Reader CA, with the Air Force, says...

I have never heard that term (must be Navy), but in the AF we call it NTISR:

NTISR (Non-Traditional Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance)

NTISR was developed to address the need for additional ISR collection by tasking

aircraft to record weapons system video of selected targets. Aircraft with targeting pods

traditionally used for targeting purposes, were tasked to locate, identify, and assess

potential/emerging targets and Battle Damage Assessment

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_hr/040704sams.pdf Search for it....

This is in specific reference to the paras talking about Litening and Snipet and AESA.

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at October 24, 2005 01:00 PM

Where might I find the video of "angel" a large plane firing off defensive flares for heat seeking weaponry? Your help is appreciated but not nearly as much as your sacrifices you make daily for the United States.

John Neill

Posted by: John Neill at October 23, 2005 01:43 PM

Good Morning David and SSg. Salyda,

First to address SSg. Salyda, I can't disagree with you on the human to human communications during close air support. As long as humans are a factor in ground combat this link will have to be maintained.

The key to the above is; "As long as humans are a factor...". By the intent of Congress in the 1999/2000 Defense Budget the roll of humans in ground combat should be reduced by at least 40% by the year 2015 I beleave the given was. By reading this site and the technology being used in Afghanistan and Iraq it appears that this is the trend.

Machines communicating with machines makes sense to me.

David, since I've been burnt before on numbers from "Offical Sources", National defense University being one of them. I will aknowledge your source but beg a gentlemans agreement to still accept Global Security's information as close to being Real".

I think you summation out lines our principal areas of disagreement. Although terrorism is not new, in fact I would guess it to be the oldest form of human conflict what is happening now is new to the United States and quite frankly after four years into the fight we are not adapting to thw GWOT very well or quickly.

With Government control of information to the media through clever ploys like imbeds, pools and staged press conferences between Gov't. Officials and the "Troops" they have controled the flow of information very well. The problem is that a false sense of security is protroyed in the media. The war is going well and the good guys are winning is the daily drum beat.

There is no editorial dicussion goin on in the main stream press of what if the current CW is WRONG. What if the house of cards that the Government Ministry of Information has crafted falls apart.

An event that could expose these myths would be a nuclear explosion by a terrorist group or state or another major 9/11 size event with in the United States.

Our failures to capture or kill bin laden or al Zarquawi are seldom mentioned. The new combat ability of the terrorist to strike at will world wide is being totaly ignored.

The increasing number of states who have active terrorist organizations is not even an editorial issue. The fact that al Zarquawi is a new third party enity in Iraq that didn't exist before the U.S. invasion and that since 9/11 the terrorist events have spread to places such as Spain, Turkey, UK, Morrorco and Balhi (x2) is not being dicussed in the American media.

On the survival of the west and the United Staes I disagree. First of history is full of ex world powers Egypt, Athens, Rome, Spain, England and even Europe in general. What all these "Empires" have in common is they went broke trying to keep there empires by fight lessor foes.

Even a quick reading of the Koran will give you Islams goals, an Islamic World. The goal of the terrorist is to dominate the world and nothing less. The current complacency on the part of the American people and the "Business as usual" approach the U. S. Dept. of Defense is will come back to haunt us.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at October 22, 2005 02:30 PM

Byron,

I think your logic is flawed at best. Recce is extremely important in the GWOT. How best to protect the ground assets that we have in place than to keep a close eye on what is happening in the surrounding areas. Platforms like the predator can only do so much. Why not use some of our other existing hardware in a multi use configuration? There is a huge amount of value in having a "Hero" (as you called them) in the cockpit to make split second decisions based on what is being seen and to respond on a moments notice to situations as they arise. I can't tell you the times that our pilots were told by the ground forces that they were supporting how just having some hardware orbiting the area makes a huge difference in how confidant the enemy is and how much they desire to escalate a situation. It is individuals who share opinions like yours that decided that after the cold war it made sense to close most of the alert sites across our great nation. Alert sites that maybe could have changed the outcome of Sept 11th, 2001. Have you forgotten what took place on that day? God help us if as a nation we are so short sighted.

Posted by: SSgt John A. Salayda, Jr. at October 22, 2005 08:06 AM

We should maintain strong conventional forces because they take time to develop and train, and who knows what threats the future holds? Also, conventional forces like tactical jets are long-term investments offering decades of utility and tremendous flexibility, as the recent trend in tacair recce demonstrates. Just because the F/A-22 program has been mismanaged doesn't mean we should stop fielding fighters. Rather, we should be smarter about developing them. Perhaps evolutionary rather than revolutionary fighter development is in order. Take a look at the new versions of the F-15E and F-16 being fielded by Singapore and the UAE, respectively. They outclass all but our handful of new Raptors. A stateside example is the F/A-18E/F, a fine new fighter evolved from the first-gen Hornet. It came in on budget, on time, with advanced capabilities and at an affordable unit cost. While the Air Force struggles to field any fighters at all, in only five years the Navy has completely replaced its 200 F-14s with the same number of F/A-18E/Fs and achieved major economies in doing so.

