The good news is that the Air Forces plan to obtain control of all U.S. military medium– and high-altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) has been rejected by the Department of Defense. The bad news is that the Air Forces plan has been rejected.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England announced his UAV decision in a recent memo to senior civilian and military officials in the Department of Defense. According to the memo, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition is to create a task force to coordinate UAV issues and develop ways to “enhance operations, enable interdependencies, and streamline acquisition of [UAVs].” The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) will be responsible for coordinating the development of training and tactics, added England.
Many defense officials and military officers — Air Force and from the other services — believe that the solution will not bring the volatile UAV situation under control.
The JROC was established to support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his statutory responsibility to advise the Secretary of Defense on military requirements, programs, and budgets. Headed by the chairman, the JROCs membership consists of four-star officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley had proposed on 5 March 2007 that the Air Force take over the management of all Pentagon UAV programs. It was met with strong opposition from Army and Navy officials, who feared that Air Force control would subjugate their UAV requirements for direct support and other roles — as well as control of funds — to Air Force roles, missions, and schedules.
Thus, in lieu of forming an executive agency within the Air Force, Mr. England — a former Secretary of the Navy — has directed that an interagency task force will address how to promote interoperability and efficient operations among the services unmanned aerial vehicles. (There are more than 100 different types of UAVs now in operation or development.)
Mr. Englands memo did direct that the Air Force’s Predator and Army’s Sky Warrior UAV programs be merged by October 2008, to include a common data link, in order to achieve common development, procurement, sustainment and training activities.” He did direct which service should lead this effort.
The decision especially relieves the Navy of concerns that the Air Force could subsume oversight of its high-dollar UAV contracts, especially the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAV) demonstrator, which was recently awarded to Northrop Grumman, and a soon-to-be-decided Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BMAS) contract. Some Navy officials believe those programs as well as other UAV efforts to be critical to future naval operations, both in blue water and coastal/littoral areas.
again and again we see how clueless and petty the air force is when trying to fight the war on terror. more and more they are marginalized by their foolish acts. they simply care about getting more money for their pet programs without thinking about fight that is going on right now. what really matters the concept of “one team one fight.” instead they spend all their cash on lavish barracks then ask for more and more money. they have the most friendly fire incidents of any service. their lack professionalism is stark throughout their service. the chair force generals truly have their heads in the sky.
Im going to say this. The United States Airforce is the first line of defense we have against a large treat, like China. The war on terror is a army war, a war with China would be a airforce and navy way, if a war like that ever got to the army we would all be screwed. Friendly fire is a lot different when your flying at 20000 feet and you see fire going both ways. The airforce is simply trying to prove to lawmakers that they still have a purpose because polititions cant see past tomorrow let alone 10 years ahead.
Since when did the USAF become our “first line of defense?” against anything? Perhaps if you’re responding to an ICBM attack, but other than that the boys in blue are usually way behind the front lines when the balloon goes up.
Time has proven again and again that it’s the Navy that’s first on station and — with their Marine Corps partners — the first in harms way.
While this is clearly just another power grab, you gotta give credit to the Air Force for their negotiating skills. How else could they have convinced Congress to buy a squadron of B-2 stealth bombers when each plane costs more than a Seawolf class submarine and almost half as much as a Nimitz class carrier…
(Darn it. I actually meant to place this comment in a section like this. I don’t know how to delete my old comment on the Two-seat Raptor article.)
Keep in mind I am a civilian military nut and I have plans to serve. This is just my opinion.
Wouldn’t replacing an entire force of manned aircraft with unmanned aircraft be dangerous? Most UAV’s are reliant on a satillite connection and China has already proven it can take out satillites. To make things worse, what if someone (this is a reference to China, Russia, and computer smart terrorists) learned to literally jam a UAV computer or hack it with nerds and turn it on its allies. Even worse, they could turn it into a kamikaze bomb.
Not only that, but in every battle of every war the one determining factor has been the man, not the machine. A human mind can get creative and adopt to nearly any situation. In short, what I am trying to say is that the human mind’s flexibility is nearly limitless while the mind of a UAV will forever be a box. I think manned fighters are still better than UAVs and should be further invested in. Nothing can replace the human mind since the human mind is indepentant of electronic influence.
