Air Force draws fire in bid to control UAVs

[CommunityEditor]

The Army, Navy and Marine Corps join together against the Air Force in the bid for control ... over remote-controlled aircraft that is. From the article --

At issue is the Air Force proposal to the Defense Department suggesting it become the lead agency for developing and fielding unmanned aircraft that primarily fly above 3,500 feet. What the Air Force sees as a bid for efficiency, the other services see as a mission grab.

“Who’s in charge? Where is the authority?” Abercombie asked in a hearing room packed with general officers, colonels and experts from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ watchdog agency.

The answer from the GAO is that no one in the Defense Department is exercising effective control over the services’ competing programs.

Abercrombie advised the service brass that he may choose for them. “I can make arbitrary decisions,” warned the congressman.

The Air Force has three models of UAVs that operate above 3,500 feet, the MQ-1 Predator, a larger version of the Predator called the MQ-9 Reaper, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

The Air Force argues that the Army’s new Warrior UAV, built by General Atomics, the same firm that makes the Predator and Reaper, duplicates capabilities the Air Force provides to ground forces. The Warrior, Reaper and Predator can attack targets and provide live pictures of what is happening on the ground.

The Army now wants to buy 132 Warriors for more than $1 billion. Each UAV would carry up to four Hellfire missiles, twice the weapons load of the Predator but far less than the mix of bombs and missiles carried by the Reaper.

Full article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...ntrol_070421w/

Why would the other services (save maybe the Navy) need to be able to operate UAV's above 3,500 feet? It was the Air Force that first demonstrated that UAV's were viable instruments of war in OEF. This debate harkens back to the argument between the Army and the Air Force over control of ICBM's in the 50's and 60's.

While I do recognize that the Army is the "primary agency" of the DoD as the largest service branch, it does not mean that it is at all equipped to provide all of the necessary logistics and maintenance, let alone the facilities for these aircraft. Because, that's just what these UAV's are. The only difference between UAV's that operate at these altitudes and other fixed wing aircraft is that the pilot can be any where in the world except on board the aircraft.

Besides, don't the Army and the Marine Corps have enough to worry about right now maintaining their capability to fulfill their traditional missions without taking on new ones? Its a sorry state of affairs when the Air Force is donating 20,000 airmen to complete missions traditionally performed by the Army. Let the zoomies fly the planes!

[FINKD]

I'm retired AF but I can see the need for each of the services to have operational use of UAVs. It might be easier to coordinate their use if the ground forces, the Army and Marines, could operate their own UAVs; the Navy could operate their UAV (probably at sea); and the AF could operate their UAVs for reconnaissance. Each of the branches could also make agreements to make their UAVs available to another branch when needed thus expanding the availability and use of UAVs.

Sometimes we have to stop looking narrowly at who operates what and where and realize that some systems can and should be operated by all the branches of the military.

The Air Force is currently in a battle for the hearts and minds of its own airmen and the rest of the country, courtesy of GEN Mosely. Our short heritage is being forced down our throats and we are told that we must be able to preach the AIRPOWER message. Our leaders praise our airmen on the ground in Iraq, but resisted a ground combat medal for as long as they could, because they were arguing that ground combat is not where we should be and a medal would compromise their argument. 25 years and counting in the Air Force and the Air National Guard and I am beginning to think that the majority of active-duty airmen have their heads up their wazoos due to inane policies and procedures set by on high.

[JEHAMMOND]

Folks,

Please read this article by the famous early US Army aviator General Mike Lynch in 1986 published in AFJI. It explains very well why the US Army needs its own armed UAVs.

Jack E. Hammond

.
http://tinyurl.com/6l42dv

.

[Mestisa]

I understand why the Army is pushing for their own UAVs. Most of the UAVs the Army has direct control over and they're already in close proximity to the ground forces. Whereas, the Air Force...everything has to go thru CENTCOM to get a predator in orbit...which is probably a moment too late when our troops on the ground need it. I think that the AF "because it's on our domain" arguement is weak and until we can start providing better support for our guys on the ground, we have no room to talk...and I totally understand the frustrations of the other branches.

[TheShaggy]

Originally Posted by Mestisa

I understand why the Army is pushing for their own UAVs. Most of the UAVs the Army has direct control over and they're already in close proximity to the ground forces. Whereas, the Air Force...everything has to go thru CENTCOM to get a predator in orbit...which is probably a moment too late when our troops on the ground need it. I think that the AF "because it's on our domain" arguement is weak and until we can start providing better support for our guys on the ground, we have no room to talk...and I totally understand the frustrations of the other branches.

This is the same agruement the Army is making for the JCA(Joint Cargo Aircraft).