An excerpt:
... The aircraft conducting combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan drop bombs, strafe targets, or perform a low-level show-of-force only 10 percent of the time. The jets and unmanned drones primarily are used for what the military calls armed reconnaissance, meaning their mission is to pass video and other data gathered through sensors and targeting pods back to an operations center where it can analyzed.
But in a world where irregular warfare is the primary focus -- and appears to be for the foreseeable future -- a balance of fighter jets and armed prop-driven aircraft could prove beneficial...
"There really has not been a substantial intellectual investment into what I think I would call air-ground integration looks like in the 21st Century,"... "Everyone's going down this irregular warfare pike, and I think, in some ways, that's a red herring, because, if you create an irregular warfare unit what do you do if you don't have irregular warfare?"
As the Army evolves and changes over the next decade, "ultimately the majority of their airborne-firepower integration and intelligence are going to come from... the Air Force,"... "The real challenge is how do we build a system that is highly flexible and adaptable to meet a full range of requirements for air-ground integration and not just irregular warfare."
Food for thought and kindling for debate...
Comments
Great points from both posters - I don't see the day, for at least the next couple of decades, where artificial intelligence will replace the situational awareness of the pilot with eyes on the battlefield. I think the true solution combines the merits of all sorts of platforms working together to support the warfighter on the ground.
Remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) ARE great for persistence over a specified site, and light attack aircraft provide a sensible, relevant, low-cost option to provide a human in the loop directly over the fight, but neither platform can match the responsiveness of a fast-moving fighter. In emergency close air support situations, the fast-mover can be on scene within minutes of a request for help virtually anywhere in the area of operations- something neither of the previous two platforms can do. The remotely piloted and light attack aircraft certainly have their merits, but they cannot replace the capabilities of the fast-mover. Admittedly, the fast-movers cost significantly more to produce and operate, but they provide unique capabilities that are indispensable to the warfighter on the ground.
The ultimate solution is a combination of RPAs, light attack aircraft, and the traditional fast-movers that have proven themselves time and time again in our ongoing counterinsurgency battles.
Rob,
You make some very good points, but one of the biggest issues is persistent awareness of the environment and in the case of UAVs, that can stretch for many hours. One of the missions observed had a group of MARSOC Marines that were three days hike in, low on ammo and endurance, hearing sounds on the other side of the ridge. They called for a peep from the air and a UAV crew was able to inform them of the situational awareness and furthermore allowed that they could remain on station for up to 10 hours while they rested. Additionally, because they are so quiet, they can often loiter for hours without risking detection.
However all of that said, there is a place for light aircraft to fulfill the mission previously occupied by the Bronco or Skymaster aircraft and I do not see any reason why we should not reopen the production line on the Bronco at least. I would think that for the cost of an F-22, we could purchase 40 newly manufactured Broncos and likely operate them for less cost.
Hello BWJ,
From a ground perspective, I'd prefer to talk to a pilot who is more in tune with the environment - and can see the broader picture. UAVs are great, but they are limited. The sensor package you hang on them is sort of like Texas, bigger is better in terms of options and flexibility. You can get WAS (wide area surveillance), or you can get the ability to zoom and focus. One gives you a big picture, but less on focus, the other gives you focus in a soda straw. You can get both, but then the sensor and gimble are bigger. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the platform to hang it, and your choices become size, or time on station. There are also infrastructure (air field requirements) considerations that are incurred as a result - they could be at home station or they could be in the field - both have pluses and minuses.
Coordination with ground elements is possible (happens routinely) - and it can be done in tandem with a local launch, but there is a difference in quality - again, pluses and minuses. You also need to consider bandwidth challenges if we are talking about doing this on a 1:1 replacement for all the current FW platforms operating in OIF and OEF.
Having talked to both (pilots & UAV operators), I'll take a pilot any day. The best ones I've seen were the ones who operated in some version of a C-130 or Army FW & RW - however, these days they all seem pretty good - they all have lots of practice.
I'd add that if the USAF operated some variant of a light, less expensive attack & ISR air craft (I don't want to limit its potential to COIN), I think it could be very useful in working with Foreign Security Forces, unless it was so tricked out, and expensive that it might as well be an F-22.
Best, Rob
And what is wrong with the UAV mission filling these roles? For instance, check out my visit to Creech AFB here:
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/C1311122445/E20080222191015/ind…