UAVs, not just an Air Force gig anymore

[squorch2]

Perhaps it's guilt over being "there" and not being able to help... or being "there" and actually watching guys (our guys) on the ground die.

 

[HackerF15E]

I read 'emotional risks' to mean the fear of failing at your mission / failing the people depending on you, and the occasional sense of helplessness (because some things are beyond your control)... not some confusion or guilt over killing the bad guys... just my interpretation when I read that.

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.

 

[PhrogLoop]

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 In a few short years, even Predators will be outdated and piloting skills will be completely automated (see UCAV, Fire Scout, etc.).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.

 

[HackerF15E]

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?)

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'.

 

[PhrogLoop]

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.

 

[HackerF15E]

Interesting perspective, but still doesn't add up to 'ridiculous amounts of time, effort, and money'.

You need to look no further than the trend of enlisted and non-(pilot) rated operators to see that this is true.

Note also that you haven't heard much about those programs since after the initial class.

 

[Flash]

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.....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.

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 .

Note also that you haven't heard much about those programs since after the initial class.

Know something we don't?

 

[HackerF15E]

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:

The reporter does not report that new CSAF was chosen because he is the prtotype new USAF officer - a yes man. His boss says he wants more bodies, and the new CSAF says "no problem, we can fill the pipeline with bodies" and the person who pays the price is the soldier on the ground. AETC gave up producing quality products long ago (can't wash them out - can't not produce the numbers), and this follows the same route. The CSAF did fly in to pin these guy's wings on. As a matter of fact, several generals came in relative to this program - some even talked EXCLUSIVELY to the Beta students to see how the program was going - but NOT ONE talked to the IP's in private to get their take. Regardless of your stance or experience with UAVs, this fact should bother you.

Capt Petrizzo is, in fact, not flying sorties over Afghan on his own and neither are any of the other Beta candidates. They are all just starting a CMR program that is about 6 times longer than previous, and requires increased supervision after CMR. All told, they will require one on one supervision for over 6 months. They will also have to be relieved if the situation starts going dynamic - so they will still need a qualified body on hands at all times. Not much of a proper relief of manpower. The reporter also did not write that the training evals from these guys courses stated that their BEST guy was worse than anyone previously seen in the history of the RTU - the evals did say that by the way.

For those that understand, what sets aviators apart from most is decision-making and judgment. Pilots make more decisions per day, the decisions are usually more critical in nature, and the timeframe for action is less than most people all day. That is gained in experience. UPT grads don't have it after even 1+ year of training. What is critical when supporting troops on the ground and deciding if/when to employ air-surface ordnance is decision-making and judgment. Beta candidates won't have it after 1+ year of training. In combat, when you are the one on the ground, watching the bombs fly home is not the "safer course of action". To the squadron commanders with these Beta guys, the safer course of action IS having them take their bombs home. In combat, when you are the one on the ground, the timeline should be driven by your situation. If you have these guys overhead, the timeline will be driven by how fast they can find a qualified body to take the Beta's place and how fast the new guy can get brought up to speed.

This topic is worthy of further investigation, but this article does not even scratch the surface. The CSAF is instituting a program that will slash the level of support that our warfighters on the ground are getting, and no one has a thing to say about it. They are instituting a program that is opposed by EVERY O-5 and below in the UAS program (remember, they are the only ones who have actually been there/done that with UAVs) and no one has anything to say about it. We haven't even thought about what will happen as the UAS is filled with non-rated guys and the manned assets start to downsize - UPT will become more and more expensive. As they recognize that we can "train" someone to fly an airplane without sending them to UPT, the future of UPT will be in jeopardy. Our leadership is letting politics reign, and it's business as usual.

Most UAS guys don't want to be there - but they all support the mission, and they all put the needs of the warfighter first. When they say this program should not go forward, it would be nice if leadership listened.

....and this is from an email from someone who is leadership in a USAF RPA squadron:

The non-rated program is a joke - the "test" was whether they made it through FTU. Their FTU class is the worst seen to date and their passage was mandated from above - even with that, the training report said that the best of the non-rated were worse than the worst of every one else that ever made it through prior.

 

[Flash]

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.

 

[HackerF15E]

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.

 

[HAL Pilot]

http://imageshack.us

 

[chnsx7]

all i can say is WOW

 

[Flying Toaster]

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

 

[AirAggie92]

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?

 

[phrogdriver]

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.