dtfl

...ahem......:-)

<-----------

LivingInMEM

What? Your arrow is pointing to mil/civ.

Actually, that's pretty funny. Of course I used fighter dudes because that is what Spanky referred to, I went on to include the statement: "and I will include any front-line offensive weapon system in this group." The bigger point is that this PC thing we have going on in the USAF is hurting our combat capability as a whole. Not that I think you should go fly UAV's, but you know that you could quickly transition into that environment based on your experiences and have a more in-depth understanding of what is going on in the battlespace and make the most appropriate decisions. As a AC-130 dude, you understand things about that aspect of that fight that, for example, a KC-135 pilot may not. The KC-135 dude may not even know why you would understand that scenario better. But we aren't allowed to say that.

Somehow, if we say that you would be a better fit for a certain combat related position, we would in reality be saying that you are "better" than that KC-135 pilot. I don't get it. If the KC-135 pilot transitioned to AC-130 CP then AC and went real-world, he would have the same experience.

Looking back at 10 pages of this thread, and reading the CSAF message, I still see no evidence that the combat capability of the weapon system has been taken to account by anyone. He mentions that this is a test, but no one can tell me what the passing criteria will be - I don't think we will be sending surveys to each and every ground unit that was supported and asking them what level of support they got. It is all about the social experiment of "everyone is as good as everyone else and interchangeable", I don't think that we should have to do that even though a guy on the ground's life may depend on it, and we should give that AFPC guy a chance to fly a UAV if he wants to (without him changing to some other ADSC, such as 11FXX, first and gaining some real-world experience).

Flameout

After all the shouting and yelling is over, we need to face the simple fact that manned CAS missions will steadily become nonexistent. UAVs will rule the skies for that mission.

A little later, they will supplant manned aircraft for most air to air combat as well.

As I noted earlier, for obvious reasons transports/cargo will continue to be manned for the indefinite future. I expect to see unmanned tankers of some sort within the next 20 years, and I expect they'll shoulder a portion (minority) of the refuelling workload, with the KC-X (whether Airbus or Boeing) taking the majority.

Tweetdrvr

As a former EWO, I feel I should point out all of this UAS stuff is contingent upon us having complete control of the electromagnetic spectrum. The Soviets were very big into electronic combat and were going to deny us use of the trons as much as possible. Not as big of a show stopper when everybody on the team is a Larry Bird/Michael Jordan and can go one on one and still make the offense work or can produce synergistic effects when working as a team.

To counter a fifth generation fighter our opponents must overwhelm us with fourth generation in such numbers that our technological advantage is rendered inert or they must spend the money to develop their own fifth generation stuff and create a balance of power and then it is back to training of the individual pilots to determine the outcome of a fight.

To counter a UAS, our opponents need only build large transmitters to block all the data streams going back and forth between vehicle and controller. The guys on the ground are never going to be limited by transmitting power. UAS platforms will be great for low intensity conflicts, but if China ever makes a move against Taiwan or the Russian Bear truly comes out of hibernation, our satellites, our command and control, and uplink/downlinks to UAS's will be first on their order of priority.

I would hate to see our SKYNET defense force compromised or rendered stupid because someone simply jammed our signals.

jkengberg

disregard.

LivingInMEM

Shack. Same can be said for JDAM to some extent. I have been hesitant to discuss limfacs on an unsecure forum, but I think our senior leadership is forgetting this "fog of war" / high EA environment when they are making a lot of their acquisition decisions. But, the future of UAS and who we man them with are two different discussions. As long as we have these systems operating right now, and as long as these systems are the support that we are giving the soldiers on the ground, we will need to man them with the most qualified personnel we can muster.

All you need is more aircraft than there are airborne missiles - and with so few F-22's there will be just a few missiles. There is a scenario where we need some F-22's, but there are many more scenarios where we could use 800 F-15's. Remember when the AIM-7 was going to make guns on aircraft obsolete?

That, or our internet, preventing us from flying a sortie and ruining the will of our populace to fight.

Flameout

Another thought on the road to replacing humans in CAS missions: if the legal regs governing how we apply CAS dictate that a uniformed servicemember must be in the loop to drop ordnance, it should be quite easy to set up a "pickle station" in the UAV control suite, manned by a uniformed servicemember. This person need not be a commissioned officer. He/she would simply press the button to pickle the ordnance when the UAV pilot or automatic targeting system called for weapon release. The USAF could establish a new sub-MOS called "aerial weapon targeter" or some such for these folks. The targeters could be ordnance specialists as their primary MOS. In fact, it would be a morale-booster for the same ordnance handlers who load up a UAV with bombs or Hellfires to also pickle the weapon on the bad guys!

