Droids give Army back its air support

Off-Topic Discussion
User avatar
MarkG88
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 737
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:25 am
Location: Ohio

Droids give Army back its air support

Post by MarkG88 »

From the always informative and often entertaining strategypage.com:

-Mark

LEADERSHIP: USAF And Army Make A Deal

September 23, 2008: The U.S. Air Force and Army have agreed to amend the half century understanding (the "Treaty of Key West") that restricted what kind of aircraft the army could use. The 1950s agreement ended nearly a decade of bickering about how much control over U.S. military aircraft the newly created (in 1947) air force should have. Early on, the air force sought to control, well, everything. The navy and marines fought the air force to a draw, but the army came off less well. The army was allowed to have all the new (and untried) helicopters it could get its hands on, but was restricted to only a few fixed wing aircraft, and none of them could be large or armed. The army was not happy with this, but the Key West deal, forced on them by president (and former army general) Eisenhower, at least ended the constant feuding and uncertainty. But the new deal allows the army can have fixed wing combat aircraft again, but they cannot carry any people, not even pilots.

It's all about UAVs, in particular the Predator (and its derivatives, the Reaper and Sky Warrior). These aircraft are changing the way wars are fought, and the army has built a fleet of over a thousand UAVs. The air force protested this, but the army was doing most of the fighting in the current war, and had the clout to persuade the air force to change the rules about what kind of aircraft the army could have. Now the army can have its fixed wing combat aircraft (over 500 Sky Warriors are on the way).

But the two services also worked out an agreement on how to use, and share, this growing fleet of armed UAVs. That's because the air force and army use their UAVs differently. For the army, the UAV is a tool for the local combat commander. That's why each combat division will get a Sky Warrior squadron. Combat brigades will also get detachments (of two to four UAVs) as needed (even though the brigades always have several smaller Shadow 200 UAVs assigned.)

The air force uses Predator and Warrior class UAVs more as strategic recon aircraft, and put them at the disposal of the most senior combat commander in the region (currently, the head of CENTCOM). The air force believed that the army policy of assigning Sky Warriors to brigade and division commanders was wasteful, because many would be sitting on the ground when the CENTCOM commander has a mission that would benefit from the maximum number of UAVs being used. But the army convinced the air force that for the combat brigade commander, having those UAVs under his command, all the time, is essential to planning and carrying out combat operations. Too often in the past, getting the needed number of aircraft from the air force/navy "pool" was chancy, and a major headache for ground commanders. This new policy isn't all that new. During World War II, the Russians gave ground commanders their own air forces, for the same reason American commanders still need them 65 years later.

The U.S. Air Force is planning on replacing its MQ-1B Predators with the new U.S. Army MQ-1C Sky Warrior. The latter is developed from the former and both are built by the same manufacturer. The air force and army have already agreed to cooperate on maintaining and further developing Predator and Sky Warrior UAVs, which will save money for both services. But the air force is alarmed at some of the army ideas for operating Sky Warrior. For example, the army wants to rely more on the software, than trained pilots, for flying the UAVs. In fact, the army will not use pilots at all as operators. This appalls the air force, which is scrambling to turn fighter and transport pilots into Predator operators. The air force does use non-pilots for micro-UAVs (similar to the army's five pound Raven), which are used to help guard air force bases. But for larger UAVs, the air force is concerned about collisions, with other UAVs or manned aircraft. The army believes the future holds technological solutions for this problem. Besides, the army can't spare pilots to man its planned force of over 500 Sky Warriors.

General Atomics, the manufacturer of the Predator UAV, is developing the new Sky Warrior UAV. The army wants 45 squadrons (each with 12 UAVs), at a cost of about $8 million per aircraft (including ground equipment). The Sky Warrior weighs 1.5 tons, carries 300 pounds of sensors internally, and up to 500 pounds of sensors or weapons externally. It has an endurance of up to 36 hours and a top speed of 270 kilometers an hour. Sky Warrior has a wingspan 56 feet and is 28 feet long. The Sky Warrior is heavier than the one ton Predator, and a bit larger and more capable in general. Basically, it's "Predator Plus", with the added ability to land and take off automatically, and carry four Hellfire missiles (compared to two on the Predator).

