WAFP, you do have issues. You are picking an argument about issues that were not even brought up until you brought them up - until you went VFR direct to how bad your deal is, nobody was talking about how bad your deal is or how much you did. But, since we are here...

I am better than you? I think you talked about guys like me sitting pretty and how your deal sucks so much worse than mine did, so I gave a little background - is that I am better than you?

I don't know why it upsets you so, but there are degrees of support for the mission. We all ended up where we were told to go, and we are doing exactly what we are told to do, but some roles contribute more directly than others. For example, the motor pool people at Charleston AFB contribute to the airlift mission. The may not contribute as directly as the crew flying the cargo into the theater, but they do their part so that everyone else can do their part, so that the cargo can get downrange. It may not seem fair to the young guys, but that's reality.

With the possibility of upsetting Sputnick, I will let you know that all of my OPR's from the KC-10 list how many pounds of cargo that I carried into this or that theater, and how many pounds of fuel that I transferred to X number of receivers from X number of services and nations. Considering that I was in the KC-10 when the C-141 was effectively grounded due to window cracks and the C-5 was, well, the C-5 - those numbers were higher than those of pilots flying our "real" airlifters. Tell me, what does that really mean anyway? Would you fly from Pt A to Pt B differently if you had 15,000 lbs of freight vs. 150,000 lbs of freight? What would have happened if that freight was delayed a day, would people have died? How about a week? Oh, I know there are time-critical missions here and there (medevac, etc), but did you fly those any differently than you would a local? What percentage of the total missions were those missions? Were you picked specifically for those missions or do they just come down and get assigned to crews randomly? On the most critical of those missions, did you make any decisions or did you just swing the gear? If you had not delivered those MRAP's, would they still have gotten there somehow? Could they have gotten there tomorrow? I did not intend to get into a pi___ng match with you, if you read all of my posts you will see that I feel strongly that everyone should know how they contribute to the overall mission no matter what they do. That means that the motor pool guy should know how providing vehicles enables the cargo to get downrange, not just that he provides vehicles.

You are obviously one of those guys who thinks your own job is the most important. I will admit that most of the USAF jobs out there are important to the mission, and some are more critical than others, but you have a certain fervor about your role. Are you not satisfied with your role.

You know, I was never an A-10 pilot. Even with that, I think they have a crucial role in one of the most imortant missions out there - CAS. When our troops are in danger of being overrun by the enemy, there is nothing that our forces would rather see than an A-10. The A-10 can roll in an put down 30mm rounds within 10's of feet of our forces. With that kind of potential for error the precision required, the timing required, and the situational awareness required are all critical. If the A-10 pilot doesn't get it right, the potential of troops dying is high - either from the A-10 rounds killing US troops or from the A-10 rounds not killing the enemy and they move on to kill our troops. Based on all of that, I'd say A-10 pilots play a pretty critical role. As a matter of fact, in some environments, I'd say their presence is critical to the success of the mission. If they don't show up, there is no one else to take up the slack - it's either them or no one.

Let's compare that to the C-5. You delivered 24 MRAP's, an important mission no doubt. What if you or your C-5 had not been there? Could a C-17 have done the role? Could they have trucked in the MRAP's? How about the other airlifters, what were they carrying? Were some carrying bullets? Where do they fit into the criticallity of the mission, higher or lower than an MRAP? If you delivered your MRAP an hour late, would our troops have been overrun? What if you would have had to go missed approach? What if there were no soldiers, would we still win the war just because you delivered the MRAP's - do MRAP deliveries on their own win wars?

Back to those A-10's. Did I mention that they were taking small arms and RPG fire? What about the manpad threat? While there is always a threat in theater, do you really take your C-5 into an area before we have air and ground superiority? Is landing a C-5 in Balad the same as taking your A-10 and pointing at the very people who are shooting at you, driving down to 50' AGL, and unloading your 30mm at blurs on the ground that you had better be sure are the enemy? I landed the KC-10 under threat of fire and under active fire, but it isn't the same as that A-10 guy. If the shooting was that hot, you wouldn't land. The A-10 pilot has no choice - he's going in. Does the C-5 land behind enemy lines, because the A-10 goes behind enemy lines. Etc, etc, etc.

