10 year commitment.

[Guest Alarm Red]

Question - aside from bro-level WOM, are there any good sources to find the random singleton assignments out there? The mainstream requirements are easy enough to find, but those random 11F billets that are seemingly everywhere are a well kept secret.

The fighter assignments CoP has everything you need.

[ViperStud]

That's seriously your answer to me when you later say...

Yes. It's bullshit to call out someone's officership when are not happy about soaking up a completely raw deal. Everyone knows you are not 100% in control. There's also a reason why that finance troop at the MPF doesn't have a 12 year commitment. Just like serving, flying is a calling for some of us, and we go through a lot of shit (including signing for 10+) to do it. I sympathize for someone who jumped through all the hoops to get his wings and then gets permanently grounded and handed a playstation controller. Different story now of course, you know the possible outcomes going into UPT so suck it up. TAMI was an outlier, not your standard one-each "bad deal" assignment. Don't call someone less of an officer because they had a dream pulled out from under their feet, when they still go to work and serve every day. Aside from that, I agree with your overall point.

Some people serve by going 6-on, 6-off (or worse) to the desert. Some people serve by sitting in some shithole in the desert (no, not Afghanistan - Creech/Cannon) flying UAVs. Some people serve by bouncing back and forth between Florida, Virginia, Japan and Alaska. It's tough to put yourself in someone else's shoes when their sacrifices have been vastly different. Yes, that's part of the job. I love being tactical. I've been downrange and I will gladly go back. I've had a good run so far, but I will not sit on my high horse and tell someone they are unprofessional because they're frustrated that their path has led to a broken dream/marriage or two.

[Guest Alarm Red]

Easy for you to say. You're not stuck operating predators for a majority of your upt ADSC.

Predators have been deployed operationally since 1995. Just guessing but you were probably in high school (or younger) then. Who did you think flew these things? Of course it's an option, and it has been for years before you signed up.

[nrodgsxr]

Predators have been deployed operationally since 1995. Just guessing but you were probably in high school (or younger) then. Who did you think flew these things? Of course it's an option, and it has been for years before you signed up.

I new nothing about UAVs until after I got to my first operational assignment. They weren't being dropped at pilot training and dudes weren't getting nonvol'd left and right to them until recently.

All of you who think I'm a whiner because I hate my job can EABODs. As I said before, you're not the one stuck wasting your "flying career" sitting in a GCS operating a POS. I have the worst "flying" job in the air force and you know it.

I signed up under the impression that I'd be flying SOMETHING for 10 years, not wasting my skills and training doing a job the other services let their junior enlisted do with a fraction of the training.

Do I still give 110% in the hopes the air force will let me leave the UAV community one day? yes.. but that doesn't mean I have to happy about it. And yes I regret it. There is nothing wrong with that. I just want dudes who are thinking about pilot training to know that flying NOTHING for a large portion of it is a very real possibility.

[busdriver]

doing a job the other services let their junior enlisted do with a fraction of the training.

Not to bag on you but I'm pretty sure the Army doesn't let junior enlisted operate the Warrior Alpha (Pred). Granted NCOs do fly them with Warrant Officer supervision. I don't know the weapons release protocol.

[nrodgsxr]

Not to bag on you but I'm pretty sure the Army doesn't let junior enlisted operate the Warrior Alpha (Pred). Granted NCOs do fly them with Warrant Officer supervision. I don't know the weapons release protocol.

Ok.. ,Staff Sgt. Cpl, Spc ranks.. but you get the point.

[busdriver]

I know what your point was, but I think you really underestimate the dedication those lowly Army NCOs display when they train to operate their lowly Predator. I also think you really over estimate your training. Yes, you graduated UPT, congrats it's a hard fucking program. On the other hand all it really qualifies you to do is learn the next level. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about being a Pred pilot, how hard is it to actually fly a modern aircraft from A to B? Not very fucking hard. The hard part is learning to employ that aircraft to get the mission accomplished. I bet you I could safely fly a Marine Cobra from A to B with about a week of training. Does that mean I could do the Marine CAS mission? I could probably learn to safely fly a predator from A to B in a week, could I be a successful armed ISR pilot in that time? Flying the stupid thing is not the hard part, being a good tactical aviator is the hard part.

I get that you're pissed about not actually getting to fly an actual aircraft. I sympathize. But seriously, what you're doing is very valuable to the grunts on the ground, are you saying you don't feel any pride about the peace of mind you provide them?

