Air Force 2027: Fewer Pilots, More Drones, More Challenges

[hobbitcid]

In the report, called “Global Horizons: United States Air Force Global Science and Technology Vision,” USAF Chief Scientist Maybury said that the Air Force’s manned air fleet is likely to shrink slightly by 2027. This is primarily due to increases in technology coupled with reduced costs for RPA development world-wide.

During Allied Force in 1999 I sat in on a meeting at the CAOC then in Vicenza where the subject of equipping 1 RQ-1 Predator with a laser range finder had all the fighter pilots in the room up in arms. Gen Short the JFACC, told the group the laser range finder was only there to collect coordinates and not for target designation. Moreover, he said UAVs will not be used as designators nor will they ever be weaponized. Those responsibilies will remain with the manned fleet of fighter aircraft. Just three years later the CIA was launching Hellfires from their version of the pred.

All thats holding the RPA revolution back is the ability to fly in mixed airspace with civilian traffic. Once that's cleared, many missions will go to the RPAs...

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130805/C4ISR01/308050014/Air-Force-2027-Fewer-Pilots-More-Drones-More-Challenges

[10percenttruth]

the Air Force’s manned air fleet is likely to shrink slightly by 2027.

[OverTQ]

Too many pilots look through the prism of what they want to happen instead of being objective. If it can be made, it will be made. And at the point it is less risk, cheaper or better, it will replace the current version. If we being manned aircraft are the current version, guess what?

[Vprdrvr69]

In the report, called “Global Horizons: United States Air Force Global Science and Technology Vision,” USAF Chief Scientist Maybury said that the Air Force’s manned air fleet is likely to shrink slightly by 2027. This is primarily due to increases in technology coupled with reduced costs for RPA development world-wide.

During Allied Force in 1999 I sat in on a meeting at the CAOC then in Vicenza where the subject of equipping 1 RQ-1 Predator with a laser range finder had all the fighter pilots in the room up in arms. Gen Short the JFACC, told the group the laser range finder was only there to collect coordinates and not for target designation. Moreover, he said UAVs will not be used as designators nor will they ever be weaponized. Those responsibilies will remain with the manned fleet of fighter aircraft. Just three years later the CIA was launching Hellfires from their version of the pred.

All thats holding the RPA revolution back is the ability to fly in mixed airspace with civilian traffic. Once that's cleared, many missions will go to the RPAs...

http://www.defensene...More-Challenges

I am not too worried about being replaced by these things anytime too soon. Anyone that is familiar with these UAV's understands their actual capabilities and limitations. While the media and retard Generals wet themselves over these RC toys, their use and contribution still pales in comparison to manned aircraft. The one great advantage they do offer is loiter time. Ask anyone who has a ton of experience down range how many near mid-air's they have had with these RC airplanes. Look at the crash rates per sortie for UAV's. It is atrocious and it has not improved. Something as simple as a failed alternator will take these tinker toys down. Pay attention to these toys when dudes on the ground are getting shot at; they're too busy staring at the ######ing wings because god forbid a $5 million dollar aircraft encounter a few clouds or some trace icing. They fall out of the sky. Of course they won't tell that they're staring at wings, because they are only talking on the internet chat room. See how many of these three letter agency UAV's can't even talk to ATC because the radios suck balls. Finally, ask around and see if anyone else has experienced the random "hellfire going off through the stack" bullshit. Aside from the accidents and deaths that will be associated with these shitballs falling out of the sky, flying them in the NAS will be entertaining because the truths will come out. Problem is, exactly what is the purpose for this? I don't remember them staring at many things we didn't plan to attack or kill.

[Dupe]

Also...I hear China is a growing threat and there's instability in the middle-east.

[Tonka]

All thats holding the RPA revolution back is the ability to fly in mixed airspace with civilian traffic. Once that's cleared, many missions will go to the RPAs...

ALL? That is quite a reach...

Many? Name them and justify why we can't do it today (i.e. why is the fact that RPAs can not fly in civilian airspace limiting our rescue aircraft to be unmanned?) There is plenty of military airspace where we can test, practice, evaluate RPAs... why aren't we using that airspace to prepare for the magical flight into civilian airspace that is holding everything back.

Just three years later the CIA was launching Hellfires from their version of the pred.

