Now They Are After The UAVs
Courtesy of former Marine, W. Thomas Smith Jr. over at The Tank comes a link to an article published in the "Army Enquirer" the "Military Times" chain of news papers that includes The Marine Corps Times. Written by a 32 year USAF veteran Charles Sutherland, the article entitled "Function Comes First" details why the author believes that blue suiters should control all UAV operations. He says in part...
He then details that the US Army has 1 Billion US dollars to spend on UAVs and how this money should be given over to the USAF, who should control all UAVs based on their charter to provide TAC reece etc.
Having served in Army aviation for over 20 years now I can assure Mr. Sutherland that if the USAF would have fullfiled it's role as a provider of TAC recon and other things CAS over the years there wouldn't have been the need for the Key West agreement or a fight over UAV. I can assure you that the powers that be in the head shed in Washington than run the Green Machine would much rather spend their money on new rifles, MRAPs and tanks than they would on UAVs and/or helicopters. They spend it on UAVs and helicopters because they aren't getting what they need from the USAF.
The altitude of 3500 feet that the author harps about is roughly equivilant to the coordinating altitude. You see the airspace above the battlefield is divided up so we can keep things that fly though the air from running into one another. the coordinating altitude is the altitude that essentially divides the owning ground unit from the USAF and other "fast movers"...although there are exceptions like MLRS that cross the coordinating altitude, that is generally the cut off between things that beat the air into submission and things that fly really fast. It's called doctrine...look it up.
So does the author suggest that we do away with coordinating altitudes altogether? I doubt it...I think he just believes that the USAF should control all UAVs. In a shrinking USAF, I don't see how if they took control of all UAS that they (the USAF) would be able to meet demand, but if you look at the way they handle CAS that's not their problem it's the Army's problem...and that's why we have attack helicopters. The USAF can't provide enough TACP's to control CAS for every unit in the field...and that's not their problem it just means the Army doesn't get CAS when and where it needs it. Especially since they won't let Army aviators clear CAS platforms hot on a target. Where are the operators going to come from if they (USAF) took control of every Raven, Shadow and I-Gnat that the Army currently operates? They don't care they just want control...not results. And over here I can assure you it's the results that matter not the color of the suit one wears at the party at the O-Club.
Yeah, function does come first...and that is exactly why the USAF doesn't need to control all UAS.
Following the Vietnam War, there was a debate in Congress about attack helicopters and whether the Army’s procurement of them represented a duplication of the Air Force’s requirement to organize, train, equip and provide forces for close-air support...
...the Army’s argument for acquiring a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles and a bank of operators to control them is going strong. The Air Force’s counter-argument, which uses an altitude restriction as a defining point, has missed the target.
Suggesting that UAVs operating above 3,500 feet should be organized, trained, equipped and provided by the Air Force implies that UAVs operating below 3,500 feet are open for any service wanting to make the investment. Jones and Weyand did not mention altitude in their 1975 debate. Instead, they concentrated on the function of the platform as they reached resolution. Likewise, the Air Force’s UAV argument needs to be based on functionality and requirements...
He then details that the US Army has 1 Billion US dollars to spend on UAVs and how this money should be given over to the USAF, who should control all UAVs based on their charter to provide TAC reece etc.
Having served in Army aviation for over 20 years now I can assure Mr. Sutherland that if the USAF would have fullfiled it's role as a provider of TAC recon and other things CAS over the years there wouldn't have been the need for the Key West agreement or a fight over UAV. I can assure you that the powers that be in the head shed in Washington than run the Green Machine would much rather spend their money on new rifles, MRAPs and tanks than they would on UAVs and/or helicopters. They spend it on UAVs and helicopters because they aren't getting what they need from the USAF.
The altitude of 3500 feet that the author harps about is roughly equivilant to the coordinating altitude. You see the airspace above the battlefield is divided up so we can keep things that fly though the air from running into one another. the coordinating altitude is the altitude that essentially divides the owning ground unit from the USAF and other "fast movers"...although there are exceptions like MLRS that cross the coordinating altitude, that is generally the cut off between things that beat the air into submission and things that fly really fast. It's called doctrine...look it up.
So does the author suggest that we do away with coordinating altitudes altogether? I doubt it...I think he just believes that the USAF should control all UAVs. In a shrinking USAF, I don't see how if they took control of all UAS that they (the USAF) would be able to meet demand, but if you look at the way they handle CAS that's not their problem it's the Army's problem...and that's why we have attack helicopters. The USAF can't provide enough TACP's to control CAS for every unit in the field...and that's not their problem it just means the Army doesn't get CAS when and where it needs it. Especially since they won't let Army aviators clear CAS platforms hot on a target. Where are the operators going to come from if they (USAF) took control of every Raven, Shadow and I-Gnat that the Army currently operates? They don't care they just want control...not results. And over here I can assure you it's the results that matter not the color of the suit one wears at the party at the O-Club.
Yeah, function does come first...and that is exactly why the USAF doesn't need to control all UAS.
Labels: Army Stuff, UAV, USAF
posted by Outlaw 13 at 03:26
<< Home