LivingInMEM

We could have one guy do everything and save all kinds of money. So, that weapons loader will now have to know not only all of the appropriate tech orders associated with loading the weapons, but also be thoroughly familiar with the details and legalities of the ROE of the theater in question. And, if he is supporting two theaters, he will easily be able to develop a thorough understanding of both sets of ROE (they do differ sometimes, you know) and be able to apply the ROE in his split-second decision making. And this will come after he has gained operational experience on the employment parameters and limitations of the weapons and gained a thorough understanding of which weapons are optimal for which target categories. After all, if he is providing the consent in the application of deadly force, he will have to know this stuff.

As a 737 Capt, would you consider it reasonable if I said that the same mechanic that checked the tire pressure of your tires (I know they do more than that) could get the satisfaction of landing on those tires? How about giving the baggage handler the satisfaction of getting those bags to their destination. If I had to choose between compromising on the qualifications of the guy landing a 737, or the guy employing deadly ordnance in support of and in the vicinity of our ground troops - I'll go with the lower qualified guy being in the 737. After all, it flies auto-coupled approaches. Or do you think that is too important a job to compromise qualifications on?

Flameout

Memphis, if the current legal/regulatory restrictions remain (which I doubt), perhaps we will need to make "aerial weapon targeter" a fullblown MOS and teach them weapons parameters, laws of war, etc. My main point is that we don't/won't need a blue-suit pilot flying the UAV -- a contractor (perhaps even a "non-traditional pilot" contractor) can do that just fine. If a blue-suit targeter is required to pickle the weapon, that person can also be a non-pilot. The targeter can gain "operational experience on the employment parameters and limitations of the weapons" by dropping them in practice missions -- from a UAV!

LivingInMEM

What if all of the airlines were going to switch to unmanned control next month and were going to hire people with no flying experience to control the aircraft? Every one here would argue that the lives of the passengers were too important, that the lives of the people on the ground were too important, and the value of the aircraft was too high to trust to just anyone off the street. You would argue that anyone might be OK and be able to do well enough, but if that one thing went wrong.... the cost of failure would be too high to not go with the BEST option. You would argue that only you, the actual captain with actual experience, could be the only real choice for the position. And that would be your argument for an aircraft that does nothing but go from Point A to Point B - something an actual UAS only does in order to accomplish its real mission. We don't even have to talk unmanned. Why should we differentiate between a pilot who sits in the seat or sits on the ground, there is plenty enough automation in the existing 737 that anyone who can fly Microsoft Flight Sim can fly the real thing? Why shouldn't your airline just go to Embry-Riddle, UND, MTSU or wherever and just hire a bunch of dudes off the street on the cheap? After all, any of those guys could do the job, right? Today's fleet of aircraft (A-320,737-800, etc) are just as automated as any UAS, they could get their experience as they worked. This isn't about who CAN do the job, it is about who is BEST to do the job.

All of you have always argued that for YOUR job, the airline can't afford to go cheap. But, let's talk about the support we provide the troops on the ground, the troops having to walk down the street with the fear of IED's on their mind, the troops kicking down doors not knowing what is on the other side, the troops whoare focused on teh threat in front of them but are still in danger from the threat all around them, the troops exposed to snipers on any rooftop and you are all willing to compromise. You would probably argue that it is hard enough to fly a 737 when you have all of the tactile cues (engine and air noise, seat of the pants feel, etc) from sitting in the cockpit, it would be simply dangerous to bring a guy in and start him from scratch and have him try to visualize what is going on with the aircraft out there when he has never even experienced it in person. You would argue that are subtle cues that an experienced person would recognize before disaster struck, but an inexperienced person would recognize them too late or miss them altogether. But, for some reason, you think that it would be OK to take someone who has never been in the battlespace and have him have to visualize how all of the varied assets are integrating and how best to position his asset to accomplish the mission - all without ever having been there done that.

I know of too many instances where the troops on the ground have been failed by the UAS support due to no other reason than how the USAF decided to man the system. I won't post the specifics here, but wrong decisions on where to place the asset or focus the mission or interpret the intel has resulted in substantial difficulty for the guy on the ground. I can not properly express the anger that at least one special ops guy I know has from at least 2 instances where they have dropped the ball. I also can't tell you how many instances I know where a truly experienced operator made the correct call (against the desires of others in the chain but not in the capsule) and probably saved the day - or at the least didn't make a decision that increased the risk of the people on the ground. The USAF already has put first-term airmen as the intel specialists, as the sensor operators, and are now even considering changing the sensor operator ADSC so they don't continue to receive aviation pay. When the goal should be to attract the most qualified personnel, the USAF is doing what it can to ensure that truly qualified and experienced personnel can't afford to step up to the plate. Tell me, what is the allowable cost we are willing to endure to put inexperience in these assets and who will have to pay that cost?

As I have said over and over, everyone argues why the lower qualified person CAN serve in this role. Guess what, your job CAN be manned by the lower qualified person, also. Not one of the dissenters has ever expressed how our combat capability would be best served by these decisions. No one ever tells me why the lower qualified dude is BEST in that role. Yet, you would quickly tell me why YOUR job needs to be manned by the best available person - as if the lives of your passengers was more important than the support of the troops on the ground.