Interesting in so many ways:
First, Rickair, do you have trouble imagining a Navy run by surface warfare officers. No? That's because the entire purpose of the Navy is to support the SWO and the SWO mission. The core mission of Navy Air is to support the Navy's surface warfare purpose - the purpose of Marine Air is to support the infantry. Would you imagine the Navy would be better if it were run by supply clerks or anyone else not familiar with the details of HOW the Navy fights its core mission, or the Marines run by someone other than infantry?
The USAF exists to support air dominance, space dominance, and the ability to deploy and fight anywhere on the globe within hours. The purpose of the USAF IS aviation in one form or another. That's why you can't equate the Navy, Marines, Army, USAF as far as who runs it - you need to consider what the CORE mission is. In reality, combat pilots/crews should run a combat force. To say the USAF existed to support fighter and bomber pilots is akin to the c**p we hear in politics - appealing to the ignorant masses.
The reason why the USAF insisted on rated aviators flying these aircraft is because they are 10,000lb pieces of metal armed with live ordnance being operated in controlled airspace, in the same ROZ stacks as manned assets such as bombers and fighters (i.e. in close proximity to those aircraft), employing deadly force in close proximity to US forces, etc, etc - ALL things NONE of the other UAVs are doing (for all of you "but, the Army is doing this" people who have not actually worked with the Army people actually doing this or that or seen what they do). In this war, whether you like it or not, there is no distinguishing the missions of F-15E's, F-16's, and MQ-9's except for sortie duration - and in this war the aircraft with the longer duration is the better asset. All of the missions are exactly the same, except the F-16's like to call their missions NT-ISR vs ISR. If non-rated guys can fly one mission, why can't they fly the other?
The reporter does not report that new CSAF was chosen because he is the prtotype new USAF officer - a yes man. His boss says he wants more bodies, and the new CSAF says "no problem, we can fill the pipeline with bodies" and the person who pays the price is the soldier on the ground. AETC gave up producing quality products long ago (can't wash them out - can't not produce the numbers), and this follows the same route. The CSAF did fly in to pin these guy's wings on. As a matter of fact, several generals came in relative to this program - some even talked EXCLUSIVELY to the Beta students to see how the program was going - but NOT ONE talked to the IP's in private to get their take. Regardless of your stance or experience with UAVs, this fact should bother you.
Capt Petrizzo is, in fact, not flying sorties over Afghan on his own and neither are any of the other Beta candidates. They are all just starting a CMR program that is about 6 times longer than previous, and requires increased supervision after CMR. All told, they will require one on one supervision for over 6 months. They will also have to be relieved if the situation starts going dynamic - so they will still need a qualified body on hands at all times. Not much of a proper relief of manpower. The reporter also did not write that the training evals from these guys courses stated that their BEST guy was worse than anyone previously seen in the history of the RTU - the evals did say that by the way.
For those that understand, what sets aviators apart from most is decision-making and judgment. Pilots make more decisions per day, the decisions are usually more critical in nature, and the timeframe for action is less than most people all day. That is gained in experience. UPT grads don't have it after even 1+ year of training. What is critical when supporting troops on the ground and deciding if/when to employ air-surface ordnance is decision-making and judgment. Beta candidates won't have it after 1+ year of training. In combat, when you are the one on the ground, watching the bombs fly home is not the "safer course of action". To the squadron commanders with these Beta guys, the safer course of action IS having them take their bombs home. In combat, when you are the one on the ground, the timeline should be driven by your situation. If you have these guys overhead, the timeline will be driven by how fast they can find a qualified body to take the Beta's place and how fast the new guy can get brought up to speed.
This topic is worthy of further investigation, but this article does not even scratch the surface. The CSAF is instituting a program that will slash the level of support that our warfighters on the ground are getting, and no one has a thing to say about it. They are instituting a program that is opposed by EVERY O-5 and below in the UAS program (remember, they are the only ones who have actually been there/done that with UAVs) and no one has anything to say about it. We haven't even thought about what will happen as the UAS is filled with non-rated guys and the manned assets start to downsize - UPT will become more and more expensive. As they recognize that we can "train" someone to fly an airplane without sending them to UPT, the future of UPT will be in jeopardy. Our leadership is letting politics reign, and it's business as usual.
Most UAS guys don't want to be there - but they all support the mission, and they all put the needs of the warfighter first. When they say this program should not go forward, it would be nice if leadership listened.