UAVs, not just an Air Force gig anymore

[SkywardET]

In fairness, 13-hour days for three years does seem a bit rough. Doing 18-24 hour days for six+ months and then 3-6 hour days the rest of the time is far easier, by comparison.

One of the comments I read about the article seemed to be logical though--let Army Warrants take some of those billets.

 

[Tex_Hill]

The Air Force is forgetting that there is an untapped source of predator pilots out there:

 

[usmarinemike]

It looks like being a Predator controller is just something like a B-billet. They get sent back to big boy planes when they're done. This article seems balanced, too. It's not a love-fest for anybody on either side of the argument, but I still come up mostly agreeing with the Air Force on this one. Why the hell would you shut down the training pipeline just to get more airframes in the fight? That's stupid.

One thing I don't agree with is that Predator controllers be winged pilots. We have had UAVs for years before Predator and Hawk and they weren't controlled by pilots. I guess it is just a little like the Marine Corps only wanting FACs to be pilots, only less justifiable.

 

[FLYTPAY]

The Air Force is forgetting that there is an untapped source of predator pilots out there:

World of Warcraft........LEEERRROOOYYYY JENKINS!!!!!

 

[bunk22]

My buddy, a former Navy CH-46 pilot, switched over to the AF and fly's Predators. He's done two 3-4 month deployments to the Mid-East, one in Jacobabad, Afghanistan and Quatar.

 

[HAL Pilot]

They used to have Navigators flying Predators too. I don;t know if they still do, but I knew a USAF Nav that was a Predator pilot and squadron CO in 1999.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Whatever, dude. You don't seriously think that, do you?

Of course not. That was a typo. It should have been "45 day mark".

I realize that asking "How long do air force units deploy?" is a rather open ended question, but what would you say the average answer is? Does the air force do shorter, but more frequent deployments? Is this all myth and urban legend? Or is this just an inter-service example of "choose your rate, choose your fate?"

During my last deployment (7 and a half months), we spent 4 months in Al Asad. The rest of it was transit to and from. During those 4 months though, the A-10 unit down the flight line had three different squadrons rotate in place. There was a turnover in progress when we arrived (and the new unit asked us to put our Marines in tents so that they could give each airman their own individual can). They stayed about 2-3 months, and there was a new unit taking over as we got back on the boat.

Is this the normal pace of the air force? Back pre-9/11, We always heard about how hard the 30-45 day deployments were, and how bad it was to do a "double deployment" of 90 days. Again, is this just myth and urban legend? Is there no truth to it? Or is this mitigated by the frequency of those deployments?

I'm not bashing the air force here. Just busting balls. But I would like to hear an air force explanation on OPTEMPO that compares to the rest of DoD. When they bitch like this (the article) you have to realize that it's not going to be received well by soldiers doing 13 months in country, Marines doing 7 on 7 off (3 of which is work-ups), or sailors spending 7 months at sea.

 

[FLYTPAY]

They used to have Navigators flying Predators too. I don;t know if they still do, but I knew a USAF Nav that was a Predator pilot and squadron CO in 1999.

Dogfight between MQ-1 Predator drone and Mig-25 Foxbat

 

[Single Seat]

They used to have Navigators flying Predators too. I don;t know if they still do, but I knew a USAF Nav that was a Predator pilot and squadron CO in 1999.

Predators have squadrons? Wonder what that ready room is like. Do you debrief an LFE of Pred's and then hit the O-club to talk about how you conquered the world? Do Pred guys have their own mugs hanging over the bar?

 

[Swanee]

Of course not. That was a typo. It should have been "45 day mark".

I realize that asking "How long do air force units deploy?" is a rather open ended question, but what would you say the average answer is? Does the air force do shorter, but more frequent deployments? Is this all myth and urban legend? Or is this just an inter-service example of "choose your rate, choose your fate?"

During my last deployment (7 and a half months), we spent 4 months in Al Asad. The rest of it was transit to and from. During those 4 months though, the A-10 unit down the flight line had three different squadrons rotate in place. There was a turnover in progress when we arrived (and the new unit asked us to put our Marines in tents so that they could give each airman their own individual can). They stayed about 2-3 months, and there was a new unit taking over as we got back on the boat.

