| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| U.S. Army Builds More Smart Weapons |
| 2005-05-03 |
| May 3, 2005: The army and the air force fight over who can be trained to call in air strikes just keeps on getting uglier. The basic problem is that the air force is stonewalling U.S. Army efforts to expand the FAC (forward air controller) force. The army wants FAC support as widespread as their current artillery FO (Forward Observer, for artillery and attack helicopter) support. The air force insists that air force pilots be part of the FAC teams (which mostly contain air force sergeants), have higher security clearances and generally remain air force personnel. The army wants to train their people to perform FAC duties. The air force fears losing up to 5,000 personnel slots if the army wins this tussle. If you lose missions, Congress takes some of your money away, and that's what all this is really about. The latest army ploy is to develop ways to do without a lot of the air force bomber support. This is being done by introducing more army GPS guided weapons. This year, the army will issue artillery units the 155mm GPS guided Excalibur shell. If this works in combat (it has in tests), that will mean fewer calls for air force bombers. The army is also developing a GPS guided MLRS rocket. This is important, because the rocket carries ten times as much explosives as the 155mm shell, and has a longer range as well (up to 70 kilometers). Some army officers are wondering why they can't have their larger transport helicopters fly high and drop 500 or 250 pound JDAMs out the back. The air force would fight that one, but the army is the service with people in combat right now, not the air force. So air force arguments carry less weight. Even if the army doesn't start using JDAMs, they have more equally accurate missiles under development as part of their FCS (Future Combat System) effort. The main army problem is not with getting bomber support for Special Forces and other commando operations. The air force has no problem putting a B-52 or B-2 at the army's disposal, anywhere in the world, on short notice, for these operations. Where the army does have a problem is getting air force support for larger army units engaged in sustained combat. There just aren't enough air force FACs to support the way the army wants to fight. The army wants smart bombs and missiles available all the time during combat, for all the combat troops involved. For the army, it's a matter of life and death. For the air force, at least according to many army officers, it's more of a budgeting problem. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #7 During Vietnam, the Army tried an experimental program, called ''Deathwatch'' (I believe). Its basic concept was that, instead of having only officers call in artillery, most of whom were infantry, infantry units would be accompanied by highly expert enlisted field artillerymen. These guys were so expert, they could put the right kind of round, right on target, yesterday. It made infantry missions a breeze and the infantry loved it. So, of course, it was cancelled. There was much bitter resentment against having enlisted men calling in fires, and as effective as it was, it was discontinued. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-03 19:05 |
| #6 Well goatscrew is purdy technical and I like to keep all things simple. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-03 18:53 |
| #5 Oh you say fiasco and I say goatscrew... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-03 17:52 |
| #4 The apachies that were dropped in Iraqi Freedom had the same issue. They flew high and right into a kill box and some got shot down My understanding is that the big Apache raid was pretty much a fiasco. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-03 16:38 |
| #3 Some army officers are wondering why they can’t have their larger transport helicopters fly high and drop 500 or 250 pound JDAMs out the back One word why, SAMs. Choppers survive by moving quickly by NAP of the earth (Near As Possible) or by using terrain to mask their movement. That was one thing pounded into the chopper pilots in the 101st, when I was there, over and over again. Stay low, stay alive. Go high, and you will die. Somolia proved that concept when Blackhawks were forced to fly slow and not very low to have the terrain protect them. The apachies that were dropped in Iraqi Freedom had the same issue. They flew high and right into a kill box and some got shot down. A chinook(sp?) is a lumbering target anyway and above enemy positions is just begging to be blown away. From my infantry experiance, I still support the GPS guided weapons for the army's artillery for short range targets. It allows for rapid destruction of the target and the air force doesn't have to have a lot of aircraft lotering over the front line. The air force can then use the freed up aircraft to blow the ever-loving hell out of the enemy's infastructure to deny supplies and reinforcments from reaching the front line. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-03 15:56 |
| #2 Now if only they could figure out how to get Smart Opponents. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-05-03 15:54 |
| #1 Some army officers are wondering why they can’t have their larger transport helicopters fly high and drop 500 or 250 pound JDAMs out the back. Arclight a la Chinook, Bay-bee! |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-05-03 13:49 |