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

[ThreeHoler]

It was the case in the KC-10 when the RPA bill first came due. There were extremely few surprises...except to the guys who were sent.

Nowadays it seems to be a mixed bag.

[ChiefSlapahoe]

One huge step would be putting RPA units at nice locations. I know PLENTY of dudes that would at least be okay with RPAs if they didn't have such bad spots. When asked everyone of them say "If I have to go, then send me to Creech but screw anywhere else". Give a dude a bad deal and a bad location and it's no wonder their morale sucks.

Edited August 23, 2013 by ChiefSlapahoe

[Kaman]

Over reliance on technology is a slippery slope that is going to eventually undermine our ability to prosecute a war...Reminds me of the fictional ending of the movie "Patton" when the general was riding an Arabian charger and asked about "wonder weapons"...Pretty much sums up where we are heading. Without the horrors, valor and sacrifices of real human beings, there is no reason to ever stop fighting...I wonder what my Dad's generation (WW2, Korea and Vietnam combat veteran with 68 combat missions) of USAF pilots would have to say?

[guineapigfury]

"Since very few, if any, traditional pilots actually volunteered for the RPA community, most commanders generally sent Captains that were in the bottom half of the pool of eligible pilots. Some of these pilots had multiple downgrades or failures on their annual checkrides; some were unable to upgrade from copilot to aircraft commander due to below average airmanship; others did not have had the “right” attitude or personality that fit into the weapon system climate; and others had discipline or quality of force issues. It should not be surprising that a few years later the promotion rates to Major were below that of the rest of the AF, especially given the fact that these aviators weren’t high potential officers to begin with as a result of flying or discipline discrepancies. " Is this the truth?

The other side of the coin is that otherwise good dudes start to go off track once they get sold down the river to RPAs. It's a constant struggle to not give in to apathy in the RPA business. Things guys would never do out of concern for their career (on and off duty) gradually become acceptable risks because that future career looks blighted and the only rank you aspire to be promoted to is "Mr".

[Magellan]

Is this the truth?

For prior MWS from AMC mostly yes, or it was people who wanted out of the Air Force deployment/TDY grind. TAMI 21 guys were a mixed bag, but they are all being recalled to F-16s or white jets. That is unless they re-catted because they decided "careerism" was more important than waiting for a cockpit that may have never materialized. UPT direct guys...it depends. MOST of the T-38 guys are sharp dudes that straight up got a raw deal, and T-1/T-44 guys are a mixed bag across the spectrum. The 18A direct ascensions are solid, motivated, and eager. However, they aren't on an equal airmanship footing with UPT grads for obvious reasons. The prior officer career field 18A guys that retrained aren't anything to write home about with few exceptions.

[Rmarsh]

For prior MWS from AMC mostly yes, or it was people who wanted out of the Air Force deployment/TDY grind. TAMI 21 guys were a mixed bag, but they are all being recalled to F-16s or white jets. That is unless they re-catted because they decided "careerism" was more important than waiting for a cockpit that may have never materialized. UPT direct guys...it depends. MOST of the T-38 guys are sharp dudes that straight up got a raw deal, and T-1/T-44 guys are a mixed bag across the spectrum. The 18A direct ascensions are solid, motivated, and eager. However, they aren't on an equal airmanship footing with UPT grads for obvious reasons. The prior officer career field 18A guys that retrained aren't anything to write home about with few exceptions.

The 18X vs. 11 argument is a double edged sword, and I agree its a mixed bag for the prior aviators. For those outside the RPA world, its important to keep in mind that the prior MWS guys bring the airmanship to the table, and in some cases real-world experience in the same mission set. But often they have trouble with flying an airplane using a system that doesn't fly like an airplane. General Atomics didn't build the consoles to be used by flyers, they built them so that they would make sense to engineers. So for a dumb yoke monkey like me, its not very intuative and does not act the way I expect it to, but at least I have the SA that a couple thousand manned hours and multiple deployments has given me. Is one better than the other? I don't know the answer to that.

you're mixing apples and oranges. The original point was that RPAs often shoot through stacks without warning lower level manned assets. I can't speak on if they had clearance or not. I guess the people who made that point would have you assume the worst.

At the schoolhouse, this is considered to be a hook-able offense, and for good reason. There are rides in the syllabus that address this issue directly, and stack deconfliction is an emphasis item in several phases of training. I guess the lesson doesn't stick for some.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Rmarsh

[hobbitcid]

Loks like USAF is having trouble finding volunteers to fly their RPAs...

