Military Community, Marine Corps Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Marine Corps Times

Function comes first

Following the Vietnam War, there was a debate in Congress about attack helicopters and whether the Army’s procurement of them represented a duplication of the Air Force’s requirement to organize, train, equip and provide forces for close-air support.

In 1975, Gen. David Jones, the Air Force chief of staff, and Gen. Fred Weyand, the Army chief of staff, testified to the House Armed Services Committee that, “because of the limited range, speed and firepower of the attack helicopters as compared to Air Force fixed-wing close-air support capabilities, we do not consider the attack helicopter as duplicating Air Force close-air support.” They went on to explain that Army attack helicopters were regarded as a complementary capability to the Air Force’s close-air support function, and they called both capabilities “essential” to successful military operations.

The debate about whether the Army should have attack helicopters is over. But the Army’s argument for acquiring a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles and a bank of operators to control them is going strong. The Air Force’s counter-argument, which uses an altitude restriction as a defining point, has missed the target.

Suggesting that UAVs operating above 3,500 feet should be organized, trained, equipped and provided by the Air Force implies that UAVs operating below 3,500 feet are open for any service wanting to make the investment. Jones and Weyand did not mention altitude in their 1975 debate. Instead, they concentrated on the function of the platform as they reached resolution. Likewise, the Air Force’s UAV argument needs to be based on functionality and requirements.

One of the Air Force’s primary functions, specifically tasked by the Defense Department, is to “organize, train, equip and provide forces for close-air support and air logistic support to the Army and other forces, as directed, including ... aerial photography, tactical air reconnaissance and air interdiction of enemy land forces and communications.” Tactical air reconnaissance is a part of the Air Force’s job.

With the advent of technology that enables the arming of UAVs, their ownership and operation become even more controversial. With their enhancement of range, loiter time and lethality, have UAVs outgrown the Air Force’s job?

No.

On the contrary, a lethal UAV is probably performing “air interdiction,” another function of the Air Force. Air Force leadership should not allow the functions of the Air Force to be picked off piecemeal in the acquisition process.

The Army plans to spend more than $1 billion for UAVs to perform tactical reconnaissance and interdiction functions. Those funds should follow their functions. After all, the money is provided by taxpayers to the government, and then to the Defense Department for the services to perform their required functions.

If the Army has control of $1 billion of those taxpayers’ funds intended to do an Air Force job, that money needs to go to the right place. It just makes sense.

..........

The writer, an Air Force veteran of 32 years, lives in Bossier City, La. His e-mail address is chucksutherland@suddenlink.net.