While I'm sure some current USAF stars might relish the idea of guys not being able to transition to the airlines due to UAVs, LVC, etc I don't think that those programs have been developed to prevent guys from transitioning to the airlines.
I agree- my point was just that the brass is under no incentive to get flying officers lots of hours and keep them flying until 20/ret. There are other career goals the military has in mind for its officers.
Do you think enough of these people exist to execute the mission? Honest question. People who...want to fly, but not actually fly?
Yes, I do, although I think the ideal candidate for UAS/LVC-heavy work has a somewhat different mentality than the people who join to fly fighters. Not saying its worse, just different. Perhaps part of the problem is that both types are selected from the same training pool. I wonder if separate recruiting tracks for the UAS/LVC heavy communities wouldn't be a good solution.
And do we want those types of people at the tip of the spear in the long run? It's really a fundamental question now that I think about it. If you're not willing to risk your own life to fly (or were never given the chance to) will you value life in the same manner as those of us who do risk our lives to execute the mission every day? Does it even matter? Maybe it doesn't?
My opinion is that it does. Working with SWOs who, all things being equal, are no different than us when we first commission, I can see that their view of risk is considerably different than ours. Because, to them, if the engines cut out, nobody dies. The risk is not real to them, there's too much safety buffer built in. And it changes their decision making processes at a fundamental level. I think that matters. Then again, there's a conex box full of UAV pilots in Nevada who have more kills than most of us, so what do I know?
I guess I would ask how healthy is USAF UAV manning and what percentage of them are essentially conscripted?
I agree. Among other things, sims and LVC don't replicate the realities of flight line operations, kinesthetic "feel" of flying, or the what I'll call the "element of peril" you get while flying an aircraft. In short, while sims have gotten very good, folks with skinnier logbooks and more sim time
may be more inclined to feel uncertainty or fear in situations that a more experienced pilot wouldn't- e.g. experiencing an engine failure in an aircraft feels different than it does in the sim, even if the throttle/stick/rudder inputs are the same. Don't get me wrong, I think LVC has its place; reducing redair requirements and allowing those sorties to be blue force training, for example. But LVC might be easily be taken too far, at the expense of real piloting experience. There's a point at which it will become detrimental- here's hoping the powers that be realize that, and take steps to learn where that point is. That's a RAND (or NASA) study I would find fascinating. Maybe the data are already out there somewhere.
The UAS guys? Assuming the sim is high-def enough you can't tell the difference, LVC it up.