ISR and business as usual

[Tom Odom]

This one is really interesting when you place it against the Army/USMC versus USAF debate on COIN

Pentagon battle breaks out over a spy plane

Defense Secretary Gates wants more unmanned Predator aircraft in Iraq. But the Air Force worries about the long-term viability of the spy plane program.
By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 21, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the Air Force to put nearly all of its unmanned Predator aircraft into the skies over the Middle East, forcing the service to take steps that officers worry could hobble already-stressed drone squadrons.

Pressure from the Defense secretary in recent months has nearly doubled the number of Predators available to help hunt insurgents and find roadside bombs in Iraq. But it has forced air commanders into a scramble for crews that officers said could hurt morale and harm the long-term viability of the Predator program.

Some officers said pressure from Gates resulted in one plan that could have taken the Air Force down a path similar to the German Luftwaffe, which cut back training in World War II to get more pilots in the air.

"That was the end of their air force," said Col. Chris Chambliss, commander of the Air Force's Predator wing. The Air Force plan, presented to the military leadership in January, eventually was scaled back.

and this last tidbit is just priceless:

In the debate over control of the fast-growing fleet, the Air Force argues that only qualified pilots should fly airplanes that drop bombs and fire missiles. But Army ground commanders maintain they most need and use the streaming video to plan and execute their ground operations.

[Coldstreamer]

Give pred to the army. It's a land component tool. Let the airforce do air force things.

This is not a market place for competitors to struggle for influence. A functional approach to problem solving...hang on...sorry, my mistake. Jobs at stake. Which is why the RAF flies the UK support helicopter fleet....

[Ken White]

develop a series of options to modify a unit Table of Organization and Equipment. Did that; prepared four options, change nothing (which won; fancy that...) plus three others. One was far smaller than the current version, causing my boss to say "...you're suggesting to a General in the US Army that he should give up flags and spaces in peacetime? Ain't gonna happen!"

Some things appear to be universal...

[Entropy]

Well, this is a common problem with any HDLD capability and from my experience in theater fights over predator are not new. The question of who gets priority over limited assets is an enduring one.

I do think, however, the basic argument the AF is making here is legitimate - is it worth it to sacrifice future capabilities to get more capabilities sooner? Maybe, but the AF leadership would be shirking its duty to not make the leadership aware of the consequences of proposed courses of action.

And there are the cultural issues which are not all that different from those the Army has been dealing with for the past several years. For example, Predator is not yet considered a "primary" aircraft, IOW one that a pilot can spend a career in, so it's viewed as a diversion from a the "real" job of flying a manned aircraft. This will be a big cultural change for the Air Force and one that will not be made quickly or easily unfortunately. I can see the writing on the wall, but I fear many bag-wearers do not.

Coldstreamer,

It's never as simple as "giving" predator to the Army. Predator is not simply an aircraft, but a system and a capability that's been under development for a decade. One could not "give" predator to the Army without giving the Army all the pilots, maintainers, DCGS, interpreters, contracts, R&D staff, etc. which is simply not possible, even assuming your assertion that predator is land component tool is true.

Consider an opposite example - give the Air Force the Patriot missile system. How ya gonna do that? Hand the systems over and say, "here ya go?" Make everyone in Patriot MOS' change uniforms? No, that's not possible and furthermore it would be stupid, even though ADA might be argued a better fit with the AF mission.

And let's keep in mind that the long-endurance ISR capability provided by predator and other AF UAV's that is now blithely judged a "land component tool" would not be available at all were it not for the AF. As Bill Sweetman puts it:

It's worth noting that the most recent roles-and-missions spat between the Air Force and the Army centers on the latter's Warrior UAV... which would not exist were it not for the USAF's initiative in adopting a CIA-developed system, equipping it first with a laser designator and then with missiles, and integrating it into large-scale air-land operations.

The Army quite literally never thought of that. Army people are not trained to think in those terms. The Army's home-developed UAVs are broadly comparable to Israeli technology. As in Israeli technology of 20 years ago.

With that, however, I fully support the Army developing their own comparable UAVs for their specific needs as long as there is commonality in the supporting architectures and subsystems.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Consider an opposite example - give the Air Force the Patriot missile system. How ya gonna do that? Hand the systems over and say, "here ya go?" Make everyone in Patriot MOS' change uniforms? No, that's not possible and furthermore it would be stupid, even though ADA might be argued a better fit with the AF mission.

Nah I don't think so....like everything it was stolen from the Army. I posted an article a while back about Sky Cavalry operations where the Army first used mannded and unmannded drones with a new capability called Televsion in the late 1950's. The article gives some pretty choice words about how the Air Force was blocking Army aircraft development to. About 90% of what the Air Force is calling new I saw being developed as a kid during the space program in the 1960's. Things have been developed and refined since then but they sure ain't new.

[Ken White]

The Army was playing with UAVs thirty years ago -- and has been since. the USAF didn't want anything to do with them for many years...

Yep, the Air Force did pick up the Predator from the CIA -- but Entropy apparently missed the fact that that the Army was the initial uniformed buyer of the Predator -- and DoD made them give it to the AF(LINK)...

The Army also took it a step further (LINK) --
note the buy is for 132 of the birds...

Oh and the Army operates its Predators with non-rated NCOs...

[Entropy]

Slapout, of course UAV's are not new - that is not the point. The point is that until a few years ago, UAV's were more of a gimmick within the Army than a real capability. The Air Force not only developed a successful platform, but also the doctrine and technology to integrate that platform with the rest of the force.