The size of the army UAV force also scares the air force. The Sky Warrior will be carrying Hellfire missiles and Viper Strike smart bombs. The army has also been discussing developing its own version of "JDAM Lite." This would be a hundred pound GPS guided smart bomb, which would have about fifty pounds of explosives. That's about the same bang as the new air force SDB (the 250 pound "Small Diameter Bomb"), which also has a steel penetrator. The Hellfire carries about ten pounds of explosives, and Viper Strike two pounds. The GPS guided 155mm Excalibur artillery shell has about 20 pounds of explosives, and the 227mm GPS guided MLRS rocket, with 150 pounds of explosives. "JDAM Lite" would fit into this arsenal nicely. The air force sees all these army "smart weapons" as replacing the need for air force close air support. That's what the army is thinking, as they want to control their own "death from above," and not be forced to ask the air force (which often turns them down.)

While the air force has agreed to coexist with the new army air force, the army has also agreed to work out how to handle the new traffic problems. Sky Warrior has a max ceiling of 29,000 feet, which puts it up there (above 10,000 feet) where the large, manned, air force aircraft operate. Below 10,000 feet, especially below a thousand feet, pilots are warned to be alert for army artillery shells and rockets, as well as the five pound Raven UAVs. Basically, it's dangerous down low, although army helicopter pilots survive. But they can move slowly, while air force jets require the army guys to make sure the air is clear (of little UAVs and large artillery shells) before coming on the deck for some gunnery. The air force A-10 pilots do this all the time, but it can be unnerving for an F-16 pilot. So the air force and the army have formed a group to not only work out new rules, but to keep an eye on the situation indefinitely, because there will always be new aircraft and technology to work into the air control system.

The war on terror, and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, have created a radical change in the way air power supports the ground troops. Blame it all on UAVs and smart bombs. The former made aircraft much more effective at reconnaissance, while the latter made aircraft much more effective at close air support. Both of these changes were radical, not just incremental little improvements on what had been done before. Now the army has gained direct control over the new combat aircraft (the larger UAVs), while also acquiring smart (GPS guided) shells and rockets. The air force is still useful (for gaining and maintaining control of the air, and for air transport), but it is not as critical as it was before. The air force has lost much of its usefulness at reconnaissance and direct combat support. This is a major shift in combat power, and it will now be up to the army, much more so than in the past, to develop new strategies and tactics for the use of air power. The U.S. Army Air Force, which dissolved into the U.S. Air Force in 1947, is back.
User avatar
echoco
Commander
Commander
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:08 am

Post by echoco »

Good news for the grunts, maybe in a few years we'll see the USAF decommissioning its A-10s and leave the CAS to the Army and Marines.

I sound a little harsh.
User avatar
mwaschak
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:43 am
Location: The data mines of VBAM
Contact:

Post by mwaschak »

echoco wrote:Good news for the grunts, maybe in a few years we'll see the USAF decommissioning its A-10s and leave the CAS to the Army and Marines.

I sound a little harsh.
I get nervous at this consolidation for a number of reasons.

Keep your eyes peeled for "combat pilot contractors" ;) .

-Jay
User avatar
echoco
Commander
Commander
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:08 am

Post by echoco »

mwaschak wrote:"combat pilot contractors" ;) .

-Jay

lol, There's already at least 2 companies doing air combat training for the military so its not too far off :lol:
User avatar
MarkG88
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 737
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:25 am
Location: Ohio

Post by MarkG88 »

echoco wrote:
mwaschak wrote:"combat pilot contractors" ;) .

-Jay

lol, There's already at least 2 companies doing air combat training for the military so its not too far off :lol:
And this is nothing new to wagging war. The very first artillerymen were civilian specialist contracted to the king/duke or whomever to bring this new fangled piece of technology to the battlefield and use it effectively "in season" (summer war making months).