[nrodgsxr]

I know what your point was, but I think you really underestimate the dedication those lowly Army NCOs display when they train to operate their lowly Predator. I also think you really over estimate your training. Yes, you graduated UPT, congrats it's a hard ######ing program. On the other hand all it really qualifies you to do is learn the next level. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about being a Pred pilot, how hard is it to actually fly a modern aircraft from A to B? Not very ######ing hard. The hard part is learning to employ that aircraft to get the mission accomplished. I bet you I could safely fly a Marine Cobra from A to B with about a week of training. Does that mean I could do the Marine CAS mission? I could probably learn to safely fly a predator from A to B in a week, could I be a successful armed ISR pilot in that time? Flying the stupid thing is not the hard part, being a good tactical aviator is the hard part.

I get that you're pissed about not actually getting to fly an actual aircraft. I sympathize. But seriously, what you're doing is very valuable to the grunts on the ground, are you saying you don't feel any pride about the peace of mind you provide them?

Sure I feel pride about doing my job but I still hate it with a passion. It's not like if I died today that some grunts on the ground would be in jeopardy. Big Blue would just find someone else and train them to do the job. I'm bitter because the AF could fill these positions with qualified and willing people if they so desired but instead they waste all the time/effort/money they previously spent training me to be an IP.

[Hacker]

So, you were a FAIP and then you were assigned to UAvs?

[BFM this]

several great points made in the last couple of pages, though I think we're all just circling the Root Cause. Service? Yeah, Hacker, I'm leaning toward the EABOD crowd on that one; if you want to drive the "service" point home, give Randolph a call, I'm sure you'll have a RIP before you hang up the phone.

Well, no, I don't really think that you should do that. Why not? Because right now no pilot in his right mind should volunteer for this black hole. That takes us a step closer to the point.

I've spent the better part of the last three weeks getting at best 4-5 hours a night, waking up several times with one central thought every time: "I'm going to UAVs". That thought really sux. But wait, what sucks about it? The mission? Schedule? Stress? Learning/broadening/advancement opportunities? Nope, all of my friends who've been or are there have nothing but great things to say (caveat that they DO want back into a jet), and truth be told, this nerd is actually a bit motivated overall. Getting warmer.

So why is every rated Officer that’s worth a shit avoiding this assignment like The Plague?

I’ll throw a “service” spear—right at AF leadership. Their actions over the last 5 years have been self serving, myopic, and damaging to this mission. Self serving because their only concern has been to give their Masters short term solutions that were flagrantly flawed over the long term. TAMI-21? Permanent MWS assignment? Non-vol? No ALFA credit? Return to flying boards? YGBSM!!! Where does the buffoonery end? At this point, Leadership and AFPC have ZERO credibility with those in the field who are getting, in, or even considering this assignment. I personally think the RTFBs are a red herring at best, if not completely disingenuous. We’ll see.

Here’s two steps toward fixing this problem and giving this a permanent place in our assignment system:

1: this field will be 100% manned. Already been stated by leadership. This IS an important mission: press.

2: this will be a CONTROLED ALFA tour. Exceptions will be voluntary. No compromise. It has to be no compromise, as a contract, made by AF leadership to those that they should want to fill these positions: the best and brightest rated officers. Not the unwilling, kicking and screaming crowd that they have DESIGNATED by design to fill this field right now.

3: You want volunteers? Guaranteed TX course follow on. Assignment of choice for a 1 year extension.

Add up #1 and #2 and you have a real personnel problem reaching across the CAF. Not insurmountable though. The rest of the assignment system will be strained by manning and assignment length. The UAV community itself will suffer those same stresses; RTU will go into overdrive in the short term. At some point the 18X AFSC should dovetail to help even things out. The way we’re going right now is toward another bathtub. Oh yeah, there is absolutely no reason that this problem should have ever reached this point.

Side note: IMO, 18x aside, this mission should NEVER be completely devoid of rated participation. Separate discussion.

BL: Leadership is trying to sell this as a great experience, with great opportunities, while every real action and policy has treated this asset/mission like they don’t really believe in what they’re selling. Leadership doesn’t believe that a promising officer should even want this as a “broadening” tour. From what I’ve read and discussed with friends, this mission is a valuable broadening experience, on par with ALO or UPT/IFF, if not more so. Meanwhile the mission has suffered from the “min qualification O2-converter” mindset of current manning policy. Leadership is treating the “ALFA” poker chip as a personnel management tool, they’ve completely lost sight (or just don’t care) about their greater responsibility to shepherd the development of future officers (at least within this narrow scope). OPR signed, another assignment, another star, UAV manning: forgotten.

