Winston Smith

This is the beginning of the end for military flying careers. UAVs out of pilot training is only the first step.

Once DoD bean counters realize they can pay an Xbox tournament winner 10 bucks an hour plus all the Mountain Dew he can drink to fly its planes, this whole thing will come crashing down.

It will be a steady and fast move downhill. First Recon, then Fighters, then Bombers, then Cargo/Tankers. As a former Tanker clown, there is NO WAY I would ever refuel an unmanned aircraft. No way I'm letting some non-rated A1C dipsh!t on the ground with nothing to lose, get within 10 feet of my hairy white ass.

All DV airlift will be done by the lowest bidder on AF aircraft. (Good luck on FlightOps,General.) Maybe they'll pay a bit more to fly the President on AF One...probably retired AF guys at first, and when they're too old...well, God help the 47th president.

You heard it here first: The last honest-to-God, UPT-trained military pilot has already been born.

KC10 FATboy

You won't have to. Boeing has already successfully air refueled UAVs with no pilots at the controls. Rumor is, on its first attempt it got a contact, no disconnects.

-Fatty

FlyFastLiveSlow

The last bastion of hope...Rich people who can afford pilots will keep them for a while longer than the rest. Not sure how cool it will be to have the "limo driver of the sky" job though.

LivingInMEM

Did you think about these comments before you typed them? You think it is OK for civilian contractors to drop bombs on foreign soil, kill people, provide the top-cover/CAS for our soldiers on the ground - but we will still need military pilots (vs contractors) to fly tankers and cargo? You sound as if you think the limfac to using contractors is whether they work a normal duty day and stay stateside.

With a little research, you will find than an auto-land system does exist for landing on carriers - it is not the takeoff and landing issue that is keeping UAV's off of the boat.

Flameout

1. "You sound as if you think the limfac to using contractors is whether they work a normal duty day and stay stateside." Believe it or not, that's a consideration. I know what you're asserting: that only uniformed service members should have the awesome legal power to deal death. But I'm here to tell you, friend, that that power is transferrable with the stroke of a pen in a federal regulation. Take a look at US military operations overseas in the last ten years -- you'll see contractors everywhere, performing jobs that would have been unthinkable for contractors a generation ago. The technology and economics of contractor-enabled strike missions simply makes too much sense to pretend it won't happen.

2. Of course an auto-land system exists for carrier ops, and has for years. Is it more limited than human-controlled approaches, particularly in certain sea states? You betcha. I do think auto-land and (to be developed in the future) auto-launch systems will prove adequate in the future, but we're not there yet.

KC10 FATboy

Sadly, the CIA already does this.

How many times have I heard on the radio after I complained about a UAV getting too close to us in-flight ... "sorry, that aircraft is working with a different agency and they're not on frequency..."



-Fatty

LivingInMEM

First, I think CIA agents/operatives would be a little put off that you consider them to be contractors. They are employees of the US Gov't (just like military personnel) and consider what they do "serving the country".

Next, we are not using any contractors in any offensive roles - the political establishment can not handle the fallout from that. All of our contractors are there in support or technically "defensive" roles (personnel protection, convoy escort, etc). It makes a huge difference from a practical and legal point of view, as engaging the enemy in self-defense is completely different from conducting offensive operations. Check out the fallout from the firefight that the Blackwater Agency was involved in a while back where they claimed self-defense, but others said it was over the bounds.

KC10 FATboy

I don't mean to be quibble (I hate that word), but, wouldn't you consider government contractors as employees of the US Government? I know many contractors who consider what they do as "serving the country". I'm not sure what the Geneva Conventions says about CIA agents or government contractors who aren't officially military or aren't wearing a military uniform.

There is a very small fine line between the guy/gal in uniform who pushes the button on the UAV control panel which drops a bomb and the civilian contractor working right besides him/her.

-Fatty

Flameout

Exactly right, Fatty. When the UAV operator is thousands of miles away, safely ensconsed in a cubicle, pickling the weapon ceases to be the action of a warrior, and becomes a purely technical act, like pressing the "on" button on a computer. This is what aerial warfare is becoming and we need to acknowledge it. There won't be much more thrills and satisfaction for air warriors in the future, but there won't be the pilot casualties either.

And by the way: I'm fully convinced the need to have qualified aircraft pilots as UAV operators will go away sooner rather than later. Ever seen videos of the "Virtual Thunderbirds" on the internet? These guys fly formation aerobatics in simulated F-16s with a skill that's breathtaking -- and none of them are real pilots!

Winston Smith

People, rich or not, are a LONG way from flying on an airplane without the pilots' asses on the line along with theirs, so pax pilots will be around for a long, long time. No one's going to fly an airplane with the "pilots" safely on the ground.

The same cannot be said for cargo. People really don't care if their overnight letter or rubber dog sh!t is being flown by an honest-to-God trained pilot or by a 19 year old video game champion.