Is this the normal pace of the air force? Back pre-9/11, We always heard about how hard the 30-45 day deployments were, and how bad it was to do a "double deployment" of 90 days. Again, is this just myth and urban legend? Is there no truth to it? Or is this mitigated by the frequency of those deployments?

I'm not bashing the air force here. Just busting balls. But I would like to hear an air force explanation on OPTEMPO that compares to the rest of DoD. When they bitch like this (the article) you have to realize that it's not going to be received well by soldiers doing 13 months in country, Marines doing 7 on 7 off (3 of which is work-ups), or sailors spending 7 months at sea.

Were those A-10 units ANG units by any chance? ANG units will split up deployments between 2 or 3 squadrons, from what I understand that is fairly common. The old man did a few of those with the Syracuse unit.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Were those A-10 units ANG units by any chance? ANG units will split up deployments between 2 or 3 squadrons, from what I understand that is fairly common. The old man did a few of those with the Syracuse unit.

Yes. We could tell by the 4 full Colonels, 15+ LtCols, and more majors than I could count. I think I saw a Captain there once, too. Obviously, that level of supervision is required for a 10 plane squadron.

 

[HackerF15E]

Back pre-9/11, We always heard about how hard the 30-45 day deployments were, and how bad it was to do a "double deployment" of 90 days. Again, is this just myth and urban legend? Is there no truth to it? Or is this mitigated by the frequency of those deployments?

Afraid you're not even in the ballpark.

Standard deployments are 120 days, but usually last more like 150 with the early show and late returns. A-10 guys have been doing 180 days for the last 5 years or so. Other airframes including mine are doing that here and there, and probably going to be that way full time if nothing significant changes in CENTCOM.

I have been in the Air Force since 1995 and never seen/heard/smelled 30, 45, or 60 day deployments. They used to do 90-days as the standard pre 9/11, but it has been 120 ever since then.

You're missing the entire boat with the Pred argument. The argument is not that the Pred drivers are deployed to a war zone too long (or at all). The argument IS that Pred pilots are borrowed from other weapon systems, and the longer they spend out of that weapon system the worse their proficiency is when they return to it. There is still no UAV specialty in the AF.

Sending a guy to a UAV tour is bad enough on a guy's career as-is, but extending that 3 years of pain into 5 is even worse. Why? Usually the handshake agreement is that a pilot will go do his 3 year tour in the Pred and then go back to his fighter. If a pilot is away from his aircraft for 5 years, by reg he is no longer 'owned' by that community because he must go through the basic qualification course again to fly the jet. That means that guys who did one tour in a fighter, then go to to a Pred for one of these extended tours will NEVER go back to a fighter again. Some of them will never actually fly an airplane again.

 

[Flash]

SECDEF himself is taking on Air Force over demand for Predators in the sandbox. Get a big bucket of popcorn for this one!

still come up mostly agreeing with the Air Force on this one. Why the hell would you shut down the training pipeline just to get more airframes in the fight? That's stupid

I hate to say this but......I agree with the USAF on this one. The Army (in reality it is CENTCOM, since they are the ones requesting the assets) will never have enough Full-Motion Video (FMV, which the Predator and others provide) to satisfy their 'needs'. CENTCOM is taking a very short view to this problem and not caring if they break the USAF Predator fleet in the long term. I am not a fan in the USAF's attempt to take control of most UAV's but this would really impair the their ability to maintain the Predator fleet in a healthy condition.

This dispute is not new nor is it unique. I remember distinctly when the Prowler RAG was pretty much shut down when Allied Force happened in the spring of '99 and many of the instructors deployed to support the squadrons involved. It took the RAG a long to recover from that. USMarineMike is right, the USAF is looking at the same thing with Predators. And that is not the only asset. Almost every ISR/Recce asset is being deployed to the max, with the COCOM's (mainly CENTCOM) screaming for more while the services push back saying they can only deploy so many before they break their fleets. No one is unscathed in this, USAF has horribly mismanaged a few of their assets during this war, and CENTCOM has too.

I also take a bit of a dim view of the huge 'need' for FMV. It is a great asset and a very useful tool, but it appears that sometimes it is used because the brass in theater wants to see pretty pictures.

So while it is all fun and games to mock the USAF and their toy planes, this is a serious issue that gives some insight into the tug and pull that goes on between the services and the COCOM's.