Those in place right now (Leadership): put your $ where your mouth is.

[ClearedHot]

Sure I feel pride about doing my job but I still hate it with a passion. It's not like if I died today that some grunts on the ground would be in jeopardy. Big Blue would just find someone else and train them to do the job. I'm bitter because the AF could fill these positions with qualified and willing people if they so desired but instead they waste all the time/effort/money they previously spent training me to be an IP.

Where to start...perhaps with some empathy, I get it, trust me...I get it. I could tell you horror stories about getting banked, no fighter slots, nonsensical rated force management, and on and on. Bottomline brother, sometimes life is not fair.

I will not throw service in your face, I won't patronize you with the "satisfaction from the mission" speech, and I won't ignore the fact that you got a bad deal. Perhaps the best advice I can give you is to deal with it and move on. Not trying to tell you tough love is the answer, just saying that if you can't change it, do the best you can and move on so you can enjoy your life.

Having myself been a victim of some past rated force management issues (banking), I watched some of my friends go through some very destructive over a three year period. When I showed up to my non-flying job I was lucky enough to have a navigator as a squadron commander who listened to my sob story and gave me a few minutes to play the martyr. He understood my situation at the end of the meeting he told me I had two choices, I could wallow in it, or I could make the most of this assignment and forward. I went home that day and spent the weekend doing a little soul-searching. Ultimately, I decided to make the most of it and I while I wanted to be out flying, I actually enjoyed my banked job and it ended up opening a lot of doors for me down the road.

If there is one constant in the Air Force it is "things change". We probably change too much, but situations change, policies change, and people change. Don't let your bitterness prevent you from making a difference and being ready when things change.

I wish you the very best.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I wish you the very best.

As CH said, things change. As some of the fighter dudes can attest, they were saying a few years ago to forget flying a fighter for more than one tour unless you were just a WIC God, but now in some cases it's becoming possible to continue to fly fighters for a career. There are 365 opportunities...I don't know if that would get you out of the UAV rut, but I know Herk guys that took a 365 and asked for a G-V to Hawaii and got it...after being told their whole career that the Herk community is undermanned and forget any assignments outside of the MWS aside from UAVs, white jets and AMLO assignments.

A couple years ago they were saying that guys like me that had all their gate months would likely face a staff job and never come back to the airplane for the last 2-3 assignments...now, it's virtually impossible to get released for staff unless you're the WG/CC's exec (or a Nav).

I won't chuck the service spear either, because I'm human enough to know that we all desire a certain path for ourselves. Those dudes who took 365s, ALO/AMLO slots and even UAVs did it out of service but it was far from desirable, and if they could have had things work out differently, they would have. I volunteered for a 365 after being told I'd likely get non-vol'd, and honestly it was the best thing for my career. I'm hoping that UAVs will be the same for you. Stick it out and wait...things have a tendency to change.

As for the notion that every UAV volunteer gets an assignment choice, I think that's unreasonable given the number of UAV pilots out there and the overall shrinking numbers of cockpits. I do believe, however, that UAVs should be a controlled career...and that every young CAF/MAF pilot should understand that one of their first three assignments will either be a white jet, AMLO/ALO, or UAV. People can swallow (sts) that pill better knowing that they will actually have a light at the other end of the tunnel. Some may stay because they like the job...and those guys will be groomed to be the UAV leadership. But most will do their UAV tour and move back to the manned side. That's how it should be, IMHO.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Hueypilot812

[Pancake]

Hoss, I agree with you.

You really want the "best and brightest rated officers" to go to UAVs? I think the UAV mission is important and requires a relatively high level of skill, expertise and competence, ....but dude, not at the expense of the missions that have real humans on board. I can imagine it sucks to be forced to be part of a community defined by its discontent, but I'd much rather see the slow swimmers farmed out to UAVs than the other way around.

UAVs ARE the AF's future, like it or not. Proof: compare what is and what isn't funded. Personally, I want nothing of it, but this is the capability AF leadership selected to maintain both our future relevance and funding. From an efficiency perspective, UAVs are high value (capability/investment).

With that said, strictly sending the "best and brightest," or the "weak swimmers" to UAVs damages the AF. IMO, the best answer is to send volunteers. TX dates, school slots, and assignment preference to those with UAV time are easy ways the Air Force can get a mix of "upper tier" volunteers. Offer leadership development to those HPOs selected to stay in the UAV AFSC. Promising good things then reneging, however, guarantees the poisoning of any MWS culture.

