At Odds With Air Force, Army Adds Its Own Aviation Unit

Colleges and Universities A-Z Air Force Academy - Colorado Springs
1

<p>At Odds With Air Force, Army Adds Its Own Aviation Unit
The New York Times ^ | June 22, 2008 | Thom Shanker</p>

<p>Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 7:58:22 AM by DJ Taylor</p>

<p>WASHINGTON — Ever since the Army lost its warplanes to a newly independent Air Force after World War II, soldiers have depended on the sister service for help from the sky, from bombing and strafing to transport and surveillance.</p>

<p>But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have frayed the relationship, with Army officers making increasingly vocal complaints that the Air Force is not pulling its weight.</p>

<p>In Afghanistan, Army officers have complained about bombing missions gone awry that have killed innocent civilians. In Iraq, Army officers say the Air Force has often been out of touch, fulfilling only half of their requests for the sophisticated surveillance aircraft that ground commanders say are needed to find roadside bombs and track down insurgents.</p>

<p>The Air Force responds that it has only a limited number of those remotely piloted Predators and other advanced surveillance aircraft, so priorities for assigning them must be set by senior commanders at the headquarters in Baghdad working with counterparts at the Air Force’s regional command in Qatar. There are more than 14,000 airmen performing tasks on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Air Force civil engineers replacing Army construction engineers.</p>

<p>But now in Iraq, the Army has quietly decided to try going it alone for the important surveillance mission, organizing an all-Army surveillance unit that represents a new move by the service toward self-sufficiency, and away from joint operations.</p>

<p>Senior aides to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates say that he has shown keen interest in the Army initiative — much to the frustration of embattled Air Force leaders — as a potential way to improve battlefield surveillance.
Read more at: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22military.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22military.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin</a></p>

<p>I personally find this embarrassing.</p>

2

<p>


</p>

<p>no kidding. seems like the AF has been spiraling outta control the past few years... time to get our act together</p>

3

<p>It all comes down to money. We don't even have enough funds to accomplish everything that we'd like to do as a service, let alone answer to every beck and call from the Army. If they want to try to do more on their own, good on them. We can only do so much. Certain missions will always take priority, whether they're in support of the Army or the AF. There will simply never be enough resources to do it all. Remember though that at the end of the day, we're all on the same side. When the time comes to put warheads on foreheads, it doesn't matter who called it in as long as the mission is accomplished.</p>

4

<p>What sucks is that the politicians have the say in where the funding goes, and not generals who know what's going on.</p>

5

<p>What I don't get is, what will happen to the Air Force if the Army establishes their own aviation unit? Doesn't that mean they'll cut its budgets and reduce their air time in order to support the Army's new aviation unit?</p>

6

<p>It depends, I really couldn't say. It's ultimately up to Congress, and political BS is way above my pay grade.</p>

7

<p>In other news though, while we're discussing the Army, President Bush nominated the nation's first female four-star today, a 33 year Army officer with a background in logistics. Good for her, and congrats General.</p>

<p>Link</a> to the Article</p>

8

<p>That's cool, unfortunately, that means it can't be me! Just kidding, good for her!</p>

9

<p>


</p>

<p>Do your homework. The Function of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff policy developed by SecDef Forrestal in 1948 delineated the powers specific to each of the services. The Army is limited to reconnaissance and medivac aircraft while it is the AFs responsibility to provide ALL TACTICAL support for the Army which for the most part consists solely of close air support to troops on the ground. The AF does not like close air support. It isn't 'cool'. They didn't want the A-10. As recent as the '90s, they have attempted to replace it with the F-16, and periodically have attempted to give the entire fleet to the Army. It's a pity the above federal law prohibits the transfer or the AF could die the slow death it deserves. </p>

<p>Money has nothing to do with the quote in the article that the Navy provides better close air support than the AF. It is all attitude which is perpetuated by ignorance such as the quoted statement.</p>

<p>PETKO, the Army is at war and in harms way. It should be the only priority of the AF to support them. Anything else is secondary.</p>

<p>Make no excuses. the AF continues to have egg on it's face.</p>

10

<p>Yes Buckaroo it is good for her, and long over due. It has been 28 years since the first female Academy grads began entering the services, and I am sure General Dunwoody will do just fine. We can look for several more in the years to come too. By the time you have your 28 in you may even see a CNO, if for nothing less then speeding the anuerism some old brown shoe Navy guys have been nursing for some time.</p>

<p>Petko as for the new Aviation element the Army has deployed has much more to do with funding then Close Air Support. Spooky is always available to them when they need someone to bring down the rain and save their behinds. They have thousands of AH-64 longbows available for CAS, and god knows sure wouldn't want to be below one of those things if I were a bad guy. Living in the home of the UAV I can assure you unlike some Sea loving trolls the AF cannot feild them fast enough. They could track all your classes pilot slots to predators and global hawks and not meet the demand. Every ground commander wants those eyes.</p>

11

<p>


</p>

<p>Just another example of excusing the AF from doing its job. Let the Army take care of themselves. Not a responsible answer. As anyone familiar with the situation in Iraq right now should know, there is also a requirement for the go fasters. The article also indicated that they were unable to do their job adequately.</p>

