USAF UAV pilot delusional...

Would you say that about our missle commanders? Or the guy who fires off a tomahawk missle? If you're pressing a button that is going to result in the deaths of a few or many people, does it really matter if you're actually sitting in an airplane when you do it?
 
O&M said:
Would you say that about our missle commanders? Or the guy who fires off a tomahawk missle? If you're pressing a button that is going to result in the deaths of a few or many people, does it really matter if you're actually sitting in an airplane when you do it?
Click to expand...
I started writing, but I'll let the experts chime in on this one...
 
O&M said:
Would you say that about our missle commanders? Or the guy who fires off a tomahawk missle? If you're pressing a button that is going to result in the deaths of a few or many people, does it really matter if you're actually sitting in an airplane when you do it?
Click to expand...

Say what about them?
 
bunk22 said:
According to this article, he feels that UAV operators face some of the same dangers as manned aircraft in hostile airspace.
Click to expand...

Which is to say, neither of them face much (if any) danger from the enemy....at least not fast movers in our current conflicts.
 
Mach.12 said:
Which is to say, neither of them face much (if any) danger from the enemy....at least not fast movers in our current conflicts.
Click to expand...
enemy or not, my question lays with this simple thought: What risk is the operator under when there is a malfunction or emergency situation. If the answer is nothing greater than an ass chewing, your level of risk is not at the same level as aircrew inside the actual aircraft.
 
Mach.12 said:
Which is to say, neither of them face much (if any) danger from the enemy....at least not fast movers in our current conflicts.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to show you my SAM and AAA threat reaction videos from OIF if you really think that there has been zero danger to fighters in "our current conflicts". Certainly there was a butt-load of AAA and SAMs during the initial invasion in 2003.
 
Getzen2 said:
enemy or not, my question lays with this simple thought: What risk is the operator under when there is a malfunction or emergency situation. If the answer is nothing greater than an ass chewing, your level of risk is not at the same level as aircrew inside the actual aircraft.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think the notion of UAV dudes being somehow on par in terms of danger with guys in theater is silly. As pointed out by a previous post, UAV guys have zero chance of being taken prisoner, killed in a shoot down or crash or any of the other hundreds of unlucky variables associated with simply operating in a combat environment...like taking an RPG walking to the chow hall.
 
Hacker15e said:
I'd be happy to show you my SAM and AAA threat reaction videos from OIF if you really think that there has been zero danger to fighters in "our current conflicts". Certainly there was a butt-load of AAA and SAMs during the initial invasion in 2003.
Click to expand...

I think speaks volums of the AF's technical and tactical abilities that there is not threat. If the Army did that, we'd call it victory. And I know that low threat is not always the case, but right now there is nothing our enemies on the entire globe can do to make a serious dent in our ability to project air power...they just can't do it and that is a great thing.

Beating the crap out of people to the point they aren't willing to fight is a good thing.
 
Mach.12 said:
I think speaks volums of the AF's technical and tactical abilities that there is not threat. If the Army did that, we'd call it victory. And I know that low threat is not always the case, but right now there is nothing our enemies on the entire globe can do to make a serious dent in our ability to project air power...they just can't do it and that is a great thing.

Beating the crap out of people to the point they aren't willing to fight is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the fact that I posted I was nearly shot down while flying an F-15E by a SAM in Iraq in 2003? How can you interpret that as meaning "there is not a threat"?

And it wasn't even that high tech of a SAM (a Roland III).

Clearly, the surface-to-air threat after the initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been insignificant, but don't completely marginalize what folks flew into during March and April of '03. I have buddies under headstones at Arlington from that period flying in "no threat".

For the record, there ARE systems "on the entire globe" that can "make a serious dent". There are also countries that have the numbers and means to use them in a way that could seriously hurt US military power. Check out the Cope India reports for evidence enough of that. If you have vault access, go check out the capes of the double-digit ex-Soviet SAMs, or check out the capes of the Su-27/30/35 series of fighters. Compare those capes to the vast majority of the USAF fleet. Maybe your view from ground level is different than the view from 30,000 feet, though.

Stroking ourselves off and telling ourselves we're the greatest power in the world and cannot be contested doesn't serve anyone's goals except for our potential enemies.
 
Hacker15e said:
Did you miss the fact that I posted I was nearly shot down while flying an F-15E by a SAM in Iraq in 2003? How can you interpret that as meaning "there is not a threat"?

And it wasn't even that high tech of a SAM (a Roland III).

For the record, there ARE systems "on the entire globe" that can "make a serious dent". There are also countries that have the numbers and means to use them in a way that could seriously hurt US military power. Stroking ourselves off and telling ourselves we're the greatest power in the world and cannot be contested doesn't serve anyone's goals except for our potential enemies.
Click to expand...


I got it. There are threats out there to fast movers (none in Afghanistan or Iraq, though). I understand there is an ability to shoot planes down on a limited basis, but there is not a country that can prevent us...our combat aviation forces...from gaining air dominance. Knowing that and proclaiming that are EXACTLY why be are not challenged. Since when did deterrence become "stroking" and serving the enemy? Its what won the Cold War for goodness sake. At the tactical level, that's the whole premise behind H&I fires and show of force passes...which work great, by the way.

Can you name an engagement since Vietnam that the Air Force (or Navy/Marine) fixed wing community lost more than one plane within a 24 hour time period due to enemy action? How about even a week? Maybe GW1? When is the last time a formation went below what we call in the Army, minimum force requirements?

I'm not saying flying fighters and attack planes is not greatly appreciated and useful, but to say that right now it is dangerous (in the context of enemy activity) is simply not true and that is a testament to the technical and tactical abilities of the Air Force.
 
Mach.12 said:
Can you name an engagement since Vietnam that the Air Force (or Navy/Marine) fixed wing community lost more than one plane within a 24 hour time period due to enemy action?
Click to expand...

I'm missing the causal link between the Armed Forces performance since Vietnam and the notion that

"but there is not a country that can prevent us...our combat aviation forces...from gaining air dominance."

I mean, I suppose we can scratch Iraq and Afghanistan off the list, but by my count, that leaves 193 other contenders.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I'm missing the causal link between the Armed Forces performance since Vietnam and the notion that

"but there is not a country that can prevent us...our combat aviation forces...from gaining air dominance."

I mean, I suppose we can scratch Iraq and Afghanistan off the list, but by my count, that leaves 193 other contenders.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one. Two different points from the conversation from Hacker. My arguments are that

#1 just like drone pilots, there is no credible enemy threat to piloted fixed wing a/c in Afghanistan much less Iraq which I don't even think we're authorized CAPs there.

#2. In terms of big picture air domination, there is not a country on earth that can deter the Air Force from gaining and maintaining operational access to facilitate a ground campaign. That is demonstrated by the fact that since Vietnam, I don't think there has been an enemy engagement that has resulted in the loss of more than one fixed wing attack or fighter plane or enemy action that led to an element not being able to continue its mission due to battle damage.

Yes, there are countries that can shoot down our planes, but not enough to stop our momentum. The Air Forces technical and tactical abilities are too good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top