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

[Boxhead]

cannon dudes is this still accurate? thx!

Nope. 5/2 8hr fly shifts. Now, if you have a job in the sq, your days are a little longer to do your office work. If you are a pilot though, manning is starting to almost look kinda better, so there is usually an office day or a split shift thrown in there (fly 4 Office day 4)

[nrodgsxr]

Nope. 5/2 8hr fly shifts. Now, if you have a job in the sq, your days are a little longer to do your office work. If you are a pilot though, manning is starting to almost look kinda better, so there is usually an office day or a split shift thrown in there (fly 4 Office day 4)

I see. I wonder if anyone in preds is working 12 hour shifts.. doesn't look like it

[Smokey]

Hello everyone i wanted to share a blog by a current RPA trainee that i found online. He documents everything from getting selected to starting IFS and then to UFT. Hope it helps anyone wanting to find out what daily life is like as a RPA student.

http://rpanoob.blogspot.com/

Interesting post. First, IFS is intended to throw you into the deep end. Second, the whining about EP training, ground or sim, is intended to train "you" to react properly when situations occur. In other words, train your brain on how to react when things go bad. It is some the most important training individuals receive going through IFS and the next stages of their training. Flying your aircraft above all else, analyzing the situation, taking proper action, and developing a plan to recover the aircraft is a mindset that sets AF aviators apart. The more you have tried to mentally place yourself in an adverse situation under a controlled environment, the better you'll do should the situation happen. Or, should something beyond a "simple" EP happen....Sully and the Hudson comes to mind. He flew the aircraft first, continually evaluated what was happening with progressive engine and systems failures, and live through it. Why....how he was trained.

Don't minimize the EP training you receive. It is trying to teach you a methodical approach to handling thing when they go wrong. Methodical doesn't mean slow. It means purposeful. If you've thought about what you will do when an engine fire happens or whatever numerous times on the ground or in the sim, your chances of surviving the real event is greatly improved.

Old head, gray beard, out.

Smokey

[Guest capalpha]

I can answer your last question.

Deployments are almost all LRE (the t/o and landing guys), 120 days each. Most go once per 3 year tour though many volunteer for more. Not sure if any of the RPA only guys have deployed as LRE yet or if the AF is planning to anytime soon.

Currently dudes with RPA wings can not deploy to LRE's. Takeoff/landing actually requires pilot stick and rudder skills, unlike the state-side mission portion. That being said, Navigators with a PPL are allowed to deploy to the LRE. I imagine AF will make this same exception for RPA only folks.

Also, the initial class of UPT-D dudes will hit their three year mark in May of 2012...so no word on their assignment process yet. The only guidance they received was 10% can expect to go to CAF (only 38 dudes to the CAF, probably no fighters, expect bombers) and 90% MAF.

[nrodgsxr]

Currently dudes with RPA wings can not deploy to LRE's. Takeoff/landing actually requires pilot stick and rudder skills, unlike the state-side mission portion. That being said, Navigators with a PPL are allowed to deploy to the LRE. I imagine AF will make this same exception for RPA only folks.

Also, the initial class of UPT-D dudes will hit their three year mark in May of 2012...so no word on their assignment process yet. The only guidance they received was 10% can expect to go to CAF (only 38 dudes to the CAF, probably no fighters, expect bombers) and 90% MAF.

I know of at least 1 beta that's leaving for an LRE deployment. I would expect more RPA dudes to start doing LRE in the near future.

[Snuggie]

I also see more RPA only dudes deploying, especially if the AF truly wants to have RPA's 85% manned by RPA only guys by 2016. Otherwise the other 15% would be deploying all the time.

[Boxhead]

I also see more RPA only dudes deploying, especially if the AF truly wants to have RPA's 85% manned by RPA only guys by 2016. Otherwise the other 15% would be deploying all the time.

Yep, the LR syllabus conference up at Creech a few weeks ago talked about opening the flood gates for those cats. I think the 432 is being a tad restrictive on their interpretation of "ready for LR"...but hey, that's not my call! When the new syllabus comes out, they will start going through just like anyone else.

[Guest Ponis]

What's the interpretation of "ready for LR"?

