Faster Military Airstrikes a Problem?

 Soldiers on the battlefield are becoming more frustrated due to the Rules of Engagement (ROE) changing on what seems like a daily basis.  Not engaging the enemy until fired upon, delayed airstrikes due to indecisive command groups, excessive collateral damage, staying out of the media limelight, and the list goes on.  Now, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has introduced a new technological terror involving a manned/unmanned A-10 that can be radioed in without any type of clearance from higher up to conduct Close Air Support (CAS).

According to Popular Science magazine, DARPA has the ability to develop a step which they call Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS).  With this ability, it allows the Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) the soldiers within units that call in air strikes -- the ability to "to visualize, select and employ weapons at the time of their choosing." DARPA thinks this will "revolutionize how a JTAC is able to request and control near-instantaneous airborne fire support."  This ability is great during high intense combat situations involving barricaded or numerous enemies, however, removing the decision from the upper echelon could be a liability towards the JTAC.  That means that the battle captain and other higher elements would not hold responsibility of the attacks.  Doesn't this kind of air-strike-on-demand go against the military's current strategy of limited air power and reduced civilian casualties as dictated in Afghanistan/Pakistan by the recently ousted General Stanley McChrystal?  Think about that one for a minute.

DARPA goes on saying how this is not a change in the current policy, but a way to institute a better reaction time on CAS supports.  Instead of waiting an hour (which personally, I’ve never waited that long when we needed it), it will only take minutes.  Minutes DO save lives.  “The majority of CAS is coordinated by voice over the radio. CAS platform talk-ons can be lengthy and full of errors. Due to pilot talk-on complexity only one target set can be handled at a time,” which was posted on a DARPA announcement.  Do you really want to know why this is?  A majority of the support units that are engaged have no idea how to radio CAS.  Many of the ambushes take place on a MSR (Main Supply Route) and limit most CAS operations.  Areas such as urban environments need AH-64 CAS and not A-10.  An A-10 performs in strafing tactics instead of a steady platform like the AH-64. 

A majority of the CAS problem is dealing with communications.  According to Wired.com , “A garbled radio request can lead to a wrong set of coordinates passed. And that can lead to an attack going astray, with innocents killed and property smashed. No one wants that, of course. But in Afghanistan, the bugs are, in a sense, used as features, slowing down (and double-checking) air strike requests. Calling a bomb can happen in as little as a few minutes, depending on location of the plane and the urgency of the request. A few extra minutes of so-called “tactical patience” can lead to a resolution of the conflict, with no air strike at all.”  Radio communication is indeed with a harsh environment such as the desert and mountainous terrain.  So, why not focus more technology for better reception and signal strength?  What happens if the unmanned aircraft looses signal or some other glitch occurs, causing it to crash into a populated area?  There are so many factors left unanswered when it comes to the advancement of military technology.

There has to be more thought about cost and the implementation of risk mitigation during these technological advances.  The safety of our troops should be a priority of our military, therefore, careful thought and decision making needs to be implemented before allowing this liability hang on the shoulders of an already worn soul.