TnkrToad Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Shadows/Hunters are different and way the hell cheaper than a Grey Eagle. There are a crap load of those deployed because they are owned down to individual battalions in some cases. The CAB portion of Shadow could happen tomorrow but since we haven't ditched all the 58s it's not needed yet. But as was stated by others this stuff is owned as organic unit property. No different than Unit A isn't going to give Unit B it's trucks and not train/equip while in the rear they aren't going to just move all the UAS platforms into theatre at the loss to garrison units. You can't just strip a BCT and CAB of all their stuff. But yeah until we get all the CABs fully converted to Full Spectrum CAB the couple of Grey Eagles owned by an individual CORPs isn't going to provide anywhere near the number of eyes in the sky that the current environment enjoys/demands. Same as we don't have anywhere near the number of MC-12/U-28 type platforms and even if we did put max forces forward and forget the Garrison guys who are on the patch chart to go back your still going to be on the hook for a lot of commitment. Yeah unless you've been an ALO you really haven't seen the full lengths of the stupidity of ground leadership making air calls. I like to tell people we aren't any better prepared for it, we are just a lot closer to the fire and get burned a lot more. Lawman, thanks for your thoughts on all this. I hope you'll take my questions/discussions as critiques of your service, rather than you personally. So here goes: When I'm talking to my Army buddies about air support to ground users, my response will be: - The Air Force is putting every bit of its unmanned and manned ISR capability forward to support (due to the most-optimal employment methodology), while the Army keeps significant numbers of LD/HD RPA assets at home station due to its ridiculous operational concept for aviation. COCOMs aren't screaming for more trucks, or people for that matter (our civ leadership has declared peace is at hand), but they desperately want unmanned ISR - From the above discussion, I presume the Army has excess capacity in its MC-12/U-28 equivalent fleet, but due to the same flawed concept it's actively denying that capability to theater, as well - You can/should strip a BCT/CAB of particular assets--if those assets are LD/HD and thus desperately needed in theater, and the unit is far out from its next deployment I'll go back to my original question, then: why in the farging world would Gen Carlisle, when discussing RPAs to theater not say, "We are pushing unmanned and manned ISR to COCOMs as much as we can--to the extent that we're breaking the backs of our aircrews (and in the process mortgaging our future). While it is, and properly should be the Air Force's role to provide unmanned/manned ISR & strike to COCOMs, you might want to talk to the Army, which is actively withholding excess capacity stateside. If you want the best possible ISR & strike support to ground users, you should look no further than the U.S. Air Force. In the short term, the Army should divorce its RPA units from their respective parent units and push them to the COCOMs to the max extent possible. In the long term, they should at the very least embrace the Air Force's operational concept--or even better give those assets to a service that will use them more effectively." Furthermore, why are we airmen not saying this every time we talk to our Army brethren? I'm no apologist for our senior leaders (see my posts on the ACP thread), but the Air Force's RPA operational concept seems far superior to the Army. If such is the case, why do our senior leaders (and we) not say so--at least as often as Army dudes make ridiculous claims that airmen don't care about soldiers? Edited January 6, 2015 by TnkrToad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B52gator Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I'll just put this here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGGpSemB_hs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Lawman, thanks for your thoughts on all this. I hope you'll take my questions/discussions as critiques of your service, rather than you personally. So here goes: When I'm talking to my Army buddies about air support to ground users, my response will be: - The Air Force is putting every bit of its unmanned and manned ISR capability forward to support (due to the most-optimal employment methodology), while the Army keeps significant numbers of LD/HD RPA assets at home station due to its ridiculous operational concept for aviation. COCOMs aren't screaming for more trucks, or people for that matter (our civ leadership has declared peace is at hand), but they desperately want unmanned ISR - From the above discussion, I presume the Army has excess capacity in its MC-12/U-28 equivalent fleet, but due to the same flawed concept it's actively denying that capability to theater, as well - You can/should strip a BCT/CAB of particular assets--if those assets are LD/HD and thus desperately needed in theater, and the unit is far out from its next deployment I'll go back to my original question, then: why in the farging world would Gen Carlisle, when discussing RPAs to theater not say, "We are pushing unmanned and manned ISR to COCOMs as much as we can--to the extent that we're breaking the backs of our aircrews (and in the process mortgaging our future). While it is, and properly should be the Air Force's role to provide unmanned/manned ISR & strike to COCOMs, you might want to talk to the Army, which is actively withholding excess capacity stateside. If you want the best possible ISR & strike support to ground users, you should look no further than the U.S. Air Force. In the short term, the Army should divorce its RPA units from their respective parent units and push them to the COCOMs to the max extent possible. In the long term, they should at the very least embrace the Air Force's operational concept--or even better give those assets to a service that will use them more effectively." Furthermore, why