SecDef Gates, the Air Force and the War on Terror

Submitted by Carly:

AP:  In unusually blunt terms, Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday challenged the Air Force, whose leaders are under fire on several fronts, to contribute more to immediate wartime needs and to promote new thinking.

Gates singled out the use of pilotless surveillance planes, in growing demand by commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, as an example of how the Air Force and other services must act more aggressively.

Gates has been trying for months to get the Air Force to send more unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, like the Predator drone that provides real-time surveillance video, to the battlefield. They are playing an increasing role in disrupting insurgent efforts to plant roadside bombs.

Gates made his remarks to a large group of officers at the Air Force's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. Noting that they represent the future of Air Force leadership, he urged them to think innovatively and worry less about their careers than about adapting to a changing world.  CONTINUED

I found more dope over at the New York Times, with what I consider the crucial limitation factor highlighted in blue:

In his speech at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, Mr. Gates did not single out the Air Force for criticism. He said the responsibility should be shared across the military and the vast bureaucracy that researches, develops, builds, buys and fields intelligence assets.

But the Air Force owns most of these airborne surveillance systems, and the message Mr. Gates delivered at the Air War College was clear — and especially painful to a service whose reliance on expensive, new jets can seem at odds with 21st-century counterinsurgencies fought in the alleyways of the Middle East.

To be sure, Mr. Gates went out of his way to compliment the Air Force. He cited the 14,200 airmen performing “in lieu of” tasks on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Air Force civil engineers replacing Army construction engineers. He highlighted the fact that the C-17 transports that carry food, fuel and equipment into Iraq each month mean that some 5,000 truckloads of cargo do not have to risk traveling bomb-filled roadways.

But the last thing Air Force leaders want to hear is a push away from glamorous, white-scarf missions in high-tech fighters to take up, instead, the greasy wrenches and winches to put eyes over Iraq and Afghanistan and ferry troops and gear, food and fuel to the fight.

The Air Force allows only those officially rated as pilots to sit at the remote-controls of its unmanned reconnaissance vehicles, a policy that Mr. Gates says has limited how many of these aircraft it can deploy. The Army allows enlisted personnel and noncommissioned officers to apply for those jobs. The push to add surveillance to the war zones also may require a rethinking of how the current crop of jet-fighters are outfitted for war, as well as whether to look at low-tech fixes, such as using off-the-lot Cessnas outfitted with surveillance gear.  CONTINUED

It's not all gloom and doom:  just look at the B-1.  Originally designed as a long-range nuclear bomber, it's been since reequipped with precision conventional munitions.  The "long range" capability now means a B-1 can hang around an area with bombs on call.

The proof is in the customer service.

But having served in both the Army and the Air Force, I'm comfortable saying it's FAR harder to change mindsets in the AF than it is in the Army:  and I think it comes down to our mission as a service.

In basic terms, the AF has 370,000 or so personnel, but only 12,000 rated officers.  The other 358,000 personnel exist to make sure those 12,000 officers fly.  The entire AF culture, much to my disgust at times, centers on those 12,000 pilots:  our history, our slang, our leadership jargon... even my nickname "Pidge" is a referred to as a call sign, an aviation communication identifier.

Generally speaking, it's those 12,000 pilots who rise to the top ranks and concoct all our strategic policies.  MOGS and I may be trained to plan air missions (and MOGS has far more Kung Fu than I do), but since we aren't literal trigger pullers we can't aspire to most command positions.   

What really ruffles my feathers is more often than not a pilot is selected to fill high-level analytical positions over career analysts (i.e. the ones who actually know how to do the job).

All that said, taking the stick and rudders out of the hands of a scarf-wearing fighter pilot and given them to a Sergeant requires a huge cultural shift within the Air Force. 

Comments

[MOGS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviator_call_sign

for the more tactical reference to call signs, check the above link - it also explains, neatly, terms and concepts that usually take a half hour or so when I'm asked to explain them...

There's an old joke about Nellis I keep in mind for times like this:

"How many patch wearers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
"Nobody knows, they're still planning"