Cooperd0g

The tough part is getting a fresh UPT grad the skills necessary before the combat action. I know there are so many running around in country, that I doubt many are available for training. The best thing for current ops might be to pull qualified combat pilots from units that aren't doing anything. I do agree that a 10, 15E, or 16 guy is going to be well suited to the mission based on their previous experience.

In the long run there probably needs to be a dedicated career track. The possibility of a warrant officer program does not sound like a bad idea either. Maybe guys start out enlisted as a pred support guy, move up to sensor operators, and eventualy to flying it. By the time they are flying, they would have some real big picture experience.

Spaceman Spliff

Bro, you may be able to order folks around in the Marine Corps. But this is not the military, and you are not God.

Don't pretend to have the authority to boss others around on this forum.

Sputnik

Clearly I said something that ****ed you off, pretty sure I didn't mean to. I've read the paragraph above three times and still aren't sure what you're asking.

Your previous post referenced dumbing down, immediately followed by a comment about WO's. I (and I think FlyFast) made the apparently incorrect assumption that the two remarks were tied. So yes, I thought you did say they were dumb. If not, my apologies for a wrong interpretation.

I don't know what the "do it that way trash" means. The argument many people (often AF pilots) make for allowing enlisted guys to operate UAVs is that the Army has already proved it's possible. I think that's an intellectually empty argument, Army and AF UAVs are completely different animals, comparing who operates them is pointless. That said, while I think that particular rationale is worthless, I still think think it quite possible enlisted and/or non-rated guys could operate them just fine, the possibility should at least be examined.

There's another thread on here about FAIPs. Apparently you think it's bad, I don't. We disagree. That's fine.

If I were ordered to UAVs I'd do it, and do it to the best of my abilities. As would I think most AF pilots on this board. And just like most of those AF pilots, I wouldn't be real happy to get those orders. I don't have to be happy, I just have to do it. If you don't like how I or the other guy react to those orders, no offense but--who cares? I have to follow orders, my happiness is irrelevant, your happiness with my unhappiness is even more irrelevant.

I got kind of lost on the welfare, C5s to commercial guys and me hauling stuff to the AOR and how much I talk about contributed to the war effort.

But here's my response to what I think you're saying, if we can train non-rated guys to operate UAVs effectively, what are we dumbing down? If I can take an admin guy and teach him to effectively kill guys via UAV....what's wrong with that? I don't know that we can or can't, but I fail to see what's being dumbed down by using lower ranking or less educated people. The effect is all that matters.

There's a lot of people on here who don't want to fly UAVs. So what? Do you want to fly them? Have you volunteered?

Sputnik

He's a moderator, so I think he not only has the authority but the power to boss people around (or at least delete their posts and/or lock their accounts).

I actually missed the personal insults, so if the mod remark was directed at me....

GasPasser

I think the USAF is blind to the guys headed (pushed) out the door who would love to continue to serve. They fall into a few categories:

1 - Reserve & Guard pilots who have 20 yrs and are "Selectively non-Retained" because they need the LTC slot for Maj Johnson, and in-turn, UPT grad Lt Hamfist. Many of these very senior pilots would love to stay in the cockpit until all their teeth fell out - but that's the way it is in the Reserves and Guard. You get your 20, your time in grade, and you're shown the door. Many want to continue to serve, and would take UAVs if they could rather than retire. The challenge is to get the pilot and the console together. If they put a UAV console in at every USAF installation, you would have the 20+ crowd lining up at the door to continuing to serve as a part-timer well past 20 years. A perfect IMA job! The immediate challenge is to put the facilities in place and all the training. You’d have to have about 4 part-timers trained to get the same utilization from one FT UAV pilot. So this option needs some longer lead time. Sign me up when I’m due for selective retention in a few years.

2 – BRAC’d Reserve & Guard units. Many are fighting it because they want real planes. This is short-sighted in my view. The numbers of cockpits are shrinking, this may be a better deal than holding their breath or screaming at Washington. One Guard Tanker unit is in UAVs now. Many other BRAC’d units don’t have a new mission, some are waiting on C-27s that may never come. This is a way to tap that experience and give them a very critical mission with a long life ahead of it. A couple of other pluses….no deployments, no Chem Suits!

3-AD Guys that punch-out rather than take that staff-tour. Make a UAV tour a option in-lieu of a staff tour. I think retention would climb. A lot of pilots only wish to serve if they can fly. They don’t want to be wing-king. Here’s a way to make flying a career path unto itself.