Posted by: David Axe at October 22, 2005 03:04 AM

Byron,

I hate to be a stickler for details, but details add up to generalizations, so I'll have to correct you again: the first-generation F/A-18, including A, B, C and D models, does not cost $100 million, even including developmental costs. There have been more than 1,300 built at a total cost (including development) of $30 million per copy in 1993 dollars, according to National Defense University.

So are you proposing we essentially scrap all major hardware in the U.S. military in favor of training more infantry to fight terrorists that are bent on destroying America by bankrupting it? Geez. Where to begin ...

First, we can afford not only the war on terror but to sustain large conventional forces in reserve as well. Even with war supplementals and recent budget increases, we're spending only around 3.5% of our GDP on defense -- a far cry from the 1980s and less than half of what we spent in the 1970s. What we lack is the political will to spend money on defense, not the actual money itself. The war on terror is fiscally sustainable. Only political will is lacking.

But don't think that I'm proposing we actually keep fighting the war on terror. It may be affordable, but it's still a bad idea. Islamic terrorists are interested in destroying the U.S., not really, nor are they capable of it. Islamic terror is largely a reaction to a century of ill-considered Western (European, mostly) meddling in the Middle East. More recently, America's long military presence in Saudi Arabia created a backlash manifested in terror attacks. We can score a major win in the war on terror by simply pulling our troops out of the Middle East.

Terrorism is not new. Even Islamic terror is not new. We'll always have terrorists. But the Western world will survive; America will survive. Even our failures in Iraq do not mean our destruction.

Posted by: David Axe at October 22, 2005 02:55 AM

Good Evening David,

All your points are well taken. Here is my problem though. We are currently engaged in a war, unlike Korea or Vietnam giving up or losing is not an option. The Terrorists have options, win some lose some, lay back, hid for a generation etc. but the United States has only one option and that is to win unconditionaly.

The irony is of course is if we lose the GWOT there will be no need for F-18's, Nimitz Class Carriers or even F-22's or anything else. The reason is of course will be there will no longer be a United States. The GWOT is all about the survival of the United States, period.

The best weapon the Terrorists have is to bankrupt the United States and one of the better ways that I can see is investing in multi-billion dollar weapon systems that have nothing to do with the war we are now fighting.

Many say this can never happen. In recent times we had the Soviet Union who lost the Cold War with out a shot fired by the United States. We, the United States won because we out spent the Soviets on weapon systems that could kill them more times then they counld kill us.

The Terrorists are playing the same roll with the United States in the Cold War in the GWOT that we played on the Soviets.

Iraq is costing $6Billion a month, Afghanistan is costing $1.5Billion a month, that is above the $460Billion Defense Budget. Even the Uniyed States the wealthiest country in the history of the world can not sustain this out flow of wealth.

To give you a military response to your question. Today the U.N. gave as clear a go ahead as we will ever get to go after al-Assad in Syria. In the theatre we have 154,000 troops on in Iraq, at least two Carriers, B-1's and B-2's bombers in Daigo Garcia, B-52's in the UK, Delta Forces on the Syrian Border, at least two Seal Platoons deployed in the Medd. and Gulf, air strike technology that last week end showed that from 10,000 ft. a direct hit can be made on a wrecked vehicleand yet this leader of a third rate countries hold a news conference from one of his palaces and in essense gives the U.S. the finger and dares us to do anything.

If the above is unconvencing as I'm sure it is think of this four years into the GWOT and bin-Laden is still at large. Three years into Iraq and al-Zarqawi is still at large. This should be a strong indicator that technology is not the answer to winning the GWOT.

My question is what good is all our existing technology doing for us now let a lone why do we need to buy any more?

The price of the F/A-18's see a sheet put out by Glogal Security last weekend. When you add development costs they estimate the price to be at least $95Million. That cost has to go somewhere.

As to your logic, that we own 'em why not use 'em. I think even at this stage scrapping thses major weapons programs and stopping the hemeraging of resources and people is still the best option.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at October 21, 2005 10:44 PM

What was he talking about? Yeah this is a great idea, that way they can be more flexiable with planes and the missions there assigned to. I would expect tac recon by high performance jets to be a great asset in Iraq and Afganistan. The insurgents are not ignorant in the ways to take down modern aircraft and they do have some limited means so a fast mover as recon would be indispensible. Doesn't seem like a waste at all to me.

