Monday, August 20, 2007
Fight! Fight!
From the Financial Times:
More:
Next we'll be getting leaked memos that the Air Force has been secretly developing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously, the Air Force needs to take a chill pill. If the Air Force adds aerial drones to their exclusive purview, they'll take the first 10% of procurement and invest it in the base golf course, and we'll have four types of drones for the Air Superiority mission, and a little spotter with a minicam for artillery observation and real-time eye-in-the-sky missions will be a corps level asset and no ground forces battalion commander will ever get control of one.
Splash, out
Jason
Resurrecting tensions over US airpower that have lingered since the Korean war, the air force is pushing to become “executive agent” for drones – unmanned aircraft – that fly above 3,500 feet. The army, navy and marines oppose the move, which would make the air force responsible for the acquisition and development of unmanned aerial vehicles such as the army’s Sky Warrior.
As Gordon England, the deputy defence secretary, prepares to make a decision, air force and army officers are furiously lobbying Congress in preparation for a possible legislative battle. The stakes have risen dramatically as the use of drones has ballooned. Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now operates about 1,000 UAVs.
More:
Their proliferation has intensified the Pentagon debate over how drones are acquired and operated. The air force says there is a need to streamline acquisitions to reduce cost and duplication, and for greater standardisation to improve interoperability and lessen the potential for mid-air collisions.
The air force argues, for example, that the Pentagon should have procured more Predators to deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than allowing the army to develop the Sky Warrior, which will not be deployed until 2009.
Air force officers add that a compromise joint approach reached several years ago when it unsuccessfully pushed for executive agency has hurt UAV development.
“We can’t afford to compromise any longer, particularly when ‘compromise’ comes at the cost of inefficiencies and with no benefit beyond assuaging ruffled parochial egos,” says Lieutenant General David Deptula, deputy air force chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
But the army counters by questioning the air force’s record on acquisitions, stressing that Global Hawk and Predator have seen cost overruns, while other programmes such as refuelling tankers and search and rescue helicopter have been embroiled in controversy. It points out that its Sky Warrior programme has so far met cost and schedule goals.
“The ruffled feathers and parochial egos belong to the air force ... the marine corps, navy, special forces and army are co-operating across acquisition programmes, common ground stations and future programme development,” says a senior army officer.
“It is the air force that refuses to join the joint team, preferring to criticise others, disseminate misleading statements and independently lobby Congress for support they do not have in the Pentagon.”
Next we'll be getting leaked memos that the Air Force has been secretly developing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously, the Air Force needs to take a chill pill. If the Air Force adds aerial drones to their exclusive purview, they'll take the first 10% of procurement and invest it in the base golf course, and we'll have four types of drones for the Air Superiority mission, and a little spotter with a minicam for artillery observation and real-time eye-in-the-sky missions will be a corps level asset and no ground forces battalion commander will ever get control of one.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Jason,
A few comments, if I may...
Seriously, the Air Force needs to take a chill pill.
Who doesn't, at this point? Usually, as a Corps ALO (O-6), I had to take mine after watching an Infantry general make an aviation unit do "rock drills" prior to a mission. Mind you, these weren't 18-year-olds who were still trying to find their asses with both hands; these were Warrants older than me who probably had more inverted flight time on their local area maps than I had in an airplane.
If the Air Force adds aerial drones to their exclusive purview, they'll take the first 10% of procurement and invest it in the base golf course,
Question: How much O&M money goes towards USAF MWR projects? Answer: Zero. Question: How much money is transferred from the USAF O&M pot to the MWR pot? Answer: Zero. Question: Is this true in the Army? Answer: I don't know, but I'd love to find out. Indeed, on what experience, personal or otherwise, do you base this conclusion? If you were trying to be facetious, well, get some new material.
and we'll have four types of drones for the Air Superiority mission,
Well, no. Taking the Air Force mission specifically, there are some missions for which UAVs are well-suited, namely high-risk ones that often must occur far removed from friendly territory, i.e., recce and countering air defenses, but that can be preplanned and executed with a fairly high degree of precision. There are also low-risk ones that may lend themselves to a UAV solution--air refueling comes to mind. Granted, a UAV could, at least in theory,do anything, but the more unscripted the mission, the faster UAV capabilities versus costs reach the point of diminishing returns. Saying we'll buy UAVs for the offensive counterair mission is like saying the Army will want to buy a bunch of androids for the civil affairs mission. Data on Star Trek is pretty cool, but we're not there yet, and probably never will be.
