-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
UAVs, not just an Air Force gig anymore
- Thread starter kanakAttack
- Start date
Shack.
Specifically, the Danger Close type operations in which frat is a higher risk. There's not an attack pilot alive that can say there's not emotional risk attached to the possibility of putting your ordnance on the wrong location.
Nobody is in 'deep trouble' over the pussification of anything here.
Here's my issue: While big AF is spending ridiculous amounts of time, effort, and money to sell UAV as RPAs (for PR? to placate former pilots? why again?) the technology is running away from the concept every day. In a few short years, even Predators will be outdated and piloting skills will be completely automated (see UCAV, Fire Scout, etc.). IMHO, UAV was always the best name and the best compromise was changing the word "Unmanned" to "Uninhabited" to satisfy the PC Nazis.
Uh, what? Where do you see that 'ridiculous amounts of time, effort, and money' are being used for a nomenclature change?
I think you're overstating things in a significant way here.
They're not coming out with press releases saying the name has changed. They're not sending out teams of PA specialists to each and every base to make sure everyone is educated about the name change. There's not a massive DoD-wide PR campaign. The AF simply changed the way it references this class of vehicle. So what.
As the technology and roles are changing, the way they're referenced is changing. This happens all the time, both in aviation and elsewhere.
If that's such an asinine concept, then why is it okay to use the term 'aircraft' and not the original 'aeroplane'? Or why is 'auto' or 'car' okay instead of 'horseless carriage'? Maybe you'd like to go back to those 'mobile telephones'? Perhaps we can go listen on the 'wireless'.
My experience in the front office on a 3 star staff is how I know that a name change for ANYTHING much less an entire classification of Major Weapons Systems would cost ungodly amounts of time, energy, and money (if in nothing but man-hours). General Officers traveling for "coffee diplomacy," publications/instructions rewrites, you don't think that stuff adds up? And yes, Public Affairs officers from the Secretary's office down to Creech AFB are poking their eyes out to make sure that the press releases they do send (or would have sent anyway) refer to RPAs, not UAVs.
My point exactly is that the classification should stand up to the changing technology and roles. A UAV is still a UAV whether or not the operator is manipulating a joystick. But an RPA ceases to be an RPA once the operator input is reduced as we are seeing with Global Hawk, UCAV, Fire Scout, what have you. It seems to me that big AF is trying too hard to push the piloting aspect of these systems just when the piloting is being de-emphasized. You need to look no further than the trend of enlisted and non-(pilot) rated operators to see that this is true.
Once again, the Air Force is guilty of looking backward just as it is moving forward. I know a little about Air Force culture having spent literally half my flying career in Air Force squadrons. Back in my IP tour at Vance AFB in 2006, I had a long conversation with my CO, an F-111/AT-38/F-15C superstar about why the Air Force was clinging to F-22 even though it was making no contribution to OIF/OEF despite all its promise. His calm, honest answer spoke volumes...he said, "Because it's all we got." He went on to say that agreeing to 179 Raptors (which was ultimately forced on the service) would mean the death of the Fighter Mafia and that the service wasn't ready for that seismic shift. Well, fast forward a few years and not only is the Fighter Mafia deposed, but rated pilots in general see an even bigger threat to their turf...the reality that there may not even be cockpits in their future. I just see RPA as a lame attempt to remind people that pilots still matter.
As for your last point, I'm all for new and updated nomenclature when it clarifies a concept or sheds an outdated one (like aircraft for aeroplane, or car for horseless carraige), but RPA for UAV is just asking for another update in less time than it was worth.
Interesting perspective, but still doesn't add up to 'ridiculous amounts of time, effort, and money'.
Note also that you haven't heard much about those programs since after the initial class.
Note also that you haven't heard much about those programs since after the initial class.
Other than typing RPA instead of UAV into a press release, pubs and .ppt briefs I don't see this costing that much at all. It is actually a very minor change instead of some of the major ones I have seen in the past few years, like the start up of the DNI, DHS and AFRICOM that brings new logos, letterhead and office signage to the mix in addition to the organizational changes. And even those are minor costs associated with the cost of the overall changes. In the grand scheme of things it is a tiny thing compared to everything else, costing nothing more than a minor heartburn for those who write all the stuff.
I agree the name change is a bit absurd, I am willing to be it was the brainchild of some General in charge of something somewhere with assistance from his staff, but it is nothing more than a name change that will affect little in reality, a common theme with our brethren in light blue
.Know something we don't?
The "Beta" class -- what they've called the test class of non-pilots who went through the course in summer 2009 to become 'RPA pilots' -- have done phenomenally poorly following their initial training.
This is from a thread over on Airline Pilot Central, from someone who knows:
....and this is from an email from someone who is leadership in a USAF RPA squadron:
Interesting update, has the training for new UAV pilots been halted as a result?
That is a bit harsh on the CSAF and I am not sure it is that fair either. For a long time the USAF said "No, no, and hell NO" when it came to more ISR support. It was disheartening to see all of the excuses, dodging and outright whining that I saw from USAF leadership when asked for more support. The Army and Navy bent over backwards while the USAF was still in peacetime mindset, ISR-wise (U-2's and a few others excepted). Even when given all of the breaks they still bitched an moaned, I think SecDef was right to call their asses to the carpet, that being one of several reasons. You need to have the balls to say no when you have to but it can't be the only answer.
The ab-initio RPA training hasn't halted -- there is supposedly a second class underway currently. But the lack of a full-court-press by the AF leadership is telling in and of itself.
Speaking of the X-47, apparently it was affected by some military wide GPS glitch-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gp4YJHFW1EXEJiT8apgRFxg7dXwQD9G2KRJ80http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_gps_glitch
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gp4YJHFW1EXEJiT8apgRFxg7dXwQD9G2KRJ80http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_gps_glitch
AirAggie92
New Member
I'm just starting college this fall. I know that UAVs/UASs/RPAs have pretty much taken over the USAF, which is part of the reason I now want to join the Navy. Do I still have a good chance of flying manned aircraft for the Navy, or is it becoming just like the AF?
One, it is still a stretch to say UAVs have "taken over the USAF." They are still run by, and need, pilots.
However, you are right in that many zoomies who went in thinking they'd be working a stick and rudder have found that their stick has a cable on it attached to a CPU.
While the USN does have UAVs, they aren't manned by guys shanghai'ed out of pilot gigs, at least not entry level (though I did meet 2 ensigns flying Pioneers who were flt school attrites--this was 11 years ago). They are much smaller in number, both in absolute and relative terms. In 10-15 years, the USN may be significantly more affected by them, though.
However, you are right in that many zoomies who went in thinking they'd be working a stick and rudder have found that their stick has a cable on it attached to a CPU.
While the USN does have UAVs, they aren't manned by guys shanghai'ed out of pilot gigs, at least not entry level (though I did meet 2 ensigns flying Pioneers who were flt school attrites--this was 11 years ago). They are much smaller in number, both in absolute and relative terms. In 10-15 years, the USN may be significantly more affected by them, though.