[Boxhead]

What's the interpretation of "ready for LR"?

I'll have to go find the email that had it in there...it was ridiculously restrictive in my opinion, particularly because no amount of MCE hours prepare someone or are indicative of the ability to perform LR well.

Of you want, PM me your email, I'll just forward the document to ya.

[nsplayr]

Looks like the idea to control at locations separate from where the birds are located is finally taking off. Eglin isn't exactly paradise but it's a hell of a lot nicer than the current UAV locations...

Link

[Boxhead]

Looks like the idea to control at locations separate from where the birds are located is finally taking off. Eglin isn't exactly paradise but it's a hell of a lot nicer than the current UAV locations...

This is not additive...they are just going to move the 2 SOS from Nellis to Eglin, really, this article should read "we are moving a unit to a new place, and we would like it to be somewhere not horrible so we can retain some of the guys that don't want to leave Vegas"

[Rifleman96]

This is not additive...they are just going to move the 2 SOS from Nellis to Eglin, really, this article should read "we are moving a unit to a new place, and we would like it to be somewhere not horrible so we can retain some of the guys that don't want to leave Vegas"

2

[SurelySerious]

I'm sure Gadhafi, Taliban and al-Qaida's legal scholars are studying this issue closely: RPA pilots are valid targets, experts say

Keep the 12Ga. with 00 buck close by regardless.

I'm glad we're helping their case.

[BFM this]

No worries; NV is a shall issue state...

oh, wait, gotta go thru the gate and on base...never mind

Bitches better bring their 4WD if that's my only option.

[Boxhead]

No worries; NV is a shall issue state...

oh, wait, gotta go thru the gate and on base...never mind

Bitches better bring their 4WD if that's my only option.

Here's what you do. Make nice with some of the SPs there. Get them to allow you to store a privately owned weapon in said armory...get the permission in writing...then carry the gun in your car as usual every day, and in the off chance that you get stopped at a Vehicle Inspection at the gate...simply show the paper, and then, of course, take the weapon to the armory that one time, then take it home after shift. Repeat as necessary.

Technique only though.

Creech is unique...at a "normal" base, you just get a few of your on base housing buddies to let you register their house as a storage location for your gun...then apply the same basic principle as above.

[BFM this]

Yeah, the tricky part is if I'm in the position where I have to show the letter, then why is there one in the breech?... Dicey at best.

OR

Or, base/cc's could man up and start allowing ccw on base. Crazy I know. I'd even be game for some caveats:

-a confidential program (don't talk about fight club)

-SNCO's and above legally ccw certified by the state (cc nominated)

-zero drinking wg/cc policy when carrying

But at the end of the day, it would take a human wave of aq rushing the gate before a base/cc allows anyone other than sp's carry on base. Really sad. That's all I've got: I have to go get my pt test monitored by some fat civ.

ETA: really I'm going to not take your advice lest the next reply quote the oath, constitution, core values, reflective belt AFI, club membership, etc...

Edited June 1, 2011 by BFM this

[fire4effect]

Yeah, the tricky part is if I'm in the position where I have to show the letter, then why is there one in the breech?... Dicey at best.

OR

Or, base/cc's could man up and start allowing ccw on base. Crazy I know. I'd even be game for some caveats:

-a confidential program (don't talk about fight club)

-SNCO's and above legally ccw certified by the state (cc nominated)

-zero drinking wg/cc policy when carrying

But at the end of the day, it would take a human wave of aq rushing the gate before a base/cc allows anyone other than sp's carry on base. Really sad. That's all I've got: I have to go get my pt test monitored by some fat civ.

ETA: really I'm going to not take your advice lest the next reply quote the oath, constitution, core values, reflective belt AFI, club membership, etc...

Very well said.

I love all the cheesy "Active Shooter Powerpoints" out there. Maybe if I print them all out and stuff them down my shirt it'll stop a .22. Most Base Commanders, I'm talking all service's here, care more about their careers. Until someone like the commander of Ft Hood at the time of the shootings is put on the hot seat for leaving the troops defenseless until a DOD civilian cop showed up, then they will continue the politically correct status quo.