You know, I carried Army troops into and out of Mogadishu. Even before the blackhawk shootdown, I knew that although we were all contributing to the same mission, my role was not nearly as direct as theirs. That's life. The USAF said go fly a KC-10 and I did. I accepted it, and I commited myself to doing my role to the best of my ability so that those who were really doing the job were not let down. Want an analogy. Surgery would not be successful unless the ER was clean, so the janitorial staff is obviously important. But, do you really think they have more of a direct role than the surgeon. How about the surgery nurse vs the surgeon, all important but there are degrees. KC-10's are critical to getting the fighters to the fight, but are they more critical than the fighters? Could the fighters get there another way, albeit not quite as quickly? Not having the KC-10 might cause a delay that could result in the battle being lost, but not having the fighters would result in us losing with no battle at all.

Your issue is with your acceptance of where you fit in to this whole act. From your first post, you had some anger issue - as if I had called you out in some way. That is an issue with you, and your need to show how others contribute less than you. Don't get me wrong, I'd go with this all day - it would bore everyone else, though.

P.S. Since you can't figure it out for yourself, let's talk about what your F-15 buddy has accomplished. Right now, there is no credible air-air threat in the current war. There are countries with a credible air-air threat - just not the ones we are fighting right now. Why is that? Did it just happen, or was it because your buddy and those before him have become the most formidable air superiority force in the world? Could it be because they have done their jobs so well that all of these countries have decided that they will get almost no bang for the buck by investing in an air force that will be destroyed on day 1? Could it be that these countries have decided that SAM's are the only way for them to go if they want to even have a chance at defending themselves against our USAF? Are you sure our F-15's haven't played a role in this war. Did they not do their job by causing the Iraqi's to fly their fighters to other countries or bury them in the sand? I know you would rather think that your buddy is playing no role in this war, but they are actually having an effect by just being in existence.

As far as my willingness to step up and do the UAV mission, I guess we'll never know. And when the fighters leave the AOR, there had better not be a high threat or the C-5's won't be going there either.

 

Geeze O Pete!

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

October 30th assignment night at CBM: For the active duty students, 2 UASs for the T-38 side and 2 UASs for the T-1 side.

There were 6 total active duty T-38 students and they received 2 F-15Es, 2 UASs, 1 T-6 FAIP and 1 RC-12. Not sure if the T-1 folks received any RC-12s or U-28s.

Buzz

 

Just a couple things then I will let this thread go, since it has become what my wife and I call, and agreement to disagree.

I don't think my deal sucks. Don't know how you picked up on that, but never said so, and I enjoy my job. No I don't think I'm the most important. I fit in the house of cards just like anyone else, take "me" out and the house starts to crumble in places.

An A-10 can fight back. That is how I see it being different. A KC10 or C5 or C17 can't, period. YOU should understand this. Give me a 30mm gun and the best CAS aircraft in history, and I'd feel better about having someone point a gun or rocket at me.

I disagree with what you said originally about how the UAS needs the best of the best, so they should continue to take them from our CAF/MAF. Build the core then let them train their own line of experts, it's what every other MWS has done, why not this one?

I am angry at folks who continue to tell me that my doesn't count as much as theirs. I may not be on the ground, but we all made choices in life, and mine was to be in the cockpit.

You're right, everyone contributes. The soilder on the ground is the most important thing right now, but not at the expense of our other trained forces. UAVs will be here forever, lets build and train a force that is worthy of that, without sacraficing our other assests.

Lets let bygons be bygons....

 

Say what?

Please tell me that was a typo or an extraordinarily poorly worded sentence. Please tell me you don't believe you have sacrificed as much as those who have given the "ultimate sacrafice" [sic], i.e. their LIVES, simply because you spent a lot of time away from your family.

Did I misunderstand your post?

 

No, I don't believe that I have sacrificed as much as those that have given their lives for this country. It was a typo, my bad.

Thanks TBone for pointing that out.

 

They better not!!!

 

OK, everyone take a breath - but I think this concept is important. First of all, we are all on the same team working towards ONE and only one objective at this point as far as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned. Guys flying humanitarian missions in Africa would be working towards another objective. Considering this is football season, this is no different than a football team - everybody has a role to play towards the goal, but everyone's role is different. Not everyone can be as important as the QB, but everyone has to do their particular job to get things done. People like the QB need to be running 100% all of the time, if they "drop the ball" (sts) the team suffers big. Others get a little more leeway to make errors or not operate at 100% sometimes; but at other times, if they perform at less than 100%, the costs wil be large. There are some plays were the defensive safety can be out of position (running play where the runner is stopped at the line) with no penalty at all, then there are plays where the safety being out of position will result in a touchdown. Keep that analogy in mind, I'll get back to that later. (By the way, I have never claimed that MY job is one of those QB type jobs - I have always been in a support role including, and especially, my time in the F-15 - more like that safety example)

