USAF Playing Stupid (Again)

[Guest]

Much as I'm an AF vet, I don't like the way they do business when it comes to dealing with the Army.

In Vietnam, political silliness on the part of the AF kept a lot of effective airborne tools out of the hands of the Army (stripping offensive weaponry from fixed-wing Army resources, for example), and insisting on total control of all airborne war-fighting assets, which resulted in requests for air support having to be funnelled through Air Force bureaucracy. The net result was that GIs on the ground died because the air support sometimes didn't get there fast enough.

Post-Vietnam, the AF eschewed very effective ground-support resources (like the A-10 Thunderbolt) in favor of stand-off weapons like the Maverick missile, mounted on their glamorous zoomy jets.

It seems that the USAF still hasn't learned the lessons that the Army did after Vietnam - they're up to their old tricks. See below (from the Strategy Page):

Pilots Killing Soldiers With Red Tape
July 12, 2006: The U.S. Army and Air Force continue to be locked in a fierce battle over who controls the air space above the battlefield. It comes down to this; the air force insists that army UAVs have to play by manned aircraft rules. That means filing a flight plan with the air force, 24-72 hours in advance. The air force is insistent on this because all army UAVs lack transponders, so it is difficult for manned aircraft, or air force air controllers, to spot UAVs, and avoid collisions. From the air force point of view, this all works. Army helicopters and air force combat aircraft can get to where they are needed quickly and safely. But the ground combat officers see it differently, and that's why this is turning into a brawl. For the guys on the ground, the UAVs have become a matter of life and death, and they rarely know 24 hours in advance that they will need them. In some cases, commanders have been sending the UAVs up without the correct paperwork, and risking court-martial in the process. To the soldiers, the UAV is less of an obstacle to other aircraft than artillery and stray bullets. The air force (and army helicopters) have long since learned how to coexist with shells and bullets. So why not use the same rules for UAVs. The air force is adamant that the UAVs have to eventually get transponders (which may take a while for under ten pound UAVs), and continue to play by the rules used for manned aircraft. The air force takes additional heat because there have not been any UAV collisions with their aircraft (which tend to stay above altitudes used by army UAVs), and those that have occurred were between army helicopters and small UAVs. No injuries yet, but the potential is there. The ground commanders also point out that they are exposed to all sorts of firepower on the ground, while the air force hardly takes any casualties at all. That is only important insofar as restrictions on the use of army UAVs does not make air force people any safer, but does put more soldiers in danger. The ground troops really, really want to use their UAVs freely. When American forces entered Iraq in 2003, they brought fewer than two dozen UAVs with them. Now there are nearly a thousand in service. But, as far the army is concerned, the air force restrictions are killing people.

(my emphasis)

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[miked10270 0]

Yeah...

The Army of any country, and most particularly the infantry, tends to be regarded as the "Cinderella-Service" since it lacks the glamourous toys.

All too often it is REPEATELY forgotten that to control territory, you need "boots-on-the-ground". Specifically, scruffy infantry boots. After all the fireworks of the air force, artillery, tanks etc... have come and gone, it's infantry who actually move in and "take" the objective.

Because of this, the "proper" view should be that all other arms exist to support the infantry. The attitude SHOULD be: "What does the infantry want & how do we give them it?" This showed up best during 1944-5 when the allied air forced adopted the "Cab-Rank" system of ground attack adn exists now with The US Marines with their attached armour & air assets dedicated through FACs.

Unfortunately, those with the "shiniest toys" tend to forget this.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Gawain 0]

I had heard of some of these infighting issues, but never experienced it first hand, myself. My unit was assigned with Marines in Ramadi and all of our air support consisted of Cobras, Harriers and F/A-18s. So, us Army grunts had decent support from Marine grunts and their own planes.

The only time there was any "issue" was when we were operating in the same areas as Delta task forces, then we had to coordinate with the Air Force, but there no real "issues" per se.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

This is one of the consequences of the new technology, and the the focus on new technology. The problems of Vietnam were addressed by the AirLand Battle doctrine starting in the early 80's. Under that doctrine, which was designed primarily to offset the nuerical superiority of the Eastern Bloc, the branches of service had distinct operational tasks that supported each other.

Now, the DoD is moving away from AirLand into the Network-Centric warfare doctrine. It focuses on greater cooperation of information gathering between the branches due to the digital technologies. It integrates information between all forces.

Interestingly, this demonstrates a flaw in the system. Not all assets are wired to work within it. We see that the UAVs are not wired to provide the information to the USAF, which means that they actually are an asset to the ground forces, but a chink in the overall armor. It provides the scenario where there is an overlapping of tasking with no accompanying overlap in the information flow.

What we see, therefore, is the Army needing an SOP outside of the doctrine being established that is contrary to the establishment of the doctrine. My guess is that the forward air controllers (do they still have them?) can probably provide greater detail about this, but this is a Pentagon issue.

I dont' regard this specifically as a matter where the AF is playing stupid. The AF is trying to follow the joint doctrine. This means that someone in the 3-Star range needs to make the decisions about how this should flow. I don't blame the subordinate commanders one bit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

Solution seems simple. Put transponders on the UAV's. They weigh under 2 lbs nowadays.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Much as I'm an AF vet, I don't like the way they do business when it comes to dealing with the Army. In Vietnam, political silliness on the part of the AF kept a lot of effective airborne tools out of the hands of the Army and insisting on total control of all airborne war-fighting assets, which resulted in requests for air support having to be funnelled through Air Force bureaucracy. The net result was that GIs on the ground died because the air support sometimes didn't get there fast enough.

That's exactly why the Marines have their own air wings, so they don't have to deal with that crap, and they practice close air support for the grunts on the ground. If the grunts need them, they know the fly-boys will be there to help.

But I don't know how the Marines ended up with their own air assets, while the Army is still dependent upon the Air Force...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But I don't know how the Marines ended up with their own air assets, while the Army is still dependent upon the Air Force...

Frankly,

the Navy can fly the planes, in addition to driving the boats, and do the hard mental stuff, the engineering and the spy stuff.

The Army can move across the land, storm the beaches and if they must fly, they can fly helicopters. They can also be fodder when needed and have the land based special forces for the relatively higher IQ types that just didn't quite get into the Navy.

With that, we could likely sell off the CIA (they don't really exist anyway), the Airforce (they are pretty well civilian anyway and NASA will take a few too), and the Marines (maybe the Coast Guard will buy them)

That would simplify things greatly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GQ_jumper 4]

But I don't know how the Marines ended up with their own air assets, while the Army is still dependent upon the Air Force...

Quote

Because the marines fall under department of the Navy who allows them to have their own air assets, when the Army Air core branched off and became the Air Force they started trying to take everything for themselves.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[Royd 0]

Quote

the Navy can fly the planes, in addition to driving the boats, and do the hard mental stuff, the engineering and the spy stuff.

The Army can move across the land, storm the beaches and if they must fly, they can fly helicopters. They can also be fodder when needed and have the land based special forces for the relatively higher IQ types that just didn't quite get into the Navy.

With that, we could likely sell off the CIA (they don't really exist anyway), the Airforce (they are pretty well civilian anyway and NASA will take a few too), and the Marines (maybe the Coast Guard will buy them)

That would simplify things greatly.

Let me guess. Ex Navy?

[rickjump1 0]

Yeah, the AF stole the Army Caribous, and looked menacingly at any helicopter that had something like wings attached. Later, they took delivery of the A10's and tried to give them to the Army. What a bunch of back pedalling supersonic oafs. Nice to have them around though.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.