I have a game I play on x-box Die Hitysu 7 or something like that, well anyway it's a turn based hex grid simulation and it has a recce version of the F/A-18 on it and it's the most useful jet that the U.S. forces have on the game. It sees more then a normal jet and can defend itself with it's air to air missles. Othere countries on the game have recce aircraft but there unarmed making them highly vulnuable.

Posted by: Joseph at October 21, 2005 08:57 PM

Thanks for the feedback, Byron, but I disagree on several points. Firstly, an F/A-18D does not cost $95 million. More like $40 million. Furthermore, you don't save $40 million by scrapping an F/A-18. The thing's already paid for, and its support costs are small. Also, the Navy still has 12 carriers, by Congressional mandate, and may keep all twelve depending on the QDR. Finally, do you really think we should abandon tacair? Can you imagine the cost of winning an even low-intensity conflict without air supremacy?

Besides, what we're seeing with the shift towards tacair ISTAR is evidence that the air forces of all services appreciate the eminence of infantry in low-intensity warfare. The Bengals in Iraq were totally focused on providing intel to small ground units. And to argue that such use of tacair is a waste of money is to undervalue intelligence. For a few million dollars a year, a unit like The Bengals with their Hornets can provide thousands of hours of flexible and detailed surveillance for platoon commanders and company commanders on the ground. And, while they're at it, they can drop bombs and strafe bad guys too. In my months in Iraq, I heard few infantry leaders complaining about what a waste of money tacair was. In fact, most would like to have MORE tacair support, not less. During the January elections I was in Baqubah with the 1st ID when a Marine F/A-18D buzzed the polls we were protecting. In Iraq, the mere sight of a fighter jet scares away bad guys. That's not even counting their extreme value as surveillance platforms.

Anyways, we're on the cusp of massive reductions in U.S. tacair. Already the Navy has trimmed its fighters to fewer than a thousand, its lowest level since World War II. The Air Force is looking at similar cuts, from the current 2,500+ fighters to fewer than 2,000 in a decade or so. Again, this is an historically low level, and may continue to drop if F-35 purchases don't pan out.

Posted by: David Axe at October 21, 2005 03:37 PM

Good Morning Folks,

This is clearly a story about looking for a mission when none is to be found.

The roll of Airborne Reconnaissance is clearly not the roll the taxpayer expects a $95Million+ (Global Security est. this past weekend)F/A-18D or E/F/G's to be doing. UCAV's costing about 10% as much as and has the advantage of not needing a "Hero" in a cockpit have demonistrated the ability to do the job.

The performance of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown beyond any resonable doubt that the need of a human in the drivers seat is no longer required. Not when ground forces as stated in newspaper articles today have shortages of much needed equipment in the war zones.

It was stated that the Marines in Iraq have only about 850 of the 1200 M1114 Up Armored HUMVEES that they are allicoated and that AR/NG Units upon departure from the war zones are having to leave behind ther equipment for those who are replacing them.

When a West Virginia N/G Battalion had to answer a call to handle flood clean up a couple of weeks ago the had to go to a commerical equipment rental place for dumps, loaders and other equipment that they left in Iraq. While this is happening F-18 jocks are flying around Iraq taking post card pictires and burning fuel.

For the price of training one flyboy the N/G can train a whole platoon of Combat Engineers. The question is what doese America need more of?

The use of F/A-18's for these missions indicates that the Navy with 11 Carriers has to many and reductions are justified. Any rational defense of the big ticket fighter programs like the F-22's or F-35's is pure folly, it is time for the DoD to take a dose of reality.

The terrorist, who are our current enemies don't have an airforce, they borrow a jet liner once in awhile, they don't have a Blue or even a Green water navy, they don't have ICBM's. Why are we still fight a war that doesn't exist?

The argurment that the United States has to look in the future 20 years or so and to China and other emerging Asian Giants is nonsence. In 20 years the F-22's and F-35's will be "Old Airplanes". The United States can't aford another generation of "Century Fighters" that were waisted doing grunt work in Vietnam.

The United States should spend its "Limited" funds on the people doing the fighting and dieing not on Pentagon Turf Wars that support the Military Industrial's profits, along with Air Force and Navy egos.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at October 21, 2005 02:13 PM

Wow -- a real article about defense tech with little op-ed comments.

Posted by: David Rocheleau at October 21, 2005 12:12 PM

I don't know what the "economics" of using F/A-18's for routine reconaissance are - but at 95 hours per plane per month, that must be a hideously expensive and punishing schedule for the Bengals.

Posted by: dan at October 21, 2005 10:51 AM