UAV's for UPT Grads

[Birdstrike]

They do more killin' from Creech than most units will ever do on deployment, and they get to go home everynight. However it's not flying, and thus sucks.

Article said to expect a follow-on cockpit. So maybe if it's treated like just another non-flying gig it won't be so bad as opposed to all you do. Wouldn't even be as bad as a desk in the Pentagon.

 

[BeeVee]

Well, it's seems it's only a temporary measure until they crank up a specific UAS track, but I'll admit that you're the first one to have gouge on an accurate announcement on this issue.

Well, thanks for the kudos...but to be fair, it is only because I have close contact to VERY reliable sources (when it comes to AF policy, procedures, etc).

 

[navigatro]

Well, thanks for the kudos...but to be fair, it is only because I have close contact to VERY reliable sources (when it comes to AF policy, procedures, etc).

You subscribe to Air Force Times ???

 

[bssthound]

AF guys should fly drones from a double wide. They can't land on a boat.

What about AF guys who've flown exchange tours with the Navy? I think they were somehow miraculously able to land on the boat. Also, I can't think of a single military aircraft whose mission is landing, be it on a boat, runway, or anywhere else. It's what happens between takeoff and landing that is what's important and, to be done well, takes a lot more skill than landing.

Of course you wouldn't grasp that because the only "stick" you've ever had in your hand eventually ejaculated.

 

[GoUglyEarly]

Of course you wouldn't grasp that because the only "stick" you've ever had in your hand eventually ejaculated.

SHACK!!!!

 

[SUNDOWN]

There are two types of aircraft in the world. Fighters and targets. Get it?

I

Dude for as much smack as you talk you better have at least one kill. Seriously Sig, have you ever actually been in a dogfight? To read your posts, it's like you're a double ace.

 

[LearLove]

Pilot Training Time Slashed

Tight budgets are forcing the Air Force's combat squadrons to cut back their training hours by nearly 60 percent -- "leaving frontline units unprepared to go to war," according to Defense News.

Air Combat Command (ACC), the primary provider of combat airpower, is cutting 32,000 flying hours to help compensate for its $825 million operations and maintenance shortfall.
The cuts come as Air Force aircrews are heavily worked, flying missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and over some U.S. cities in an attempt to prevent another terrorist attack.
"Starting early this summer, units may have aviators unable to get required training to maintain full combat-ready status," Col. Jim Dunn, deputy director of flight operations for ACC, said in a written statement. "Overall effectiveness will become a growing challenge."
With this cut, the command now has 21,000 flying hours left of the original 53,000-plus hours programmed for the rest of this fiscal year -- a 60 percent reduction...
Retired Gen. Hal Hornburg, former ACC commander, said the cuts are "a big deal" and show the military's grim financial situation.
"They're not cutting fat, they're cutting to the bone," Hornburg said, noting the Pentagon has taken large sums of money away from the Air Force to pay for the Army in Iraq.
Reducing flying hours will free up about $272 million, not quite a third of the command's shortfall, said Col. Dave Goossens, ACC comptroller.
​

This is bad news -- another sign of how the Iraq war is slowly grinding down American military readiness. But are times really that tight at the Air Force? I mean, if the generals there wanted to save $272 million, couldn't they just take a F-22 Raptor or two out of the budget, instead of staging a giant PR campaign for the dubious stealth jet? Is an extra fighter plane that much more important than every pilot's training time?
And how's this for poor choices: two of the only groups not affected by the flight-time cuts... are the "Raptor squadron [and] the Thunderbird aerial demonstration team," says Defense News.

 

[SIG600]

Dude for as much smack as you talk you better have at least one kill. Seriously Sig, have you ever actually been in a dogfight? To read your posts, it's like you're a double ace.

Sarcasm apparently isn't a strong suit for you. You should read ALL my posts. I spend most of my time bashing Davegriffin and debunking all of his homocentric navy love and pent up hate for all things usaf.

 

[PreContact]

KC-10 bud of mine doesn't see a lot of countries, just the same ones over and over. Nothing like hitting the UAE a dozen times. uke:

He/She must be active duty - whole different animal in the reserves.

 

[SUNDOWN]

http://www.truveo.com/Air-Force-Baby/id/716945085

 

[SIG600]

He/She must be active duty - whole different animal in the reserves.

