Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[SurelySerious]

If the F-35 debacle is any indicator, whatever good ideas this guy might have are DOA. Making a fast, light aircraft with "metamaterials" (wtf? is this star trek) and super fast computers will never happen with the abomination of an acquisitions process we have today.

A 386 is cutting edge, right?

[BFM this]

I think that even this guy is suffering from old-school thinking and a lack of imagination. One question that he never tackles (and should be tackled given current tech) is: why did I even end up in a BFM engagement?

He doesn't even have to take the man out of the loop in order to leverage some of his ideas into a big step forward tactically. For instance: how about the ability to smuggle an AAM into the heart of the enemy CAP? Using the Bone as an AMRAAM truck had been talked about at one point; the major con there being that the Bone is vulnerable in an A2A grudgematch. RPA necessarily makes stealth an easier design task. So now, instead of F22s/F35s datalink-cuing a Bone-load of AMRAAMs from a standoff position, now they get to do the same with missiles pre-positioned in the middle of the enemy formation.

If anything this is a more achievable capability with current technology, before his iteration of Skynet is available.

[SurelySerious]

RPA necessarily makes stealth an easier design task.

Everything that emits, though, is detectable.

[BFM this]

Everything that emits, though, is detectable.

Agreed. My idea wasn't to debate the technological merits of any one path, just to highlight that the next paradigm shift will be something more creative than just shoving old-thinking square pegs into round new-technology holes. It isn't the science that's lagging this fight, it's the thinking, imo.

If stakeholders don't want clowns determining the way ahead, then ignore the clowns, but don't remove yourselves from the discussion altogether.

[SurelySerious]

Agreed. My idea wasn't to debate the technological merits of any one path, just to highlight that the next paradigm shift will be something more creative than just shoving old-thinking square pegs into round new-technology holes. It isn't the science that's lagging this fight, it's the thinking, imo.

If stakeholders don't want clowns determining the way ahead, then ignore the clowns, but don't remove yourselves from the discussion altogether.

Ah

[Magellan]

They're pretty hand-in-hand in this case.

Paul you don't have a leg to stand on. You earned your Pred out of UPT just as much as he did, and have your own set of personality/professionalism quirks as well so I wouldn't start chucking stones.

Mike published a peer reviewed article in the Air and Space Power journal. Most people won't agree with him, but he has no control over how people spin what he wrote. He is a super nerd with a 10lb brain, and it shows though both in his article and if you have ever met him. It doesn't mean he is a lousy officer by any means.

https://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Byrnes.pdf

[SurelySerious]

Paul you don't have a leg to stand on. You earned your Pred out of UPT just as much as he did, and have your own set of personality/professionalism quirks as well so I wouldn't start chucking stones.

I've got plenty to stand on; he didn't earn his UAV, he selected it and put all his chips in because he believes in them, too much, and can't see their limitations. I read the article when it appeared, and I think it's too UAV-Kool-Aid laced with a narrow scope of the nature of and attributes required for aerial combat.

ETA: This is why I said the person and opinion go hand-in-hand. He is that dedicated to the cause. I haven't started chucking spears. You started that.

Edited August 18, 2014 by SurelySerious

[SurelySerious]

Mike published a peer reviewed article in the Air and Space Power journal.

https://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Byrnes.pdf

But back to the article instead of your personal cheap shots. What I will take issue with is taking time to imagine some far off sci-fi world while the rest of us were in the real world practicing, fighting, studying and building TTPs for the foreseeable future so that we can integrate as a fighting asset in current/near-future contested environments (within limitations) or rescue package and as a reconnaissance/strike asset beyond the Army-S2-point-and-stare game. I've done actual contingency mission planning to bring unmanned to the fight in real time and for future OPLANs as well as plenty of lobbying with actual war planners, joint teams, and within AOC cells to leverage the very real skills that our unmanned assets possess. I’ve also cautioned when they're at their limits to steer the conversation back to getting unmanned assets into a viable role to achieve desired effects. And I think that's the key: useful thinking versus wishful thinking. What people ought to be reading are things like Squeeze Callahan's SAASS paper, because it can be taken seriously.

This article is fantastical and does little to prove that any of what he talks about can be done at the simplest level. For instance, the AOD/commander's intent isn't a 1's and 0's programming problem like he paints mission/targeting prioritization to be. We do it with preplanned ground targets and standoff weapons, but those typically don't move and the missile doesn't interpret commander's intent, the MPC and aircrew do.

And if a semi-autonomous system has to reach back to its operator at a critical juncture, it is vulnerable, whether from the increase in decision time thereby negating its computer advantage or from the transmission it just made to give itself away, negating its stealthiness.

Unmanned technology definitely has a future, but there are so many other problems to solve before frying his big fish.

[Magellan]

But back to the article instead of your personal cheap shots. What I will take issue with is taking time to imagine some far off sci-fi world while the rest of us were in the real world practicing, fighting, studying and building TTPs for the foreseeable future so that we can integrate as a fighting asset in current/near-future contested environments (within limitations) or rescue package and as a reconnaissance/strike asset beyond the Army-S2-point-and-stare game. I've done actual contingency mission planning to bring unmanned to the fight in real time and for future OPLANs as well as plenty of lobbying with actual war planners, joint teams, and within AOC cells to leverage the very real skills that our unmanned assets possess. I’ve also cautioned when they're at their limits to steer the conversation back to getting unmanned assets into a viable role to achieve desired effects. And I think that's the key: useful thinking versus wishful thinking. What people ought to be reading are things like Squeeze Callahan's SAASS paper, because it can be taken seriously.

This article is fantastical and does little to prove that any of what he talks about can be done at the simplest level. For instance, the AOD/commander's intent isn't a 1's and 0's programming problem like he paints mission/targeting prioritization to be. We do it with preplanned ground targets and standoff weapons, but those typically don't move and the missile doesn't interpret commander's intent, the MPC and aircrew do.

And if a semi-autonomous system has to reach back to its operator at a critical juncture, it is vulnerable, whether from the increase in decision time thereby negating its computer advantage or from the transmission it just made to give itself away, negating its stealthiness.

Unmanned technology definitely has a future, but there are so many other problems to solve before frying his big fish.

I agree with everything you said. This is valuable dialogue.

[Flaco]

Paul you don't have a leg to stand on. You earned your Pred out of UPT just as much as he did, and have your own set of personality/professionalism quirks as well so I wouldn't start chucking stones.

Am I mistaken or did you just call a dude out, by name, in order to shit on him publicly?

ETA: The spellangs is dificullt.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Flaco

[guineapigfury]

Am I mistaken or did you just call a dude out, by name, in order to shit on him publically?

That's how I read that as well. Much of this forum's value is that it provides a reasonable degree of anonymity. Calling someone out by name is a foul.

[HossHarris]

A witch! A WITCH!!!

We bbuurrnn them!

[Hacker]

Ugg... You guys sound like the bitchy wives club. At least take the time to attack the idea and not the speaker.

Unfortunately, the author's background and experience is highly relevant to the ideas presented in the article. Someone with no training or practical experience in air combat who is proposing "innovation" in that area is like virgins writing papers on how to improve their readers' sex techniques.

For example...his "Figure 1" image of a machine performing VID based on shape recognition in some EO sensor. Great idea...except any pilot who has that same view of a full-frame planform of your adversary in the HUD could make that same identification with probably the same level of accuracy. More importantly, someone who has actually engaged in air combat knows that such views are extremely rare and reflect something that is a component of maybe 1% of the BFM/ACM/ACT scenarios out there.

Again, it is like someone who thinks that every girl loves anal and a facial "money shot" because that's what seems to be in all the porn they've watched.

Conceptually, he's not wrong; eventually there will be technology that will be able to have the SA to make autonomous decisions faster and better than humans currently do. Machines will be better able to ID, better assess range/position/energy/maneuvers of an adversary, better know ownship energy state and capabilities, and will be able to more perfectly select the correct tactic, and execute the control inputs to more perfectly execute the maneuver, time the shot, etc. Everything will be better than what a standard 1-each human could do.

That time is just not now.

[HossHarris]

Because existing id systems never get fooled or spoofed, I'm sure this imaginary tech will be fantastic!

[Danny Noonin]

Because existing id systems never get fooled or spoofed, I'm sure this imaginary tech will be fantastic!

And because it's unmanned, it will be affordable as well.

[HossHarris]

Even better!

[matmacwc]

And then the satellites go down, or get jammed (LoneStar!!), or go lost link, or whatever. F-86 with guns is where we are probably going.

[tac airlifter]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/08/22/drone-pilots-suffer-ptsd-just-like-those-in-combat/?intcmp=obnetwork

I'll just leave this here.

[guineapigfury]

Rant - On

We RPA instructors work hard to instill a spirit of camaraderie and aggressiveness in order to prevent this PTSD stuff. It doesn't always work, some people are soft and just aren't cut out to hunt and kill other people. Watching other people die is upsetting to some people, especially if they had a hand in it. I've found sitting on a 9-line and not shooting to be far more stressful than shooting. I go home pissed off after that shit. Not everyone is like that. If you felt guilty over it, it probably doesn't help to sit in a mass debrief watching someone die 5 or 6 times while everyone else is drinking beer and erupting in cheers and laughter every time they watch the missile hit. Which is unfortunate, because the rest of the squadron needs to get a little rowdy for mass debrief sometimes. There is no solution that works for everyone. We've found the solution that works for most, so we'll stick with that. For the rest we'll use every resource we have to get them where they need to be. Still some folks won't be able to hack it. They may get PTSD, Q3'd, or we may just stick them on a line that tends not to shoot very much and hope for the best because we're flat out of dudes to put on the schedule. It fucking sucks, but it's the cost of doing business.

[tac airlifter]

Some people are soft, that's true everywhere. I've met ground dudes who've never engaged or been engaged yet still claimed PTSD for the stress of running convoys. And who am I to judge? I'm not a psychologist. I like robot drivers, I just thought the article was ridiculous and humorous.

[SurelySerious]

Some people are soft, that's true everywhere. I've met ground dudes who've never engaged or been engaged yet still claimed PTSD for the stress of running convoys. And who am I to judge? I'm not a psychologist. I like robot drivers, I just thought the article was ridiculous and humorous.

Article definitely lacks in presentation since I assume it is serious. And maybe the sleep problems have to do with working on rotating shifts for more than 25 months at more than 51 hours per week.

Agree with guineapigfury, times you cannot help are vastly more frustrating.

Edited August 23, 2014 by SurelySerious

[guineapigfury]

Article definitely lacks in presentation since I assume it is serious. And maybe the sleep problems have to do with working on rotating shifts for more than 25 months at more than 51 hours per week.

Agree with guineapigfury, times you cannot help are vastly more frustrating.

I think the sleep thing is a much bigger part of it than people realize. When you're deployed at least you get to sleep in your crew rest. I've seen dudes showing up like zombies because they had family stuff to do when they also needed to be sleeping. I don't know what the fix is. Alot of our guys thought the answer was the VSP and I don't blame them.

Edited August 23, 2014 by guineapigfury

[Sim]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/08/22/drone-pilots-suffer-ptsd-just-like-those-in-combat/?intcmp=obnetwork

I'll just leave this here.

Bah. No one answers to those questions honestly.

[BFM this]

I think the sleep thing is a much bigger part of it than people realize. When you're deployed at least you get to sleep in your crew rest. I've seen dudes showing up like zombies because they had family stuff to do when they also needed to be sleeping. I don't know what the fix is. Alot of our guys thought the answer was the VSP and I don't blame them.

MCE at Patrick, and another at Hickam (Or Guam, even). Not that this has EVER been suggested before, mind you. Creech: it's vital like the F-35, but more painful.

Fuck it: my fini is tomorrow...barely care.

[nrodgsxr]

I think the sleep thing is a much bigger part of it than people realize. When you're deployed at least you get to sleep in your crew rest. I've seen dudes showing up like zombies because they had family stuff to do when they also needed to be sleeping. I don't know what the fix is. Alot of our guys thought the answer was the VSP and I don't blame them.

The answer is simple. One base in hickam and the other in Mildenhall or ramstein/spangdhalem. Boom you just eliminated midnight shift while fixing the manning problem by creating two good deal locations.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk