Accession Number : ADA540550


Title :   Army and Air Force Unmanned Air Reconnaissance: Warrior and Hydra Navigating a Maze of Strategic Hedges


Descriptive Note : Master's thesis


Corporate Author : AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES


Personal Author(s) : Springer, Stanley A


Full Text : https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a540550.pdf


Report Date : Jun 2009


Pagination or Media Count : 142


Abstract : During the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan counterinsurgencies, the Air Force and Army acquired similar unmanned air systems (UAS) to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), though with different degrees of success. The Air Force selected the MQ-1B/-9 Predator/Reaper family of vehicles, while the Army chose the MQ-1C, unofficially named Sky Warrior. Although the air vehicles had comparable performance, the services selected different command and control (C2) and sustainment mechanisms that defined the relative effectiveness of the systems. As the counterinsurgencies intensified, the ISR platforms from both services were inadequate to meet increasing requirements. As the services surged, they quarreled over ISR request and airspace-control processes as well as the efficiency of their respective systems. Although the services moved to harmonize their processes, the Air Force drew criticism from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for not providing enough UASs, which contributed to the relief of the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force in 2008. In conjunction, observers charged that the Army UAS was an unnecessary duplication that infringed upon Air Force roles and missions. In a resource-constrained environment, the public debate continues on the wisdom of buying two UASs with roughly equivalent capabilities and similar missions. This study analyzes the relative effectiveness of the services' UASs in meeting national security objectives in the context of the Global War on Terror and future wars. Given the similarity in the air vehicles, the UAS' C2 and sustainment mechanisms served as the basis of comparing the service solutions. The hedging constructs in the National Security and Defense Strategies provided the criteria for this comparison. This analysis revealed that both services' UASs could serve as effective heWhy did the services develop their UASs in this manner? Civilian interventiovi leadership resiste


Descriptors :   *COUNTERINSURGENCY , *SURVEILLANCE DRONES , LEADERSHIP , ARMY PERSONNEL , THESES , AIR FORCE PERSONNEL , COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS , UNMANNED , RECONNAISSANCE , TERRORISM , AFGHANISTAN , DEFENSE SYSTEMS , NATIONAL SECURITY , NAVIGATION


Subject Categories : Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft
      Pilotless Aircraft
      Unconventional Warfare


Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE