Air Force official testifies on UAV executive agent issue

[BMT (RIP)]

Now the AF want's to control ALL UAV's.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123049712


:munchin


BMT

[moobob]

This reminds me of what the Air Force did for both light/medium airlift and close air support. The customer is the most important part of this equation. Other services doing their own procurement and research leads me to think that they don't think they can depend on the AF to provide what they need, and that's non an unreasonable belief. The sole benefactor of the AF being the "executive agent" for these UAVs would be the AF and the AF alone.

[The Reaper]

This reminds me of what the Air Force did for both light/medium airlift and close air support. The customer is the most important part of this equation. Other services doing their own procurement and research leads me to think that they don't think they can depend on the AF to provide what they need, and that's non an unreasonable belief. The sole benefactor of the AF being the "executive agent" for these UAVs would be the AF and the AF alone.

Dead on the money.

The AF also has a checkered reputation of meeting customer needs when they are a resource provider, as your airlift and CAS examples clearly demonstrate.

This would be an excellent opportunity for them to take all of the services monies and design a stealth air superiority aircraft that would meet few to none of the other customers' requirements.

IMHO, the absolute last service I would like to see consolidating this would be the AF. The Marines and Navy have a much better rep for delivering what the troops need and for sharing with other services.

Just my .02, FWIW.

TR

[Monsoon65]

The AF wants control of anything with wings.

The big problem is that unless it drops tons of bombs, or flies at a high MACH, they don't care about it that much. Ask anyone in other commands of the AF; they have to fight for money to do their job.

The AF is controlled by the Fighter Mafia, and to a certain extent, the Bomber Mafia. Always been that way.

I have no problem with the AF controlling UAVs, as long as they realise that little rule the private sector has always said, and that McDonalds lives by:

The customer always comes first.

[longrange1947]

How many remember the desire of the AF to replace the A10s with F16s? They stated that the F16 could easily do the job of the A10s. Before Desert Storm, the A10 was all but doomed. That is how the AF takes care of CAS. It is secondary to the yanking and banking crowd. Moving mud just is not sexy enough even though it puts feet on the ground, something required to win. This seems to be lost on many in the AF and they point at Desert Storm as a war won by air power.

[jbour13]

I wholeheartedly disagree with allowing any service to dominate a discipline such as UAV's when they (Air Force) have not been on the ground and don't know how to utilize it.

Case in point: Who sets target priority and area reconnoitering by air? The "Ground" commander. What about rotary wing support, who'll control that. Airspace is still the ground commander's baby. You can't possibly deconflict fires quickly when someone has added yet another comms channel and command element. Imagine having another freq to bump to to clear fires with a person that may or may not have to move his UAV from your AO. I'd hate to have to explain what happened when a 105mm or mortar somehow took one down.

My imagery guys are the ones that tell the pilot to go to each location. If it is over chat, radio comms, or pre-planned routes. Sometimes and best of all, guys on the ground get to look and tell the pilot where to go. This is especially good for Predator UAV's. They are a good means to get enemy forces to do what you want.....mostly die, but it helps. :D

Each service does something particularly well, and this is good. But allowing one branch to control a means is a bad way of doing business.

What next, the Navy claims rights to SCUBA infils. I don't think anyone in the current community would be happy. Especially since the unit patch would change.

Let's refine interoperability and stop trying to find newer ways to do things that already work fine. TR's perfect practice makes perfect and the old Army adage of K.I.S.S. should work just fine.

[Ret10Echo]

The AF reputation for supporting ground troops is not exactly the best. Much of that is due to their selection of airframe (single engine lawn dart) and the tactics involved that keep them at altitude extremes (difficult to call in CAS that is flying up where the blue meets the black). I agree with TR that the Marine Corps aviation is much better at, and focused on support of ground troops. Most Marine aviators (especially the Harrier guys) will tell you that it is there purpose in life. UAVs are an assett like any other and now come in quite a few variants depending on the intended purpose. However as in all things, the mindset of the person controlling the asset is going to drive how that asset is employed.
AF would, I imagine, be more of a strategic level, target assessment user. They don't have a dog in the fight on the ground, so that doesn't rate sometimes. The Ground Forces Commander would best be able to integrate the asset into the combined arms fight. It reduces the layers of red tape if he can shift the asset based on events unfolding on the ground as opposed to having to compete for that asset through the air tasking process.
UAVs are an excellent compliment and enhancement, but not a stand-alone element. They are best utilized by those most concerned with the situation.

