Info on Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS/UAV/RPA)

[jtk2010]

Published: 1 January 2009 Air & Space Power Journal (Excerpt)

One of the many reasons for the success of these weapon systems is their overall utility to the ground commander. Unlike some Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAVs) that simply transmit the video or still picture signal from their sensor to one location on the ground, USAF CONOPs for Predator/Reaper UAS employ Remote Split Operations (RSO) in which a very small forward-deployed Launch-Recovery Element (LRE) is responsible for launch, recovery, and maintenance of the aircraft on the ground in the AOR. Once the aircraft is launched and its systems are functioning, it is handed off to one of several units in the Continental US (CONUS), currently either the 432 AEW, 27 Special Operations Wing, 163 RW, 119 Wing, 147 RW, or 214 Reconnaissance Group to employ it for the next 20-22 hours of its mission. Using ACC, Air Force Special Operations Command, Air Force Reserve Command, and ANG units for these missions is truly a Total Force success story. Once handed off, the LRE then either launches another aircraft for another CONUS squadron or recovers one that is waiting to be handed off to it for landing. The LRE repeats this cycle continuously in their forward location, again making maximum use of people and equipment forward. This RSO concept results in a much more efficient use of equipment and personnel resources than deploying the entire unit forward to fly locally. Only the LRE rotates in and out of the AOR on an Air Expeditionary Force cycle. The vast majority of personnel remain at their CONUS base, flying continuous combat operations without the need to reconstitute after deployment, retrain in tactics, or work up for their next deployment. The GCSs and other equipment are much more efficiently used as well, since they are in continuous use, flying whatever aircraft are assigned by the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in theater, under the command and control of the Combined Force Air Component Commander through the 432 AEW. For instance, if weather is bad in Iraq, or an operation in Afghanistan requires the additional sorties that day, more aircraft can be launched in Afghanistan, creating more missions for ground commanders there. The crews simply arrive on shift in the CONUS for a mission brief, are informed that on that day they will fly in Afghanistan, and proceed from there. The inherent flexibility of RSO is impressive. If the crews and equipment were located in theater and dedicated to one local area in the above scenario, they would simply go unused. But with RSO, the USAF puts more assets into the fight.

Excellent info HiFlyer, this is exactly what I need.

[SurelySerious]

Anyone checked their duty AFSC lately? Apparently it is changing to 18X; you will supposedly keep your permanent Primary AFSC, though. This is supposed to make manpower moves between squadrons easier, according to the ops group commander. I'd keep an eye on it though; AFPC is bound to mess up someone's records.

Edited December 2, 2011 by SurelySerious

[Rifleman96]

Anyone checked their duty AFSC lately? Apparently it is changing to 18X; you will supposedly keep your permanent AFSC, though. This is supposed to make manpower moves between squadrons easier, according to the ops group commander. I'd keep an eye on it though; AFPC is bound to mess up someone's records.

Whose? You're not talking about real pilots are you?

[SurelySerious]

Whose? You're not talking about real pilots are you?

Yep, real pilots. Mine hasn't changed yet, but he said the turnover is in the works.

[Craftsman]

Is this going to be some backdoor plan to keep us in Preds? Im a UPT-D dude and after seeing the drops finally had a little hope in my eyes again.

[SurelySerious]

Is this going to be some backdoor plan to keep us in Preds? Im a UPT-D dude and after seeing the drops finally had a little hope in my eyes again.

Shouldn't; Duty AFSC is purely related to your current assignment, which they want to change everyone to the same so that they don't need to send paperwork to the ACC commander everytime a pilot goes to a different sqaudron and takes the billet of an RPA operator. I'd be more worried that they mix it up and change your Primary.

[Rifleman96]

So AFPC screwed up, no surprise, and gave quite a few of the 18x's only a 3 yr ADSC. We already have one Beta dude that has put in his separation paperwork, he'll be on terminal leave by next Oct. That's going to work out great for the numbers and morale when others start dropping paperwork or start demanding bonuses at a 3 yr point.