Also the Air Force is looking into letting civilians do its pilot instructing. This is cheaper and lets pilots fly instead of teach other pilots to fly this is fine, but you get the "left overs" when you're a pilot instructor while all your peers take the fighter/bomber slots, this is what happened to my brother Dave, great pilot, good people skills, first job was instructor, next assignment.... C-130s in the Pacific).

You'll see more and more of this military "down sizing" as we get away from the massive manpower intensive way of waging war that started with Napoleon and was in vogue right up to the end of the Cold War. Its back to the small professional size armies and civilian contractors aplenty, every military professional from history pre 1790s (Spartans on up) would recognize this type of environment.

-Mark
User avatar
echoco
Commander
Commander
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:08 am

Post by echoco »

down sizing only go so far, I'm getting the feeling that Washington is going to over do it if not already.

First impression I had when thinking of UAV in the military is the bad guys in video games.
User avatar
Charles Lewis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Post by Charles Lewis »

MarkG88 wrote: Also the Air Force is looking into letting civilians do its pilot instructing. This is cheaper and lets pilots fly instead of teach other pilots to fly this is fine, but you get the "left overs" when you're a pilot instructor while all your peers take the fighter/bomber slots, this is what happened to my brother Dave, great pilot, good people skills, first job was instructor, next assignment.... C-130s in the Pacific).

-Mark
Sometimes, flying C-130s has its own perks. Back in college, one of my roommates was a grad student, which meant his buddies were old enough to be officers (as opposed to mine, who were tank mechanics and gate guards). This buddy was flying C-130s out of Texas and got to haul troops around for paradrops on a regular basis. Evidently, you can tell how elite a group is by their lack of professionalism and demeanor.

Airborne do it all by the book and file out on static lines. Rangers do it by the book but don't bother with the static lines. Green Berets are more relaxed and are pretty easy going on their way out. SEALs, on the other hand, cut up and goof off and then do back flips out the hatch.

:wink:
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

Charles Lewis wrote: Airborne do it all by the book and file out on static lines. Rangers do it by the book but don't bother with the static lines. Green Berets are more relaxed and are pretty easy going on their way out. SEALs, on the other hand, cut up and goof off and then do back flips out the hatch.
And which group do we really want?
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
User avatar
Charles Lewis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Post by Charles Lewis »

You can cut that both ways, but if someone is relaxed enough to do a back flip out the back of a plane before falling 30,000 feet (a HALO jump, for example), then they're probably cool enough to complete their mission with all their wits about them.
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

Charles Lewis wrote:You can cut that both ways, but if someone is relaxed enough to do a back flip out the back of a plane before falling 30,000 feet (a HALO jump, for example), then they're probably cool enough to complete their mission with all their wits about them.
True enough, and on the surface perfectly valid.

The SEALs just push my buttons.

<mild rant on>
Given other things I know about the SEALs in general in terms of this sort of behavior, they aren't my preferred unit to support. I'll stay away from this further, as it will turn on my <severe rant> mode.

Anyway, I also don't understand the *need* for naval special forces to be used far from water (i.e., deep inside afghanistan or Pakistan). I do get the politics.

Regardless, I am in a minority of not supporting the unit. So I'll fade away.
</mild rant on>
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
User avatar
mwaschak
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:43 am
Location: The data mines of VBAM
Contact:

Post by mwaschak »

Chyll wrote:
Regardless, I am in a minority of not supporting the unit. So I'll fade away.
</mild rant on>
Are you kidding? This is sounds like a heckuva story!

Fire away :!:

-Jay
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

mwaschak wrote:
Chyll wrote:
Regardless, I am in a minority of not supporting the unit. So I'll fade away.
</mild rant on>
Are you kidding? This is sounds like a heckuva story!

