| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| The Other Air War Over Iraq |
| 2005-06-10 |
| June 10, 2005: There's a war going on in the air over Iraq. U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles) are battling for, well, for respect and control of the air. It's not exactly a fair fight, mainly because the air force supplies the "air space manager," who decides who goes where over the combat zone. This has always been a difficult job. While the air force has transports and warplanes zooming around, the army also has its helicopters and, most importantly, artillery shells, in the air. Everyone has to step aside when the artillery opens up, as the big guns have the right of way. But now the air space manager has to deal with an increasing number of UAVs. No problem, as long as they are air force UAVs. But now the army has more and more UAVs, and often more than the air force has. The air space manager increasingly turns out to be an air force officer directing mostly army air traffic. This does not seem right to the air force. Army UAV operators are increasingly getting the impression that they are not wanted, unless there's a mission deemed too dangerous for air force UAVs. Army UAV operators also know that the air force is not happy with army sergeants operating UAVs, while the air force only allows officers to "fly" UAVs. Air force attempts to establish standards for army UAV operators was rebuffed by the army. Unhappy with the difficulty in getting UAV, or any other support, from the air force on a timely basis, the army has increasingly bought more of its own UAVs. Army Hunters and Shadows compete with air force Predators. But the air space manager will often restrict the use of army UAVs, "for safety reasons." The army UAV officers get steamed, because the only thing the see at risk is the current air force attempt to get control over development of all UAVs, and perhaps all the ones the army wants to use. Or at least the larger ones, like the Hunter and Shadow, that compete with the air force Predator. The army often takes UAV missions the air force refuses, as "too dangerous." At the same time, the army UAV operators find themselves being kept out of air space over an army combat operation, so that an air force Predator can be sent in to make the air force look good. It's getting ugly up there. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #12 The next logical devs are unmanned air superiority fighter-bombers and startegic bombers per se - the time is looming when the Air Force may have to return full control of air-based TACTICAL capabilities to the Army, from tacair wings to missle units. For a long long while during the US-USSR Cold War, the Army had more aircraft and ships than either the USAF or the Navy. As both the USA and its enemies move towards resolution of the battle for control of the future Global Empire and OWG, simple budget accounting will induce the necess changes. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-06-10 22:47 |
| #11 I think y'all need to check out the price of a Predator setup lately. YES, they have longer duration, and YES, they have a neato pair of hellfire missiles... but they cost about as much as A-10's. And if they ever got around to doing those A-10 upgrades, they'd have longer endurance and better sensors. A lot of the recent stuff with the UAV's got done because it's more politically possible to get them built ("We're not risking a pilot, therefore there's no risk for President Clinton in using one!") than to upgrade the A-10, or even the fast-mover aircraft like the F-16 and -18, with better sensors and the equipment needed to relay those sensor pictures to the ground. Remember that article about the new F-18 sensor pod being used in Iraq? They have five of them for the Carrier's air wing, and AFAIK it can't relay its images to the troops. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-06-10 22:28 |
| #10 If that's then mission then buy more, lots more C-17s. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-10 21:09 |
| #9 The Army is ahead of the power curve in TTP's when it come to UAV missions. The Army takes the high risk ones because they can get it done. As Jack said the Agency has armed UAV's, the combat aircraft of the future. I think the air force can see the future and they are fighting for their very existance. Why send a 40 million dollar aircraft with a Captain or Major when a good buck SGT with a laptop can do the same thing with a 200,000 dollar UAV and not put himself at risk. If they lose to the Army, and I hope they do, they will be relagated to being just a ride into theater, sort of like the Navy. Just think of the tax dollars we will all save. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-06-10 20:51 |
| #8 As we say in the Navy...the USAF is the only country club that makes everyone wear the same clothes. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-06-10 16:38 |
| #7 echo the previous same sh!t, different day. the USAF prima donnas are becoming very obvious. Had an interesting discussion at the local VFW the other day: seems that since the USAF was split off from the Army, the US has never won a war. Truces, maybe. maybe we need to combine all armed forces (at least it would end turf wars and also shed some redundant overhead). |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2005-06-10 14:38 |
| #6 USAF is the only service that doesn't have warrant officers, as a matter of fact. Hmmm... |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-06-10 14:21 |
| #5 As the man says, the same old sh$$. I used to do radar nav checks on pilots as a Staff Sergeant - E5. They hated it, especially when I plotted them as much as 3000 meters off course. The equipment I was using and the scale of maps allowed me to plot their courses to within 10 meters. Acceptable limits were 500 meters. As a 26-year veteran of the Air Force, I hate to badmouth my alma mater, so to speak, but there are a lot of things that need changing. The problem is, the people with the position to make the changes are too set in their ways to allow them. It's going to take a Donald Rumsfeld equivalent as Sec/AF to impose those changes, and to enforce them. The only way to guarantee success is to fire a bunch of three- and four-star generals. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-06-10 13:55 |
| #4 I'd go for a stray Spooky run into Syria while cleaning the roaches from the border...better than any one UAV |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-10 11:14 |
| #3 ....and lets not forget the most deadly of all UAVs - the ones the CIA flies. At least they have Hellfires attached. All the major kills in Afghanistan and Pakistan and even in Iraq (I believe)have been CIA operated. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2005-06-10 10:10 |
| #2 This "turf war" needs to be nipped off in the bud NOW. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-10 10:01 |
| #1 Same old sh*t, different day. The Army discovered that you don't need to be an officer to drive a helo years ago. A big shock to the Air Force. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-06-10 09:26 |