older my second enlistment, I really read all the books on the NCO reading list, did the war college remote thing, and thought hard about logistics, strategy, and tactics.
I firmly believe USAF should own the airspace over the battlefield and let the organic units on the ground do close air support. Their guys, taking care of their guys.
Specialty stuff, like dropping the new SDBs from Angels 30 and hitting literally in the pickle barrel can be done by USAF. But low and slow needs to be Army or Marine. Supporting their own boots. AF has a role. But it needs to be tailored.
/johnny
Johnny I am old school FAC.. I took over the ranges in Southern Arizona AND taught those fighters how to hit. I get sick and tired of anyone telling the AF what or how to do it.
Merry Christmas!
“Don’t say nothing.”
Here’s me saying nothing:
The Lord Bless you!
Merry Christmas to you!
When has the USAF ever tried to control USN logistics aircraft?
I have to agree on your take with on letting the O's command. It's not that there aren't E's who could do the job, but the level of responsibly involved is literally above their pay grade.
The AF doesn’t like to get it’s hands dirty or roughed up for that matter.They are a force whose members are decidedly tilted toward the more cerebral among us.
Did you know there is even a hand cream dispenser in the cockpits of the aircraft?
That may be true, but I couldn't help but notice when I went to an Air Force base for my last PT test, no towels were provided in the gym. I've never seen an Army gym that doesn't provide towels.
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.