WARPLANES: The Other Air War Over Iraq

Strategy Page ^ | 2005 Jun 10

[Wiz]

June 10, 2005: There’s a war going on in the air over Iraq. U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles) are battling for, well, for respect and control of the air. It's not exactly a fair fight, mainly because the air force supplies the “air space manager,” who decides who goes where over the combat zone. This has always been a difficult job. While the air force has transports and warplanes zooming around, the army also has its helicopters and, most importantly, artillery shells, in the air. Everyone has to step aside when the artillery opens up, as the big guns have the right of way. But now the air space manager has to deal with an increasing number of UAVs. No problem, as long as they are air force UAVs. But now the army has more and more UAVs, and often more than the air force has. The air space manager increasingly turns out to be an air force officer directing mostly army air traffic. This does not seem right to the air force.

Army UAV operators are increasingly getting the impression that they are not wanted, unless there’s a mission deemed too dangerous for air force UAVs. Army UAV operators also know that the air force is not happy with army sergeants operating UAVs, while the air force only allows officers to “fly” UAVs. Air force attempts to establish standards for army UAV operators was rebuffed by the army. Unhappy with the difficulty in getting UAV, or any other support, from the air force on a timely basis, the army has increasingly bought more of its own UAVs. Army Hunters and Shadows compete with air force Predators.

[HiJinx]

The air space manager increasingly turns out to be an air force officer directing mostly army air traffic. This does not seem right to the air force.

Give this guy a quarter so he can call a Waaaam-bulance.

The concept of joint air use of UAVs has been fought and settled several times over the last 12-15 years, ever since we started joint training of UAV pilots and sensor crews at Ft. Huachuca.

This is interservice rivalry at its best.

[StrangerInParadise]

You definitely do NOT want to fly into the path of an artillery round, mortar round or missile.

[StrangerInParadise]

The Air Force can't understand how the Army can let *shudder* warrant officers *shudder* fly helicopters. I imagine it's a *double shudder* lot harder for them to accept *double shudder* sergeants *double shudder* as UAV drivers.

SIP

[HiJinx]

You are so right. But look at the Marines' UAV...it's hand launched, and I doubt that they're doing any airspace coordination for their little 'over the next rise' birds.

[samm1148]

I spent 20 years in the Air force, 14 as an enlisted aircrew guy. There is more to this than "rivalry". Without "giving away secrets" the Army is just hard to deal with when it comes to putting an air package together. I don't know why but it is that way.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Nah.

Artillery shell has what? .0001% chance of hitting a moving vehicle. Heck - Anti-air artillery almost never hits an airplane! And they're AIMING at the plane.

Don't worry about it.

/ducks

[HiJinx]

Probably experience. Part of what I was saying was that even after 12 years, the Army and Air Force still don't have a satisfactory resolution to the 'intracacies' of jointness.

I'm not real familiar with the 96U (UAV Operator) course here, but I would think practical exercises in putting together packages would be included. We have enough air traffic between us and Davis-Monthan AFB to do that...

[Wiz]

The concept of joint air use of UAVs has been fought and settled several times over the last 12-15 years, ever since we started joint training of UAV pilots and sensor crews at Ft. Huachuca.

I hope so. I don't want to see military tradition to be a constrain of operations, and it to last for more than decades. I wonder how transformation would tackle the tradition.

[Publius6961]

the Army is just hard to deal with when it comes to putting an air package together.

Define "hard to deal with", please...

[marmar]

Just a thought.......with the Army having a hard time retaining folks........and the AF with a surplus of folks wouldn't it be good to let another service take a small load off of the Army. Just in the # aspect of it.

[Publius6961]

Artillery shell has what? .0001% chance of hitting a moving vehicle. Heck - Anti-air artillery almost never hits an airplane! And they're AIMING at the plane.

Damned engineers, one more time muddying up a perfectly gentlemanly discussion with facts! Homophobe!

But that reminds me, have you ever seen the fog of man-made space debris around the earth? And we're firing hundreds-of-millions$ rockets through it.
fercryingoutloud, we're talking unmanned vehicles here, probably 1/20th the cost of a manned aircraft of any kind.
Isn't the purpose of using the UAVs the saving of American lives?

[HiJinx]

Isn't the purpose of using the UAVs the saving of American lives?

In more ways than one, yes. No pilot to lose when the vehicle crashes, reduced chance of being surprised by the enemy, no exposure of friendlies to enemy fire...

[Tailback]

Part of what I was saying was that even after 12 years, the Army and Air Force still don't have a satisfactory resolution to the 'intracacies' of jointness.

I spent 12 years in the Army and Army Guard, and the last 6 years in the Air Guard. The unit I'm now in has mostly been working jointly with the local infantry brigade. The Army's version of "Joint" operations is telling the Air Force what they want and expecting it to happen. When we need something from the Army it's impossible to get. If you want an example of the difference in the two branches, go to an army supply sergeant for something, then go to an AF supply person for the same thing. The Army guy will want to know what's in it for him, the AF guy will ask you if you need anything else.

[Centurion2000]

Army UAV operators also know that the air force is not happy with army sergeants operating UAVs, while the air force only allows officers to “fly” UAVs.

This has got to be incredibly stupid. Why require a bachelor's degree to fly a robot ?

[HiJinx]

The Army's version of "Joint" operations is telling the Air Force what they want and expecting it to happen.

Won't argue that....

[elbucko]

The Army guy will want to know what's in it for him, the AF guy will ask you if you need anything else.

A good explanation. I spent 6 years in Army Air Defense and two years with the Guard in Nike-Hercules. We used to do radar bomb scoring for USAF with the precision Nike radars. Long story short, I would cooperate with USAF during RBS as simple courtesy, in return I got a ride in a BUFF (B-52).

[Gunrunner2]

You are correct.

The ATO is published to deconflict.

Who controls the air war? The guy with a) the preponderance of air assets and, most importantly, the ability to command and control those thousands of assets covering an entire theater (not just a slice of it).

[Gunrunner2]

Reminds me of a briefing I was giving to the 101 Div Commander and the FSO and I were briefing the fire coordination and when we mentioned we would hold the jets clear when the arty fire took effect, the Gen interrupted and said; "Hey, I want the Air Force to keep up the pressure, no let up. It's about time you Air Force guys understood the concept of 'Big Sky, Little Bomb.'"

To which I replied:

"Yes sir, we will do that when the Army understand the concept of 'Big Earth, Little Bomb.'"

The echo barely died before I was yanked from the tent.

[gregwest]

Hard to deal with = high school drop-outs, ex-gang bangers, English as a second language, 25 cumulative score on the ASVAB. The Air Force guys use words that are too big for the Army to understand. *wink*