You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
USAF Creates a Magnificent Monster
2006-03-16
March 16, 2006: The U.S. Air Force has created the ultimate version of the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle. The TACP (Tactical Air Control Party) Stryker has extra equipment for managing what's in the air, as well as on the ground. This includes permanent mounts for extra radios, antennae, a tactical computer and the Rover system to view video taken by UAVs. Each TACP has a crew of seven (an army driver, an army vehicle commander; an air force NCO, an army fire support officer or NCO, an air force air controller; a radio operator; and a maintenance specialist). All are trained to fight on the ground, but their main job it to bring in smart bombs, artillery and rockets to where the troops around them need it.

After working with the six TACPs built so far, the army realized that this was the future of mechanized warfare. If all armored vehicles, and unarmored command vehicles, were equipped like this, you could bring enormous firepower down on the enemy with unprecedented speed and accuracy. Moreover, the Rover link with UAVs (and eventually warplane sensors) enables a single vehicle to see much farther, day or night and in all weather. Actually, this type of capability has been an army goal for some time. But the need for more capabilities because of a war going on in Iraq, and the subsequent development of stuff like TACP, has speeded up the process. Each TACP Stryker costs $3 million (vehicle and special equipment).

TACPs are going to Iraq, where they will serve their designed purpose, to make a new air force/army concept work. This involves formally linking air force fighter squadrons with army combat brigades. The air force and army units would regularly train together in peace time. This means that the commanders and staffs from the two services would frequently meet to plan these exercises. That would give everyone an opportunity to bring each other up to date on new equipment, weapons and ideas in each service. The first units will consist of several F-16 squadrons and a Stryker brigade. One reason for using the Stryker brigade is that these units have the latest communications and computer gear, which is designed to easily communicate with similarly equipped warplanes overhead. The new combinations will be called a Joint Mission Capability Package (Joint MCAP). If this experiment works, reserve and active duty warplane squadrons would be linked, via a Joint MCAP arrangement, with army brigades, with the idea that, if the army unit had to ship out to a combat zone overseas, its MCAP air force squadrons would go with it.

The air force doesn't like the idea of every armored vehicle having TACP capabilities, or using many more army personnel as air controllers. But that's where it's going, mainly because smart bombs have gotten so smart they no longer require a hot shot pilot to hit the target accurately every time. The primary responsibility is now on the ground, and most of it is embedded in machines. It's mainly point (the laser rangefinder) and click (to capture the location of the target, and transmit it to the aircraft overhead.) The army can even uses its own UAVs for the airborne videos. The army is rushing ahead with all this battlefield automation, and the air force is trying to keep up.
Posted by:Steve

#10  I think you mean ROMADS, Cyber Sarge. I did some intel work for the 601st Tac Control Wing for a couple of years, and dealt with the ROMADS on an almost-daily basis. "Whacked" is one description, "Crazy as a stadium full of bedbugs" is another. Either way, they were purely professional once they deployed. At one time, teams used jeeps and a trailer full of radios. Glad to see they're getting better equipment.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-03-16 19:48  

#9  Why not put tons of antennas on every vehicle then. Strip the autojunkyards for antennas, they don't have to work

We have! IIRC from my tour, there were quite a few M1114's I rode in that had antennas, but no radios inside. For the procuremnt monkeys at DOD, it's easier and cheaper to install a mount kit at the factory, than waste man hours installing at the destination unit.
Posted by: N guard   2006-03-16 19:44  

#8  #6 I hope this isn't like the old Soviet unit commander vehicles, carrying antennas all over it. Calls unwanted attention.

Are there US vehicles without antennas all over them?


Why not put tons of antennas on every vehicle then. Strip the autojunkyards for antennas, they don't have to work.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-03-16 16:25  

#7  I would like to see B-58 UAVs and other assorted Boneyard gems turned into UACV gold.

More bang for the buck.

Posted by: 3dc   2006-03-16 14:39  

#6  I hope this isn't like the old Soviet unit commander vehicles, carrying antennas all over it. Calls unwanted attention.

Are there US vehicles without antennas all over them?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-16 13:08  

#5  I hope this isn't like the old Soviet unit commander vehicles, carrying antennas all over it. Calls unwanted attention.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2006-03-16 11:31  

#4  Since the AF embeds Air Controllers with Army units this is a logical step. I have met two of these ?Romos? in my career and both were looney as a bat and very very professional when the rubber met the road. I bet the ROMOs are happy that they no longer have to lug their radios and gear around with them. One guy assigned to the 25th Light explained that he had to carry a standard Infantry load plus his ATC gear. He brought all his gear in for a "show and Tell" at NCO leadership school and he said he "Loved his job more than sex." He got to kill the enemy before anyone else and order officers to destroy things of his choosing. Like I said he was whacked, but I would want him on my side in a fight.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-03-16 10:39  

#3  You could make B52s into UAVs...
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2006-03-16 10:09  

#2  The AF pilots union doesn't like the idea of outsourcing the close support mission to the Army, even less so to Army UASs. All things considered, the Army would rather have support from B-52s and A-10s than Jim Wright's keep Ft Worth green F-16s.
Posted by: RWV   2006-03-16 09:34  

#1  Wow, it's like the Army and the Air Force should be considered the same service...
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-16 09:04  

00:00