Fire away :!:

-Jay
OK. You asked.
The short version of a few small things:

SEALS are reknown for "not by the book". Remember that indicent fairly early in Afghanistan where two seals were killed after being isolated on a mountain and then others were killed trying to rescue them? As I recall, those two fell out of their helicopter as it maneuvered taking fire. By the book would have had them strapped in... so they lost their lives and the lives of fellow soldiers as a result of lax attitude.

That first was in general. The second is specific.

The SEALs are reknown for hazing/"code red" behavior. They take their opinion of events and enforce it. This is not heresay in my case. My brother was a serving Marine Lt.... jumped within the US embassy in Chilen due to a slight he gave a SEAL officer. Jumped, and beaten until they were warming up the paddles to shock his heart back to starting again when he woke up. My brother complained and tried to press charges. The SEALs in question were caught in lies, as there were late arriving witnesses (witnesses whose mouth-to-mouth and calling for help saved his life). The result? My brother lost his line command, was shoved to a desk job, and then politiced out of service for tarnishing some of the Navy's golden boys.

(Incidently, the man who gave my brother mouth-to-mouth was killed in Afghanistan during the first year of that fighting. Not related, just added sorrow on a generally bad story.)
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
User avatar
Charles Lewis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Post by Charles Lewis »

There is a fine line between elan and reckless. All too often, that line is crossed.

And you're right: why are naval special forces running around the mountains of Afghanistan. But then why are there Marines in the deserts of Iraq or in Afghanistan, for that matter?

Because rightly or wrongly, the US is in a situation where it needs every body they can get behind a trigger right now and the SEALs and the Marines are very good at what they do - so they're not just warm bodies, they're assets.

Had it been my brother who was nearly killed by such behavior I'd feel the exact same way as you, if not stronger. It was certainly not my intent to cause stress, nor was I necessarily endorsing the SEALs (though I admit it probably came across that way).

In the grand scheme of things, I suspect that 7 years of the War on Terror(tm) has probably unleashed any number of bad apples on the world as is true in any war.

I'm truly sorry your brother got forced out. Anyone willing and able to serve in times like this is to be honored and cherished.
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

Charles Lewis wrote:There is a fine line between elan and reckless. All too often, that line is crossed.
Well, said.
My opinion is that, generally (and, yes, I know generalizations are wrong), the SEALs are over that line and there has been a failure to get them back organizationally.
Charles Lewis wrote: And you're right: why are naval special forces running around the mountains of Afghanistan. But then why are there Marines in the deserts of Iraq or in Afghanistan, for that matter?

Because rightly or wrongly, the US is in a situation where it needs every body they can get behind a trigger right now and the SEALs and the Marines are very good at what they do - so they're not just warm bodies, they're assets.
True to a large extent. Also true is that once you start using Green Berets are any other special forces the SEALs must be included as part of inter-service politics. In fact, ultimately thats why the SEALs really exist in the first place.

As to the Marines they get used far more than they should because they are mainline units with some heft. They get called on far too often because of the same inter-agency politics and because really in certain situations the military is limited in units up to certain jobs.

They can and should take ground, they shouldn't hold it. Your point is spot on why there are still marines there today.
Charles Lewis wrote: Had it been my brother who was nearly killed by such behavior I'd feel the exact same way as you, if not stronger. It was certainly not my intent to cause stress, nor was I necessarily endorsing the SEALs (though I admit it probably came across that way).
bah!
Charlie, I took no offense at your comment.
Like I said, the SEALs just push my buttons.
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
User avatar
MarkG88
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 737
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:25 am
Location: Ohio

past tense and future trends

Post by MarkG88 »

On the topic of contractors replacing "uniformed troops" in the field, read on..............

LOGISTICS: Contractors Expand As Conscription Fades

September 26, 2008: The use of civilian contractors to support combat troops is becoming increasingly popular. Current forecasts see a market $400 billion market for these services over the next ten years. It was not just the U.S. that was using contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, but many other nations around the world have been doing the same thing. It's particularly popular in Europe, but even Russia and China are picking up on this.