are we airmen not saying this every time we talk to our Army brethren? I'm no apologist for our senior leaders (see my posts on the ACP thread), but the Air Force's RPA operational concept seems far superior to the Army. If such is the case, why do our senior leaders (and we) not say so--at least as often as Army dudes make ridiculous claims that airmen don't care about soldiers? No offense taken. Like I said it's not hat I see things from the Army's side and it's more right it's that I'm often times not insulated from some of the Army's stupidity toward aviation because of the service name on my uniform not being able to hide behind the blue. We can detach some elements, and you see that but the Army's structure is to have the modular BCT and its assigned CAB be their own entity to themselves. No it's not nearly as efficient as the JFACC divvying up his assets to meet the JFCs intent and the JGFCC's needs. However what it does do is leave any BCT fully capable of supporting its self in all contingencies. The other problem as mentioned before is our deployment model. No offense but nobody in the Air Force (yes I checked with friends) is doing 12 in, 12 home, 15 in, 9 home, 12 in, 15 home, 11 in, 11 home, 10 in.... That is no kidding what an aviation battalion did between Iraq and Afghanistan since 05. So we are sending them, but when your units that are rotating in or out only have a handful of them to begin with it looks like a lot more home than are. And keep in mind in order to certify for deployment a BCT and CAB have to demo their METL at NTC which means they would need their full components for that. Surging everybody forward right now would help meet the requests but your never going meet that request if we are being honest here. And we simply cannot maintain that stance permanently even with 48 BCTs and 13 CABs (a fifth of which we are cutting). GFCs don't understand anything about aviation other than its expensive and it is never giving them all of what they want. No different than you hear the stupid argument of "AF doesn't want to do CAS!" When outside the light grey Eagle community there isn't a Wing in the AF that wouldn't be thrilled to strap green iron onto planes and come drop it on steel and bone for us. Best you can do is just try to ignore the louder screams and point to all the successes you've given them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunes Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'll just put this here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGGpSemB_hs oh......em.......gee...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whall85 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvlax40 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 wait do people not like the trailer? ;) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craftsman Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 wait do people not like the trailer? ;) I see what you did there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKinnear Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'll just put this here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGGpSemB_hs This is probably more accurate... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF1mx-Dcek8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire4effect Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) I'm sure the movie will be appropriately cheesy but I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever putting a Hellfire on the bad guy's head via RPA. Having had encounters with various forms of insurgent ordnance while in far away places I have no sympathy for any of them...especially ISIS. Warfare is as much about getting in the enemies head.....IEDs, mortars, rockets.....can't shoot back at them.....and that I can assure you is frustrating.....bad guys know it....well guess what ISIS...we're giving you a taste of you're own medicine.....now you're getting "IEDs" back...via air mail. This a way to get in the bad guy's head for a change. Having spoken to some less than respectable types in the past I know it does. Thanks to all you guy's in the RPA world...long hours and all...hit'em again Edited January 14, 2015 by fire4effect 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindsight2020 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 TAMInated would have been a more catchy name for that trailer, that's just me..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Initiatives announced To sustain RPA pilot manning, the Air Force will temporarily retain a portion of pilots who are on-loan from other airframes. Additionally, they will increase Guard and Reserve utilization and seek recently qualified MQ-1/9 pilot volunteers to deploy for 179-days to stressed RPA units. “As our experienced operators near the end of their initial commitment, we are increasing monthly incentive pay to $1,500 for those RPA pilots while we explore other bonus opportunities,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Initiatives announced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire4effect Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 How much get's taken in taxes?.........I can't remember a time the government didn't get a big chunk back right off the top ...Honestly I'm surprised they aren't imposing a stop loss as so many suggested would happen some time ago. Can't get much cheaper than that..... On another note I was at a college flight school a while back and talking to some of the kids learning to fly (not in any official capacity just to be clear) about the military and I was surprised that at least some wouldn't consider it because they heard that they might get put in the RPA world instead of a manned airframe. Wanted nothing to do with it as they aspired to be an airline pilot....fair enough....Of course I did try to explain a LOT of troops are still around because of RPAs........Hope I made them at least do some hard thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 tinfoil hat on......... I foresee a future where the AF still can't keep up with the