LivingInMEM

None of this has been about calling people out because they are not volunteering for this assignment. Instead we have people saying "don't send me, send some admin dude because I want to keep on flying." At least if they were saying "don't send me, send some other F-16 / F-15 / etc dude", they wouldn't show a willingness to sacrifice our soldiers in combat over their sweet deal. Saying that you'd rather not do this job (but still understanding that someone with the same qualifications as you will end up getting the assignment) is not the same as saying "why don't you just take these other less-qualified guys and put them in there instead?"

For me, it is about 2 main points: the USAF makes decisions based on anything but combat capability (and that is OK with most as long as it does not affect them negatively) and USAF officers are whining about maybe having to give up a nice cockpit for a while to go fulfill an important combat role. We have lost sight of the fact that you go where you are told and needs of the service come first.

You could put any of those category of pilots that gaspasser mentioned into those jobs, as long as they met the requirements. Who cares if every pilot in the Sqdn is a LTCol as long as the job is getting done to the max extent possible - unfortunately the admin folks of the USAF do because something other than combat capability is always the priority.

The general response has been "it's only a UAV." Well, it's now 2008 and the UAV of 1996 is long gone. UAV's are flying in theater in the same airspace as fast movers / AC-130's / etc and are dropping real live weapons (sometimes in close proximity to friendly forces) and are killing real live people. As if it wasn't difficult enough to know where you are in relation to everything else and to maintain SA when you are there, now you have to do it from half a world away by visualizing what is going on and where everyone is in your mind. I am sure that someone who has never been in a combat role would do well in that capacity.

Given the magnitude of the task and the importance of the mission, how much mission degradation are you willing to accept to allow a USAF officer to place his own desires above the needs of the service? There are actual instances where Army SF dudes were failed in one way or another by the UAV support they thought they were getting (relayed to me by the Army dudes - I've got specifics) - and it all came down to inexperience and not being able to know what the dude IN HARM's WAY was thinking and what the priority was at that very moment. To some extent, you have to have been shot at to know what the dude currently getting shot at is thinking.

Everyone is quick to say "why don't we put that UPT washout or that enlisted folk (not a judgement on enlisted folks) in there", but they would never consider putting that UPT washout or enlisted folk (not a judgement on enlisted folks) in the right seat of whatever they fly. Why is it OK to put an inexperienced dude in a combat role UAV, but not OK to put him in the right seat of a C-5? How about putting that admin folk in as a T-6 IP? We could even have the enlisted dudes running the Rated Officer assignment branches. You know, you COULD do any of these things - but that does not mean it would be smart.