LivingInMEM

None of this has been about calling people out because they are not volunteering for this assignment. Instead we have people saying "don't send me, send some admin dude because I want to keep on flying." At least if they were saying "don't send me, send some other F-16 / F-15 / etc dude", they wouldn't show a willingness to sacrifice our soldiers in combat over their sweet deal. Saying that you'd rather not do this job (but still understanding that someone with the same qualifications as you will end up getting the assignment) is not the same as saying "why don't you just take these other less-qualified guys and put them in there instead?"

For me, it is about 2 main points: the USAF makes decisions based on anything but combat capability (and that is OK with most as long as it does not affect them negatively) and USAF officers are whining about maybe having to give up a nice cockpit for a while to go fulfill an important combat role. We have lost sight of the fact that you go where you are told and needs of the service come first.

You could put any of those category of pilots that gaspasser mentioned into those jobs, as long as they met the requirements. Who cares if every pilot in the Sqdn is a LTCol as long as the job is getting done to the max extent possible - unfortunately the admin folks of the USAF do because something other than combat capability is always the priority.

The general response has been "it's only a UAV." Well, it's now 2008 and the UAV of 1996 is long gone. UAV's are flying in theater in the same airspace as fast movers / AC-130's / etc and are dropping real live weapons (sometimes in close proximity to friendly forces) and are killing real live people. As if it wasn't difficult enough to know where you are in relation to everything else and to maintain SA when you are there, now you have to do it from half a world away by visualizing what is going on and where everyone is in your mind. I am sure that someone who has never been in a combat role would do well in that capacity.

Given the magnitude of the task and the importance of the mission, how much mission degradation are you willing to accept to allow a USAF officer to place his own desires above the needs of the service? There are actual instances where Army SF dudes were failed in one way or another by the UAV support they thought they were getting (relayed to me by the Army dudes - I've got specifics) - and it all came down to inexperience and not being able to know what the dude IN HARM's WAY was thinking and what the priority was at that very moment. To some extent, you have to have been shot at to know what the dude currently getting shot at is thinking.

Everyone is quick to say "why don't we put that UPT washout or that enlisted folk (not a judgement on enlisted folks) in there", but they would never consider putting that UPT washout or enlisted folk (not a judgement on enlisted folks) in the right seat of whatever they fly. Why is it OK to put an inexperienced dude in a combat role UAV, but not OK to put him in the right seat of a C-5? How about putting that admin folk in as a T-6 IP? We could even have the enlisted dudes running the Rated Officer assignment branches. You know, you COULD do any of these things - but that does not mean it would be smart.

Adlerdriver

All,
In addition to above quote, there have been several references to UAVs providing CAS to troops in need.
Are we really allowing a predator to perform the same CAS mission that an F-16/15E/18 is taking care of in the AOR? If I were in a "need CAS NOW" type of situation, I'm not sure I'd be real happy if my plea for help was answered with a UAV instead of a manned CAS aircraft (no matter who was flying it and how good their judgment was).
I'll be the first to acknowledge my lack of knowledge on all things UAV, but from a basic fighter pilot's point of view, I don't see the two as equal.

Sputnik

[quote=Adlerdriver;463487]All,


Are we really allowing a predator to perform the same CAS mission that an F-16/15E/18 is taking care of in the AOR? If I were in a "need CAS NOW" type of situation, I'm not sure I'd be real happy if my plea for help was answered with a UAV instead of a manned CAS aircraft (no matter who was flying it and how good their judgment was).quote]

Yes.

Worked with a lot of JTACs in my last unit, they had their preferential aircraft. But when they were getting shot at, the plane they loved the most was the one that came in and saved their butt.

LivingInMEM

Adler, one question - are your manned fighters providing CAS to SF dudes inside of Pakistan? OK, two questions - should those SF go without CAS?

You get what you are given. As I said before, it wasn't my idea and I may not be a fan, but it is what it is and you go from there. These ARE aircraft that are dropping bombs and you put your best people where the weapons meet the enemy, period.

The same people who would advocate putting a admin dude or UPT dude in a UAV that is providing CAS would never even consider taking their most junior wingman along on Day 1 of the war.

webecheck

YES, been there done it.

some ekia from a drop using an army uav. some from using a pred. in fact, in todays world of high technology, a uav is sometimes better. when you need someone to loiter, track, provide good video to gnd/cc, and/or keep watching the ants run from building to building and wait until they're in one place long enough, you need something with long legs. i was twice burned by the viper who had to hit the tanker. not a slam at the viper guys, i am one, just stating a fact. why do you think sec gates is pushing it so hard? bottom line, it is incredibly effective. old school cas as most of us know it has changed a little. now, the weapons can do the cas. how else could a b-1 or b-52 perform the mission...they sure as hell cant wheel it up.