Correct statement.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

This reminds me of the early 90s when UPT grads were getting the "third seat". Many of the UPT grads back then were old farts (27.5 + year olds), pinning on Captain as we graduated. You can imagine the heartache of one of these dudes/dudettes having to choose the "third seat" as there were no airplanes to choose from. A "third seat" was the idea of our beloved Gen. McPeak and it was a navigator position on a KC-135. The deal was that one would occupy the nav seat in a KC-135 until a flying slot became available, which would occur in 1-3 years. We all felt their pain as they stood up during assignment night and "chose" their assignment.
Regarding the fighter vs. targets, I'll go with the fighter or a target theory. However, not everyone wants to be a fighter pilot. I think alot of people would love to fly a fighter but alot of 'em don't want to be a "fighter pilot" (ie. many hours of mission planning and briefings to fly a 1.2, $hit loads of additional duty, numerous sand box deployments, remote tours, etc.). Some of the best sticks in my class and other classes did not choose fighters; fyi, we were in one of the last "traditional" classes who got to fly the T-38.
I have alot of respect for the fighter bros but some of you need an attitude adjusment. Not everyone want to be you when they grow up.

 

[K-Mart]

The whole fighter vs the heavy argument is pretty funny. Historically fighters have gone before the heavies but like anything else there are the exceptions to every graduating class.

However, I can remember a time between the years 95-98ish when an alarming number of students track selected the T-1/T-44 over the T-38. It got attention all the way up to the Chief of Staff of the AF who was bewildered as to why folks were choosing the T-1/T-44 over the 38. Several Full Bird Colonels (no joke here) were tasked with interviewing every student who picked the T-1/T-44 over the T-38 asking them why and kinda grilling them a bit. In a nutshell it was embarrasing to fighter brass watching students stand up and pick the heavies over the fighter track. Wanna guess solution was??? The AF decided it was better to not give students their choice of tracks and let the Flight Commanders choose instead. Students would fill out a dream sheet but the leadership got the ultimate say. True story.

 

[AlbieF15]

The real reason for the heavy choice was the ridiculous idea that washing out of a T-38 meant no wings. A guy "on the fence" on fighters verses heavy did a quick risk/reward analysis. If they had a "no risk" flow back to heavies IF the student found out single seat wasn't for them, THEN I think you'd have seen a higher T38/fighter track selection.

I flew 2300+ hours in the F-15 and over 500 in the OV-10. I loved it. If faced with an SUPT choice, however, I might have leaned "pragmatic" and gone T-1, however. Why? I wanted to be a PILOT more than I wanted to be a FIGHTER PILOT. The SUPT track made the fighter option an "all or nothing" risk that some of our young pilots decided not to take.

And hey...flying jets is cool....even if you aren't in a single seat. Having done both, however, I'm glad I got to do both. I encourage young dudes (and dudettes) to chase their dreams, but if a guy "slightly above average" decided to take a lower risk option and chase a C-17 from the T-1 track I couldnt' look him in the eye and say he was wrong. He's got a 95% chance of getting those coveted wings in the T-1 track...and those are worth a lot of money down the road. Maybe he won't be a Viper driver, but in 7-10 years he can have a job at Delta, FDX, or SWA and a Guard job...and that's a darn good life. Wash out of T-38s and life gets a little tougher.

Fix the SUPT process and the problem will fix itself.

 

[SIG600]

The real reason for the heavy choice was the ridiculous idea that washing out of a T-38 meant no wings. A guy "on the fence" on fighters verses heavy did a quick risk/reward analysis. If they had a "no risk" flow back to heavies IF the student found out single seat wasn't for them, THEN I think you'd have seen a higher T38/fighter track selection.

I flew 2300+ hours in the F-15 and over 500 in the OV-10. I loved it. If faced with an SUPT choice, however, I might have leaned "pragmatic" and gone T-1, however. Why? I wanted to be a PILOT more than I wanted to be a FIGHTER PILOT. The SUPT track made the fighter option an "all or nothing" risk that some of our young pilots decided not to take.

