Contractors, UAVs, and the future of war...
01-01-2012, 05:59 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 333
Contractors, UAVs, and the future of war...
01-02-2012, 02:23 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
"Our No. 1 manning problem in the Air Force is manning our unmanned platforms," said Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, Air Force vice chief of staff. Without civilian contractors, U.S. drone operations would grind to a halt. About 168 people are needed to keep a single Predator aloft for 24 hours, according to the Air Force. The larger Global Hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people. In contrast, an F-16 fighter aircraft needs fewer than 100 people per mission.
Read more here: Contractors' role grows in drone missions, worrying some in the military | McClatchy
Read more here: Contractors' role grows in drone missions, worrying some in the military | McClatchy
01-02-2012, 12:18 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
The name was changed from UAV to RPA to reflect a personnel requirement.
Those numbers are apples and oranges. To keep one Pred up for one 24hr period takes no more 20 people including operators, mx, comm, etc. RPA numbers that are often quoted are total squadron manning that is calculated on a per CAP basis, similar to a crew per aircraft ratio. Given the higher mx costs, etc, the personnel cost to get 24 hrs of F-16 coverage would be much higher than that of RPA.
Those numbers are apples and oranges. To keep one Pred up for one 24hr period takes no more 20 people including operators, mx, comm, etc. RPA numbers that are often quoted are total squadron manning that is calculated on a per CAP basis, similar to a crew per aircraft ratio. Given the higher mx costs, etc, the personnel cost to get 24 hrs of F-16 coverage would be much higher than that of RPA.
01-02-2012, 12:39 PM
#6
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Gen Breedlove is simply trying to justify more funding. How much manpower is required for 24 hours of F-16 coverage? Take his F-16 sortie and multiply it several times over, which would then dwarf the UAV numbers, thereby justifying budget cuts. I agree, it's 'apples and oranges'.
01-02-2012, 03:30 PM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by sandy69
Mabey they should let enlisted people fly the drones, no need to pay an officer to do what most 16 year olds can already do.
How many sixteen years have authority to launch missiles on unsuspecting targets...who had better not turn out to be innocent bystanders.
In many cases we use officers to do jobs where the skill itself is not that hard but the ramifications of screwing up are large...junior officers generally have better judgement and perspective, and more to lose, than junior enlisted.