Because.... drum roll please... we were/are at WAR, it was a necessity driven by a war with an unlimited budget (monetarily and risk). Unless you think we are going to be at war for the next 14 years, there will not be a necessity, the funding, nor the same drive to acquire systems that are not technically advanced enough to not crash and kill people. As an example I give you the cold war and space vehicles, how did that turn out for us after the cold war? Extrapolating that technological leap in that short period should have us landing on Pluto by now.

[Lord Ratner]

I am not too worried about being replaced by these things anytime too soon. Anyone that is familiar with these UAV's understands their actual capabilities and limitations. While the media and retard Generals wet themselves over these RC toys, their use and contribution still pales in comparison to manned aircraft. The one great advantage they do offer is loiter time. Ask anyone who has a ton of experience down range how many near mid-air's they have had with these RC airplanes. Look at the crash rates per sortie for UAV's. It is atrocious and it has not improved. Something as simple as a failed alternator will take these tinker toys down. Pay attention to these toys when dudes on the ground are getting shot at; they're too busy staring at the ######ing wings because god forbid a $5 million dollar aircraft encounter a few clouds or some trace icing. They fall out of the sky. Of course they won't tell that they're staring at wings, because they are only talking on the internet chat room. See how many of these three letter agency UAV's can't even talk to ATC because the radios suck balls. Finally, ask around and see if anyone else has experienced the random "hellfire going off through the stack" bullshit. Aside from the accidents and deaths that will be associated with these shitballs falling out of the sky, flying them in the NAS will be entertaining because the truths will come out. Problem is, exactly what is the purpose for this? I don't remember them staring at many things we didn't plan to attack or kill.

This. I always loved how low on SA the preds were in a stack. That's not to shit on the pilots, they knew their systems' limitations and worked diligently to mitigate, but sometimes it would get to be a bit much, and suddenly someone in the stack would call out moderate turbulence for no reason...

But one day, those weaknesses will be overcome. Most likely once the Google's and Microsofts out there start playing. A few nerds can build a self driving car on their spare time, but a major defense contractor can't make a gradesheet program for UPT without 10 years of Beta testing? And we wonder why we're broke.

[DFRESH]

A few nerds can build a self driving car on their spare time, but a major defense contractor can't make a gradesheet program for UPT without 10 years of Beta testing? And we wonder why we're broke.

Fuckin SHACK!

[Steve Holt!]

This. I always loved how low on SA the preds were in a stack. That's not to shit on the pilots, they knew their systems' limitations and worked diligently to mitigate, but sometimes it would get to be a bit much, and suddenly someone in the stack would call out moderate turbulence for no reason...

But one day, those weaknesses will be overcome. Most likely once the Google's and Microsofts out there start playing. A few nerds can build a self driving car on their spare time, but a major defense contractor can't make a gradesheet program for UPT without 10 years of Beta testing? And we wonder why we're broke.

Things will be better in the next TIMS push

[Hacker]

All thats holding the RPA revolution back is the ability to fly in mixed airspace with civilian traffic. Once that's cleared, many missions will go to the RPAs...

Well, that and their complete lack of ability to survive in a non-permissive or denied environment.

[tac airlifter]

All thats holding the RPA revolution back is the ability to fly in mixed airspace with civilian traffic. Once that's cleared, many missions will go to the RPAs...

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130805/C4ISR01/308050014/Air-Force-2027-Fewer-Pilots-More-Drones-More-Challenges

Name me a single mission that will go to RPA's once civilian airspace is approved. Loiter time and high definition sensors are the two great advantages to RPAs. Disadvantages are numerous but include terrible radios, difficulty conducting debriefs, lack of anti-icing capability, permissive environment only operations, etc. Often times they work great for single specific missions, but often times they also shoot without clearance through the middle of an air stack while failing to place their crosshairs on the correct target. I am absolutely not knocking the crews, they are doing the best they can with the tools they are provided. However, I did not fully appreciate what a nightmare the RPA enterprise was until I went to Clovis and worked closely with the squadrons and saw their physical workstation. Major things will have to change before that technology is ready for primetime.

[hobbitcid]

TAC Airlifter - "Name me a single mission that will go to RPA's once civilian airspace is approved."