[SurelySerious]

An online editorial addressing the "drones kill people" issue. The article has some good points, I think, but is sympathetic towards who we're in the fight against in a subtle way. "Extrajudicial execution" makes it sound like the Taliban/Al Qaeda aren't trying to kill Americans and innocent civilians every day like the stateless terrorist army they are. The four misconceptions are below with brief excerpts of the replies and summary.

Don't Fear the Reaper: four misconceptions about how we think about drones.

Misconception No. 1: Drones Are "Killer Robots." This is actually two assumptions; neither is precisely wrong, but both are misleading. First, drones themselves are not necessarily "killers": They are used for many nonlethal purposes as well. Drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) can carry anything ranging from cameras to sensors to weapons and have been deployed for nonlethal purposes such as intelligence gathering and surveillance since the 1950s. Yet the nonlethal applications of drones are often lost in a discussion that treats the technology per se as deadly; 90 percent of the op-eds we analyzed focus solely on drones as killing machines...With a human-in-the-loop navigating the aircraft and controlling the weapon, the "killer" aspect of these specific drones may be remote-controlled, but it's not robotic.

Misconception No. 2: Drones Make War Easy and Game-Like, and Therefore Likelier. Remote-controlled violence even with a human in the loop also has people concerned: Nearly 40 percent of the op-eds we studied say that remote-control killing makes war too much like a video game. Many argue this increases the likelihood of armed conflict. It's a variation on an old argument: Other revolutions in military technology -- the longbow, gunpowder, the airplane -- have also progressively removed the weapons-bearer from hand-to-hand combat with his foe. Many of these advances, too, were initially criticized for degrading the professional art of war or taking it away from military elites. For example, European aristocrats originally considered the longbow and firearms unchivalrous for a combination of these reasons.

Misconception No. 3: Drone Strikes Kill Too Many Civilians. It's hard to argue with this value judgment -- in some ways, even one dead civilian is indeed "too many." But it's hard to single out drones when we know so little about whether they kill more or fewer civilians than manned aerial bombing or ground troops would in the same engagements -- which also, in some cases, save lives. So a better question than "how many" is: relative to what, and who's counting, how? Civilians do die in drone attacks, as they do in other types of combat. But accurate reports on drone-strike casualties -- and casualties from other types of attack -- are very hard to find because no official body is tasked with keeping track. This should change: All collateral damage, not just that caused by drones, needs to be counted and atoned for, and minimized by the governments that inflict it...An even bigger problem with all these estimates, however, is that they do not measure actual deaths but rather "reported deaths." Journalists, however, are unskilled at distinguishing civilians from combatants.

Misconception No. 4: Drones Violate the International Law of Armed Conflict. No, they don't -- at least, no more so than any other weapons platform when it is used improperly or in the wrong context. The Hague and Geneva conventions actually place very few restrictions on specific weapons. Nothing in the laws of war, for example, requires that weapons make killing difficult or that they level the playing field. Value judgments aside, the treaties allow for a significant amount of injury and harm both to combatants and civilians. They ask only that harm to combatants be as humane as possible and that harm to noncombatants be minimized.

Those who oppose the way drones are used should shift focus to one of the big normative problems touched by the drone issue: the military robotics revolution, collateral-damage control, and the return of extrajudicial execution. Focusing on the drones themselves misses this bigger picture.

[SurelySerious]

Nice

[Learjetter]

That would be awesome on a sq t-shirt.

[nrodgsxr]

is this a sqn shirt?

[SurelySerious]

Saw first hand an e-mail last week from AFPC to a previous MWS pilot that had training dates for this fall to return to that airframe. That's 1 out of 1690.

Edited July 26, 2011 by SurelySerious

[TAMInated]

Saw first hand an e-mail last week from AFPC to a previous MWS pilot that had training dates for this fall to return to that airframe. That's 1 out of 1690.

What airframe?

[BFM this]

How long had he been gone?

Was this a result of the "return to fly board"?

[SurelySerious]

KC-135

How long had he been gone?

Was this a result of the "return to fly board"?

Almost exactly 4 years, and yes one of the ~25 from the crossflow board.

Edited July 28, 2011 by SurelySerious