Which Military Branch Should Control the UAVs in the Battlespace
The US Air Force wants to be in charge of all UAVs in warfare over 3500 feet AGL and this squeezes the issues of USMC and US Navy UAVs.
It seems politicians are allowing the US Air Force to move to do this.
The US Air Force already controls the AWACS and Satellites, this could be problematic say some Military Strategists.
The Online Think Tank agreed on the point of politics deciding how best to use UAVs in the modern battlespace.
Indeed, if net-centric warfare along with the robotic component is caught between command and control infighting, how can a war be won? All components need to talk with each other; whether they are robotic or humans to win a war or complete consecutive decisive battles.
If the insurgents in a conflict like Iraq shoot SAMs - Surface to Air Missiles capable of reaching 12,000 feet then the US Navy and Marines flying lower altitude UAVs of any size would be shot down at below 3,500 feet AGL and that is problematic.
Indeed, the terrain in a battlespace might have mountain peaks and valleys and that would be difficult to calculate, troops on a mountain might need a look out UAV, but if launched might find itself toast to friendly fire if the US Air Force owned that piece of sky and the units did not talk to each other.
Of course, all equipment in the battlespace should be aware of all friendly forces, thus if this is inter-military-agency, then really who cares who flies what and where? They are all on the same team.
If the US Air Force is simply trying to regain budget control of billions of dollars, then one has to ask, which military service is more important, as in reality they are on the same team, thus all are important, so lets get everyone talking in a reality place, not a political place.
Think on this.
It seems politicians are allowing the US Air Force to move to do this.
The US Air Force already controls the AWACS and Satellites, this could be problematic say some Military Strategists.
The Online Think Tank agreed on the point of politics deciding how best to use UAVs in the modern battlespace.
Indeed, if net-centric warfare along with the robotic component is caught between command and control infighting, how can a war be won? All components need to talk with each other; whether they are robotic or humans to win a war or complete consecutive decisive battles.
If the insurgents in a conflict like Iraq shoot SAMs - Surface to Air Missiles capable of reaching 12,000 feet then the US Navy and Marines flying lower altitude UAVs of any size would be shot down at below 3,500 feet AGL and that is problematic.
Indeed, the terrain in a battlespace might have mountain peaks and valleys and that would be difficult to calculate, troops on a mountain might need a look out UAV, but if launched might find itself toast to friendly fire if the US Air Force owned that piece of sky and the units did not talk to each other.
Of course, all equipment in the battlespace should be aware of all friendly forces, thus if this is inter-military-agency, then really who cares who flies what and where? They are all on the same team.
If the US Air Force is simply trying to regain budget control of billions of dollars, then one has to ask, which military service is more important, as in reality they are on the same team, thus all are important, so lets get everyone talking in a reality place, not a political place.
Think on this.
Source...