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 ...
The third member of the Predator family is the MQ-9 Reaper. This is a 4.7 ton, 11 meter/36 foot long aircraft with a 20 meter/66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry about a ton (2,400 pounds) of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, or two 227 kg/500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours. The Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, to replace F-16s or A-10s in ground support missions.
Once again our Air Force is showing its apparent distain for ground support. Replace the A-10 with this thing? The UAV doesn’t even have a gun!
In Viet Nam we loved the old A-1 Skyraider. It could hang around for hours and carried a good bomb load along with four 20 mm cannons. If the fast flyers were sent to help us they’d fly in, drop their load and fly back to rearm/refuel.
Our Air Force is in love with high and fast. Low and slow works much better for ground support. It also wants everything that flys under its control. Back in the early 60s all Army fixed wing aircraft were turned over to the Air Force. It’s the same with our Navy – now they want to take over all Army ships and boats.
Yep, we just laugh at all CAS requests from those ground pukes.
Total bullshit.
Hey, how's that airspace gonna be divided up for control?
IIRC, the Army wants non-ATO aircraft to be free to operate up to 15K with ground-pounders flying them. Yeah, no hazards there. I've seen where a single aircraft in the wrong altitude blocks can cause all hell to break loose. The airspace over a combat zone can be quite crowded.
Is the solution to just have a ROZ over every ground unit engaged in combat operations? If so, it would be like every separate ground unit was fighting its own little war. No unity of effort. We've been down this road before, and it sucks.
We don’t need towels. We never sweat.
Just returned from Langley-Eustis complex in Southern Virginia. This is just one of 6 joint bases now in the DOD. Langley AFB and Fort Eustis have been joined and the Air Force is the lead on this amalgamation. The future that I see is the bases coming together until we have one force I guess.
Not so. My father was an army aviator during that period, and flew both fixed and rotary wing (army doctrine at the time). He also commanded an aviation battalion in Vietnam, flying fixed wing aircraft, in around '68.
One bit of interest- I'm told that Dad was the first instrument qualified helicopter pilot in the army!
The Army in 1966 kept Beavers, Otters, and L-19 spotters. We gave up Caribou and C-123s but all helicopters stayed Army if I remember rightly.
The Army also had what ever the military twin Beech was called but only for general officer transportation.
I don’t know what this has to do with the article we are discussing but in 1966 in Vietnam I served with an NCO that was in the Army for 12 years and was in a drone unit. I was in a UH-1 unit and he was on OJT for his 12 month tour but knew he was going to go back to drones because that was his primary MOS.
So back then he talked about the capability of drones to have cameras and fire rockets and I have often wondered why we didn’t have them in Vietnam.
I don’t know what this has to do with the article we are discussing but in 1966 in Vietnam I served with an NCO that was in the Army for 12 years and was in a drone unit. I was in a UH-1 unit and he was on OJT for his 12 month tour but knew he was going to go back to drones because that was his primary MOS.
So back then he talked about the capability of drones to have cameras and fire rockets and I have often wondered why we didn’t have them in Vietnam.
Since 1998 with the Joint Operational Support Airlift Center. The result has been that Navy aircraft that used to be used solely for operational lift support now routinely get pulled at the last minute for “other priorities.”
What aircraft are you talking here? I was unaware, though we used to take Navy and Army aircraft from DC to Norfolk/Langley a lot.
1. USN “Seawolf” UH-1B/C helo gunships, USN “Black Pony” OV-10 fixed wing, Army AH-1G Cobra gunship helos.
2. USMC tactical air.
3. USN tactical air.
4. USAF zoomies (who could usually drop their load on top of you if you were being overrun).
To be fair, the USAF was divided into two houses when it came to CAS (close air support): 1) the supersonic jet “zoomies” who were usually able to place their bomb loads somewhere within the province and 2) the pilots of former WW2 prop attack aircraft like the A-26K Invaders and A-1E and A-1H Skyraiders who'd come in low, slow and hot to put ordnance on target. If you were in heavy contact, you really wanted those guys in the A-26s and A-1s blasting bad guys!
In the 35 years since Vietnam fell, the aircraft have changed, but the pecking order has remained pretty much constant except the Navy has lost its light, fixed wing (OV-10) attack capability.
I live just a couple miles outside the gate of Eustis and retired out of there. I wouldn’t mind seeing all services combined, it might eliminate inter service rivalry – at least lessen it.
It wasn’t an instant process. When I arrived in 1966 there were still a few Army C-119s and C-130s. By the time I left in 1968 all were USAF.
I shouldn’t have used the word “all”. Our Army still has a few liaison fixed wing aircraft but no cargo or troop carriers. When airlift is needed our Army still has to go hat in hand and to our Air Force.
The joining doesn't appear to be without its issues. Which service owns what is a major problem and many details are being worked out. I hear that we are mixing service members in units where an AF person may be in an Army unit or vice versa. I don't think the discipline is equal.
For the Navy, the logistic squadrons are required to have a certain number of aircraft available for JOSAC tasking at any one time. What would happen for my unit a lot of time is that we would get our JOSAC tasked aircraft pulled at the last minute and the same squadron would scramble to make another aircraft available for us.
Fort Eustis is now a joint Army/Air Force installation, Fort Story is joint Army/Navy. Mixed units can’t be far behind.
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.