[BMT (RIP)]

General provides clarification on UAV use

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123050533



BMT

[Sionnach]

Why can't we get the Army Air Corps back? :lifter

The Army can do the unsexy job of moving mud, and the Air Force can "turn and burn" and move furniture.

[The Reaper]

Why can't we get the Army Air Corps back? :lifter

The Army can do the unsexy job of moving mud, and the Air Force can "turn and burn" and move furniture.

FWIW, we each have our strengths and weaknesses, but tac airlift and CAS should be returned to someone who actually cares about it, like the Army. IMHO, the AF would be fine with that, except for the budget slice and the people that would have to come with it.

No one cares more about solving your problem than you do. If you rely on another service to get you to the fight or to provide your fire support, you will likely be disappointed.

TR

[Ret10Echo]

Deputy Defense Secretary Kills USAF UAV Takeover

Sep 17, 2007
By Amy Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has halted the U.S. Air Force's controversial push to take over management of the Pentagon's growing Unmanned Air System (UAS) fleet.

USAF Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley made the proposal in a March 5 memo to take over management of all Pentagon UAS programs. It was met with ire from officials in the Army and Navy (DAILY, March 26).

Moseley had proposed to consolidate operational control of UASs flying over 3,500 feet (including Army and special operations tactical UAS) under the control of a regional Air Force officer. The Army, in particular, fought against this proposal, arguing that such a leadership shift is perilous to take on while operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan and that their commanders must maintain operational control over their UAS to ensure freedom to maneuver in battle.

England does retain one of the proposals that came out of the debate in Washington over the executive agency role. The Air Force promised about 10 percent in savings if its Predator and the Army's Warrior programs were merged. Congress has put pressure on the Pentagon to merge the efforts.

Predator merger

Predator and Sky Warrior are the only programs directly mentioned in his Sept. 13 memo to the services and civilian Pentagon offices. "The Predator and Sky Warrior programs will be combined into a single acquisition program, to include a common data link, in order to achieve common development, procurement, sustainment and training activities," England says. The contract merger should be complete by October 2008, he says. England does not suggest which service should lead this effort.

In lieu of forming an executive agency in the Air Force, England directs that an interagency task force will address how to promote interoperability and efficient operations of UASs.

This decision also relieves the Navy of concerns that the Air Force could subsume oversight of its high-dollar UAS contracts - including the Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator recently awarded to Northrop Grumman and a soon-to-be-decided Broad Area Maritime Surveillance contract.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/UAV09177.xml&headline=Deputy%20Defense%20Secretary%20Kills%20US AF%20UAV%20Takeover

[Kraut783]

Wasn't there a big battle over arming choppers too prior to Vietnam?

[Guns64D]

Why the AF should not have sole rights to UAV's ( my opinion )

1. The manuever BCT's should have their own UAV's as they do now. Granted, some BCTs use their UAV's for pattern of life (which I think is stupid 90% of the time) and some use them for CIED, OPN's, etc and have been very effective with them.
2. Added layers of communication. Wasting time when time counts.
3. Bureaucracy.

In the time that I have flown, I have not once talked to an AF UAV. I've gotten multiple target handovers from Army UAV's. Why? I attribute it to one main reason. Situational Awareness.
When the operators know the area's they fly, they talk to the guys that go out everyday, and they get briefed by S2's that know what is going on == They know where to look for the bad man. If the air force is willing to put all their UAV personnel in Army TOC's and take orders from Army Commanders, that might work. But then they might as well be Army.

The most effective way to reduce enemy operations is to KILL the enemy. And when the enemy dies, another American lives. I just wish the AF could be a team player on this issue for soldier on the ground, and not for the money.

[60_Driver]

It's an ols story that's been repeated ever since the AF split off from the Army. If it flies, they think it should be theirs. Or, rather, they think the money and people for it should be theirs to siphon off as they deem necessary.

As an Army Aviator, I have studied the historical struggle between the Army and the Air Force over missions and platforms. As an advisor to an army with a young and growing aviation arm, it's been fascinating to see the exact same battles being fought between the host country's army and air forces for the exact same basic reason: lack of customer support for the ground commander.

I always enjoy reading this one:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896639,00.html