Hmmm... OK well I expect any mission requiring surveillance currently undertaken by a manned platform (Fixed or Rotary) will go RPA. That includes Military, Government (Fed to Local) and civilian... That’s seems a no brainer but given your name I assume you are an airlift guy. One industry currently showing the greatest interest in the Flight in National Airspace (FINAS) program is air cargo. Once FINAS is approved cargo airlines will reduce the number of pilots required to fly their aircraft (that’s their stated goal). At some point in time, I believe airlift will be handled by a single pilot responsible for monitoring the computer. Once that clears the FAA hurdle, it’s simply a matter of time before passenger airlines follow suit. The airlines got rid of navigators, then engineers (2^nd officers) – I suspect once safety is assured, they’ll drop the need for two pilots as well.

With regard to your laundry list of technical issues - those are evolutions in capability. Radios will get better, the future is IP based anyway - so VOIP will become the standard. Think BACN like capabilities on aerostats and high altitude UAVs providing WIMAX for the battlespace. More bandwidth equals more capability.

Lack of anti-icing is airframe specific, in the initial phase of the NATO AGS program a RPA version of the Gulfstream G-550 was evaluated as a potential platform. It had great capacity (power-weight), could be flown manned as an option and was virtually COTS (fly by light, auto land/take off, autopilot, etc). It even had fairly good operating altitude (45-50K). The drawback was endurance - the RQ-4 even though it had less capacity and less power won out because of its ability stay on station for 22 hours. And I do believe the G-550 is capable of flying in an icing environment. Not that they would unless they had to.

As to the permissive environment you may want to look at current developments by the US Navy and USAF for UCAVs. These platforms are designed for deep strike, in non-permissive environments. The technology is not perfect but it’s coming…

So you’re right, RPAs have a long way to go, but in the early 20^th century no one thought the airplane would amount to much more than an observation platform, in the 1970s the leadership in IBM thought the idea of a home computer was ludicrous. Now both technologies are so commonplace no one can remember being without them.

I work in these areas researching and experimenting with future capabilities for C2 and JISR systems. Almost all the current and future development is in RPAs. Further I spent my USAF career in C2 and ISR aircraft and as much as I hate to say it, the RPA is the future. Once they get clearance to fly in mixed airspace – any mission that is dull, dirty or dangerous will be handled by an RPA.

Edited August 7, 2013 by hobbitcid

[Rusty Pipes]

None of this will matter when Zombies take over the Earth anyway...

[Tonka]

but given your name I assume you are an airlift guy.

Figured that out on your own, didja?

OK well I expect any mission requiring surveillance currently undertaken by a manned platform (Fixed or Rotary) will go RPA. That’s seems a no brainer

Yes, no one would argue that, but you said, "many" missions... that still sounds like "a" mission (which it is currently doing),

Once FINAS is approved cargo airlines will reduce the number of pilots required to fly their aircraft... I believe airlift will be handled by a single pilot responsible for monitoring the computer.

.

I don't understand how expanding unmanned operations DIRECTLY reduces the # of pilots in an airliner (while that might be possible, I don't see how one influences the other).

it’s simply a matter of time before passenger airlines follow suit...I suspect once safety is assured, they’ll drop the need for two pilots as well.

.

You are implying that we would reduce the number of pilots on cargo planes before safety was assured? Either it is safe for both or it is safe for neither. Perhaps you mean, "once the public accepts the idea."

So you’re right, RPAs have a long way to go,

Basically everyone's point against your argument.

[hobbitcid]

I don't understand how expanding unmanned operations DIRECTLY reduces the # of pilots in an airliner (while that might be possible, I don't see how one influences the other).

Money... Pilots cost lots of money, computers don't. If a cargo carrier like FEDEX or UPS can reduce its personnel overhead by say 40% - its bottom line improves significantly...

.

You are implying that we would reduce the number of pilots on cargo planes before safety was assured? Either it is safe for both or it is safe for neither. Perhaps you mean, "once the public accepts the idea."

Good point - but FAA/CAA and the rest have to be convinced first - no easy feat.

Basically everyone's point against your argument.

Not my argument - its the USAF's own report from their Chief Scientist.

[Hueypilot]

It'll be a while. While out at OAKN I noticed significant barriers to "everyday", safe use. It has to be damn near bulletproof before a commercial 121 operator is going to risk iron and liability to make an airplane pilotless or even nake reductions in crew. Just because we (the USAF) are employing UAS doesn't mean the damn is about to break on other uses as well. The mishap rate was atrocious, and not just on the MQ-1s either. There were lots of connectivity issues, comm issues and other things that are not airframe specific, but are UAS-specific.

