Comments on: Federalized Air Power

By: ELP

ELP — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:02:51 +0000

Something like a Reaper or even armed Predator or it’s Army equal…. shows up… loiters…. observes …keeps a tab on bad actors of interest…. follows them to their hide out …. and any where in that cycle kills them if needed… records the results …. and goes back on station for a new tasking. Not too bad for Operation Useless Dirt like adventures.

And of course works nice with AC-130 Gunships, Apaches all at night… making night work of the enemy very difficult. Not bad.

And yeah add some turbo prop strikers in there too.

By: Quartermaster

Quartermaster — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:04:48 +0000

The advantage to the UAVs is they carry no one. Being flown from the ground allows greater crew flexibility and endurance (not to mention potty breaks which are bit difficult for the pilot in that cramped space). Since they stay aloft longer, fewer are needed. With precision munitions, they have to carry less, and have to re-arm less often as well. If they are simply used as target designators for Arty units, then the only endurance barrier is fuel. Given the advantages, I don’t see these things as a fad, but will become a permanent fixture in the arsenal.

The problem for the Army, is they will have to establish another training pipeline to get pilots for the things in sufficient quantity.

By: Big D

Big D — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:59:18 +0000

I will note, for the record, that AAC units were originally assigned directly to ground units in WWII… which changed the first time that there weren’t enough air units available to mass in defense of the guys getting hit because the guys not in contact refused to give up their allocation “just in case”. Now, today it’s a bit different, because we’re talking ISR/strike only with lighter platforms that aren’t needed in such density. Still, it’s something to keep in mind–what we’re seeing right now in combat is a set of conditions that emphasizes dispersal, long-duration ISR, light strike, and a decentralized chain of command both in the air and on the ground. What happens the next time we fight in conditions where it’s the other way around? Will we retain the physical and mental flexibility to switch-hit as needed?

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:51:29 +0000

I’m not saying that unmanned aviation isn’t worthwhile. Precisely the opposite. It’s great – when used wisely.

But the UAV fad is reminiscent of the fad for guided missiles in the late ’50s and early ’60s. It’s a very useful technology that suffers from being oversold by people who have no idea of the real technical challenges, limitations, and costs.

By: Quartermaster

Quartermaster — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:40:49 +0000

The big problem for the Army, unlike the AF, is they have no source of ready trained pilots they can redirect. The Army Aviation mission hasn’t changed before the addition of of unmanned craft while the AF is getting cut back in cockpits. A number of AF pilots volunteered for unmanned missions to stay in, otherwise, they would have been axed.

I’m glad the company grade officers are driving this thing, however. Most of the time, they get stuff rammed down their throats and are told to like it.

It is true that unmanned craft require a lot of development, or have. Being a former software engineer, however, I will say once the initial problems are solved, modifying things for more capability is not that hard, and doesn’t take near the lead time the initial development took. The first time you climb the wall is, by far, the hardest climb. Being able to do things in higher level languages these days makes thing much easier as well than the days I had to do things entirely in 8080/Z80 Assembly language. Cuts lead time a good bit as well.

Frankly, I’d give th Army the turbprop CAS AC. The AF would shuttle them off where they wouldn’t be a threat to the fighter mafia. Better yet, bring back a modified A1D. They could haul more ordnance. As UAVs develop further, the combo of UAV and DivArty will probably make the flying arty obsolescent. If we find ourselves in triple canopy jungle again, as in ‘nam, the small flying arty would probably make a come back to some extent. In the desert, not so much.

By: b2

b2 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:08:45 +0000

Lot’s of wind there ELP. Weight/payload in sensors/weps can NEVER be carried by the craft you propose..At least to sustain meaningful CAS/interdiction. Plus, unique organization and training needs to support such a lightweight family of aircraft is unsustainable in todays fiscal climate. Third world stuff for third world airpower needs.

I will amplify M.M. statement..all that unmanned stuff has huge development costs, huge SW costs for sustainment, long lead/test times all based around bandwidth, unique training needs and humongous infrastructure additions- IE manned/unmanned aviation don’t mix.

Unmanned discussions remind me of the history of the space program.. JPL/CALTEC/MIT nerds would never have proposed manned space travel if they could have gotten away with it..Root of the same discussion here over the last decade from mainly desk bound engineers and xbox futurists….To be sure there is a need for some unmanned stuff. I won’t go into just what, but IMO, not the amount all the services are after to buttress their failing regular manned programs- IE- design a mission around and aircraft procurement made from existing or OTS derivatives..I’m disgusted.

How can you crawl out of a hole if stubborn folks around you keep digging it deeper?