This trend is actually a return to the past, when many of the “non-combat” troops were civilians. Way back in the day, these people were called “camp followers,” and they took care of supply, support, medical care, maintenance and “entertainment” (that’s where the term “camp follower” got a bad name). The majority of these people were men, and some of them were armed, mainly for defending the camp if the combat troops got beat real bad and needed somewhere to retreat to. The military is using a lot more civilians now. In an age when most troops are highly paid volunteers, it’s cheaper to hire additional civilians, on short term contracts, than it is to recruit and train more troops.

The military has actually been doing this, more and more, since the 1960s, but does not give a lot of publicity to the program. Mainly because some of the contractors, especially those in medical jobs, get paid far more than someone in uniform doing the same job. But many of the civilians, hired to do what was previously done by soldiers, are making as much, or less, than the troops were paid (including benefits.)

The military has always had a lot of civilians around, but more of them are doing jobs in combat zones, or out in the field. Many of the civilians are retired military, or have served for a few years. They know the drill, and what they are getting into. Just as all those civilian truck drivers getting shot at daily in Iraq, but doing it for the big payday.

A notable problem in military, and to a lesser extent, civilian organizations in the past century was the changing ratio of "camp followers" to "warriors." A century ago, most armies comprised over 80 percent fighters and the rest "camp followers (support troops) in uniform." Today the ratio is reversed, and therein resides a major problem.

One of the great revolutions in military operations in this century has been in the enormous increase in support troops. This after a sharp drop in the proportion of camp followers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before that it was common for an army on the march to consist of 10-20 percent soldiers and the rest camp followers. There was a reason for this. Armies "in the field" were camping out and living rough could be unhealthy and arduous if you didn't have a lot of servants along to take care of the camping equipment and help out with the chores. Generals usually had to allow a lot of camp followers in order to get the soldiers to go along with the idea of campaigning. Only the most disciplined armies could do away with all those camp followers and get the troops to do their own housekeeping. The Romans had such an army, with less than half the "troops" being camp followers. But the Romans system was not re-invented until the 18th century, when many European armies trained their troops to do their own chores in the field, just as the Romans had. In the 19th century, steamships and railroads came along and made supplying the troops even less labor intensive, and more dependent on civilian support "troops." The widespread introduction of conscription in the 19th century also made it possible to get your "camp followers" cheap by drafting them and putting them in uniform.

Most of the growing quantities of supplies and equipment for the troops was provided by civilians, in the form of workers who produced the weapons and other supplies back home, and then ran the ships and railroads that carried all this stuff to the troops. Gradually, as one gets closer to the fighting, more and more of the support people are in uniform, often doing the same jobs as others further back. But as a result of this trend, and the increasing use of technology, today's armies are less than 20 percent warriors and the rest "camp followers in uniform." In effect, the uniformed camp followers outnumber the fighters in the armed forces. While the senior commanders still come from the ranks of the fighters, they are vastly outnumbered by non-warrior officers. This has created management problems in that the tail (support troops) has an increasing tendency to wag the dog (the warriors.) While support troops are critical to the effective performance of modern armed forces, it's still the warriors that do the actual fighting. But in peacetime, the warrior generals are increasingly outnumbered by the camp follower generals and this has led to less of a "warrior" mentality and more of a "camp follower" one. Naturally, in pitched battle, an army led by a warrior will trounce one led by a camp follower. But you need a real, live war to prove that, while in peacetime you can believe whatever you want, or can convince the media and your superiors to embrace.

In the last half century, conscription has fallen out of favor, but volunteer troops are too expensive to be used for a lot of support jobs, so more and more of these chores are contracted out to civilians.

Even if you’re in Iraq or Afghanistan, you often won’t even notice a lot of the contractor civilians. They often wear army combat uniforms, without any rank insignia. Some are armed. They work for the army without being in the army. It’s going back to the past to find the future.


...........from the always interesting guys at strategypage.com.

-Mark
Post Reply