Overlapping Turf Wars Among US Military Services

I received this by email from a buddy of mine. I've been bugging him about being a contributor here and I guess this is his tentative foray into it. He's hardly one to hold back an opinion, though... so here goes:


I saw this coming. Let’s see the overlap –

USAF has Forward Air Controllers for attachment to ground forces – why? The USMC has ANGLICOs and the Army has FOs.

The Army has fast delivery ships – why? Because we wanted them – not because the navy does a bad job as a water taxi. Ask the Marines

The Navy now has Civil Affairs teams – why? Because they wanted relevance in a 10 year ground war, not because they can do a better job than the Army.

The Marine Corps created a Ranger-like regiment in their Force Recon units because they can.

And all of them now have EOD because it is exciting. . . and JIEDDO pays well. . .

And so now, when the USAF is realizing that their precious pilots can be replaced with kids with mad video game skillz, and in turn they want these jobs back. The writing on the wall is clear – deployed O-4’s are more expensive than an E-4 in Nevada. And as evolution tells us in technology, we are going to be looking at bigger and badder planes flown remotely. This will naturally seem like a good idea, until the kid in Nevada flies one into a village and blows it to hell, because his mom called while he was on shift, and he got distracted, or he just felt a little too much like he was in the game, and lacked the connection to target a real pilot feels.

Challenges loom in expanded use of unmanned systems

By Katherine McIntire Peters kpeters@govexec.com February 22, 2010
Few technologies have garnered more enthusiasm and talk about revolutionary changes on the battlefield than unmanned aircraft. From small, hand-launched surveillance drones to large, remotely piloted airplanes capable of launching missiles and dropping bombs, U.S. troops benefit daily from surveillance and strike capabilities that only recently were the stuff of science fiction.

But much as the technologies are shaping operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military services have yet to address key issues that are bound to thwart war planners in future conflicts, said Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

"How do we achieve optimal joint concepts of operations? In other words, each one of the service components have these vehicles," Deptula said. "How do we work them all together in the battle space to optimize their contribution to the joint force commander?"

The answer isn't clear. No single Defense entity with the authority to enforce change is tackling that issue now. A Defense Department joint task force on unmanned systems is developing plans to address many of the acquisition and interoperability issues the services face, but no Pentagon office is charged with developing joint concepts of operations, leaving operational matters to be worked out largely by the services themselves, each of which has its own priorities.

Airspace control is another challenge, Deptula said. Dozens of unmanned systems operate in the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan at any given time. Because the services operate in uncontested airspace, military planners have been able to carve out restricted operating zones over the battlefields. While that has worked well for the most part, it has become increasingly difficult as drones proliferate on the battlefield. The Air Force alone has seen an 800 percent increase in the number of remotely piloted combat air patrols it supports using Predator and Reaper aircraft during the last six years, from five in 2004 to 40 this year.

"You declare the airspace as a restricted operating zone, and then everyone else stays out of there. That may work in certain situations, but when you get in congested airspace and you have lots of remotely piloted vehicles operating -- 15 to 20 in an area like Baghdad -- and then ground troops call for close air support," then you've got a problem, Deptula said. "Who's going to coordinate with these 15 different operating zones to shut them down and clear the airspace [for the piloted aircraft providing close air support to ground troops]? You don't have time to do that. You need to take a much more integrated approach to airspace control," he said.

The Army and the Air Force have taken very different approaches to how they use and field unmanned aircraft. As demand for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data they provide outpaces the services' ability to field new systems, greater coordination between the services will be required. How that coordination will occur is unclear.

Several years ago, senior Air Force officials lobbied Pentagon leaders to designate an executive agent (i.e., the Air Force) for all unmanned aerial systems to craft a joint concept of operations and address airspace control issues. After tremendous push-back from the Army and Navy, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England killed the idea.

According to Deptula, there were too many "emotions and misperceptions" surrounding the issue: "The Air Force isn't interested in controlling everything, but we did recognize we had to address these issues."

The challenges will grow even more acute when the U.S. eventually faces an enemy with its own air force, whether that's manned or unmanned. For example, it's not clear what organization will have responsibility for deconflicting airspace -- determining friend from foe. "You can't have every unit that establishes a restricted operating zone be their own airspace control authority because you've got a time-demand issue," Deptula said.

"I'm not here to tell you there is a solution yet, but these are the kinds of issues we have to address," he said. "We've been operating on the luxury of owning the airspace without anybody challenging us. You put us in a different time with a different set of threats and you have to deal with these issues."

By: Brant