Posted on 10/17/2008 5:04:14 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
Senior US Department of Defense officials are considering an air force proposal to transfer the entire fleet of General Atomics Aeronautical System Inc (GA-ASI) MQ-1B Predators to the armys control.
The proposed inventory transfer, if approved, would enable the USAF to afford shifting to an all-MQ-9 Reaper fleet, also made by GA-ASI, said Kevin Meiners, assistant deputy under secretary for portfolio, programmes and resources.
The issue is still being debated by senior defence officials as they prepare for the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a congressionally-mandated planning exercise that shapes the Pentagons spending priorities every four years.
The chief advocate for the air forces proposal is Lt Gen David Deptula, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
I know Deptula would love to see that win approval, said Meiners, addressing the C4ISR Integration Conference.
It was not immediately clear how shifting the MQ-1B fleet to the armys plans to acquire the more capable MQ-1C Sky Warrior for the extended-range/multi-purpose (ER/MP) requirement.
The USAF currently plans to deploy enough MQ-1Bs to operate 31 combat air patrols by the end of 2009. At the same time, USAF officials also want to shift to an all MQ-9 fleet providing 50 combat air patrols by 2015. But it appears unlikely that the service can afford to operate both fleets.
The question is, everyone loves the Predator, so do you leave the [combat air patrols sized] at 31 or do you begin drawing down? Meiners asked.
The USAF instead hopes their alternative proposal will allow them to build up their MQ-9 hunter-killer capability while continuing to support the armys need for a medium-altitude, long-endurance ISR system.
The army still plans to buy 120 MQ-1Cs, which feature a Thielert heavy fuel engine and a tactical common data link (TCDL).
We continue to develop the program of record successfully, said a spokeswoman for army aviation. Weve demonstrated some of the most technically challenging capabilities, such as automatic takeoff and landing and the tactical common data link.
Good Idea. And while we’re at it, why not xfer the A-10 fleet to the Army also since the AF has been trying to ditch then ever since they were first deployed.
Close Air Support (CAS) has always been the red headed stepchild of the Air Force. When the AF was run by the Bomber Generals, it was the B-47, then the B-52. When the Air Superiority Generals took over, it was the F-15 A/C and then the F-22, the aircraft without a mission. Now, the Special Operations Generals take over and they want the biggest and best UAV. They floated the idea of giving the A-10 to the Army, until someone pointed out the money went with it.
When will the AF get a grip on their mission?
The answer, when they promote warriors and throw out desk clerks.
The real answer is likely never.
Interesting. My son (a KC-135AC) just moved to NV to begin training to fly the Predator.
Translation: Our classy fighter jocks are much too good to handle these gadgets. We need more spiffy manned fighters and these predators are eating our budget.
Isn’t fast. Doesn’t have a pointy nose. Doesn’t have an “F” in the designation.
Of course the USAF doesn’t want it.
The Predator is primarily an tactical reconnaissance aircraft for ground troops, which fits the Army better. The Reaper is more of an armed reconnaissance (what they called reconnaissance-strike in the 1960s) aircraft, which is more suited to the Air Force CAS mission.
I don’t know about this. The Army just committed to buying a WHOLE LOT of Sky-Warriors, which are Predators on steroids, although perhaps not to the extent that Reaper is.
Also, Reaper is like 300% more expensive than Predator, twice as fast, and has twice as many ordinance pylons.
I’m not sure if I like this.
I work with A-10 pilots all the time. We have one in our squadron. They are a special breed and love their airplane. I think the story about the AF wanting to get rid of the Hogs is old now and everything has changed with the A-10 Charlie. Read the June issue of Air Force magazine.
See my earlier post. You guys are wrong. The main mission the AF has now is CAS.
Yep.
If you want CAS, you go the the Marine Corps.
Do you think that on average an AV-8B or an F/A-18C is a more effective close air support platform than an A-10C?
What do I base this on? Allotment of assets. What is the replacement for the A-10, which is 30+ years old? There is none. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, which does CAS, but is not optimized for it.
What new aircraft have been funded in the last 30 years? F-117, B-2, F-35, F-22, F-15E. The F-15E is certainly a F/A aircraft, but it is optimized for strike missions, not CAS in the FEBA.
Fighting a foe without defense's allows any aircraft that can carry a JDAM to perform CAS, but that all changes when the enemy shoots back. In such an environment UAVs are being looked at to take a bigger and bigger role. So where is the USAF’s priority? It appears to be in moving those assets to the Army.
That's why I question the Air Forces commitment to CAS.
The A-10 C is going to give them many times more capability. Read the June issue of AF magazine. It has a story on the A-10C and part of the title is something about "not going away." The "Charlie" is really something. It can carry smart weapons now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.