[Boxhead]

So AFPC screwed up, no surprise, and gave quite a few of the 18x's only a 3 yr ADSC. We already have one Beta dude that has put in his separation paperwork, he'll be on terminal leave by next Oct. That's going to work out great for the numbers and morale when others start dropping paperwork or start demanding bonuses at a 3 yr point.

By quite a few...you mean some have different ones? That is classic.

[SurelySerious]

AFPC Standard.

[ThreeHoler]

So AFPC screwed up, no surprise, and gave quite a few of the 18x's only a 3 yr ADSC. We already have one Beta dude that has put in his separation paperwork, he'll be on terminal leave by next Oct. That's going to work out great for the numbers and morale when others start dropping paperwork or start demanding bonuses at a 3 yr point.

I would expect them to fix the glitch. I had no UPT ADSC for the first 5 years post-UPT. It just magically showed up one day.

[Rifleman96]

By quite a few...you mean some have different ones? That is classic.

Yeah it is funny how some lucked out with 3 yrs while others have 6 yrs. Two guys from my flight got here around the same time, one has 6 yrs while the other is expecting to be on terminal leave next Oct.

I would expect them to fix the glitch. I had no UPT ADSC for the first 5 years post-UPT. It just magically showed up one day.

Sq Leadership is currently trying to work the fix. But the specific Beta has his ADSC paperwork in hand stating 3 yrs. I know we will have a even-more disgruntled guy on the line if they find a way to backtrack and give him the full 6yrs.

[Magellan]

I know we will have a even-more disgruntled guy on the line if they find a way to backtrack and give him the full 6yrs.

Tell him to suck it up and deal with it. He volunteered to be a beta guy with a 6 year commitment. He doesn't have a leg to stand on compared to his 10 year commitment bros that were non-vol'd.

[SurelySerious]

Tell him to suck it up and deal with it. He volunteered to be a beta guy with a 6 year commitment. He doesn't have a leg to stand on compared to his 10 year commitment bros that were non-vol'd.

True, I don't think it's possible to be more disgruntled than some of the TAMI dudes.

[Learjetter]

Sq Leadership is currently trying to work the fix. But the specific Beta has his ADSC paperwork in hand stating 3 yrs.

"Paperwork in hand" pretty good argument that the Beta agreed to the 3 years the AF said he had to serve...

ETA: Guess Big Blue's plan is to claim the "3" is a typo?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Learjetter

[Magellan]

"Paperwork in hand" pretty good argument that the Beta agreed to the 3 years the AF said he had to serve...

ETA: Guess Big Blue's plan is to claim the "3" is a typo?

Another thought. What does it say about the community when one of the golden children who had Gen Schwartz come out to pin wings on their chest is running for the exit?

[ThreeHoler]

"Paperwork in hand" pretty good argument that the Beta agreed to the 3 years the AF said he had to serve...

ETA: Guess Big Blue's plan is to claim the "3" is a typo?

Verbal contract, perhaps?

Like I said earlier, I never signed a 10-year ADSC prior to UPT in some sort of glitch, yet since there was an understanding of the commitment, it was no surprise when one showed up years later for the right end date. If the info out there was "6-year commitment" for doing this course. Then the AF is easily able to fix the glitch.

[Rifleman96]

TH, did you sign any agreement at all? The problem here is that he did sign a specific contract that states 3 yrs. Time will tell what will actually happen, but he has started the official separation process already. I'm definitely not defending this, I'm sure Big Blue will come in at some point and tell him the contract he has in hand is void. I also don't like the mistake because it will bring down morale, what's left of it, of the other pilots and betas that are still in it. And the biggest problem it will cause is on manning which most of us know is always hurting.

Sarcasm ON: Hey but at least Gen Schwartz' promise is sort of being enacted by getting UPT'ers to new assignments, manning be damned.

[SurelySerious]

Nellis AFB Releases Final EA for Indian Springs Land Acquisition

The EA was conducted in accordance with Federal and Air Force regulations and guidelines. The proposed action of acquiring approximately 16.9 acres of resort property in Indian Springs, Nevada, would allow for the construction of a boundary fence along the perimeter of Creech Air Force Base.