That’s just what I think.
Tony, right on. My thoughts to the letter.
Since when did the USAF become our “first line of defense?” against anything? Perhaps if you’re responding to an ICBM attack, but other than that the boys in blue are usually way behind the front lines when the balloon goes up.
You’ve heard of this thing called “air superiority”? It’s a thing the Air Force provides, and it is the essential prerequisite for US military operations, even though the Army and Navy take it for granted. It is the TRUE first line of defense, because when you have it, the enemy often doesn’t even dare to attack you at all, and if they do they get spanked before they even come in contact with Army and Navy types.
Time has proven again and again that it’s the Navy that’s first on station and — with their Marine Corps partners — the first in harms way
The Navy is first on station, but all it can do is protect itself… with the help of land-based airpower, of course. The first in harms way. Hah. When was the last time the enemy harmed a Navy ship? Oh, that’s right, the USS Cole was harmed due to Navy incompetence, but otherwise the Navy has been the safest Service to serve in since 1945.
Tony, sorry, but your thoughts reflect profound ignorance of UAVs.
»Wouldn’t replacing an entire force of manned aircraft with unmanned aircraft be dangerous?
Of course. I dont see anyone anywhere suggesting we do such a thing. The use of UAVs for select missions has huge advantages over human pilots, the same way using robots in factories can have a huge advantage over human labor.
But nobody is seriously advocating eliminating all human pilots.
Can someone tell me what a UAV can do better than a real pilot. You can never replace a human brain. Dont say that they can fly into a hostile area because that claim is bogus. UAVs have a role, but not as a fighter aircraft. Someone also please tell me how they will not be hacked.
USAF is a deterance force, the Army would be wiped out in a metter of days by China. Ya we would kill 50–100 to 1 but numbers play into there hand big time. However over in the sandbox Army and Marine Corps is were the fighting is going on, and were almost all the action takes place. But a single A-10 can do a whole lot more damage than 5 M-1 abrams. My point is, if we lose sight of our big enemys like China, and Iran, and keep downcrading our airforce, it will come back to bite us in the rear end big time.
All that said Every branch in teh military has a very vital role and each one depends on the other to be able to do its job. It is just that some people cant see past their nose and realize, if push comes to shove, every branch must be able to attack/defend long enough for another branch to come in and deliver the final kill. Airplanes can hold off an armor division, but it would take the Army to kill it completly. Same time in the Army attacked that division with out aircover (which i dont think they would ever do) they would suffer many more casualties than nessisary.
Why does the author use quotes around control, “who feared that Air Force “control” would subjugate…” I don’t get the intended sarcasm, anyone care to explain?
Good Evening Folks,
The UAV has moved from being a toy to becomming a major element in U.S. air power. Right now it appears that the Navy is ahead of the Air Force in intergrating UAV’s into there force structure.
In Robert Kaplan’s recent book “Hog Pilots, Blue Wayer Grunts” he lays out the world wide base structure under Bush/Rumsfeld and this cuts deeply into the Air Forces ability to forward base near a conflict spot. According to Kaplan the trend is to base the U.S. military only on American controled soil. If this is the case especially in the Pacific (PACOM) there will be a lot of water between the nearest U.S. base and any area of conflict. Only the Carrier Battle Group will be able to project air power into a conflict in a timely manner.
“Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts” is not a great read, in fact Kaplan’s ability to write a narrative is more then just lacking but if you can ignore the bad writing a lot on insight can bee seen in where the GWOT is going beyond Iraq.
The Navy appears to have grasped this trend and is way ahead of the Air Force on the learning curve as to how to intergrate UAV’s into there modes of operating. What is at stake of courese is the future of the carrier and any additional manned bombers. The Navy still feels the sting of losing two carriers since 2000 and wants them back. Meanwhile the Air Force is still all getty over their latest toy the F-22. The fact that Adm. Mullen an experience Pentagon Budget Warrior is now CJCS should be of concern to the other bkue service.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Didn’t the Air Force & Navy go through something like this during the late 50’s/early 60’s concerning strategic bombers that carried nuclear weapons & didn’t the navy lose this battle to the Air Force? This is just another case of how inter service rivalry interferes with the total force concept.Instead of working together,both sides are fighting for control of the UAVs & we all lose out.