They used to have Navigators flying Predators too. I don;t know if they still do, but I knew a USAF Nav that was a Predator pilot and squadron CO in 1999.

The Nav's had to have a PPL in order to be assigned Predators's.

One thing I don't agree with is that Predator controllers be winged pilots. We have had UAVs for years before Predator and Hawk and they weren't controlled by pilots. I guess it is just a little like the Marine Corps only wanting FACs to be pilots, only less justifiable.

The Predator is a much larger and more complex aircraft than Marine, Navy and most Army UAV's, so there is some reasoning behind the USAF's madness in this case.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Afraid you're not even in the ballpark.

Standard deployments are 120 days, but usually last more like 150 with the early show and late returns. A-10 guys have been doing 180 days for the last 5 years or so. Other airframes including mine are doing that here and there, and probably going to be that way full time if nothing significant changes in CENTCOM.

I have been in the Air Force since 1995 and never seen/heard/smelled 30, 45, or 60 day deployments. They used to do 90-days as the standard pre 9/11, but it has been 120 ever since then.

Fair enough. I guess it must be a ANG thing. Even so, the navy/USMC has been doing deployments with 180 days as an absolute minimum since back when A4s did his middie cruise on Old Ironsides. Sympathy will not be overflowing for the air force in that regard anytime soon.

You're missing the entire boat with the Pred argument. The argument is not that the Pred drivers are deployed to a war zone too long (or at all). The argument IS that Pred pilots are borrowed from other weapon systems, and the longer they spend out of that weapon system the worse their proficiency is when they return to it. There is still no UAV specialty in the AF.

Sending a guy to a UAV tour is bad enough on a guy's career as-is, but extending that 3 years of pain into 5 is even worse. Why? Usually the handshake agreement is that a pilot will go do his 3 year tour in the Pred and then go back to his fighter. If a pilot is away from his aircraft for 5 years, by reg he is no longer 'owned' by that community because he must go through the basic qualification course again to fly the jet. That means that guys who did one tour in a fighter, then go to to a Pred for one of these extended tours will NEVER go back to a fighter again. Some of them will never actually fly an airplane again.

Indeed I did. My original post was a smartass remark, which I am amply prone to do. I wasn't much thinking about the Pred pilots working in Nevada because that's not how we do it. Everybody goes forward, for 7 months or more, active or reserve. No distinction.

It sounds like a really bad deal for the Pred guys from a pilots perspective. Kind of like the staff job that never ends. The guys at the operational level (guys like us who get stuck flying these things) are getting the shaft. They only have to look above them in the air force for the source of blame, though. If their generals hadn't insisted that only rated pilots fly them, unlike all the other services, then they wouldn't be in this mess.

That's not an easy choice given the differences in complexity and mission of the Pred, but IMHO, some of our talented junior folks could easily do it. A mission commander could supervise several of them at once to make shoot/no shoot decisions if that's what the air force is concerned about. The monkey skills of doing it could surely be handled by the XBOX guru of the local barracks.

Honestly, I think Dos Gringos has it right......

http://dosgringosrocks.com/music-5.html

 

[HuggyU2]

Well put, Flash. And you mentioning the FMV has me ready to type about 2 pages worth of stuff,... but I'll restrain myself. There's a lot that can done with that, if employed properly. The ISR machine has an insatiable appetite, and they always want more, even though they can't "digest" the billions of bytes of data they're getting. You can put 100 Preds/Reapers/U-2/Global Hawks into the air at once, and shove a bunch of video/SIGINT/imagery down the data link. But can you really Process, Analyze, and Disseminate all of it? If the answer is "no", that's what the USAF needs to explain to the SecDef.
For 90% of you, your postings are just the usual "I hate the USAF" stuff, and you have no clue. It would be like me sounding off on carrier-aviation issues. Sure I've learned quite a bit from my Navy/Marine friends, but I've never lived it.
As for rated aviators flying the aircraft: for the armed versions, they only want pilots that have flown aircraft that employ kinetic energy weapons. The engagement ROE are still complex and run by military lawyers. Having a pilot with a few years flying an A-10 or F-16 who is used to the ROE is what they want.
Deployment lengths: the only folks I know that are going for 60 days or less are the U-2 pilots. You can bag on us if you want, for only being "in theatre" for 60 at a pop. But we've got our reasons.