Resort property? They must have studied the wrong Indian Springs. At least the land area is right on.

[Radio]

So the first 2 or 3 beta classes were made to sign a 3 year contract. Now a few hundred 18As are in the pipeline because of them. The future manning problem is solved because these guys and gals burnt bridges with established AFSCs knowing there was no promise of even the beta test concluding. And people are worried about morale if they get out at their 10 year point? Maybe more of the betas would stay if they weren't about to become the only qualified RPA pilots (including Navs) not getting continuity pay to get over the 10 year hump. But now we should hope the AF pulls a fast one on them?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Radio

[Guest]

So the first 2 or 3 beta classes were made to sign a 3 year contract. Now a few hundred 18As are in the pipeline because of them. The future manning problem is solved because these guys and gals burnt bridges with established AFSCs knowing there was no promise of even the beta test concluding. And people are worried about morale if they get out at their 10 year point? Maybe more of the betas would stay if they weren't about to become the only qualified RPA pilots (including Navs) not getting contunuity pay to get over the 10 year hump. But now we should hope the AF pulls a fast one on them?

I don't get it. What do you mean?

[Radio]

The first 2 "UAS Beta Test" classes entered training with the express knowledge that the test could be deemed a failure any second, and they would be made to report back to their original AFSCs. They took a huge risk to their careers and it paid off for the AF and the RPA community. It doesn't seem fair to me to hope they get sea lawyered out of the contract they were made to sign.

Also who knows if some AFPC guy decided to make it a 3 year committment, knowing there was a good chance the test wouldn't work out. After Beta 1 and 2 succeeded, the new beta wings were created and the 18X AFSC was formally created. Perhaps only after that point, other AFPC guys said, "well thank goodness that worked out, lets try to keep them for 6 years now."

Edited December 29, 2011 by Radio

[nrodgsxr]

The first 2 "UAS Beta Test" classes entered training with the express knowledge that the test could be deemed a failure any second, and they would be made to report back to their original AFSCs. They took a huge risk to their careers and it paid off for the AF and the RPA community. It doesn't seem fair to me to hope they get sea lawyered out of the contract they were made to sign.

Also who knows if some AFPC guy decided to make it a 3 year committment, knowing there was a good chance the test wouldn't work out. After Beta 1 and 2 succeeded, the new beta wings were created and the 18X AFSC was formally created. Perhaps only after that point, other AFPC guys said, "well thank goodness that worked out, lets try to keep them for 6 years now."

whatever.. that program was a no fail mission and everyone knows it. There is a sea of 11X'ers that plan to leave the RPA the first chance they get. Nonvol'n pilots is unsustainable

[Radio]

At least those 11xrs have a nice ACP cushion to help them make up their minds.

As previously discussed, there was a quasi "beta test" before this current version (a few years ago). A guy made it all the way through FTU and was about to start CMR before he was shipped off to Space/Missiles. He was eventually accepted to the 18X pipeline and is now a fully qual'd MQ-1B pilot. But taken all together, UAS beta tests have a 50% success rate.

Either way, it being a "no fail" endeavor was never explained to the betas testers themselves. They still had to step off a ledge with their old AFSCs, just 1-2 years before their Majors boards. Forcing those 15 guys to double their signed ADSC contract won't really help hundreds of 11Xs. But the career field they helped create is already helping.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

The first 2 "UAS Beta Test" classes entered training with the express knowledge that the test could be deemed a failure any second, and they would be made to report back to their original AFSCs. They took a huge risk to their careers and it paid off for the AF and the RPA community. It doesn't seem fair to me to hope they get sea lawyered out of the contract they were made to sign.

Truth of the matter is that the program was not going to fail.Too many people had OPR bullets hanging on their success.

You also have to take into account the demographics of those that took that leap into the great unknown STS. Some of these guys saw RPA as a way out. So why should anyone feel sorry?

[Guest]

Maybe more of the betas would stay if they weren't about to become the only qualified RPA pilots (including Navs) not getting continuity pay to get over the 10 year hump.

What is continuity pay and what is the 10 year hump?