Now we need to talk about manning. Let me use your monthly budget as an analogy. Let's assume that you have $10,000 in debt and $8,000 to put towards it. You have two options - you can divide the $8,000 evenly amongst all of the creditors, or you can allocate more resources to the more important bills and leave the others for later. I don't know about you, but I would go with option two. I would figure out what are the more critical bills (mortgage, utilities, groceries) and pay those at close to 100% to keep a roof over my head and the lights on, and the do the same down the line until the money is gone. Maybe one of my creditors would go without money for the time being, maybe not, we'd have to go through that process to figure it out. In the USAF, we don't have enough people to man everything at 100%, so we are going to have to figure something out using one of those same two options. Considering that we are in an actual shooting war with US troops getting maimed and killed on a nearly daily basis, it is obvious to me that we need to prioritize our manning "spending" to take care of that first - so that means option 2.

Don't take this the wrong way, unless it applies to you, then take it however you want. As long as US soldiers are dying and being injured in ground combat, not a single one of us should think that our job is so important that the world would stop without us - we are supporting the ones on the ground. That's it. Until you are walking down the road wondering if every pile of trash is an IED, every person on the sidewalk is wearing explosives, or every building hiding a sniper - you are not that important to me relatively speaking. If you don't see this mission as the most important, you are beyond help.

Given that we now have a goal, to keep US forces on the ground from being injured or killed, we need to figure out how to spend our capital to best get there. Keep in mind that we also have to be concerned about future wars, but let's forget about that for now. Let's focus solely on how we will keep those soldiers from getting killed or injured.

The first thing to do is prioritize the bills - to figure out what roles have a direct impact on that mission, what roles have an indirect effect on that mission, and what roles have no impact on that mission. For you safety geeks, think "causal". As we do that analysis, we will see that certain jobs are similar to the QB - they have to be ready 100% of the time and when called upon they need to perform at 100%.

Sidenote: this is not to say that every single mission is a mission where the asset needs to be at 100% - sometimes you just CAP/refuel/CAP and go home. What I am saying is that these are the assets that, when that critical situation presents itself, we have a 100% chance of having a 100% qualified manipulator at the controls who can be 100% effective at taking care of 100% of the mission.

These are the assets that have missions where the cost of failure is unbearable and the randomness of these events prevents you from pre-stacking the deck. On these assets, you need to man the controls with your 100% team 100% of the time. Let's use the A-10 as an example: most of the time the A-10 goes out, orbits, gets gas, orbits, repeats, then goes home. No big deal. But, sometimes, the A-10 goes out, orbits, then gets tasked with providing CAS to US or Allied troops in close contact with the enemy who are about to overrun our position. In this case, the cost of failure is unbearable - an overrun position means all US forces killed/injured/or captured (which in some cases is worse than killed). That A-10 needs to be 100% effective on target ID, he needs to be 100% effective on weapons employment, and he needs to be 100% on doing everything within his control to ensure that these US forces are protected. Even though this mission may only occur once every 180 days, if that one time ended in failure the cost would be unbearable. So, despite the low odds of occurence, the cost mandates that you man the controls with your 100% people every time.

Other assets have the luxury of being able to identify these missions ahead of time. Using the C-5 as the example, you usually have at least some notice before the mission is launched what that nature of the mission is. I don't care if it is 1 hour or less, you have some forewarning. An example would be a medevac mission going to a strange field in marginal conditions and requiring extraordinary experience to ensure success. For this type of mission, you have the luxury of stacking the deck and putting the A-team in (IP and AC, senior AC and senior CP, anyone but the squadron CC, etc.). The cost of failure is unbearable, but the advance warning allows us to stack the manning. Because the majority of the missions are not of this time-critical nature, you don't have to man 100% of the sorties with 100% A-team - you can have any qualified crew fly any of these missions because the cost of the mission not being successful is not that great. Most of your missions could slip 24 or more hours with no major detriment to the mission, most of your missions could weather divert with little effect, etc. Therefore, these assets could sustain a different manning model than the first type of asset.

Putting this all together, what does this mean. When we start considering new manning models for the future, we use these priorities when analyzing the potential for any changes. This means we identify those assets that are directly supporting the troops and have to be manned with extra-qualified personnel, and we don't even consider sending them less-than-qualified candidates. Those other assets, the ones with the luxury of forewarning, may be able to sustain the lowering of entry requirements. Those assets that have indirect effects on the mission may even be able to have reduced numbers in manning as they can afford to mx or ops cnx with little to no effect on the primary mission. Those with no effect on the mission can endure even greater cuts, as the mojority of their ops could be eliminated and the effects on the troops would be nil.