and a little spotter with a minicam for artillery observation and real-time eye-in-the-sky missions will be a corps level asset
Blame either the Corps commander or your doctrine writers' products for that one (the latter usually being rendered moot by the personal preferences of the former, anyway)...once the thing is bought by whomever and given to the Army, what you do with it (within reason, for the sake of operational deconfliction), is up to you.
Also, it would be nice to see ALL services get their craniums together on joint procurement.
Me? I would have loved to have had some of that Army field equipment for my ETACs in Albania. And I'd love to see regular soldiers get some access to some of the cosmic stuff SOF guys have. It can be done.
and no ground forces battalion commander will ever get control of one.
The ghosts of Kesserine rear their ugly heads...
Actually, if an asset is common enough and cheap enough to be procured on a large scale (something joint procurement can accomplish--we wear your BDUs, the Navy uses our AGM-65 Mavericks and at least some of your guys lower themselves to wearing flight suits, etc.) why can't the squad leader have one, much less the BN boss? Again,
That's. Up. To. You. Guys.
Don't get me wrong. The USAF has it's share of obnoxious partisans...but having lived with the Army at the Brigade/Regiment and Corps level, I'm convinced that getting stuck on Service Stupid is not unique to the flying community.
A few comments, if I may...
Seriously, the Air Force needs to take a chill pill.
Who doesn't, at this point? Usually, as a Corps ALO (O-6), I had to take mine after watching an Infantry general make an aviation unit do "rock drills" prior to a mission. Mind you, these weren't 18-year-olds who were still trying to find their asses with both hands; these were Warrants older than me who probably had more inverted flight time on their local area maps than I had in an airplane.
If the Air Force adds aerial drones to their exclusive purview, they'll take the first 10% of procurement and invest it in the base golf course,
Question: How much O&M money goes towards USAF MWR projects? Answer: Zero. Question: How much money is transferred from the USAF O&M pot to the MWR pot? Answer: Zero. Question: Is this true in the Army? Answer: I don't know, but I'd love to find out. Indeed, on what experience, personal or otherwise, do you base this conclusion? If you were trying to be facetious, well, get some new material.
and we'll have four types of drones for the Air Superiority mission,
Well, no. Taking the Air Force mission specifically, there are some missions for which UAVs are well-suited, namely high-risk ones that often must occur far removed from friendly territory, i.e., recce and countering air defenses, but that can be preplanned and executed with a fairly high degree of precision. There are also low-risk ones that may lend themselves to a UAV solution--air refueling comes to mind. Granted, a UAV could, at least in theory,do anything, but the more unscripted the mission, the faster UAV capabilities versus costs reach the point of diminishing returns. Saying we'll buy UAVs for the offensive counterair mission is like saying the Army will want to buy a bunch of androids for the civil affairs mission. Data on Star Trek is pretty cool, but we're not there yet, and probably never will be.
and a little spotter with a minicam for artillery observation and real-time eye-in-the-sky missions will be a corps level asset
Blame either the Corps commander or your doctrine writers' products for that one (the latter usually being rendered moot by the personal preferences of the former, anyway)...once the thing is bought by whomever and given to the Army, what you do with it (within reason, for the sake of operational deconfliction), is up to you.
Also, it would be nice to see ALL services get their craniums together on joint procurement.
Me? I would have loved to have had some of that Army field equipment for my ETACs in Albania. And I'd love to see regular soldiers get some access to some of the cosmic stuff SOF guys have. It can be done.
and no ground forces battalion commander will ever get control of one.
The ghosts of Kesserine rear their ugly heads...
Actually, if an asset is common enough and cheap enough to be procured on a large scale (something joint procurement can accomplish--we wear your BDUs, the Navy uses our AGM-65 Mavericks and at least some of your guys lower themselves to wearing flight suits, etc.) why can't the squad leader have one, much less the BN boss? Again,
That's. Up. To. You. Guys.
