Sputnik

I see where you're coming from, but I think we'll end up disagreeing on this one.

A final thought before I go--can you stick a UPT washout in the back of a Bone or Buff?

Your argument is predicated first on that operating a UAV is the same as flying an aircraft. Many of us disagree. You don't think the backseat of a Bone should be occupied by a pilot do you? They're dropping bombs in a combat environment, but their role is not pilot, it's nav/bombadier/wso/dso/whatever the current term is.

My personal feeling is that UAVs are an incredibly important warfighting weapon in the AF arsenal. I don't translate that necessarily to a requirement that an AF pilot needs to operate it.

I think the current opinion (this week) from AFPC is that we don't have enough pilots. I know there are huge experience problems in my community (thanks VSP). So, if you can send a non pilot to UAVs and keep an experienced guy in the cockpit, it might be what the pilot wants but the important thing is that its best for the AF.

I haven't worked in UAV world, so I really don't know, but I think it's worth looking into. As it happens the new CSAF also thinks it's worth looking into, the test starts in Jan. By this time next year we should all know.

USMCFLYR

SpacemanSpiff -

You call it bossing around - I call it holding you to the terms of the TOS which you agreed to when you signed up.

USMCFLYR

USMCFLYR

Sputnik -

The remark was made across the board. This thread is heading down a bad path and I wanted two things:

1) Get it back on line without the personal attacks and degrading comments about family members for instance, and

2) The professionalism shown that I believe we all have as military members and following the rules that we all have agreed to when we joined.

Thanks for your support.

USMCFLYR

LivingInMEM

A couple of responses point by point:

I have no qualms with a UPT washout sitting in the back of a B-1 (after the requisite training has been accomplished, of course) just as I have no qualms with that same person occupying the sensor operator position of a UAV console. We are talking pilot position here.

No, not really - lets go apples to apples here. In the back of a B-1 they are part of a crew that is dropping bombs, all under the command of an aircraft commander (who has completed UPT and gained significant experience prior to assuming that role) who has the authority to consent or not consent to the weapons release. Let's keep this comparison AC to AC. I don't consider the N/B/W/D role the same as the guy with the sole authority to press the pickle button.

I never said that, feel free to review my posts. I said that the most difficult part of employing a combat MWS is not flying the MWS, it is actual expenditure of ordnance. If all you had to do was fly the UAV (such as the trans-Pacific UAV freighters FedEx will have before too long), then put anyone at the controls. But if you are going to put US Forces in harm's way with the understanding that their aerial support will be provided by these UAV's and ordnance may/may not be expended - then we default to the combat experience. This is no place for neophytes.


You made my argument for me. Given recent history, I'd question my thought process if my beliefs were in line with AFPC and CSAF (or most any general, in general). I'm talking about what's right, not what's expedient or not what's political.

Sputnik

You're right, you didn't say that. However you keep coming back to implying the only person who can adequately provide UAV CAS is a pilot. That's where we disagree. I think you need well trained, motivated, intelligent professionals at the helm. Doesn't have to be a pilot.

But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Box Office

Wow, I didn't log in for a while and look what I missed. My point was not "the army does it so we should to" it simply was that a cost-benefit analysis should be considered before a UPT grad is sent straight to UAVs. And I was not discounting the judgement or skill required to do the job, I just think there could be a more efficient way of filling the requirement that more effectively utilizes all the training the guy out of UPT has received.

Side note, I like the suggestion of having a UAV option versus a staff tour option. I think that would create a career-flyer track and help retention.

XL0901

I’m new to this forum but thought you all may want a different perspective. As a current UPT student 1 month away from graduating from the first class to receive UAVs…this topic is kind of important to me. How about we all get our facts straight…from the source if you will.

Starting in Oct, 10% of all UPT grads will end up in a UAV. They are looking for about 100 per year for the next 3 years. Currently we are being told that it is not an MWS and that the follow on assignment will be in a manned MWS. Call it an alpha “White jet” tour. It sounds like using UPT grads is just a short term fix to the UAV manning shortfalls.

As you can imagine, hearing this news 1 month before the culmination of the most difficult year of our lives…we were pretty upset. First came shock, then disbelief followed quickly by anger. After all this isn’t what we signed up for. But the more it sank in, we realized that although this isn’t what we had in mind, it isn’t what we were “Entitled to”, it still fulfills our reason for being, to serve. Maybe I was the only one who signed up (Post 9/11 mind you) without a guaranteed pilot slot…but I think not. Now don’t get me wrong, but there is no sense in fighting it. To do so would be selfish.

So you want non-rated “Operators” to do this job, sounds great, I agree (I’m not going to even get in to the discussion of who that should or should not be). But I think most of you are missing the real issue. See, last I checked, we train at home and employ our training at war. Well it seems the FAA has a little issue with pilotless aircraft controlled by “Not pilots” operating in their airspace. So until the agencies that control our airspace at home get on board you are just wasting your breath. And by the way, Big Blue is working that issue and will begin training non-rated operators next year.

What about the UPT washouts that got airsick or couldn’t progress in the program…they could fly UAVs. After all they must be good folks if they got there in the first place. Well if you do that you further discredit the career field by making it seem “second rate”, pilot wanna-be’s if you want to call them that. What do you think the former MWS pilots sitting next to them will think…what would those unit dynamics be like? It is the same reason why they don’t normally send UPT washouts to Nav school. Do you, the guy who busted his butt in Nav school want to be known as a navigator or a guy that couldn’t hack pilot training?

I’m in no way defending what’s going on with UAVs. As I said I’m not happy about it, this “Isn’t what I signed up for”. I just think that arguing and fighting it is only going to get you left behind. I don’t ever want to fly a UAV, but if that is my calling…I’m going to answer it. After all, when you deploy on a staff tour, it might be a UAV that is killing the guys who are trying to kill you.

Slice

Are they dropping from the fighter or heavy track?

XL0901

Both...they told each to expect one. Rumor is T-44s are not immune either.

Sputnik

According to the CSAF memo I got today, it was T-1, T-38 and T-44 tracks.