<p>Hate to do this, as we should instead be wishing 2012 Good Luck and Best Wishes at this time, but here it goes… </p>
<p>No, 69. I recommend you do your homework. The article was not a complaint by the Army saying that they aren’t getting the CAS they ask for. Instead, the article references the Army’s desire for “persistent survellience”. They want eyes on their AOs 24/7, something “organic” that can be controlled down to the battallion and even company level. I can understand and sympathize with their desires, but this is something we just can’t do right now because of the number of requests for surviellience throughout the theater exceeds the number of assets available.</p>
<p>I am someone “familiar” with what is going on over there; I was there, in charge of every CAS mission in theater and ensuring that everytime my army brothers (and sisters) called for support, they got it. “Troops in Contact” calls were allocated CAS assets immediately, and these assets were usually overhead and ready to support within minutes. No, the Army can’t claim that when they asked for CAS, the AF told them no.</p>
<p>There is a bigger game going on here. One I am also familiar with because I also was working joint requirments in the Pentagon a couple of years back (02 - 05). The Army wants assets they can control “exclusively”, assets that will sit around only with them and that won’t be needed to be tasked elsewhere. The AF doesn’t have that luxury, our assets are tasked at every level (tactical, operational and strategic) and by every customer out there (from every service, SOF, Coalition forces, and even the Iraqis themselves).<br>
I will admit there are times when the AF has to prioritize where these limited assets go (do we monitor this oil refinery to ensure it doesn’t get blown up and bring down the iraqi Government’s only source of income, or do we orbit over Camp Anaconda?). But we don’t prioritze in a vacuum, the senior leaders in theater, which have all been Army Generals, have the final say in this. </p>
<p>There are much bigger issues here, with multiple topics under debate; everything from where the limited funds should be going, to whether Army aviaiton assets need to be jointly coordinated with the Air Tasking Order, to who should be the Executive Agent for all UAVs. </p>
<p>Personally, I say let the Army buy and run all the UAVs they want. Heck, they can even have the Predators if they want them. But they better be coordinating when and where these assets will be so we don’t run into each other up there, something the Army has refused to do so far (Big Sky, Little Plane theory; but I do recall having to call off a flight of F-16s over Fallujah read to drop on some bad guys and save Marine lives because the Marine CC flew a Tactical UAV right into the plane’s path during the dive. Nice!) As long as they cut some of their own programs to pay for them. Or better yet, how about cancelling the new sub program, seeing as we just commisioned a new one this week and have more planned for. Don’t see the need for torpedoes in Najaf!</p>