Unfortunately, putting this into action, I clearly see ISR (U-28, RC-12, UAS) as one of those assets where that most important mission can pop up without warning and the cost of failure would be unbearable. The UAS is one of those assets where, when the mission that is the difference between our troops living and dying pops up, the crew needs to be 100% capable. 100% capable can only be ensured with 100% experience. 100% experience means anyone except recent UPT grads and non-rated pilots.

This concept is even more critical because there is no supervision in the UAS capsule for the UAS pilot. He is it, when we say we need 100% accomplishment, it is 100% reliant on the UAS operator sitting in the seat at the time. That C-5, on the other hand, has built-in supervision in the form of the AC. As a matter of fact, that brand-new guy could just sit in the seat and do nothing, and the mission would still be accomplished - the rest of the crew would step up. And, since we would have forewarning whether this is one of those critical missions, we could have even left the C-5 new guy back at base.

So, if we are looking to add bodies to the pool just to add bodies to the pool, there are better places to put them. If we need to add non-rated officers to the pool, let's put them in assets such as the C-5 (and other similar crew-served aircraft) where there are others who could take over if required.

Unfortunately, the USAF leadership is not doing this kind of analysis. They are doing exactly what most of the responses on this board look like - "It's not an airplane, so put the new guy there." - end of story.

 

Sputnick stated that many feel that the UAS is not an airplane, but no one has really attempted to articulate why. First of all, I will preface that the important roles of the UAV pilot have less to do with flying and more to do with employment. But, since that is a common perception, here are the stats: The Reaper is bigger / can fly higher / carries more payload / carries more ordnance / and can fly farther than the U-28, the RC-12, the T-1, the C-21, etc. For some reason, a 11,000 lb turboprop powered craft that has a 66' wingspan, flies close to 300 knots, as high as 50,000', carries at least 3,000 lbs of ordnance, and costs as much as $53 million is not an aircraft. I don't get it, but why would you think that? Is it because the pilot is not sitting in the aircraft? It seems to me a pilot is tasked with taking a collection of parts into the atmosphere, accomplishing the task at hand, and getting it back on the ground on in one piece no matter where he sits. No one calls yo a pilot simply because you sit in the front seats, I have seen pictures of FA's in the front seat, but they were still FA's. No, I think you are considered a pilot because you can take an aircraft from the chocks, into the air, and back to the ground safely and consistently regardless of the conditions or situation. If you can do it from a console, you can do it from the cockpit. And, if you can do it from the cockpit, you can do it from a console. Seeing as this $53 million / 11,000 lb aircraft is operating in the same atmosphere and using the same physics as "real" aircraft, operating at the same speed as "real" aircraft, operating higher than "real" aircraft, and carrying more bombs than most "real" aircraft - why would the judgement, decision-making skills and hand-eye coordination requirements of the operator be any different than those of a "real" aircraft. Is it the automation - and is the automation any different than any of our current airliners?

Everyone is quick to say that it would be easy to train a non-rated officer to be a UAV pilot, but what about a generic air-land heavy pilot?

For example, why do we need the UPT grad swinging the gear handle on a C-5? What does the C-5 copilot do that we can't teach to a non-rated officer? He isn't a decision-maker, just a control manipulator (a UAS pilot is a decision-maker). Can't we teach a guy how to hand fly, run the automation, work the radios, etc in the sim and let him move over to the airplane? It isn't like he'd be on his own, he would be under the direct supervision of an AC, IP, or EP. Heck, give him some additional sim training and enough time watching the AC do his thing, and he'll be ready for the left seat after a while. Why not? What difference does it make if he is in a real airplane or a sim - it isn't like they pull a lot of g's or go over 30 degrees of bank - if he can fly MS Flight Sim, he can fly a C-5. Not comfortable with moving him to the left seat - just make the non-rated guy a permanent copilot. For AC, we can put the UPT grad straight into that seat. What decisions do a C-5 AC have to make that a UPT grad hasn't already made? If there are any, just cover those in training and he'd be good to go. It's just Pt A to Pt B, not like he'd have to do anything such as AR or touch-and-goes, we'll save those for the IP's (the UPT grads who were AC's first). It is possible, isn't it. Of course it is. Chances are, as long as nothing went wrong, you'd never notice the difference. The fact is, whatever argument you use for putting non-rated officers in UAV's can be used for putting them in C-5's - probably even more effectively. Hands-off Cat III with rollout, any non-rated officer can sit through one of those - and it is probably cheaper to install a certified Cat III system in the C-5 than it is to put all of those pilots through UPT.

