Salvation for UPT grads at Drop...?
10-30-2008, 11:58 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 253
Salvation for UPT grads at Drop...?
Saw this today. Don't remember seeing anything about this on the site. Should be interesting, and take a little stress of those who actually learn how to fly.
Revolution in the Air: Non-Aviators to Take Flight
Revolution in the Air: Non-Aviators to Take Flight
10-30-2008, 02:21 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
I think this has already been addressed - all 13 or so pages of it.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/mi...tml#post484115
But, anyway, good job with the big picture and all. UPT grads salvation is more of a priority than the absolute best support we can give the troops on the ground. After all, they are the ones spending 12-18 months walking down the road peppered with IED's, driving down roads where an enemy ambush may wait around every corner, and kicking down doors with who knows what behind them. But that's OK, let's send them some reduced level of support (you may try to debate how much reduced, but there is no debate that it will be reduced) so some USAF pilot can not be inconvenienced. I've got specific examples of that reduced support from some other less-than-qualified operators - unfortunately they all end with a price paid in (or nearly paid) in human lives or loss of an objective. You know, mission and all that stuff. If an AD aviator does not want to contribute to the wartime mission, go somewhere else - needs of the service come first, always have, always will. I value the lives of those on the ground more than any pilot's salvation. Remember, we are talking about Active Duty aviators who joined the USAF to supposedly provide for the common defense of this nation.
I don't care if you'd comment on the UAS thing, but I sure would like some Marines to start a thread on dedication and focus towards the mission - and where the priorities lie. It would be a change from having a bunch of airline pilots trying to project their post-military priorities on the still on AD USAF. I am actually surprised none have used the opportunity to resurrect the Air Farce concept.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/mi...tml#post484115
But, anyway, good job with the big picture and all. UPT grads salvation is more of a priority than the absolute best support we can give the troops on the ground. After all, they are the ones spending 12-18 months walking down the road peppered with IED's, driving down roads where an enemy ambush may wait around every corner, and kicking down doors with who knows what behind them. But that's OK, let's send them some reduced level of support (you may try to debate how much reduced, but there is no debate that it will be reduced) so some USAF pilot can not be inconvenienced. I've got specific examples of that reduced support from some other less-than-qualified operators - unfortunately they all end with a price paid in (or nearly paid) in human lives or loss of an objective. You know, mission and all that stuff. If an AD aviator does not want to contribute to the wartime mission, go somewhere else - needs of the service come first, always have, always will. I value the lives of those on the ground more than any pilot's salvation. Remember, we are talking about Active Duty aviators who joined the USAF to supposedly provide for the common defense of this nation.
I don't care if you'd comment on the UAS thing, but I sure would like some Marines to start a thread on dedication and focus towards the mission - and where the priorities lie. It would be a change from having a bunch of airline pilots trying to project their post-military priorities on the still on AD USAF. I am actually surprised none have used the opportunity to resurrect the Air Farce concept.
10-30-2008, 05:22 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330B
Posts: 210
Wow, Colonel, this is "Airline Pilot Central" that we are all visiting. I whole heartedly agree with Mission First and have read the riot act to a few of my young charges when I was wearing my flight suit. They're all in a box now. I'd be grousing too if I were scope doping a UAV in a trailer near Tonapah. And I do have a huge problem ethically with smoking gomers from an air conditioned trailer, and then sleeping in your nappy jammies. I believe we have crossed the Rubicon. It's not war, it's exterminating, and I want no part of it.
10-30-2008, 05:25 PM
#7
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: C-17 IP/EP
Posts: 10
I think this has already been addressed - all 13 or so pages of it.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/mi...tml#post484115
But, anyway, good job with the big picture and all. UPT grads salvation is more of a priority than the absolute best support we can give the troops on the ground. After all, they are the ones spending 12-18 months walking down the road peppered with IED's, driving down roads where an enemy ambush may wait around every corner, and kicking down doors with who knows what behind them. But that's OK, let's send them some reduced level of support (you may try to debate how much reduced, but there is no debate that it will be reduced) so some USAF pilot can not be inconvenienced. I've got specific examples of that reduced support from some other less-than-qualified operators - unfortunately they all end with a price paid in (or nearly paid) in human lives or loss of an objective. You know, mission and all that stuff. If an AD aviator does not want to contribute to the wartime mission, go somewhere else - needs of the service come first, always have, always will. I value the lives of those on the ground more than any pilot's salvation. Remember, we are talking about Active Duty aviators who joined the USAF to supposedly provide for the common defense of this nation.
I don't care if you'd comment on the UAS thing, but I sure would like some Marines to start a thread on dedication and focus towards the mission - and where the priorities lie. It would be a change from having a bunch of airline pilots trying to project their post-military priorities on the still on AD USAF. I am actually surprised none have used the opportunity to resurrect the Air Farce concept.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/mi...tml#post484115
But, anyway, good job with the big picture and all. UPT grads salvation is more of a priority than the absolute best support we can give the troops on the ground. After all, they are the ones spending 12-18 months walking down the road peppered with IED's, driving down roads where an enemy ambush may wait around every corner, and kicking down doors with who knows what behind them. But that's OK, let's send them some reduced level of support (you may try to debate how much reduced, but there is no debate that it will be reduced) so some USAF pilot can not be inconvenienced. I've got specific examples of that reduced support from some other less-than-qualified operators - unfortunately they all end with a price paid in (or nearly paid) in human lives or loss of an objective. You know, mission and all that stuff. If an AD aviator does not want to contribute to the wartime mission, go somewhere else - needs of the service come first, always have, always will. I value the lives of those on the ground more than any pilot's salvation. Remember, we are talking about Active Duty aviators who joined the USAF to supposedly provide for the common defense of this nation.
