UAV's for UPT Grads

[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...