[Dupe]

Name me a single mission that will go to RPA's once civilian airspace is approved. Loiter time and high definition sensors are the two great advantages to RPAs. Disadvantages are numerous but include terrible radios, difficulty conducting debriefs, lack of anti-icing capability, permissive environment only operations, etc. Often times they work great for single specific missions, but often times they also shoot without clearance through the middle of an air stack while failing to place their crosshairs on the correct target. I am absolutely not knocking the crews, they are doing the best they can with the tools they are provided. However, I did not fully appreciate what a nightmare the RPA enterprise was until I went to Clovis and worked closely with the squadrons and saw their physical workstation. Major things will have to change before that technology is ready for primetime.

All the pipeline and traffic watch stuff could go to RPAs, as could some of the aerial survey market. Police departments may want airborne observation that's cheaper and can be on scene sooner than current rotary wing assets. I could see forestry services wanting a widget to scan for hot-spots during or after a fire. The research types may want something that tracks spotted horned whales for hours on end. Realtors of high-end properties want a cheaper source of aerial imagery. I see a wide market for RPAs... just one that doesn't involve airline operations.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

I wonder if this is the same argument/concern that all the major cargo ship captains and operators had when those unmanned submersible things came out to do a specific maritime mission.

[chim richalds]

Most of you let the fear of getting non-vol'd to rpas cloud your judgement on this issue. They are a very capable platform at doing the current mission set. There are limitations to them, just like there are limitations on planes by having to design them to have a human in them. I think every pilot should have to do one tour here, the Air Force tells me that this this the front line of the war, and they surely wouldn't lie to me.

[Bullet]

Not my argument - its the USAF's own report from their Chief Scientist.

You mean the same folks that in the 90s were saying we'd be flying hypersonic fighters on the edge of space that used directed energy weapons by now? How'd that work out?

Don't get me wrong. RPAs have done outstanding work, and will continue to grow in complexity and capability. But as many have pointed out, there remain a ton of obstacles to overcome before we're ready for Skynet to take over our battles for us. Predicting that we'll overcome all of them in the next 15 years? Ballsy move, Cotton....

[tac airlifter]

TAC Airlifter - "Name me a single mission that will go to RPA's once civilian airspace is approved."

Hmmm... OK well I expect any mission requiring surveillance currently undertaken by a manned platform (Fixed or Rotary) will go RPA. That includes Military, Government (Fed to Local) and civilian... That’s seems a no brainer but given your name I assume you are an airlift guy.

Good discussion so far! I prefer these threads than BODN politics nonsense, so thanks for the thoughtful reply. No, I'm no longer an airlift guy, that was a previous life. I've been a manned tactical ISR guy the past 5 years, so I'm pretty qualified to say no, "any ISR mission currently undertaken by a manned platform" will be soon accomplished by RPAs is false. We are an order of magnitude in technological development away from that. I appreciate RPAs, so don't take this as a dick measuring thing; but they are not even close to performing at a level required to take away manned ISR. We can agree to disagree here, because the examples I'd cite to prove my point aren't for a public forum. Moving on.....

I believe airlift will be handled by a single pilot responsible for monitoring the computer. Once that clears the FAA hurdle, it’s simply a matter of time before passenger airlines follow suit. The airlines got rid of navigators, then engineers (2^nd officers) – I suspect once safety is assured, they’ll drop the need for two pilots as well.

"once safety is assured" may be a long damn time. And whats the difference between a single pilot monitoring the computer and a single pilot? To keep a pilot there doesn't prove your point at all. I see no advantage to RPA passenger planes.

With regard to your laundry list of technical issues - those are evolutions in capability.

right, they are. So, one might even say 'major things will have to change before the technology is ready for prime time." I always hear R&D guys talk about what is imminently about to happen, because they deal in a world of capability. In ops, we realize a technical theoretical potential isn't a true capability until you have proven it & can reliably replicate it. These 'evolutions in capability' that you gloss over are major issues that have resulted in mission fail on numerous occasions. Technical issues, but also user issues like the ability to keep crosshairs on target.

