Drone pilots rise on winds of change in Air Force

I do find it interesting because it always comes about that the AF is the branch that is the most susceptible for folding, as if they every other branch can absorb them. I guess it is because they are the youngest.


Mosty likely because they sprung out of another service not TOO long ago.
 
YEP! Just tell me how the Army will be able to re-incorporate the AF again?
 
Sounds pretty much like a quote from some Congressional testimony of a few years ago:

While I was posting tongue in cheek about the Chief of Cavalry's testimony (which is absolutely factual) it is relevant. This guy was testifying in 1939 that the USArmy still needed to maintain the horse cavalry as a branch because it still had a significant role in modern offensive warfare. In 1942 the USArmy had a small scale action with it's Cavalry regiment in the Philipines, following which they killed them and ate the horses- so much for expert opinion about change on the battlefield. (Funny thing - nobody other than Cavalrymen thought that Horses were still on the cutting edge- mmaybe he had a vested interest in maintaining that branch that blinded him to what most others could see for themselves?)

Change is coming - and it's coming much faster than some would like to see. Is it absolute and covers all cases? nothing ever is- but is it enough to call into question how forces are organized and what our spending priorities will be for the next 2 decades? I wouldn't want to be the person betting against the proposition that a significant portion of manned aircraft missions will disappear within the career span of those who are thinking about entering the service in the next couple of years and all of the $$$ that have been sunk up to that point won't change that. PIMA postulates that it can't happen because they are building the F22 & F35- but they aren't building many because of the cost of these things- and that reality is actually accelerating the charge to move to UAVs. As far as "knowing something that the Pentagon doesn't know"- The "Pentagon" is a pretty big place and you can find all kinds of folks in it who will suggest for the record and many more off the record where they can't get beat up by lobbyists, that we should skip funding another generation of manned fighters at all. I personally believe that they are one generation short as the UAV technology is still relatively unsophisticated, but it is expanding in its capabilities by orders of magnitude almost daily- it is pretty undeniable to any but the most hardened partisan (like the Cavalry Chief in 1939) that the requirement for manned fighters is decreasing exponentially.
As that happens - who is on top in the AirForce is gonna change. You already have an Airlift/Spec Ops rated pilot as the Chief of Staff- which is a first for the Air Force- a Chief who was not a bomber pilot or a fighter pilot (If you look at the list of CSAFs - they were all primarily bomber guys thru around 1980 then all fighter pilots since then). Does anyone really think that it is just a coincidence that the AF alone has a requirement for rated officers to fly drones? Cynical or a congressional mind might come to the conclusion that the pilots running the service want to make sure that there are always pilots running the service- so they set it up as a self fulfilling requirement- ie... the requirement is pretty much a self licking ice cream cone- it exists to take care of itself. Navy, Army and armed CIA UAVs don't require rated pilots to fly them- it seems unlikely that the AF will be able to keep this requirement alive for very long. Prediction- Somebody in the class of 2014 may very well be the CSAF and have drone wings on their chest and have never been in a cockpit.
 
Strongly disagree. Like how many have mentioned and know about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, the conflicts are not really "wars" and conducted very differently from how we would fight against a uniformed military of another "actual" country. Personally, it seems that this so-called "identity crisis" in the USAF will come to pass the moment we (God forbid) engage in war at a scale similar to the major wars of the 20th century. Its simply that the circumstances of the fighting, the nature of the people we are fighting, and our objectives (reducing civilian casualties, collateral damage etc.) demand the use of drones more than those of actual fighter jets. Like someone mentioned before here, drones do not do dog-fights. The moment we fight an enemy that has a proper military, with a formidable air force, the values of actual pilots and their skills will once again be in high demand. For now, I think its understandable that the lines separating the roles are blurring. But I dont think its anything worth losing sleep over and I have never once been inclined to think that somehow, a separate air arm of the military is not needed.
 
Last edited:
YEP! Just tell me how the Army will be able to re-incorporate the AF again?

Just put on a green jacket one morning instead of blue! :wink: Even their hats are almost the same (dress ones, not berets).
 
OMG...10 yrs ago, wasn't it the ARMY in an identity crisis? C'Mon, back then people were asking if there was for the Army since all wars could be won using the AF or the Navy.

