UAV's for UPT Grads

[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...

 

[Mooseflyer]

I, too, was one who recieved a speech from the leadership for picking a heavy instead of a fighter (although I didn't have the "honor" of an O6 interview). Do I think flying a fighter would be cool? Sure, for about a month. Like dtfl said, in the end it comes down to QOL for some folks. I decided I'd rather travel the globe drinking brews with my buds, and live at the beach when I came home. Simple choice really. Have I ever regretted it? Not once. Thankfully it takes all types to make the world go 'round. Not everyone makes a UPT MWS choice out of "fear".

Regarding the UAV assignment - SFW? If they stay AD for 20, they'll have made more $$$ than just about anyone of equivilant age getting into aviation at the moment over the same time period. Then again, so will someone who manages the bowling alley and golf course. Sad really.

 

[LJDRVR]

I'm surprised the USAF is having such a difficult time deciding how to staff the UAS's, the need is very bad right now.

Common sense would be they segregate the two communities completely.

This would allow the pilots to actually fly airplanes, without having to worry about losing their skills sitting in a trailer operating an "airplane". You have the added benefit of a contained talent pool of UAS operators who have their entire career to carefully develop their unique skill set.

The only question left is who do you put in the trailer? I think the suggestion for enlisted folks is a good idea, but highly unlikely, even though there's a history and as somebody said, there are quite a few prior enlisted airline pilots.

I think the best route would be to handle it the same way the Navy handles their special warfare Officer Corps. (SEAL Officers are all prior-E SEALS.) IOW, Pipeline enlisted sensor operators who finish their degrees to OTS, commission them, send them to a modified IFS type program then train them as operators.

Given the emergence of UAS's and the fact that they will proliferate as we move forward, this would be a very sought after career field, attracting the cream of the enlisted crop. Heck, reserve a couple of UPT slots a year for the best operators.

 

[Caveman]

Why do they need a degree and why do they need to be commissioned? Take motivated enlisted guys/gals that are interested, train them to operate UAV's and if they are successful fast track them to be WO's. Pattern it after the Army's helo community.

 

[LJDRVR]

Why do they need a degree and why do they need to be commissioned? Take motivated enlisted guys/gals that are interested, train them to operate UAV's and if they are successful fast track them to be WO's. Pattern it after the Army's helo community.

I see where you're coming from - you and I are both former NCO's. The USAF retired their last WO in 1978, they're not bringing it back. As far as the pilot being an Officer, the reason I suggested it that way is inertia. (We've always done it that way!) With UAS pilots firing weapons on a regular basis, with a convoluted ROE involving other services and occasionally the NCA, I simply don't think the Air Staff would go for anything but commissioned officers with their finger on the pickle.

I suggested it the way I did because it would allow the very sharpest enlisted sensor operators a chance at not only a commission, but a very interesting job with great career potential as UAS become more prevalent.

 

[millhouse21]

I think the best route would be to handle it the same way the Navy handles their special warfare Officer Corps. (SEAL Officers are all prior-E SEALS.) IOW, Pipeline enlisted sensor operators who finish their degrees to OTS, commission them, send them to a modified IFS type program then train them as operators.

I like your idea but the bit about all SEAL officers being prior E-SEALs is not true. Plenty of officers straight out of the academy or ROTC get SEAL billets.

 

[FlyingHigh262]

they should make a separate AFSC for UAVs and let the pilots be pilots. have all the people that like playing flight simulator go UAVs!!!!

 

[JimNtexas]

A UPT graduate is the most expensive officer in the military, it's crazy to send him or her into a UAV where so much of UPT training just isn't needed. Nav school teaches all the knowledge one needs to operate an airplane or UAV anywhere in the world, it just leaves out the part where they train the pilots hands.

It seems to me that the long term answer is to have a training pipeline specifically for uav operators.

As a transition measure I'd go ahead and pay for the FAA commercial/instrument rating for any navs interested in the UAV mission.

A modified nav school that includes enough actual piloting to get an FAA commerical and instrument rating in a light plane would be a sensible low cost way to create a career uav operator.

About the only airplane or helo pilots I would force into UAVs would be the ones who say things like 'there are two kinds of airplanes, [insert mds here] and targets'. That kind of person is too immature to be trusted with autonomous control of an expensive air vehicle. He or she would be better off in the trailer where an a mature person could keep an eye on them.

 

[Birdstrike]

It really doesn't matter who controls these UAS platforms...the important part is how we train them to operate in a tactical environment...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....they all need to be on the same page when it comes to tactical employment.

Noted. So how can a guy that just operates the box ever get enough situational awareness to be on the same page if he's never actually been (read flown) in a tactical environment himself?

 

[JimNtexas]

Noted. So how can a guy that just operates the box ever get enough situational awareness to be on the same page if he's never actually been (read flown) in a tactical environment himself?

Just make sure the uav operators can't command the squadrons. Reserve the ops officer and commander slots for pilots, the way God intended.

 

[JungleJett]

I watched a 15 year old work an RC airplane like he was sitting in it. It DOES NOT TAKE SOME HUGE BRAIN AND MAGICAL HANDS TO FLY A UAV. In fact, it does not take those things to fly a real airplane...regardless of pointy or blunt nose. (Helo guys are just weird...and do not fit the mold..and I have mad respect for them for that.)

I agree, take some high speed enlisted folks, send them to a Warrant Officer school and put them in UAV's and other jobs as well. Send them to a local flight school under contract and get them up to their commerical instrument in about 5 months for about 20K. You might even find some guys who already fly in their free time and would do well. You can free up some butter bar and put them in milpay and MPF where we really need people.

To take a pilot out of UPT and make them fly a UAV is flat out a waste of money. I am an enlisted guy (aircrew) and also a pilot in the civilian world, I could do the damn job...but am very happy where I am .

This is NOT rocket surgery...but in true USAF style, we will make it that way.