<p>SecDef Gates apparently has the same misgivings as some 'Sea loving trolls' that the AF is doing it's utmost to deploy these assets.</p>

12

<p>here we go again.</p>

13

<p>USNA, let's keep things civil please. Arguing back and forth on the internet is not going to fix anything, and probably won't even change anyone's opinions on the matter.</p>

14

<p>


</p>

<p>You aren't making sense. Are you chastising me for allowing someone to call me a troll??</p>

15

<p>Hate to do this, as we should instead be wishing 2012 Good Luck and Best Wishes at this time, but here it goes.... </p>

<p>No, 69. I recommend you do your homework. The article was not a complaint by the Army saying that they aren't getting the CAS they ask for. Instead, the article references the Army's desire for "persistent survellience". They want eyes on their AOs 24/7, something "organic" that can be controlled down to the battallion and even company level. I can understand and sympathize with their desires, but this is something we just can't do right now because of the number of requests for surviellience throughout the theater exceeds the number of assets available.</p>

<p>I am someone "familiar" with what is going on over there; I was there, in charge of every CAS mission in theater and ensuring that everytime my army brothers (and sisters) called for support, they got it. "Troops in Contact" calls were allocated CAS assets immediately, and these assets were usually overhead and ready to support within minutes. No, the Army can't claim that when they asked for CAS, the AF told them no.</p>

<p>There is a bigger game going on here. One I am also familiar with because I also was working joint requirments in the Pentagon a couple of years back (02 - 05). The Army wants assets they can control "exclusively", assets that will sit around only with them and that won't be needed to be tasked elsewhere. The AF doesn't have that luxury, our assets are tasked at every level (tactical, operational and strategic) and by every customer out there (from every service, SOF, Coalition forces, and even the Iraqis themselves).<br>
I will admit there are times when the AF has to prioritize where these limited assets go (do we monitor this oil refinery to ensure it doesn't get blown up and bring down the iraqi Government's only source of income, or do we orbit over Camp Anaconda?). But we don't prioritze in a vacuum, the senior leaders in theater, which have all been Army Generals, have the final say in this. </p>

<p>There are much bigger issues here, with multiple topics under debate; everything from where the limited funds should be going, to whether Army aviaiton assets need to be jointly coordinated with the Air Tasking Order, to who should be the Executive Agent for all UAVs. </p>

<p>Personally, I say let the Army buy and run all the UAVs they want. Heck, they can even have the Predators if they want them. But they better be coordinating when and where these assets will be so we don't run into each other up there, something the Army has refused to do so far (Big Sky, Little Plane theory; but I do recall having to call off a flight of F-16s over Fallujah read to drop on some bad guys and save Marine lives because the Marine CC flew a Tactical UAV right into the plane's path during the dive. Nice!) As long as they cut some of their own programs to pay for them. Or better yet, how about cancelling the new sub program, seeing as we just commisioned a new one this week and have more planned for. Don't see the need for torpedoes in Najaf!</p>

16

<p>Perhaps the number of requests for surviellience throughout the theater would not exceed the number of assets available if the AF were not attempting to protect their turf by insisting that only qualified active duty AF pilots fly them. Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that there are a lot of UAVs setting idle because of lack of pilots. We are contracting everything else in this war, why not allow contracted civilian or retired military pilots to fly the UAVs?</p>

<p>The continuing gripe that I am hearing is the AF's failure to step up to the plate and provide support commensurate with a wartime environment. I have heard several examples, two of the more prevalent are as follows. When the relieving tanker is late, should the departing tanker leave station on schedule claiming expiration of crew day? There are Navy aircraft that have to modify their on-station time because of this. How prevalent, I have no idea but it happens. It also seems AF flights maintain section integrity at all times, even when refueling, leaving the troops on the ground at risk. The Navy sends one aircraft at a time to the tanker, maintaining station with the other. This seems to supplement the statement in the article that the AF is not doing their job. When both aircraft departs, the perception of the guy on the ground is that he has been left defenseless.</p>

<p>The Navy requires submarines to project its tasked mission of sea control. The AF needs to step up to the plate and perform it's tasked missions commensurate with the Army's demands. Quit making excuses.</p>

17

<p>


</p>

<p>You cannot be serious. I did my homework and verified that the only USN-operated airframe truly capable of providing CAS is the F-18. In fact, they currently have 434 Hornets and 234 Super Hornets in their inventory. On the other hand, we have the AF which, in addition to having better pilots, presently operates 223 Strike Eagles, 1319 Vipers, 91 Raptors with nearly a hundred more on the way, 357 Warthogs, 8 Spectres, and 13 Spookys, not to mention the 179 aircraft in the bomber fleet that carry the heaviest payloads of all. Your claim is absurd.</p>

18

<p>^^^^^Read the entire article, PETKO. It was Army and Marine Corps officers who were making the AF vs USN comparisons, not me. It's not a my inventory is bigger than yours issue. It is who does the most with what they have in theatre.</p>

19

<p>Is it your opinion that the Navy does more than the AF with what they have in theatre?</p>

20

<p>My opinion is immaterial. It is the statements by the Army and Marine officers of which we should be concerned. They seem to think so.</p>