Quote:
|
An A-10 doesn't require a ground spotter, for one thing.
|
Ground spotting is a separate issue from communications. If anything, they should want to do things my way MORE since they will be the ones in control. THEY will be the one's designating the target. It will no longer be at the Pilot's discretion.
Quote:
|
Well, it's the same reason the U.S. doesn't like putting its troops under UN command: trust and competing interests.
|
That is different. We didnt elect the UN. We (both civillian and military)
did elect our our national leadership.
Quote:
|
Someone who comes up through the Army, for instance, understands ground tactics very well -- but not sea and air tactics, or the logistical and organizational concerns of the other branches.
|
I assume officers would be the one's making the decision for an airstrike...why couldnt they receive cross training on this issue?
Quote:
|
Then you have the fact that at the service level they all compete for resources: funding that Navy destroyer may mean canceling an Air Force contract. So you get into debates over *how* to fight wars, with the Navy pushing a (naturally) Navy-oriented strategy, etc. That trickles down to the tactical level. If the Air Force thinks funding the A-10 will reduce service prestige or threaten that new fighter-jet contract, they're not going to like it.
|
See above. Egos are irrelevant if they put our own forces at risk. Their function is to obey their superiors and their superiors should be cooperating with the other branches.
I understand this is unlikely to change soon, if ever. But it is a major weakness IMO. It limits our ability to adapt.
Quote:
|
Me, I always figured the answer was to let the Army operate the ground-support aircraft, just like it operates the helicopters. But the Air Force doesn't like that, either.
|
I actually agree with the air force myself...the branches should maintain their specialties, but more effort should be made to integrate them. This isolationism among the various branches is kind of disturbing actually...as if the "other" branches arnt the
real American military. It is kind of offensive.
Quote:
|
The Army does not issue every platoon leader a radio that can order aircraft around. At least, it didn't in my day. It wants to maintain command control over the process.
|
In any event, even assuming they have direct control, the exact same thing could be done. They could get their own model of JSF, just like the Navy and the Marines.
Quote:
|
Forward Air Controllers were an attempt to streamline the process -- send the FAC where the battalion wants him, and let him control things from there, eliminating the cumbersome chain-of-command process. But the battalion gives up some operational flexibility when it does that -- to shift air strikes, you have to shift the FAC.
|
Are FACs actual units or are they individuals? If the latter, why not just have more of them?
AWACs cover very large areas...coordinating airstrikes is most of what they were designed for.