The interesting world of VQ

[MasterBates]

Cutting off nose to spite face.. About normal.

 

[Brett327]

Having worked with both Navy and USAF ISR/ELINT, what, in your opinion, is the value in duplicating that function across multiple services vs cost savings of not doing so? I can tell you what it did to the VAQ realm was increased workload and optempo, but the mission still gets done and capabilities have continued to modernize.

 

[MasterBates]

Next thing you know, they will cut the AWACs and then it' will just be Hawkeyes and JSTARS for all my friends.

 

[scoober78]

Having worked with both Navy and USAF ISR/ELINT, what, in your opinion, is the value in duplicating that function across multiple services vs cost savings of not doing so? I can tell you what it did to the VAQ realm was increased workload and optempo, but the mission still gets done and capabilities have continued to modernize.

Well, here are a few things I'd point out...

Alot of this debate seems to me to revolve around our mentality of trying, but generally failing miserably, to fight the war we are fighting while preparing for the next one. I'll concede that although we do bring some unique capabilities (expeditionary capability and some SIPR/JWICS stuff we can't address here) to the fight that any one Air Force ISR platform does not, we are a bit redundant in the overland ISR realm.

However, then we remember the first part of the VQ-1 name...Fleet. Having flown with numerous JSTARS, RJ and Cobra CO's over my time in the Q as well as with several higher level ISR decision makers, ACF/NTI etc...and CSG's actual...the Air Force is completely inept in producing maritime ISR. They don't fundamentally understand that requirements and priorities of a CSG decision maker, they don't understand the geometry challenges, aircraft positioning constraints etc, etc, etc...that come with providing realtime intelligence to a maritime asset. (Think SOH transit all the way to Alpha Strike...) Additionally, the Air Force, being perhaps more entrenched in dogma/habit/bureaucratic tape than the Navy, is unlikely to ever integrate well. Could you get away with it if we still operated ES-3's or even the Whale and used the Air Force to supplement or extend the umbrella? Sure. However, today, the EP-3 is the only show in town...disregarding BAMS anyway.

Finally, then you come to BAMS...why can't the ISR/Fleet Reconnaissance job be performed better/cheaper/longer by BAMS...well...arguably (and there are some serious points of contention beyond the classification of the forum), it can. However, that assumption is based on the ability of high bandwidth, two way communication between the "aircraft" and the controlling station...ie...SATCOM. That's all well and good until you operate somewhere there is a SATCOM black hole (Say...somewhere south of China and east of Vietnam...lol...) or that you are trying to operate in a SATCOM denied environment. There are so many ways to get the information off a manned platform that short of detonating a pinch or nuclear weapon, you aren't going to shut our capabilities down. Until the 90 pound heads prove unequivocally that they can control and exploit a UAV in a SATCOM denied environment effectively, than I don't even know what we are talking about...

But what am I saying, it's not like any of the countries we concern ourselves with understand these weaknesses...
http://freebeacon.com/dia-director-china-preparing-for-space-warfare/
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2007/FINAL_REPORT_1-19-2007_REVISED_BY_MPP.pdf
http://www.dw.de/jamming-interrupts-western-broadcasters/a-16317555
http://www.hfw.com/publications/article/satellite-interference

 

[Brett327]

That sounds like a training/doctrinal issue vice a capabilities deficit, and to be fair, I would guess that the RJ community would level a similar littany of grievances against VQ. Not that it's insignificant, but I would argue that it's cheaper to address the shortfall with training than it is to develop and field an otherwise redundant T/M/S. I suppose that in a perfect world, we'd all have our service specific/organic ISR platforms. Given the purple-oriented culture and constrained resources, that mindset is swimming against the stream.

Not having looked at the relevant budgetary data, I'll have to relegate this thought to the hypothetical, but if I were to invoke the principle of comparative advantage, allowing the USN to specialize in the VAQ mission while USAF specializes in the VQ/RJ mission might be a more efficient use of resources. We decry the "jack of all trades/master of none" mentality in our VFA community's platform. That might apply at the service level as well. Food for thought, at any rate.

 

[Renegade One]

Well, here are a few things I'd point out...the Air Force is completely inept in producing maritime ISR. They don't fundamentally understand that requirements and priorities of a CSG decision maker, they don't understand the geometry challenges, aircraft positioning constraints etc, etc, etc...that come with providing realtime intelligence to a maritime asset. (Think SOH transit all the way to Alpha Strike...) Additionally, the Air Force, being perhaps more entrenched in dogma/habit/bureaucratic tape than the Navy, is unlikely to ever integrate well...

