phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
But you DO get Air Medal points for playing FSX while you're working from home...
-
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
Really??: Ten Thousand Feet and Ten Thousand Miles (A UAV Article)
- Thread starter ea6bflyr
- Start date
Agree with above, but with the whole USAF 's fondness for chest candy, it's inevitable that they'll be lobbying DoD for higher, more prestigious combat awards (and they usually get what they want). In my view, 10 very 'highly' successful missions ...may be 1 Strike/Flight AM. I could not any fathom any combat award higher (BS, DFC, SS etc.), for some dude sitting in a chair...thousands of miles from the Arena.
However, I believe they will eventually end up authorizing these 'higher' awards, and when they do ... also require a bronze device attachment such as a "U" or "UAV", so everyone can separate the wheat from the chaff. A "Combat V" on a UAV award would be a sacrilege to our awards system!
Uh, and the UAV device attachment would be known as the "Scarlet Letter"!
BzB
But... then... some people won't get to feel special!
That's why we have the Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal now!!!
His logic is that he is in a combat zone because he is threatened by terrorism CONUS. The problem is that we are ALL then in combat zones, even pilots who are not deployed. Except pilots who are not deployed STILL take more risk than a UAV driver because they, you know, go up in the air...
If UAV drivers are getting air medals, then wouldn't we logically be getting them as well for doing training missions at home...(which is now a combat zone).
Or is his assertion that the threat of terrorism looms large over UAV drivers, and UAV drivers alone?
If UAV drivers are getting air medals, then wouldn't we logically be getting them as well for doing training missions at home...(which is now a combat zone).
Or is his assertion that the threat of terrorism looms large over UAV drivers, and UAV drivers alone?
I just skimmed the article, and I think the MAJ should have just concentrated on the combat responsibilities of his article. He raises some good points with regard to the fact that these operators aren't just playing FSX, they are dropping ordnance that can affect the outcome of tactical actions. Their contributions should be recognized in some way, if even just to make the guys pulling the trigger feel like their efforts are appreciated. By talking about combat risk CONUS he just waters down his own arguments and will make people ignore an article with a decent point to it since they're too busy laughing at his combat risk conclusions.
Honestly, I think that was his assertion, that uav drivers are under the threat of terrorism. There were a lot of words in that article, I think most of them were based on an ego that has been clearly hurt by the perception in the Air Force that uav pilots fall in the combat support role.
My 8 months or so with the Air Force gave me a little insight into their politics, and someone out there can correct me if I am wrong. In the Air Force, there are "fighter pilots", those trained in the T-38 for combat roles, and "everyone else", those trained in the T-1 or T-44 whose mission it is to support. The chasm that exists between these two communities is huge, and with a few exceptions (the U-2 community and a few other cats and dogs), the "fighter pilots" are generally considered the top dog in the caste system. Most of them will be glad to inform you of this fact.
While I applaud this cat for trying to rationalize his point, he has done a poor job. Putting a bunch of big words and poor comparisons together to form sentences doesn't make something true. Maybe this dude is just way ahead of his time and this is all going to make perfect sense in a few decades. I dunno.
My 8 months or so with the Air Force gave me a little insight into their politics, and someone out there can correct me if I am wrong. In the Air Force, there are "fighter pilots", those trained in the T-38 for combat roles, and "everyone else", those trained in the T-1 or T-44 whose mission it is to support. The chasm that exists between these two communities is huge, and with a few exceptions (the U-2 community and a few other cats and dogs), the "fighter pilots" are generally considered the top dog in the caste system. Most of them will be glad to inform you of this fact.
While I applaud this cat for trying to rationalize his point, he has done a poor job. Putting a bunch of big words and poor comparisons together to form sentences doesn't make something true. Maybe this dude is just way ahead of his time and this is all going to make perfect sense in a few decades. I dunno.
Here's a list of things the author said that I found patently absurd:
1. "two spare engines" What the hell is a spare engine? Is that like an engine stowed in the back somewhere that I can bungee cord to the wing?
2. "The decentralized control system of the Predator fits no less well in the category of technological defenses." Well, since there is in fact, no living asset to defend, I would assert that it in fact does not fit in the category of a technological defense.
3. "As to the second count, I do not believe that RPA operators are in less danger than their manned counterparts." Then, my friend, you have lost your grip on reality. When is the last time a UAV operator dropped dead at the console when he was "engaged in combat". The simple fact is that HE is not engaged. His weapon is.
4. "A heavily armored samurai is effec- tively invulnerable to all foreseeable threats, save another samurai." No...apparently this cat's history is as bad as his logic.