Don't get me wrong. The USAF has it's share of obnoxious partisans...but having lived with the Army at the Brigade/Regiment and Corps level, I'm convinced that getting stuck on Service Stupid is not unique to the flying community.
# posted by 
: 3:53 AM
: 3:53 AM
Wow, talk about proving your point, Jason.
I respect most of the ALO's I've ever worked with, but...
Rock drills are to make sure EVERYONE understands the whole plan. Ground guys have to understand what air guys are doing and vice versa. ALOs who don't sleep through OPORD briefs, briefbacks, and rock drills come to understand that.
Jason was clearly joking about the golf course. Obviously the amount the Air Force will siphon off will be more than 10% and will go to the O-club.
Typical fighter-jock response about drones in the air superiority mission: they can take everyone's job except mine. Besides, since when was offensive counterair strictly air-to-air? Last time I checked it involved a helluva lot more than that.
Ref doctrine - read it before shooting off your mouth. Our modularity doctrine calls for a helluva lotta UASs (the in vogue term for what we used to call UAVs - something you'd know if you ever read doctrine. I'll let you look up what UAS means so you at least find the doctrinal reference and are aware of it). As for doctrine - take your complaints to the Air Force guys that pushed EBO on JFCOM. As for Jason's point, it's that the Air Force wouldn't buy squat for the ground commanders if given the opportunity to control those funds. Don't bother trying to convince him otherwise because he likely remembers the number of times the Air Force tried to do away with the A-10 because it's only customers were grunts.
never get control... We have control of them now. The Air Force hates that we do. They keep trying to take more and more control of them away, using every little thing from airspace management to ground facilities as an excuse. They're using the BS airspace argument to handcuff our artillery systems too, or at least trying to.
That's. Up. To. You. Guys. Jason's point is that YOU GUYS are trying to take that option away from us. And you DON'T wear our BDUs anymore. YOU GUYS just bought your own bitmap tiger stripes uniforms, or don't you read your own papers? Maybe that's why YOUR ETACs don't get Army equipment - because your brass has to do it your way.
Stuck on service stupid seems to be your specialty. With your superior attitude I'll bet you weren't regarded by the guys you were living with as a particularly good ALO.
Dave
Post a Comment
I respect most of the ALO's I've ever worked with, but...
Rock drills are to make sure EVERYONE understands the whole plan. Ground guys have to understand what air guys are doing and vice versa. ALOs who don't sleep through OPORD briefs, briefbacks, and rock drills come to understand that.
Jason was clearly joking about the golf course. Obviously the amount the Air Force will siphon off will be more than 10% and will go to the O-club.
Typical fighter-jock response about drones in the air superiority mission: they can take everyone's job except mine. Besides, since when was offensive counterair strictly air-to-air? Last time I checked it involved a helluva lot more than that.
Ref doctrine - read it before shooting off your mouth. Our modularity doctrine calls for a helluva lotta UASs (the in vogue term for what we used to call UAVs - something you'd know if you ever read doctrine. I'll let you look up what UAS means so you at least find the doctrinal reference and are aware of it). As for doctrine - take your complaints to the Air Force guys that pushed EBO on JFCOM. As for Jason's point, it's that the Air Force wouldn't buy squat for the ground commanders if given the opportunity to control those funds. Don't bother trying to convince him otherwise because he likely remembers the number of times the Air Force tried to do away with the A-10 because it's only customers were grunts.
never get control... We have control of them now. The Air Force hates that we do. They keep trying to take more and more control of them away, using every little thing from airspace management to ground facilities as an excuse. They're using the BS airspace argument to handcuff our artillery systems too, or at least trying to.
That's. Up. To. You. Guys. Jason's point is that YOU GUYS are trying to take that option away from us. And you DON'T wear our BDUs anymore. YOU GUYS just bought your own bitmap tiger stripes uniforms, or don't you read your own papers? Maybe that's why YOUR ETACs don't get Army equipment - because your brass has to do it your way.
Stuck on service stupid seems to be your specialty. With your superior attitude I'll bet you weren't regarded by the guys you were living with as a particularly good ALO.
Dave
# posted by : 5:46 PM
: 5:46 PM