And hey...flying jets is cool....even if you aren't in a single seat. Having done both, however, I'm glad I got to do both. I encourage young dudes (and dudettes) to chase their dreams, but if a guy "slightly above average" decided to take a lower risk option and chase a C-17 from the T-1 track I couldnt' look him in the eye and say he was wrong. He's got a 95% chance of getting those coveted wings in the T-1 track...and those are worth a lot of money down the road. Maybe he won't be a Viper driver, but in 7-10 years he can have a job at Delta, FDX, or SWA and a Guard job...and that's a darn good life. Wash out of T-38s and life gets a little tougher.

Fix the SUPT process and the problem will fix itself.

Agree. When I went through a few years ago, guys that didn't finish the T-45 track could (based on recommendations) redesignate and go to another community. If someone had told me "you fail, you're done flying" I would have seriously reconsidered.

That said though, the personality types that tend to be attracted by the fighter community don't see themselves as never being able to succeed. Not a bag on other communities, I just think the fighter community is chock full of a lot more Type A's.

 

[hoover]

I would think that military officers would welcome this. As many of you have said, you're a solider first, a pilot second. If the Constitution and this country can be can be accomplished without risking American lives, isn't that what we should be striving for?

 

[K-Mart]

Albie,

You are spot on with kids taking a T-1/44 because they didn't want to wash out and not get their wings. Our primary program (T-37), too kinda pushed guys to think.."Man I can put up with this crap, stand ups, uptight FAIPS or maybe go fly a T-1 or T-44.

I don't know the complete answer but it is f@cked up when 22-24 year olds pissing fire and vinegar are turning down a good chance to fly a fighter. Weird times.

 

[FlyingHigh262]

I would think that military officers would welcome this. As many of you have said, you're a solider first, a pilot second. If the Constitution and this country can be can be accomplished without risking American lives, isn't that what we should be striving for?

not a pilot eh?

 

[Be 23]

I would think that military officers would welcome this. As many of you have said, you're a solider first, a pilot second. If the Constitution and this country can be can be accomplished without risking American lives, isn't that what we should be striving for?

People don't go through the rigors of UPT and accept a 10 year commitment with a goal of sitting at a console in Nevada. This isn't a group of people putting their own personal comfort and safety as their top priority.

If they get their assignment to UAV before finishing pilot training, the washout (dropout) rate could get interesting. It would be hard to blame a guy for not accepting a 10 year pilot training commitment if the AF isn't going to let him fly.

 

[JungleJett]

Speaking of traveling...I think we left the county today on the Pave Hawk...I am not positive though.

 

[tankerswede]

However, I can remember a time between the years 95-98ish when an alarming number of students track selected the T-1/T-44 over the T-38. It got attention all the way up to the Chief of Staff of the AF who was bewildered as to why folks were choosing the T-1/T-44 over the 38. Several Full Bird Colonels (no joke here) were tasked with interviewing every student who picked the T-1/T-44 over the T-38 asking them why and kinda grilling them a bit. In a nutshell it was embarrasing to fighter brass watching students stand up and pick the heavies over the fighter track.

I was one of them. I never got the "talking to" from anyone but was cautioned by my flight commander (a KC-135 driver by trade) that it might happen. The assumption seemed to be that just because one did well in Tweets that one WANTED to go to fighters. I had my choice of any of the four options and picked T-1s. Not because of a fear of washing out but more because I would rather brief for one hour and fly for eight rather than the other way around. After Tweets, the hard part was over. Not so in the T-38 world - far from it. Get through that and then it's IFF. Survive that and it's on to RTU...

Guys did wash out and end up in heavies. One IFF washout ended up in the KC-10. That went over well with the guys who picked T-1s because they wanted to fly heavies and got the -135 to Grand Forks. Their #1 choice was some IFF guy's consolation prize.

I'm not sure what I would have done had a UAV been part of the equation right out of UPT. Sure, you can be part of the pointy end of the spear and risk nothing more than a burn from spilled coffee but most pilots-in-waiting do not suffer the slings and arrows of UPT for the chance that, someday, they might get to sit in a CONEX in the Nevada desert playing what, to them, is a glorified game of XBox.

If I got close to graduation and was looking at a ten year career in the UAV world I could seriously see considering an SIE and going into another career field to serve out whatever time I had left. It sucks, but the contract between the USAF and the trainee is fairly one sided and if that's the only option they give you then they've forced your hand.