As we are now, I think it's best to man UAVs with CAF FLs/Navs-people who have experience of combined execution with UAVs. We haven't built combat doctrine around UAVs, they're simply assets that usually do what the on-scene commander dictates. The real-time, in-the-cockpit, perspective adds a lot of value to UAV effectiveness.

Senior leadership here actually specifically told us that guys trying to become a Hog Sq/CC should volunteer for UAVs because it shows "breadth of experience." ...Awesome plan, ...ya know, except for the fact that you will then have absolutely zero opportunity to return to the A-10, let alone a manned aircraft.

I was at the briefing with you and heard the same thing. Patches will maintain their due on the predominant share of FS/CC jobs. However, ACC/A3 (I think) is the weight behind the "breadth of experience" comment. IMO, he's one of the best officers in the AF-hopefully in line for CSAF. I trust what ACC/A3 says and think we'll see more emphasis on UAV experience as he gains more influence.

To reemphasize, I have no desire to leave my current cockpit.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Pancake

[Fud]

UAVs ARE the AF's future, like it or not. Proof: compare what is and what isn't funded. Personally, I want nothing of it, but this is the capability AF leadership selected to maintain both our future relevance and funding. From an efficiency perspective, UAVs are high value (capability/investment).

I hate hearing that UAVs are the AF's future. I know this seems to be the case because of funding, but the same argument could be applied to our philosophy on future wars back in the 1960s-1989. Before Desert Storm, everyone in the AF thought that the next war would not be conventional at all, and many weapon systems suffered because of it. Our nuclear platforms got all of the funding because of a mindset that is one-sided, and proved to be irrelevant in the future. I know UAVs are applicable to the current conflict, but what will happen if we neglect all of our experience in manned aircraft. I would hate to see that result, but as history always seems to repeat itself, I'm sure those results will be seen in the not-so-distant future.

[Pancake]

I hate hearing that UAVs are the AF's future. I know this seems to be the case because of funding, but the same argument could be applied to our philosophy on future wars back in the 1960s-1989. Before Desert Storm, everyone in the AF thought that the next war would not be conventional at all, and many weapon systems suffered because of it. Our nuclear platforms got all of the funding because of a mindset that is one-sided, and proved to be irrelevant in the future. I know UAVs are applicable to the current conflict, but what will happen if we neglect all of our experience in manned aircraft. I would hate to see that result, but as history always seems to repeat itself, I'm sure those results will be seen in the not-so-distant future.

I hate it too. But, just like the Cavalry left horses for vehicles (more mobility and protection), the AF will leave some manned aircraft missions for UAVs (more loiter, lower cost, and less risk).

On the one hand, your nuclear example could be as easily applied to the F-22/F-35-the future will tell. On the other hand, one could argue that our investment in nuclear platforms actually prevented their use through the deterrent of MAD.

We must be smart about spending as social entitlement programs grow and defense budgets shrink. I trust (hope) AF leadership has a better grasp of national strategy than folks at Baseops.net, and that they are making smart decisions about future military engagement. With all of our problems at home, unless we're full-up attacked by a nation-state, I doubt that any time soon our democracy will tolerate a war with anything less than national survival at stake.

If I could predict the future, however, I'd be doing something more exciting than posting on Baseops.net.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Pancake

[SurelySerious]

Given the concern for bad leadership killing your hopes, I find this article strangely appropriate. Mods can move/delete if they disagree (Edit: not challenging your authority, just confused on whether this fits the category).

The Perfect Stimulus: Bad Management

Though most of my immediate bosses were entirely reasonable and competent, the

organization at large was riddled with hamster-brained sociopaths in leadership

roles. Surely, I thought, this must be a problem that exists no place else on

Earth. Otherwise we'd all be living in caves and holding long meetings on the

feasibility of using sticks as stabby things

Warning for BQZip01: Scott Adams challenges your dominance in the PowerPoint field:

I was so good at designing PowerPoint slides that my coworkers called me "The

Natural."

Edited November 8, 2010 by SurelySerious

[ViperStud]

Food for thought - anyone know what the commitment is for the "Beta" classes, if that's even what they call them anymore? Those are the nonners they train from ground zero to fly preds. Surely it's not 10 years? How is the product coming from those classes and have they finalized a timeline and sullabus that they are happy with?

It'd be very telling if they give these Beta guys half the commitment of the UPT grads that go straight to UAVs.

[Helo Kitty]

I just thought I would give everyone a 'heads up' with regards to some new bad news regarding re-classifications out of UPT, Nav or ABM training for those who get medically DQ'd (my case), SIE or 89 out...

This past year, due to downsizing the number of AD officers, AFPC introduced reviews boards to see if LT's who fail to complete UPT, Nav or ABM training would get re-classed or separated from AD. Up until last week it seemed like most studs who didn't finish their training were re-classed into another AFSC with only those who had gotten in trouble (ARI) getting separated. But this last board for 2010 just came out and was unusually brutal with only about 4 studs getting re-classed of all the UPT washouts from all 4 bases (of ~13 total which is a guess).

More bad news is coming out now because apparently the 2011 AFSC re-classifications quotas have already been met, meaning AFPC is going to be really weeding out those of us who didn't finish UPT, Nav or ABM training in the coming months. The number we've heard is that only 220 AD officers will be re-classed into another AFSC in FY 2011 with a board meeting each month to determine which studs to re-class and which to separate.

I just thought I would give all the studs out there a heads up. Rite now you really don't want to SIE or 89 out if you hope to stay in the AF... Just do your best to press through. Even those studs like myself who were medically DQ'd from flying status aren't safe.

I'll give updates regarding the hard numbers if folks are interested. I've yet to meet my board and I'm praying I'll get a 2nd shot in another AFSC... any AFSC...

Edited November 9, 2010 by Helo Kitty

[Rifleman96]

Food for thought - anyone know what the commitment is for the "Beta" classes, if that's even what they call them anymore? Those are the nonners they train from ground zero to fly preds. Surely it's not 10 years? How is the product coming from those classes and have they finalized a timeline and sullabus that they are happy with?

It'd be very telling if they give these Beta guys half the commitment of the UPT grads that go straight to UAVs.

6 yrs. And I am a complete proponent for it. They do just as well or just as bad as any of the UPT guys that come here.

[Herk Driver]

6 yrs.

Sounds reasonable considering Big Blue didn't spend nearly as much money on them.

Although I still disagree with the 10-year commitment.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Herk Driver

[ronnie75]

Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to an UNMANNED aerial vehicle (UAV) for 10 years is breach of contract. Pure and simple. It would be like sending someone to pilot training and saying you owe us 10 years after this, but you will be a finance officer or a mx officer instead of a pilot for 10 years (bait and switch). Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to remotely PILOTED aircraft (RPA) though is OK. Genius.

[HeloDude]

Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to an UNMANNED aerial vehicle (UAV) for 10 years is breach of contract. Pure and simple. It would be like sending someone to pilot training and saying you owe us 10 years after this, but you will be a finance officer or a mx officer instead of a pilot for 10 years (bait and switch). Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to remotely PILOTED aircraft (RPA) though is OK. Genius.

Your ADSC is what you owe the Air Force for AFTER they send you to pilot training--they can do whatever they want with you after the training is complete.

[Hacker]

Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to an UNMANNED aerial vehicle (UAV) for 10 years is breach of contract. Pure and simple. It would be like sending someone to pilot training and saying you owe us 10 years after this, but you will be a finance officer or a mx officer instead of a pilot for 10 years (bait and switch). Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to remotely PILOTED aircraft (RPA) though is OK. Genius.

I think you need to go actually read the terms of the "contract" before making such a statement/argument.

[BFM this]

Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to an UNMANNED aerial vehicle (UAV) for 10 years is breach of contract. Pure and simple.

Already hashed out. Ad nauseam.

I don't have time to point you toward the discussion; look in the "Track Select/Assignment" thread circa 07-08 when UAV's started going to UPT grads. Though it was agreed that the concept was bullshit on a some levels, your argument boiled down to a "crybaby" approach to the problem.

While added to the list of personnel-management shenanigans that I think are on the verge of biting the AF in the ass, it was well within the AF's rights to do so. And yes, those saddled with the assignment were duty-bound to execute. And by all reports, they have.

[Karl Hungus]

Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to an UNMANNED aerial vehicle (UAV) for 10 years is breach of contract. Pure and simple. It would be like sending someone to pilot training and saying you owe us 10 years after this, but you will be a finance officer or a mx officer instead of a pilot for 10 years (bait and switch). Sending someone to PILOT training with a ten year commitment and then assigning them to remotely PILOTED aircraft (RPA) though is OK. Genius.

It's not a breach of contract. UPT grads have the ability to SIE rather than take the assignment and the commitment. Not sure if anyone has actually done that though.

I will agree that sending someone to full-up UPT and then to a UAV for their entire commitment makes absolutely zero sense financially. It's the equivalent of sending someone to med school only to be a pharmacist. Reason number one billion why the AF, and our country, is ######ed.