I think the short version of that is "They don't care about the maritime environment...". The Air Force has shown time and again that they are perfectly happy to "divest" themselves of any mission that is being done as well...or better...by other services. Immediately after Desert Storm, there was an active intent to try and give/sell/divest A-10s to anyone who would take them...non-pointy-nosed airplanes doing CAS was just not what they wanted to see when they looked in the mirror. Same-same EF-111's and "Wild Weasel" F-4s. Let the Navy/USMC do that stuff. Hung onto F-16CJs because they looked okay in the mirror, I guess...

The Navy/Marine Corps team has been spectacular in "flexing" to whatever the nation needed/needs. P-3s/EP-3s overland? Expeditionary Prowler squadrons? Land-based CVW assets? CAN DO!

USAF maritime support for blue-water ops? "Not in our DOC statement."

Probably an unfairly broad tarry brush, but just what I observed personally some time ago.

 

[scoober78]

That sounds like a training/doctrinal issue vice a capabilities deficit, and to be fair, I would guess that the RJ community would level a similar littany of grievances against VQ. Not that it's insignificant, but I would argue that it's cheaper to address the shortfall with training than it is to develop and field an otherwise redundant T/M/S. I suppose that in a perfect world, we'd all have our service specific/organic ISR platforms. Given the purple-oriented culture and constrained resources, that mindset is swimming against the stream.

Not having looked at the relevant budgetary data, I'll have to relegate this thought to the hypothetical, but if I were to invoke the principle of comparative advantage, allowing the USN to specialize in the VAQ mission while USAF specializes in the VQ/RJ mission might be a more efficient use of resources. We decry the "jack of all trades/master of none" mentality in our VFA community's platform. That might apply at the service level as well. Food for thought, at any rate.

It's certainly a worthwhile conversation...and were such delineations laid out in the manner of say the National Security Act of 1947 I could agree. Namely, if we designated the "Air Force to provide all ISR assets...make them available for tasking as required by service chiefs etc..." then I think I could agree...without a hard order at that level though, I just don't see the Air Force being willing to dedicate the resources, training and aircrews to a mission that as R1 pointed out above, "Isn't in their DOC statement."

To a very real extent though, you are correct. The way we operate them is pretty different (expeditionary footprint, muti-int fusion etc...) but the RJ and EP are largely duplicative. The hardware differences that there are could be corrected fairly cheaply. Doctrine training and willingness are the sticking points and from what I've observed with the Air Force...they are large ones.

 

[scoober78]

You know Brett...the more I think about it, the more unsure I feel about this strictly being a training issue...to reply with one of your favorite logical devices, the slippery slope...

Marines are just a duplicate capability of the Army. The only difference is training. Why bother?

 

[Brett327]

You know Brett...the more I think about it, the more unsure I feel about this strictly being a training issue...to reply with one of your favorite logical devices, the slippery slope...

Marines are just a duplicate capability of the Army. The only difference is training. Why bother?

I'm not sure I agree with that. The Marines amphibious and expeditionary capabilities are derived from more than just doctrine or training. There are a whole host of platforms, equipment, gear they have to do that mission that the Army doesn't. I'm sure one of the Marines can speak more intelligently to that, but I don't think it's an apt comparrison.

 

[Jim123]

Marines are just a duplicate capability of the Army. The only difference is training. Why bother?

...

 

[Brett327]

I dunno, I think he's serious - at least in a rhetorical sense.

 

[webmaster]

You divest a platform and/or capability and in today's environment you won't get it back anytime soon. We saw dedicated VP/VQ support disappear to the CSG. But at least it has been available to call on. In my eyes you are taking a reliable capability that trains for support on the high seas away from the strike group. Unfortunately it all comes down to resource sponsors. Painful to watch the do establishments and consolidations this last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[webmaster]

*Disestablishments. Damn spell check.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jim123]

I dunno, I think he's serious - at least in a rhetorical sense.

Fair enough. As a rhetorical point, the Army landed in Normandy both on the beaches and behind the lines... with the help of landing craft drivers from the Coast Guard and C-47 and glider pilots (before it was called vertical envelopment) from the Army (Army Air Forces, granted).

(Disclaimer: not trying to be sarcastic or restart the old debate.)

 

[Brett327]

The Army also had an Air Corps with fighters and shit, but specialization has since occurred and they no longer really do the FW air or expeditionary mission. (sarcasm is never tollerated here)