 

[rod farva]

I read an article that said they're gonna recruit shoe clerks to do a UAV training pipeline...and...wait for it...give them wings!!! That's right...a 10 week course and you too Mr. civil engineer or chemist can be a pilot too. I swear to god if that happens I'll walk in to the Chief of Staff's office and hand him my wings.

Let's get one thing straight. They're not UAV "pilots"...they're a UAV OPERATORS.

 

[Birdstrike]

Let's get one thing straight. They're not UAV "pilots"...they're a UAV OPERATORS.

Regardless of what you call them, are they or are they not the bow wave of a coming major paradigm shift in tac air?

 

[007]

Give the UAV's to the enlisted guys

Be careful what you wish for....sounds awfully like the major airline pilots when it came to the regional jets.

 

[viper548]

Be careful what you wish for....sounds awfully like the major airline pilots when it came to the regional jets.

There are a lot of enlisted guys that would be perfect for this. In the guard and reserves there are a lot of enlisted airline pilots.

 

[xtwapilot]

There are a lot of enlisted guys that would be perfect for this. In the guard and reserves there are a lot of enlisted airline pilots.

The Army does just that, they put enlisted guys in the UAVs and have a Warrant Officer supervise them. What a waste of tax payer dollars to have spent 2+million on a guy in UPT to then come out an do the same job an enlisted guy in the Army can do with 8-16 weeks of training and no prior flight experience.

Xtwapilot

 

[tumbleweed]

It really doesn't matter who controls these UAS platforms...the important part is how we train them to operate in a tactical environment. Whatever pipeline the AF decides on is mostly a mute point (except to those who are non-vol'd). If we continue to expand the weapons capabilities up to the point nearing an actual fighter, then the training for UAS operaters needs to be at that level also. Not so much from the piloting perspective, but with weaponering, cas procedures, etc.

After having a few long discussions with some of our former Lts working on the Pred/Reaper last week, they don't believe it is anywhere near where it NEEDS to be. Whether it is an A1C, new UPT grad, or senior Capt with thousands of hours in a tanker who ends up behind the console, they all need to be on the same page when it comes to tactical employment. Hopefully we don't lose sight of that in the flail to get as many systems in theater as quickly as possible...

 

[007]

You guys are missing my point. While I agree that it is a waste to put a brand new UPT grad in one of these, the reality is that this techology is going to replace a lot of manned platforms in the future. While I agree that there are plenty of enlisted guys who can operate this very well, you're kicking it to the side as "below" you. That's exactly what happened in the airlines.

In my opinion it this program should resemble the old FAC in the 60's.

 

[DLF8108]

UAVs--New CSAF is the "New Sheriff in Town"

We could all be surprised by the "end of day solution" to this one.

From 1969 to 1982 bomber pilots ruled the USAF (think cold-war era)

Since 1982 the CSAF has been a fighter pilot.

Schwartz is a Special Ops warfighter--read his bio...

Could be a "new world order" on the horizon for the USAF.


Glad I'm enjoying my USAF retirement & NETJETS flying job!!

DLF8108

 

[dtfl]

Agree. When I went through a few years ago, guys that didn't finish the T-45 track could (based on recommendations) redesignate and go to another community. If someone had told me "you fail, you're done flying" I would have seriously reconsidered.

That said though, the personality types that tend to be attracted by the fighter community don't see themselves as never being able to succeed. Not a bag on other communities, I just think the fighter community is chock full of a lot more Type A's.

NOT True on the heavy vs fighter choice. I know MANY MANY guys who chose heavies due to the experience, flying hours, etc. I personally was #2 in my class. Didn't want a fighter. (Would have chose an A10 as I loved CAS) for many reasons...#1 were the F15 IPs I flew with in 38s. I chose AFSOC. Had more combat time as a 1LT than many will have in their career. Still blew lots of crap up, albeit in a AC130.
So there are many reasons...and believe or not, not everyone wants to fly a F15/16. etc. The #1 guy took a C21, BTW. This was in 92.

Not meant as a jab towards anyone..just saying I know many guys with reasons other than the worry of washout, etc, etc. Everyone has their own reason...but it seems there are more and more NOT choosing that community.

Hell these days...my buddy at Lockheed says half his studs in the PC12 are B52 and F16s guys...so AFSOC will assimilate all...