Lack of anti-icing is airframe specific, in the initial phase of the NATO AGS program a RPA version of the Gulfstream G-550 was evaluated as a potential platform. It had great capacity (power-weight), could be flown manned as an option and was virtually COTS (fly by light, auto land/take off, autopilot, etc). It even had fairly good operating altitude (45-50K). The drawback was endurance - the RQ-4 even though it had less capacity and less power won out because of its ability stay on station for 22 hours.

copy, so how's that RQ-4 working out compared to the U2 lately? Again, a plane that doesn't exist and another one that sucks as examples really proves my point (namely, that this isn't ready to take over manned aircraft) instead of yours.

As to the permissive environment you may want to look at current developments by the US Navy and USAF for UCAVs.

current developments aren't operational capabilities.

So you’re right, RPAs have a long way to go, but in the early 20^th century no one thought the airplane would amount to much more than an observation platform, in the 1970s the leadership in IBM thought the idea of a home computer was ludicrous. Now both technologies are so commonplace no one can remember being without them.

I never said RPAs were shitty planes and not worth our effort, quite the opposite. But you're right that I'm right... This has a long ways to go before its ready for prime time. Your assertion that NAS approval is the only thing preventing this technology from spreading like herpes to every corner of the world is false. The technological problems, the cost versus benefit, etc are preventing this from exploding.

I work in these areas researching and experimenting with future capabilities for C2 and JISR systems. Almost all the current and future development is in RPAs. Further I spent my USAF career in C2 and ISR aircraft and as much as I hate to say it, the RPA is the future. Once they get clearance to fly in mixed airspace – any mission that is dull, dirty or dangerous will be handled by an RPA.

they already have clearance to fly in mixed airspace deployed, and yet your assertions aren't even on the AO way ahead slides, so agree to disagree.

Again, this is a good discussion so please don't think I'm being an asshole; I prefer discussions and wouldn't waste my time with an argument here. But frankly I disagree with your POV. There are numerous other issues I haven't touched on holding RPAs back, like the massive footprint and personnel requirement to support a single orbit. T overall I think there is a bright future for this relevant and important technology, I just don't think it's so bright that it will plume out the pilot career.

[Spur38]

I heard that before the RPA for commercial carriers is implemented that Asiana pilots will replace Part 121 line pilots.....just to ensure the human to computer transittion.

[Fuzz]

I heard that before the RPA for commercial carriers is implemented that Asiana pilots will replace Part 121 line pilots.....just to ensure the human to computer transittion.

Hell will most likely freeze over before I willingly fly on an Cargo/Passenger RPA. If an ISR or Strike RPA goes down nothing it lost, I want a brain up front in case something goes wrong, not some computer.

[El-Fist]

Most of you let the fear of getting non-vol'd to rpas cloud your judgement on this issue. They are a very capable platform at doing the current mission set. There are limitations to them, just like there are limitations on planes by having to design them to have a human in them. I think every pilot should have to do one tour here, the Air Force tells me that this this the front line of the war, and they surely wouldn't lie to me.

Certainly not a dig at you, chim but just want to expand. Sure there are "some" limitations to RPA's. For example, if the wind shifts and you need to change runways, you may as well scrap the mission because it becomes a f#$king nightmare to change the taxi plan, not to mention, shutting down the rest of the airfield, and royally pissing off ATC who is clearing the airspace for this POS. (I can't speak for all RPA's, just one particular I had the pleasure of working with...) I guess that would be a limitation. Don't forget if the WX is less than VMC, there is a chance of an icy cloud or turbulence, mission is done. That seems like a limitation.

The whole permissive environment thing comes to mind but that's been beaten to death. As long as we keep our conflicts with shitheads with livestock, mopeds, and IED's, we'll do fine with more RPA's.

If you call "very capable" able to stay airborne for 22 hours with broke ass sensors getting shitty (or no) imagery that costs more than the manned version with a fraction of the product quality and reliability, then yes, I guess you could call them "very capable."

Just my thoughts. Not a dig at RPA drivers at all. I do get that there are certain things that the RPA brings to the table that is an awesome compliment to the manned platforms. What drives me effen nuts is that Big Blue is subscribing more and more to the idea that RPA's could be the answer to everything.. Not true... never will be.

[Steve Holt!]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466762/bagram-pilots-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx

I think this article is a good argument against yous guys advocating for a total RPA air force