Heh. Yes indeed, there are discussions of Army use of aircraft.
Air Force centric views, to be sure -- but it's an AF magazine so that's to be expected. I particularly enjoyed the rather parochial graphic below from "The Army’s “Organic” Unmanned Aircraft Systems: An Unhealthy Choice for the Joint Operational Environment" which implies -- wrongly -- that Close Air Support is a part of Global Strike, a core AF function (among other things that are the author's opinion). That part is true -- however, that all CAS is subsumed by that is or should be open to question.
One could and should also question the AF perception that they retain totally the Forward Air Controller function. That makes little sense in the coming era of more distributed operations. There is no reason the average Infantry Squad Leader cannot control CAS.
My point in citing these things is to question whether the USAF really wants to get in the business of supporting an ODA in a minor contact per the quoted article scenario; yes, it's a TIC but it is imminently possible that the operation that was canceled may have been far more important from the Operational and thus Joint standpoint. Another article in the journal also cites the Army's use mortars and artillery support but both miss the point that given the potential of greater geographic dispersion than has been the norm, that fire support will not have the range and pressure will be on the AF -- or someone -- to reliably provide fire support...
Pressure not applied by me or by the Army -- pressure applied by Congress and the Mothers of America.
The AF solution of central control of limited assets is inimical to an effective solution to the problem. It is undeniably efficient -- it is not effective.
Hopefully, someone will realize that attitude toward CAS is a large part of the reason why the AF has some of the lack of respect they seem to endure...
Several simple reasons really. Most obvious one: Cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I have the greatest curiosity as to why the "Drones" are being used all. Bearing in mind the circumstances of their employment, and the lack of air defence, why are they deemed better than a manned aircraft - and by that I mean the right manned aircraft. An P-3 can fire AGM-114, and carry a much higher resolution sensor.
Now, I can see quite a few good roles for UAVs, but they are pretty specific and mainly a function of political concerns. Yes there are sound operational reasons, but personally, I can't see it in the circumstance we are discussing.
You cited a certain platform: Work out the accurals on a P-3 and crew.............. and that is without getting one 'lost'. 'Robot spuds in' makes a far better headline for any government than '13 aircrew die a horrible death' , even before one calculates any other costs
Cheers
Mark
Mark
Good find on that Link, David
Mildly off thread comment by me on the last paragraph of the linked article:
Quote:
"Unwittingly, Obama’s strategy may end up repeating the very mistakes of American policy over the past three decades that have come to haunt US security and that of the rest of the free world. In seeking narrow, tactical gains, the Obama team risks falling prey to a long-standing US policy weakness: the pursuit of short-term objectives without much regard for the security of friends. It must abandon its plan regionally to contain rather than defeat terrorism, or else an Islamist takeover of Pakistan is inevitable."
The on-thread aspect is that Mark O'neilcorrectly pointed to the why of Drones; the article points out that the application of Drone power can be quite, uh, selective -- and the quoted paragraph ties all that together with American short-termism.
Our failure to heed History and take the long view is well known. Hopefully we can do better this time. Given the callow nature and venality of many of our politicians from all parties, whether we can or will do so is worrisome.
Which gets back to Drones. A strong point is lessened cost in many aspects. Another is is their ease of use in dangerous or problematic situations.
A shortfall is that very ease of use can lead to flawed decisions and uses...
Drone attacks: legal and other points
IMHO a good article in The New Yorker drawing together many of the issues, without citing David Kilcullen though and especially on the legal aspects: http://cryptome.org/0001/predator-war.htm
Note the full article is behind a 'pay wall' and is an update on a previous article (incomplete): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...6fa_fact_mayer and a follow-up (complete): http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-pakistan.html
There is a further article (with stats in appendices): http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...revenge_drones
davidbfpo
Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales
Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales:Is Barack Obama killing too many bad guys before the U.S. can interrogate them? is an article in FP: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._tell_no_tales
It is a good read and this is a 'taster':
Quote:
Hold the applause. Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks. The Predator has become for President Obama what the cruise missile was to President Bill Clinton -- an easy way to appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists, when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States.
And ends with:
Quote:
The fact that Obama's administration no longer does this when it locates senior terrorist leaders today means the president is voluntarily sacrificing intelligence that could protect the American people -- and that the U.S. homeland is at greater risk of a terrorist attack.
I trust that this aspect of CT has been fully debated inside government, although I am sceptical that any leader living in the FATA could be captured for interrogation.
Hypothetical scenario: the Nigerian bomber-to-be is id'd in a Yemeni city, shortly before he starts his journey to what we now know was Detroit. Attempt to capture or strike with high explosive?