demand for drone operators. Eventually, Lockheed Martin/Boeing/General Atomics all step in to fulfil the demand for CAPs with contract pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseAg03 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 tinfoil hat on......... I foresee a future where the AF still can't keep up with the demand for drone operators. Eventually, Lockheed Martin/Boeing/General Atomics all step in to fulfil the demand for CAPs with contract pilots. Which will make the problem worse, as more guys will leave to take contractor positions for higher pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Force dudes to go fly preds and no one wants to go. But offer a $200k/yr contract job and people will volunteer in droves. It's all about choice; no one wants to feel trapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaff Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I know of exactly 0 people eligable for the pay increase in our squadron. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homestar Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Force dudes to go fly preds and no one wants to go. But offer a $200k/yr contract job and people will volunteer in droves. It's all about choice; no one wants to feel trapped. Perhaps part of the solution is to separate pay from the rank scale, especially in this instance. I suppose that is what $1,500/month incentive pay is attempting to do. Like you say, I'm sure there are people out there who would do the job if the price is right. This is why I do not believe that enlisted operators of RPAs is a good answer. Not because they couldn't do an excellent job, but rather all it does is allow the Air Force to pay a SSgt half of what they would otherwise have to pay a Captain/Major to do the same exact job. The Air Force shouldn't be let off the hook that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magellan Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I know of exactly 0 people eligable for the pay increase in our squadron. That is the point...the increase doesn't cost the Air Force ANYTHING until that person is eligible to vote with their feet. This should come into play in about 6-9 months. Basically it will work out to $10,200 a year before taxes for guys to stick around after their 6 year commitment is up. The only "equity issue" I see is the really young UPT guys that will spend 3-4 years doing the same job for less than their peers, and getting bent out of shape about it. But I guess $40,000 difference in pay in exchange for a FAA commercial and instrument rating is probably a fair trade at the end of the day. tinfoil hat on......... I foresee a future where the AF still can't keep up with the demand for drone operators. Eventually, Lockheed Martin/Boeing/General Atomics all step in to fulfil the demand for CAPs with contract pilots. If you want to see the worst deal in the RPA community sign up for one of those contractor gigs. The money may look good, but they make you earn every cent. The good deal lucrative RPA contracts are all drying up as a result of sequestration and ACC piling all it's money into the F-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Stacker Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 If you want to see the worst deal in the RPA community sign up for one of those contractor gigs. The money may look good, but they make you earn every cent. The good deal lucrative RPA contracts are all drying up as a result of sequestration and ACC piling all it's money into the F-35. Outside of a couple O&M type contracts that I think are pretty much all owned by GA at the moment, the good deal contracts are basically gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire4effect Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Supposedly the FAA will release the certification requirement for RPA operators in the civilian world soon (relatively speaking). Suggestions range from a RPA specific very basic training type certificate up to a Commercial/Instrument ticket. In the fall the FAA made it clear for those of us with a pilot certificate we could be putting it in jeopardy if we operate a model aircraft or other RPA contrary to the FARs. Obviously making sure they keep current certificated pilots on a short leash until the complete regulatory picture is sorted out. I'm pretty sure the requirements will be designed to reflect a size/performance distinction on the various systems when it's all said and done. Especially for the smaller systems that anyone can buy and operate out of their backyard .....I think the FAA will have a hard time policing them without a license requirement of some kind in place.....even so enforcement could require a lot of manpower Ultimate take away is the certificate required will determine pay scales over the long haul Edited January 18, 2015 by fire4effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseAg03 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 There is an RPA pilot/sensor survey that is being completed outside of official channels. It is to obtain as much statistical data about RPA career field manning and the future plans of current operators. PM me if you would like to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 From what I have seen there is a gaping whole in the RPA incentive pay program. Under the current rule set 18's who go to the staff lose their flight pay, EVEN if they were prior rated. What Einstein came up with that idea when you are trying to develop a professional community of well-developed RPA operators? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Chang Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 From what I have seen there is a gaping whole in the RPA incentive pay program. Under the current rule set 18's who go to the staff lose their flight pay, EVEN if they were prior rated. What Einstein came up with that idea when you are trying to develop a professional community of well-developed RPA operators? Don't worry, hardly any of them are cleared for staff duty. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now