Air Combat by Remote Control
Air Combat by Remote Control - Wall Street Journal
Interesting article in Wall Street Journal which, in the words of the student who forwarded it to me, illustrates a ‘new level of intersection of air power and tactical ground combat’.
The sniper never knew what hit him. The Marines patrolling the street below were taking fire, but did not have a clear shot at the third-story window that the sniper was shooting from. They were pinned down and called for reinforcements.
Help came from a Predator drone circling the skies 20 miles away. As the unmanned plane closed in, the infrared camera underneath its nose picked up the muzzle flashes from the window. The sniper was still firing when the Predator’s 100-pound Hellfire missile came through the window and eliminated the threat.
The airman who fired that missile was 8,000 miles away, here at Creech Air Force Base, home of the 432nd air wing.
…
These are early days for unmanned aerial warfare. The 432nd is only one year old, and its mission continues to evolve. The 42nd Attack Squadron — the Reaper squadron — is still young, and still small, with only enough men and equipment to keep two planes at a time in the skies over Afghanistan.
Col. Chambliss compares the situation to the early decades of manned flight. “You know how fast things went from the end of the First World War to the end of the Second World War, how aviation, the capabilities vastly increased. That’s where we’re sitting right now. . . . I have no doubt when I’m sitting in my rocking chair, a retired old guy, I will be sitting there going, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’”
I’d love to know more about how the legacy Air Force views this development. Anybody have any good sources? Are they prepared to embrace this change or are they like interwar cavalrymen seeking some shred of a reason not to dismount their horses? Decades from now when authoritative histories of today’s wars start to emerge I will bet the chapters on guys like Col Chambliss will get the most attention.
Wednesday, 14, May, 2008 at 1:03 am
“legacy Air Force”
Ouch!
Wednesday, 28, May, 2008 at 7:47 pm
You asked “how the legacy Air Force views this development”.
Legacy Air Force? Is that somehow similar to the Old Europe comment? I’ll be lifting that one for future discussions on these issues within the AF community. Thanks David.
Watching how the AF has dealt with development and acquisition of new technologies and equipment over the last several years, perhaps it can be said that it’s leadership suffers from split personality disorder. On one side they have been beat up over participation in ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan where its high and fast flying fighters have taken a backseat to the slow, long endurance medium altitude Predator. It’s been a tough fight with the Army for control of medium and higher altitude ISR assets to maintain relevance to America’s current wars.
At the same time they have found it increasingly difficult to argue for money to fund the new F-22. The F-22 makes sense to AF leadership brought up on doctrine focused on taking control of the skies. Even now official AF doctrine has very little to say about COIN or counter-terrorism. At one point, when congress asked why the US should spend billions on the F-22 or JTF when what it really needed was more Predators, AF representatives tried to sell the F-22 not only as an advanced fighter capable of taking on China, but as an effective ISR platform as well.
The current AF Chief of Staff has made “recapitalization” his top priority. How the AF has done this over the last few years seems a good indication of how its leadership has juggled legacy Air Power doctrine with current combat relevance. So to continue your simile with the interwar cavalrymen, they’ve been forced to dismount but they’re still dragging their horses along through places like Iraq.
Sean
Friday, 6, June, 2008 at 1:08 am
Further on this, perhaps Gates’ ousting of Moseley and Wynne is more an attempt to ditch the legacy than over concern for nuke related mistakes.