I.E...REMINDER HERE FOLKS, the Navy and the AF never left the Gulf, they lived there for a decade, OSW and ONW ring a bell?

The fact is the military does long term strategic planning, and alot has to do with the fact that there are countries like China and Russia who could turn on us. Were my history lessons different than yours? Didn't Japan play BFFs up to they bombed us? How about Iraq, didn't we support Hussein until he turned on us? Did anyone predict the Shah of Iran to be overthrown under the Carter administration when Ford was in power, or even Nixon (6 yrs from 74 to 80)?

Just put on a green jacket one morning instead of blue! Even their hats are almost the same (dress ones, not berets).
...Yeah, but that green is really ugly! Also, hate to say it to you nobody wears the wheel cap (at least I think that is what you are referring to), unless they have to in the AF. The reason why, you can't place a dip on the cap! (It is a sign of combat). Bullet was forced to spend 41 buck in 01 for that darn hat because it was required at Leavenworth for PME, and to this day it has never been on his cranium for more than 30 seconds (let me look what it looks like scenario). It is a dust collector in his I Love Me Room, and has always been. It has been angled on his stationary replica planes, on our roll top desk, on the wet bar, on his flight bag, but never on him.

Hopefully if the Army takes the AF back they will also take a hint regarding the mess dress...no need for satin lapels, give them a pin and call it a day!
 
Last edited:
Chock, the limiting factor in jet performance is the human in the driver seat. Just because we have not designed UAV's for air-to-air combat, it does not mean they are not perfectly suited for it. The three places that will have pilots the longest are cargo/transport, helos, and close air support.
 
Chock, the limiting factor in jet performance is the human in the driver seat. Just because we have not designed UAV's for air-to-air combat, it does not mean they are not perfectly suited for it. The three places that will have pilots the longest are cargo/transport, helos, and close air support.

I agree with this statement from what I have seen (as a highschooler). They certainly won't replace cargo because it is to valuable of an asset. And as for helo's, their missions often require search and rescue or recovery, which is something you need humans to be doing.

It's already happening....boats too.

Really LITS? What boat models have become unmanned? And what size are they? Also, what's the CG's take on UAV's? I remember reading an article a while back on how there are 2 rated UAV pilots in the CG (and the new NSC is also equipped to handle UAV's) ....Do you think officers will be flying them, or would it be more appropriate for a warrant officer/senior enlisted?

Big pic here people...drones don't fly BFM, and until they can this issue is a non-player.

Drones are not multi-functional aircrafts, and until they are they will have specific use.

Very true PIMA, they don't. But I was always under the impression that fighter pilots wanted to avoid dogfighting if they could. Isn't the philosophy to hit your enemy before they can see you? Why put yourself into unnecessary danger, right?

I've been keeping up on the drone issue, and it appears that the AF has even beta tested a class of non-rates to fly UAV's and even created a pair of wings for them...it does look like the Air Force is interested in pursuing this technology further.

and it looks like some cadets at AFA have even taken the step to become qualified... http://csmng.com/blog/2010/03/05/24-cadets-receive-academy’s-1st-uas-rpa-wings/
 
OMG...10 yrs ago, wasn't it the ARMY in an identity crisis? C'Mon, back then people were asking if there was for the Army since all wars could be won using the AF or the Navy.

I.E...REMINDER HERE FOLKS, the Navy and the AF never left the Gulf, they lived there for a decade, OSW and ONW ring a bell?

The fact is the military does long term strategic planning, and alot has to do with the fact that there are countries like China and Russia who could turn on us. Were my history lessons different than yours? Didn't Japan play BFFs up to they bombed us? How about Iraq, didn't we support Hussein until he turned on us? Did anyone predict the Shah of Iran to be overthrown under the Carter administration when Ford was in power, or even Nixon (6 yrs from 74 to 80)?

...Yeah, but that green is really ugly! Also, hate to say it to you nobody wears the wheel cap (at least I think that is what you are referring to), unless they have to in the AF. The reason why, you can't place a dip on the cap! (It is a sign of combat). Bullet was forced to spend 41 buck in 01 for that darn hat because it was required at Leavenworth for PME, and to this day it has never been on his cranium for more than 30 seconds (let me look what it looks like scenario). It is a dust collector in his I Love Me Room, and has always been. It has been angled on his stationary replica planes, on our roll top desk, on the wet bar, on his flight bag, but never on him.