The 13% lower promotion rate certainly does not help... They also feel largely unappreciated...

"The lower number of promotions is also fed by a military culture that still does not fully appreciate the skills of drone pilots"

https://mobile.defensenews.com/article/308210013

[Wing Sweep]

Once again, it's our culture that's to blame. Our core values and respect are the foundation of our wingman culture -- a culture in which we look out for each other and take care of each other. Incidents of drone operator discrimination corrode the very fabric of our wingman culture; therefore, we must strive for an environment where this type of behavior is not tolerated and where all Airmen are respected.

Quibbling

[Tonka]

Fewer Pilots? Maybe, but we'll have LASERs...

https://news.usni.org/2013/11/20/air-force-seeks-laser-weapons-next-generation-fighters

The USAF is interested in three categories of lasers. These include low-power lasers for illuminating, tracking, targeting, and denying/defeating enemy sensors. The AFRL is also interested in moderate-power laser protective weapons system, which would presumably eliminate incoming missiles and high-powered lasers for offensive operations against other aircraft or ground targets.

[hobbitcid]

Fewer Pilots? Maybe, but we'll have LASERs...

But will they be sharks with freakin lasers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

Edited November 21, 2013 by hobbitcid

[NKAWTG]

For prior MWS from AMC mostly yes, or it was people who wanted out of the Air Force deployment/TDY grind. TAMI 21 guys were a mixed bag, but they are all being recalled to F-16s or white jets. That is unless they re-catted because they decided "careerism" was more important than waiting for a cockpit that may have never materialized. UPT direct guys...it depends. MOST of the T-38 guys are sharp dudes that straight up got a raw deal, and T-1/T-44 guys are a mixed bag across the spectrum. The 18A direct ascensions are solid, motivated, and eager. However, they aren't on an equal airmanship footing with UPT grads for obvious reasons. The prior officer career field 18A guys that retrained aren't anything to write home about with few exceptions.

This is spot on for the AMC guys. The volunteers were mostly dudes that thought Beale would be an OK location, and wanted to jump off the constant TDY grind we had for the past decade. The non vols were bottom of the barrel dudes. I know we gave one former AWACS nav and eternal tanker copilot the choice of FEB or Global Hawk. If your commander is looking out for you, you're not going to UAVs.

The UAV mission is here to stay, and the AF needs to look at the cradle to grave career progression of those dudes. Just giving these guys an ACE like program will do wonders for maintaining their SA and airmanship.

[NotADude]

I know we gave one former AWACS nav and eternal tanker copilot the choice of FEB or Global Hawk. If your commander is looking out for you, you're not going to UAVs.

just wow. This is akin to the argument of "we need good pilots in every platform!" If they're not good enough to fly anything (track-specific) out of UPT, they shouldn't be graduating. If they're bad enough to warrant an FEB, they probably shouldn't be flying anything.

[HeloDude]

just wow. This is akin to the argument of "we need good pilots in every platform!" If they're not good enough to fly anything (track-specific) out of UPT, they shouldn't be graduating. If they're bad enough to warrant an FEB, they probably shouldn't be flying anything.

I don't know the specifics of this certain situation, put per the AFI, if an aviator isn't willing to fly the assigned aircraft given, then you move to an FEB and usually recommend losing rated status. Though I agree that if a pilot/nav isn't competent enough to fly a manned aircraft then they shouldn't be flying an RPA.

You have very little recourse as an aviator when it comes to aircraft assigned, rating status, etc unless the Air Force violates their own policies or goes against the law (ie gave you something you didn't want because of your race, for example).

The flying world is pretty much a one way agreement.

[FallingOsh]

If they're not good enough to fly anything (track-specific) out of UPT, they shouldn't be graduating.

So there's no such thing as people of different skill level? If a person doesn't have the skill or cognitive ability to fly any plane in the inventory then they shouldn't be graduating pilot training?

[Champ Kind]

If they're bad enough to warrant an FEB, they probably shouldn't be flying anything.

I wasn't around when SUPT started, but I think that the syllabus requirements for each track suggest otherwise.

I'm a proud tac airlifter, but there's a reason that there are fewer T-38 slots and that they *GENERALLY* (yes, I know, there's always exceptions) go to the top portion of the class.

