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...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks