Jump to content

Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect


Recommended Posts

I've done both (MC-12 & MQ-9), and IMO manned ISR is the better solution most of the time. It's probably cheaper*, more flexible, deals better with weather, isn't confined to a soda straw view, has vastly superior SA and also has the added benefit of not being the worst "flying" assignment in the USAF**.

* As mentioned that satellite time isn't cheap.

** This plays into the cost argument, as billions of dollars in pilot training costs have walked out the door rather than fly or continue to fly RPAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not, in my experience the MC-12 (and U-28) develop targets better by nature of the crew complement in the aircraft. Trying to translate that level of rapid communication in the RPA has been frustrating to say the least. Finishing isn't for discussion here, but having to bring in another aircraft isn't ideal for shortening the kill chain, but can definitely work just fine if something is on target with you. However, full spectrum target development/POL can be hard in 4 hour vuls and takes a lot of manpower/hardware compared to a 20 hr Pred mission. Not to mention manned might not be an option if there is a long transit required or in a place we don't have manned access period. My point was lower loiter times, burn concerns, logistics footprint and target access are likely negatives for an ISR/Light Attack blend (not all applicable to MC-12/U-28). Therefore, its hard to find a place for it in the inventory outside of AvFID (since we aren't giving a country RPAs) and, for a lack of a better term, IW/COIN CAS (which ACC has chosen not to bring the best solutions to the table, and AFSOC is sticking with gunships, not small planes).

Think you shacked it for the most part...loiter and willingness/ability to get lower (below clouds) have proven advantageous many times... Also when you add superior ball capes in some cases, the RPA may be the superior asset in some cases. CRM, TTP, WX penetration/avoidance, and the ability to look out the window and get the big picture stacks in favor of the manned asset. Won't discuss finish. I think logistics is debatable, but we can call that a push...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you shacked it for the most part...loiter and willingness/ability to get lower (below clouds) have proven advantageous many times... Also when you add superior ball capes in some cases, the RPA may be the superior asset in some cases. CRM, TTP, WX penetration/avoidance, and the ability to look out the window and get the big picture stacks in favor of the manned asset. Won't discuss finish. I think logistics is debatable, but we can call that a push...

Logistics debateAble? Ok I'm not one to throw stones but that shit dude. If you don't know the numbers look them up. bandwidth, maint, 50+ percent crash rate. The cadre of dudes task with control and retrieval.

If manned assets fell out of the sky and required so much shit and were so vulnerable and only were slightly better in very certain situations the Air Force would be part of the army again so fast your head would spin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know where you looked that up

50 + the rate of manned. I guess I was wrong. Currently they crash at a rate of 300%+ the rate of manned crashes.

I believe it's about 9 per 100000 hours to 3

Don't need to cite the sources. They are it there and readily google able

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 + the rate of manned. I guess I was wrong. Currently they crash at a rate of 300%+ the rate of manned crashes.

I believe it's about 9 per 100000 hours to 3

Don't need to cite the sources. They are it there and readily google able

Here's the 2013 open source list (http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/indexFY13.htm). The math doesn't jive either way you look at it. Are you including Army? My googlefu must be weak.

Edit: I did find this June 2014 article that references the following mishap rates:

MQ1/9/RQ4 combined - 3.23:100k

MQ9 - 1.95:100k

F16 - 3.63:100k

F15 - 1.26:100k

U2 - 0:100k

General Aviation - 12:100k

Edited by HU&W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logistics debateAble? Ok I'm not one to throw stones but ###### that shit dude. If you don't know the numbers look them up. bandwidth, maint, 50+ percent crash rate. The cadre of dudes task with control and retrieval.

If manned assets fell out of the sky and required so much shit and were so vulnerable and only were slightly better in very certain situations the Air Force would be part of the army again so fast your head would spin

My argument (which could be wrong, I am assuming), is not the total logistics tail is smaller; we know, DCGS, LRE/MCE, Comm, MX, etc takes more than manned. Rather, where the logistics footprint is itself. In some cases I believe manned would require too large of a footprint too close to the area of interest to pull the same on station hours than our national security policy/strategy allows or is advantageous to our goals.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument (which could be wrong, I am assuming), is not the total logistics tail is smaller; we know, DCGS, LRE/MCE, Comm, MX, etc takes more than manned. Rather, where the logistics footprint is itself. In some cases I believe manned would require too large of a footprint too close to the area of interest to pull the same on station hours than our national security policy/strategy allows or is advantageous to our goals.

That's not necessarily true for some platforms, they can have a pretty damn small footprint compared to unmanned.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logistics debateAble? Ok I'm not one to throw stones but fuck that shit dude. If you don't know the numbers look them up. bandwidth, maint, 50+ percent crash rate. The cadre of dudes task with control and retrieval.

If manned assets fell out of the sky and required so much shit and were so vulnerable and only were slightly better in very certain situations the Air Force would be part of the army again so fast your head would spin

Yeah, I just deployed with a manned ISR asset a shit load of times over the last 5 years of my career and have a strong background in aircraft MX and support...what do I know. I'm pro manned ISR, but you could make the argument either way. Some manned assets use a lot of bandwidth too...

That's not necessarily true for some platforms, they can have a pretty damn small footprint compared to unmanned.