[NotADude]

I guess my assumption was that this person had been flying said plane for a while, then did something so heinous as to potentially drive an FEB. (Clearly I don't know the details) I realize there are people who wash out of initial qual courses, and while still relatively rare in the rated world, it happens. Yes, pilots have varying skill levels, I never said they didn't (that's what track-specific out of UPT meant). My point was that it seems akin to the thought process that when somebody in UPT isn't very good, leadership says "it's okay, we'll just send them T-1s and they'll have an AC to watch over them!" What about when it comes time to upgrade to AC themselves? Do you trust somebody to lead a crew of up to 40 if they could barely fly a T-6? and yes, hopefully they will have grown as a pilot and developed their flying skills in the interim, but I feel like it was used as a crutch sometimes, when before SUPT, that person would have washed out.

[TreeA10]

I lean towards agreeing with your assesment that someone would have been washed out before SUPT. I was a T-38 IP when everyone went through the T-38 but those on the heavy track did more Instrument/Cross Country while the fighter track did 4 ship formation. Students of both tracks (decided in the T-38 phase) soloed the T-38 and nobody was sent out the door that couldn't hack the jet.

[Loach]

This is spot on for the AMC guys. The volunteers were mostly dudes that thought Beale would be an OK location, and wanted to jump off the constant TDY grind we had for the past decade. The non vols were bottom of the barrel dudes. I know we gave one former AWACS nav and eternal tanker copilot the choice of FEB or Global Hawk. If your commander is looking out for you, you're not going to UAVs.

The UAV mission is here to stay, and the AF needs to look at the cradle to grave career progression of those dudes. Just giving these guys an ACE like program will do wonders for maintaining their SA and airmanship.

So, he's still lurking around... I went through nav school with him back in '96-'98. I knew I'd either run into him again somewhere or hear his name again..

[TarHeelPilot]

So, he's still lurking around... I went through nav school with him back in '96-'98. I knew I'd either run into him again somewhere or hear his name again..

He's back at the RQ-4 after a staff tour at AFISRA.

[SurelySerious]

AFISRA.

Saying that should be a fine. What a f'ed up organization.

[Azimuth]

So, he's still lurking around... I went through nav school with him back in '96-'98. I knew I'd either run into him again somewhere or hear his name again..

He's a Champion among men.

[ShavedDogsAss]

...The non vols were bottom of the barrel dudes.  I know we gave one former AWACS nav and eternal tanker copilot the choice of FEB or Global Hawk...  

I heard a similar story from MQ-9s:

1x worthless shitbag shows up from a prior AMC asset. Proceeds to make a mockery of anything tactical, to include taking some very questionable shots. Feedback from his prior squadron was "oh, we were afraid that guy was going to kill someone, so we sent him to UAVs".

Great. Now he's got weapons to compliment the lack of SA.

[Azimuth]

I heard a similar story from MQ-9s:

1x worthless shitbag shows up from a prior AMC asset. Proceeds to make a mockery of anything tactical, to include taking some very questionable shots. Feedback from his prior squadron was "oh, we were afraid that guy was going to kill someone, so we sent him to UAVs".

Great. Now he's got weapons to compliment the lack of SA.

We sent an idiot from my last base to Cannon. The guy was late rated, prior Missileer, refused to do SOS (correspondence) or get his Masters cause he just didn't give a shit. Skill wise he had probably the best flying ability, as an AC, than most IP/EP's. However he was a such an overall pain to deal with in our community they decided to get rid of him. He's the one who then made a post on BODN trying to "trade" his Pred assignment with someone on here, then was laughed at. Thankfully the RIF board did their job on that one and got rid of him. He's somewhere in the Pacific Northwest smoking weed.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Azimuth

[Karl Hungus]

We sent an idiot from my last base to Cannon. The guy was late rated, prior Missileer, refused to do SOS (correspondence) or get his Masters cause he just didn't give a shit. Skill wise he had probably the best flying ability, as an AC, than most IP/EP's. However he was a such an overall pain to deal with in our community they decided to get rid of him. He's the one who then made a post on BODN trying to "trade" his Pred assignment with someone on here, then was laughed at. Thankfully the RIF board did their job on that one and got rid of him. He's somewhere in the Pacific Northwest smoking weed.

Sounds like he ended up winning.

[Tonka]

In case you were as bored as I was waiting to find out if I have a job next year... another pilot replacement aircraft.

The AirMule, an unmanned VTOL... has successfully completed a major milestone in preparation for full mission demonstrations scheduled for next year. The aircraft has completed several fully automatic test flights in which it carried out take-offs, flights to and from a specified location and landing back at its point of origination.

The 1-ton vehicle is unique from all existing vertical take-off and landing aircraft in that it has no exposed rotors. This allows the aircraft to fly in air space that is off limits for any other aircraft.

https://www.tactical-robotics.com/category/2013