The C-5 pilot force consists of evaluators, instructors, aircraft commanders, and copilots. Brand new copilots get qualified by the instructors and evaluators, then they go fly real-world missions. But, do you trust them to make real-world decisions? No, of course you don't. You watch them when they touch the flap handle and you keep your hands very close to the control column and throttles as they land. When a decision has to made, you ask them what they think and then tell them what we will do. Over time, they gain experience. They are exposed to various scenarios for the first time, they watch how the AC/IP/EP handles it and they log it away for future use. Every once in a while you may let them actually make a decision, but you are always ready to override if required. And you never quite trust them completely, it's not like you'll ever let them do receiver AR or let them do touch-and-goes or anything like that. Then, after 18 months or 2 years or whatever, you decide they are ready to go through training all over again. Then they fly with IP's and EP's once more and you finally decide that they have earned the AC stamp. Then they go fly the missions from the left seat - 2 years or more to become a decision-maker, but they finally made it. But, here comes that one mission. It looks tough - going to some strange fields in Africa or somewhere in a non-radar environment at night, and it's a HHQ directed mission so we can expect some oversight. Hey, I know, let's send that brand new AC with a relatively new CP and throw in an engineer and loadmaster crew consisting of nothing but people right out of basic training. You are going to do that, aren't you? Wait, you aren't willing to send a guy who has: been through a year of UPT, sat in the right seat for 2 years watching how to make decisions, had 2 years of practice manipulating the controls under direct supervision, and been through another entire training program? Besides, he'll have another UPT and RTU trained pilot sitting in the right seat. Still not going to do it? But you will put a non-rated guy in a UAS?

Let's look at the progression of a UAS pilot. He goes through training with IP's, get's a checkride from an EP, then commands combat missions as the sole pilot. Oh look, combat missions right out of training with no supervision. I know, let's put a brand new UPT grad or even a non-rated person in that seat. Did I mention that the sensor operator and intel specialists are right out of basic training? Yeah, that makes sense. But, it's OK, they are not actually in the aircraft, so everything's different. If they make a bad call it isn't like those "troops on the ground" will be in any danger from an unseen enemy that would have been otherwise detected or destroyed. If they make a bad call, it isn't like a bad guy will get away and live to detonate another IED under a vehicle occupied by US troops. If they make a bad call, it isn't like there could be a chance of fratricide. Actually, all of these things could happen. But I am sure they won't. Put him in there and let him learn on the job - did I mention the no supervision part? What are the chances that a UAS pilot would be exposed to a scenario that was not covered in training and would have to make a split-second decision based on his not so vast bank of knowledge and experience? Did I mention that there is no supervision sitting next to him?

This is a bit extreme, but all of the arguments for putting the new guy into the UAS can be used to support putting the new guy into any aircraft out there. Everyone feels that THEIR MWS can't be robbed of the experience, but some other one can. Unfortunately, no one has attempted to explain why. Now, on this board that is harmless - what we say doesn't mean a thing in the real world. The sad part is that our leadership hasn't done much better. You can think that a UAS is not an aircraft and does not require a rated pilot - but I doubt you could articulate an argument for putting non-rated personnel in the UAS where we couldn't replace the word UAS with your MWS and still have just as effective an argument.

Want proof on how little our current leadership is thinking on this. Read the article at the back of the current Combat Aircraft magazine about LtGen Deptula. In it he attempts to articulate the need for rated pilots in the UAS, but he only talks about flying it through airspace. Our number one Gen in charge of ISR, and he can't even bring up employment when discussing the need for rated officers (when employment is the only reason UAS needs rated pilots).

 

I can't wait for the day I go to an airshow and the Thunderbirds UAV trailer is parked right next to the Blue Angles trailer. That will definitely save some money. Thankfully there will always be some rich guy out there willing to pay for the expense of keeping a real live pilot in the front of his airplane.

 

That is awesome. However, if you are in the Navy or USMC, a UAV assignment is coming to you quicker than you think. In fact, I know of a unit that is losing their airplanes to picking up UAVs. I will not comment on the specifics because of the mission they do and the fact that UAVs are now involved.

-Fatty