5. "A submariner in the early years of World War I has more to fear from the ocean than
from enemy weapons." Oh. My bad. Tell that to the dead. See if they care. And the same as number 4 above.
I can't read this shit anymore. The whole thing smacks of "axe to grind".
1. "two spare engines" What the hell is a spare engine? Is that like an engine stowed in the back somewhere that I can bungee cord to the wing?
2. "The decentralized control system of the Predator fits no less well in the category of technological defenses." Well, since there is in fact, no living asset to defend, I would assert that it in fact does not fit in the category of a technological defense.
3. "As to the second count, I do not believe that RPA operators are in less danger than their manned counterparts." Then, my friend, you have lost your grip on reality. When is the last time a UAV operator dropped dead at the console when he was "engaged in combat". The simple fact is that HE is not engaged. His weapon is.
4. "A heavily armored samurai is effec- tively invulnerable to all foreseeable threats, save another samurai." No...apparently this cat's history is as bad as his logic.
5. "A submariner in the early years of World War I has more to fear from the ocean than
I can't read this shit anymore. The whole thing smacks of "axe to grind".
By far one of the best articles i've ever read!
Did I ever tell you about the time I was at 25K' over Iraq, elbow deep in a pizza pocket as a tanker dragging two chicks flew over me with just 500' of altitude clearance?! Man, that was some SHIT! I heard some Army heloo-tard bitching about how dangerous his medivac missions were. But I'm like, dude, you have a RED CROSS on your helo, nobody shoots at those.
So that's my counter argument. I find it no less salient than this fuck-tard's bullshit, self-licking-ice-cream-cone of an article.
Fucking shoot me if i ever publish something that fucking gay.
Did I ever tell you about the time I was at 25K' over Iraq, elbow deep in a pizza pocket as a tanker dragging two chicks flew over me with just 500' of altitude clearance?! Man, that was some SHIT! I heard some Army heloo-tard bitching about how dangerous his medivac missions were. But I'm like, dude, you have a RED CROSS on your helo, nobody shoots at those.
So that's my counter argument. I find it no less salient than this fuck-tard's bullshit, self-licking-ice-cream-cone of an article.
Fucking shoot me if i ever publish something that fucking gay.
Okay, I'll bite. CIA has been operating Predators rougly since their inception. I'm pretty sure their body count/sorties "flown" is very significant. What did those guys get as an attaboy? My guess is some sort of internal recognition if at all. They aren't writing point papers about supposed combat risk. So why is anyone else? Oh, that's right, its the winners from the entitled service.
That guy should be publicly flogged. Harden the f**k up, dude!
I'm pretty sure the CIA has been operating helicopters for some time as well. By that notion you and I shouldn't get any recognition either. Guys in the CIA know they're not going to get a lot of recognition for their work. It comes with the territory.
But to those of us in the uniformed services there's always been the incentive/reward/recognition of some sort of fabric and brass reward for a job, whether combat or other, well done. Not only do these awards serve to highlight and recognize and individual, the truly examplary awards go on to lie in history as testimony to future generations of that individual's honor, bravery, sacrifice, or baddassery.
To be fair, the MAJ was writing in an AF specific journal. It's not like he was airing his grievance in the NY Times or 60 Minutes. As I said earlier, the USAF Predators, regardless of what you may think about UAVs and the USAF, have made a contribution to the current wars. Why shouldn't their operators be given some sort of recognition for their contribution? And why shouldn't this MAJ challenge USAF leadership to provide him and his fellow operators for their contributions to war effort?
It's not as though their efforts are some sort of admin support that you have to stretch to see the impacts for. these guys weren't doing log runs, making donuts in the DFAC, or making ppts for some staff somewhere. They were KILLING BAD GUYS.
Now I fully admit that they aren't in any real risk of combat injury, so I don't necessarily think they should get an air medal or even a combat V, because it's hard to argue "valor" from the safety of a box, but they should get some sort of recognition for their efforts. In WWI the Air Medal was created to make pilots feel better about themselves. Maybe they should get a "UAV Medal" with a hellfire device for killing johnny al-quaeda.
His "combat risk" vis-a-vis terrorism CONUS is a ridiculous reach and, like I said before, completely debases any decent point his article might have had. I might as well earn air medal points riding COMAIR because I'm at risk of a terrorist attack. He should have just stuck to his literal guns.
Cat has a point - we need a new term for those who are thousands of miles behind the fobbits but don't quite seem to realize it.