An A-10 doesn't require a ground spotter, for one thing.

Well, it's the same reason the U.S. doesn't like putting its troops under UN command: trust and competing interests.

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.

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.

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.

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. If every platoon leader can call for air support, the net will be overwhelmed with such requests. The usual procedure is for the platoon-leader to call up the chain to the battalion HQ, for instance, which actually decides where to send the air support. Cumbersome, yes, but that was how the Army made sure resources went where the *battalion* wanted them to go.

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.

__________________
Man up.

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.

That is different. We didnt elect the UN. We (both civillian and military) did elect our our national leadership.

I assume officers would be the one's making the decision for an airstrike...why couldnt they receive cross training on this issue?

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Individuals. And more FACs would just recreate the problem of having every platoon leader able to call in an airstrike. There are a limited number of planes; the number of FACs would be determined relative to that. And then they'd be spread out all over the front, most likely.

Actually, I think they're designed for coordinating air movement -- like an airborne air-traffic control tower. Coordinating ground strikes isn't really their thing. They can vector planes toward a given area, but they can't tell them what to blow up once they get there unless it's a fixed or very obvious target.

__________________
Man up.

RAYTRI and company wrote Actually the AWAC was intially designed for early warning to watch those little Soviet buggers. Remember the EC-121 and the Super Connie ( Constllation ) varient ? There was a famous and sort of danergous run between Alaska and Northern JApan and back during the cold war. We did electronic and voice eavesdropping back in tghose days before we had the super powered computers and hi-tech satelites. The Connie was a prop job (propellers for you young-uns) (*)(*)(*)(*) I FEEL OLD !!!!!

The AWAC platform was easily adopted to Tac- Support ......

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"