I don't care if you'd comment on the UAS thing, but I sure would like some Marines to start a thread on dedication and focus towards the mission - and where the priorities lie. It would be a change from having a bunch of airline pilots trying to project their post-military priorities on the still on AD USAF. I am actually surprised none have used the opportunity to resurrect the Air Farce concept.
10-30-2008, 07:12 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
This is not about guys filling out dream sheets, it is about USAF officers or former USAF officers feeling entitled to a cockpit of their choice at taxpayer expense when Army, Marine, Navy and USAF troops are dying on an almost daily basis. I have not berated anyone for not wanting to do the job, nor for not volunteering. As a matter of fact, I have already posted that I understand that no individual would necessarily want to leave a cockpit for this assignment. But not wanting to do it individually is not the same as thinking that no rated officer should do that job. Just because you may not want to be an ALO (the kind with the Army, not the Academy), should no ALO's be rated officers? Just because you may not want to go to Korea, should no rated officers be required to go to Korea?
What I have chastised is the attitude that our pilots are above the insult of being assigned to fly an unmanned asset in an actual combat theater. Read the posts - these are former and current officers talking about how these assignments are beneath our current USAF rated officer corps. As current USAFR/ANG or former officers, we should understand that there are young officers reading these posts (reference the ones telling what their UPT drops are) and we should feel an obligation to not steer them wrong - we are still mentors of a sort. I have no problems with a retired or separated officer who has already paid his/her dues not wanting to accept such an assignment as family/employer/etc concerns play a higher role in the decision process. They have earned the right. On the other hand, young officers have not been there/done that and they have not paid their dues - they go where they are told just like we did.
If you review my posts in the other threads, you will see that I think the USAF is failing an obligation to provide the best support to the guys on the ground by sending UPT grads to this assignment as well as non-pilots. Show me the research that shows that low experience in the UAS will enhance combat capability. Whether you want to call me Col or anything else, so be it - our current officer corps has forgotten what it means to be an officer. I can't imagine our officer corps of the 1960's and earlier complaining how the rated officer force is being saddled with this undue burden - an undue burden that is getting the majority of combat action in the AOR I might add.
For you who think this is unethical, have you really considered that stance? Is it more immoral than launching nuclear-armed ICBM's on population centers; how about cruise missiles launched from aircraft, ship or submarine; what about the combination of B-1's or B-52's taking off from home, never getting into the AOR and launching cruise missiles from a safe distance from the target, then returning home to sleep in their jammies; what about indirect artillery fire or MLRS; or AGM-130's; how about the shelling of coastal targets from Navy ships at an untouchable distance regarding the enemy capabilities; or any other stand-off weapons? What about the use of land mines in cluster munitions - the delivery aircraft is long gone and the aircrew may very well be in their jammies by the time the weapons detonate? How close to the target do you have to be to be ethical?
No matter what you do, whether it be fly rescue C-130's or run the motor pool, you play a part in USAF combat operations. You may not drop the bombs from afar, but you enable those who do. There is no moral relativity here, you are not a more ethical officer than one who presses the pickle button - we each have our role to the same end. Wars are won by driving the enemy to destruction or driving him to the negotiating table. The most humane wars have been proven to be the most violent up front, although the political will to fight those wars may be gone.
You may not like dealing with these things called facts on an APC forum, but I'll do my best to represent the correct frame of mind for our current, young, AD officers who are just beginning a career in the profession of arms.
What I have chastised is the attitude that our pilots are above the insult of being assigned to fly an unmanned asset in an actual combat theater. Read the posts - these are former and current officers talking about how these assignments are beneath our current USAF rated officer corps. As current USAFR/ANG or former officers, we should understand that there are young officers reading these posts (reference the ones telling what their UPT drops are) and we should feel an obligation to not steer them wrong - we are still mentors of a sort. I have no problems with a retired or separated officer who has already paid his/her dues not wanting to accept such an assignment as family/employer/etc concerns play a higher role in the decision process. They have earned the right. On the other hand, young officers have not been there/done that and they have not paid their dues - they go where they are told just like we did.
If you review my posts in the other threads, you will see that I think the USAF is failing an obligation to provide the best support to the guys on the ground by sending UPT grads to this assignment as well as non-pilots. Show me the research that shows that low experience in the UAS will enhance combat capability. Whether you want to call me Col or anything else, so be it - our current officer corps has forgotten what it means to be an officer. I can't imagine our officer corps of the 1960's and earlier complaining how the rated officer force is being saddled with this undue burden - an undue burden that is getting the majority of combat action in the AOR I might add.
For you who think this is unethical, have you really considered that stance? Is it more immoral than launching nuclear-armed ICBM's on population centers; how about cruise missiles launched from aircraft, ship or submarine; what about the combination of B-1's or B-52's taking off from home, never getting into the AOR and launching cruise missiles from a safe distance from the target, then returning home to sleep in their jammies; what about indirect artillery fire or MLRS; or AGM-130's; how about the shelling of coastal targets from Navy ships at an untouchable distance regarding the enemy capabilities; or any other stand-off weapons? What about the use of land mines in cluster munitions - the delivery aircraft is long gone and the aircrew may very well be in their jammies by the time the weapons detonate? How close to the target do you have to be to be ethical?
No matter what you do, whether it be fly rescue C-130's or run the motor pool, you play a part in USAF combat operations. You may not drop the bombs from afar, but you enable those who do. There is no moral relativity here, you are not a more ethical officer than one who presses the pickle button - we each have our role to the same end. Wars are won by driving the enemy to destruction or driving him to the negotiating table. The most humane wars have been proven to be the most violent up front, although the political will to fight those wars may be gone.
You may not like dealing with these things called facts on an APC forum, but I'll do my best to represent the correct frame of mind for our current, young, AD officers who are just beginning a career in the profession of arms.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
