Air Force Uninterested in Army’s Super Air-Intel Task Force (Updated)


Categorie: Air, Inter-Service Rivalry, Robots |


Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled sweeping plans to re-orient the military towards dull, dirty, low-tech wars. The revamp means big bucks for intelligence, including airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconaissance in the form of manned and unmanned airplanes. “We will increase Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance support for the warfighter in the base [2010] budget by some $2 billion,” Gates said. “This will include … increasing manned ISR capabilities such as the turbo-prop aircraft deployed so successfully as part of ‘Task Force Odin’ in Iraq.”

You might recall that the three-year-old TF Odin, run by the Army using only Army equipment, combines armed helicopters and drones, manned planes and ground terminals to “lash up” folks on the ground, and systems in the air, in a tight network that can spot and kill insurgents — especially those planting IEDs — in just minutes. It was a huge step for counter-insurgency air power in Iraq, so huge that the Pentagon is setting up a similar task force in Afghanistan to protect the vital “ring road” circling the country.

So how is the Air Force applying lessons learned from Odin, especially in light of Gates’ enthusiastic endorsement?

It’s not, said Colonel Eric Holdaway, ISR boss for Central Command. He called Odin a “good model … for a specific mission.” That mission being counter-IED. Otherwise, he said, the Air Force already knows how to provide quick intel to ground troops and hit pop-up targets identified by overhead surveillance. Besides, he added, “Air Force obligations tend to be broader” and more strategic than Odin’s strictly tactical mission.

Problem is, in a counter-insurgency, tactical is strategic. Providing better surveillance to the Army and Marine brigades on the ground will have a cumulative effect on the whole war. As for Holdaway’s point that the Air Force already knows how to lash up ISR and ground forces … if that were truly the case, why did the Army even need TF Odin?

Update: Holdaway generously writes in with this addendum:

I fear I didn’t do a very good job answering your question about TF Odin yesterday, and now I’ve had some time to think about it I think I can provide a more thoughtful answer. We are working together with TF Odin in Iraq, and I anticipate we’ll be doing more in Afghanistan than we were able to do in Iraq.

In Iraq, as we deploy the MC-12W aircraft we will be sharing dissemination communications networks with TF Odin. They have offered to let us use some of their existing networks, and in turn we are expanding same to add capacity.  Cooperation is mostly virtual, with their flyers and [Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination] at Camp Speicher and ours mostly in the Air Force [Distributed Common Ground Systems]. That said, some of our Airmen deployed to Camp Speicher in the early days of TF Odin to provide PED, and they doubtless brought some of that experience back to their home units in the Air Force DCGS. Operationally we are linked to them through the Collection Management and Dissemination offices at MNF-I and MNC-I, with whom we work very closely on a daily (often hourly) basis.

I was at TF Odin Afghanistan two weeks ago, and they seem very eager to welcome our Airmen. I think we’re going to take this cooperation much further in Afghanistan than we have been able to do in Iraq. TF Odin Afghanistan has offered to host the MC-12W PED airmen in their facilities there, and we’ve gratefully accepted. My planners have been working with them, and they are very happy with the welcome they’ve gotten. Since both organizations will be building up almost at the same time, I believe they will grow and learn together. I intend to give them plenty of latitude to figure out how they want to work, and certainly the airmen and the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan will come up with much better ideas than this old colonel could. 

(Photo: via Flickr)


5 Responses to “Air Force Uninterested in Army’s Super Air-Intel Task Force (Updated)”

  1. Foreign.boy says:

    You know. With all this focus on UAV’s, they should probably start looking at more ways to make them stealthy. Things like Meta-materials or even failing that start acting like they are detectable by radar. It won’t be long until a conventional war is fought with UAV’s on both sides.

  2. Mad Dog says:

    As someone who has worked in USAF intel for the past 10 years, I’m glad we have a senior leader like Colonel Holdaway who is engaged with the blogosphere and corrects misperceptions that may be out there wrt the Air Force and our role in the GWOT.

  3. [...] Earlier, plane spotters at Kandahar had fingered a heavily modified biz jet that previously played in U.S. Air Force war games as a “Battlefield Airborne Communications Node,” helping connect manned planes, drones and ground stations. Could Beast and BACN be working together to spot and kill insurgents, much like the U.S. Army’s Task Force Odin in Iraq connected choppers, drones, spy planes and ground teams to shoot missiles at insurgent bomb teams? Who knows. But it’s a safe bet, whatever Beast is, we haven’t seen the last of it. With the U.S. spending $50 billion a year on secret tech, there’s room for all sorts of amazing gear. Just as the E-8 J-STARS prototype went to work during the 1991 Gulf War, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone saw pre-production use over Iraq in 2003, Kandahar’s “black” planes both advance the fight against the Taliban and iron out the wrinkles in the next generation of air technology. [...]

  4. [...] Related: Air Force Uninterested in Army’s Super Air-Intel Task Force “Predator C” Robo-Fighter Takes Flight Killer Drones Now Officially Fighters (Air Force Steps Back from the Edge) Border Drone Aids N.D. Flood Response Senator Shines Some Sunlight on U.S. Killer Drone Ops No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]

  5. Elsie says:

    Hello! I simply want to give you a big thumbs up for the great
    information you have here on this post. I
    am coming back to your site for more soon.

    My web-site 豪華 フラットシューズ 安心
    - Elsie -

Leave a Reply