Depends on how many orbits you need and how close to the objective you are and what kind of legs your manned asset has. If you're going to provide the "unblinking eye" it takes some extra crews to fly the schedule and possibly an additional tail to cover down in case of MX issues.

BL, it depends...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just deployed with a manned ISR asset a shit load of times over the last 5 years of my career and have a strong background in aircraft MX and support...what do I know. I'm pro manned ISR, but you could make the argument either way. Some manned assets use a lot of bandwidth too...

.

BL, it depends...

Not saying you don't know anything just felt like saying logistics aren't a huge issue was glossing over a potential snake pit.

You're never going to convince me that unmanned ISR is anything more then the governments wet dream of being able to kill/spy without officially sending in American personnel. Which I don't have a problem with. But call a spade a spade. The saves money argument is garbage

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I didn't want to derail the Track Selects thread any more than it already has been. How many of you out there received the Career Decisions survey? I completed it last night and was surprised at how detailed the questions were about future plans regarding obtaining my ATP, etc. I thought their idea of a 15 year total commitment for UPT (8 active/7 reserve) was ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought their idea of a 15 year total commitment for UPT (8 active/7 reserve) was ridiculous.

Considering for a second how many people go to the Academy just so they could get a pilot shot. How crazy is it that you can get 18 year old kids to sign up for just about anything? And it isn't very likely after 4 years of indoctrination they will know any better at age 22 that a commitment locking them in until age 37 is a bad idea.

Unless of course they do some research and stumble upon forums like these.

I think this is funny when other gigs like the 18A job only have a 6 year ADSC. Especially when you consider the only thing keeping the wheels on the RPA wagon is utilizing UPT grads that were non-vol'd or wanted to get the hell out of their old community. But don't worry we have General Chang at A1 to make it all go smoothly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing concrete so far, but I've heard from several sources that a large portion of UPT students these days are Capts, has the average UPT student class actually changed that much? When I went through we only had 1LT and no Capts. Maybe that shows less willingness for young people to sign away 10 years with the good chance at least half of that will be spent in a GCS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you out there received the Career Decisions survey? I completed it last night and was surprised at how detailed the questions were about future plans regarding obtaining my ATP, etc. I thought their idea of a 15 year total commitment for UPT (8 active/7 reserve) was ridiculous.

Dudes need to respond to this survey with nothing held back. Especially the high quality guys that are deciding to leave. Also, there's a question in there asking if a $35k bonus would help, so I expect that to be the AF's next move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my $.02 worth on said survey above. Their 15 year TFI commitment is absurd no matter how much money is offered. The USAF needs to readjust their reality of what type of force they want to retain. If outside agencies are hiring no one will sign up for a 15 year TFI commitment, regardless of how much cash is thrown down. So, let's accept the reality and realize we're going to be a younger, more inexperienced force. I suggested 6 year commitments to allow for initial training and follow on flow to the ARC without the lifelock commitment. Much better recruitment and retention net, vice treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my $.02 worth on said survey above. Their 15 year TFI commitment is absurd no matter how much money is offered. The USAF needs to readjust their reality of what type of force they want to retain. If outside agencies are hiring no one will sign up for a 15 year TFI commitment, regardless of how much cash is thrown down. So, let's accept the reality and realize we're going to be a younger, more inexperienced force. I suggested 6 year commitments to allow for initial training and follow on flow to the ARC without the lifelock commitment. Much better recruitment and retention net, vice treating the symptoms and not the disease.

shack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dudes need to respond to this survey with nothing held back. Especially the high quality guys that are deciding to leave. Also, there's a question in there asking if a $35k bonus would help, so I expect that to be the AF's next move.

I'd hope people realize that a potential $35k bonus simply corrects the current $25k bonus for 15+ years of inflation. I doubt it would meaningfully change the dynamic- those who take the bonus now or at $35k are still those who were going to stay anyway. Based on what folks talk about in my community, I'd say the bonus would have to be approaching $50k to get people who were headed out the door to change their minds.

As for the 8 years AD/7 years ARC UPT ADSC... would be interesting to see how that would work. Is AD going to force ARC units to hire people? Does the ARC get a say? What if the ARC doesn't operate whatever you flew on AD, or if you want to change an airframe... who pays for the new qual? Sounds like the brainchild of some AD staffer that doesn't understand how the ARC works, which isn't surprising.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I literally LOLed when I read the question about 15 year total force commitment. Dumb dumb. Money doesn't solve all problems, but it solves a lot. At the 10 year point a pilot with an ATP could make more money on the outside and not have to deploy. Until the AF corrects this it will not solve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how long the commitment, the USAF will never have a problem getting people to sign up....however once the novelty has worn off and dudes realize they are indentured servants to a complete clusterfooook of an organization where the leadership, err, managers either are morons or liars, possibly both, they will have the lowest morale issue ever seen.

Jesus, I just am in awe of how the USAF can make the worlds greatest job undesirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else think the underlying issue is that no one will stem the insatiable appetite for RPAs? We're almost unable to sustain the number of CAPs we have now, but do we actually need all of the CAPs we have or are told we need? Are the COCOMs demanding something unnecessarily?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the brass will do nothing to fix the underlying issues and will continue to put band-aids on the situation to the detriment of the long term viability of the airframes and career field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...