Hopefully if the Army takes the AF back they will also take a hint regarding the mess dress...no need for satin lapels, give them a pin and call it a day!

I have been "requested" to wear the wheel cap with "farts and darts" to each commissioning I've done for cadets, both USAFA and ROTC.

Other than that...just as PIMA says: it collects dust in the closet.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
That's true....everyone's going to blue these days....


Let's see how many tax dollars the Army can waste again, by switching the uniform.....again. :thumbdown:
 
The UAVs can't replace the heavies, can they? The USAF still has all of the strategic airlift capability. I know other branches have 130s for tactical use, but the USAF is the only operator of C-5 and C-17. Also, the heavy refueler aircraft like KC-135 and KC-10 are only operated by USAF. DO the attack UAVs have to refuel? I really am asking here, anyone know?

Bruno makes a good point about the horse cavalry. Interestingly, I believe special forces in Afghanistan do sometimes use horses in their operations. So while the horse charge is no longer in play against conventional armies, it does have a much smaller role in unconventional warfare. I know there are a lot of special operations airframes in the USAF (manned) engaged in Afghanistan. Like someone said, it just means you have to adapt. The fighters will be necessary if we find ourselves in conflict with an enemy that has an air force. I'm not sure how valuable the fighter would be in a war with Russia or China (in the unlikely event of such a scenario). That kind of war would involve the really big bombs, and would ensure that any subsequent war would be fought with sticks and stones.
 
^^^^ I didn't mean that the horse charge is currently in play. I was trying to say that horses, in general, are still in use to a much smaller extent than in previous centuries. The Light Brigade is not charging into the valley of death in this century.
 
The three places that will have pilots the longest are cargo/transport, helos, and close air support.

Did you know that the CAS Prince Harry called in was from the 4th FW, F-15E's? It was not A-10's or helos.

Very true PIMA, they don't. But I was always under the impression that fighter pilots wanted to avoid dogfighting if they could. Isn't the philosophy to hit your enemy before they can see you? Why put yourself into unnecessary danger, right?

Yes, but every pilot trains constantly for BFM, actually, Bullet's mood was always based on if he was RED or BLUE air for that training mission. The UAV pilots do not just do real missions, they too spend many hours training.

I've been keeping up on the drone issue, and it appears that the AF has even beta tested a class of non-rates to fly UAV's and even created a pair of wings for them...it does look like the Air Force is interested in pursuing this technology further.

This is true for others that fly. For example, loadmasters and ABM. It does not mean that they will replace the pilots, it means they are there to assist in getting the mission done.

You already have an Airlift/Spec Ops rated pilot as the Chief of Staff- which is a first for the Air Force- a Chief who was not a bomber pilot or a fighter pilot (If you look at the list of CSAFs - they were all primarily bomber guys thru around 1980 then all fighter pilots since then).

The AF will change in the future regarding their CoS, but a Special OPS pilot is no slacker and would be very offended if you compared him to a KC pilot. They fall more on the fighter/bomber/combat side and not CARGO. I am sure in the next decade there will be a Cargo CoS, but again, that is going to be someone who has a different operational experience than a UAV. I am also positive in 20 yrs you will have a UAV CoS, it will be someone right now that the UAV community deems a fast tracker. Again, that is a long way down the road, and my point has always been to the incoming cadets, you will probably retire before you see the drastic change some believe. It is all moot to them when discussing if pilots will still exist in the next decade.

The AF undoubtedly will increase the spectrum of UAVs within the AF, but it is not going to eradicate the need for pilots. Like I said, it is the big pic.
 
Last edited:
Did you know that the CAS Prince Harry called in was from the 4th FW, F-15E's? It was not A-10's or helos.

I don't know if that was to counter or expand on my argument, but I made no referance to it being a specific platform just that, the particular mission would be manned. I personally was not thinking air force but then again, I rarely do.
 
My bad, I thought you were implying CAS is done by helos mainly, and the fact is most of it is done by fighters both AF and Navy.
 
Back
Top