USAF UAV pilot delusional...

Mach.12 said:
#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.
Click to expand...

Could be wrong.. but I think Hacker's main point was that there is a trend towards not being high on the totem pole in the near future. Lots of hours on already old airframes with a realistically insufficient resupply. All of the 4th Gen stuff is getting pretty old and the IADS are getting more proliferated and capable, not to mention the whole cyber / electronic warfare aspect - we're not the only country that has smart nerds and computers. Our own success in air dominance will probably be our Achilles' Heel.
 
Mach.12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Package Q strike in Desert Storm. I believe this video is from that strike.
 
ryan1234 said:
Could be wrong.. but I think Hacker's main point was that there is a trend towards not being high on the totem pole in the near future. Lots of hours on already old airframes with a realistically insufficient resupply. All of the 4th Gen stuff is getting pretty old and the IADS are getting more proliferated and capable, not to mention the whole cyber / electronic warfare aspect - we're not the only country that has smart nerds and computers. Our own success in air dominance will probably be our Achilles' Heel.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then I agree. I hope I didn't imply I thought we were across a finish line here and can rest on our laurels because what makes the Air Force what it is is the training and technical development.

But right now, there is not a country that can match our ability to control the air...Pakistan, India and China could certainly be difficult if we went to war with them, but not insurmountable. Particularly when you couple in our land strike ability from naval platforms.

Any of the smaller countries can score some hits...like in Libya, the Balkans, Iraq...but nothing that would cause us to lose the initiative.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Yeah, you've made it clear that you believe this. I'm trying to figure out why.
Click to expand...

Well, I read a lot to try and stay abreast of enemy (or potential enemy) developments and I've seen and worked with a lot of foreign militaries. Not sure what you're looking for here...are you wanting me to cite a source or study? I don't have one. This is my opinion based on observations and personal professional development.
 
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).

.
Click to expand...

Not high tech indeed, but just as lethal. Though the Roland is itself somewhat of a bad mamma-jamma, which I know you know. Ironic thing is, in the F-22 thread a month or so back, I listed our aircraft losses since about the mid-80s til now, and of all that were SAM kills, all were from old-school, low tech SAM systems.
 
Mach.12 said:
Well, I read a lot to try and stay abreast of enemy (or potential enemy) developments and I've seen and worked with a lot of foreign militaries. Not sure what you're looking for here...are you wanting me to cite a source or study? I don't have one. This is my opinion based on observations and personal professional development.
Click to expand...

Just realize that there are other career military officers on here who also have extensive experience in the areas in which we post. I generally try and keep my comments to areas in which I actually have specific knowledge and expertise.
 
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...

Well, Hacker has schooled you already and in addition, there are hazards associated with actual flight that a UAV driver does not face. Bad weather, mechanical issues are two that come to mind. The threat from the enemy has become less for obvious reasons but any even if a little threat, UAV drivers don't face it and never will.
 
I'm not sure I even understand what the debate is, here. Claiming that a UAV pilot faces the same level of risk that an actual combat flight pilot does is akin to saying that someone 'flying' a flight sim faces the same risk levels that someone pushing real iron does. Which, coming from pretty much anyone's perspective, whether they have combat experience, flight experience, or experience doing a 'bunch of research,' is preposterous.

Based on the dangers inherent to actual flight alone, UAV pilots have nothing on pilots that actually take to the skies. In fact, part of me struggles to call them actual pilots, much the same way I would not call an armchair flight simmer a pilot. I get that there are differences in training there, obviously... but, come on. Actual flight versus armchair flight? Not even a fair comparison.
 
bunk22 said:
Well, Hacker has schooled you already and in addition, there are hazards associated with actual flight that a UAV driver does not face. Bad weather, mechanical issues are two that come to mind. The threat from the enemy has become less for obvious reasons but any even if a little threat, UAV drivers don't face it and never will.
Click to expand...

yeah, I agree with that...not only the issue inherent with flying but also those inherent with being in such an environment. Like being accidentally shot at the clearing barrel.
 
Hacker15e said:
Just realize that there are other career military officers on here who also have extensive experience in the areas in which we post. I generally try and keep my comments to areas in which I actually have specific knowledge and expertise.
Click to expand...


got it...like I said, pure opinion. I probably should've put that as a caveat at the beginning of the conversation. My perspective is not only academic in terms of technical capabilities (and limited to open info), but very general in terms of tactical capabilities of foriegn services. My apologies if I led anyone to think I'm an expert.
 
Good discussion to keep going, all around. Having done both gigs, there are strengths and limitations to each. Some of it open source, some of it not.

The overall discussion.....I agree that right now, the US can still maintain air superiority over any number of foes, however that edge we maintain constantly erodes as:

1. Other nations continuously develop surface and air threats to counter us, and

2. The fact that the wars we have fought post-Vietnam/Desert Storm, haven't tested us in terms of the heavy integrated air defense system that we faced in the aforementioned ones. Consider that during the Cold War, had the Europe scenario kicked off, that A-10 pilots were expecting a 30 second or so survival time above 100' AGL, a max of about 2 sorties average before going down, and not returning to the base you initally launched from....as it wouldn't be there when you got back, if you got back.
 
MikeD said:
...Some of it open source, some of it not....
Click to expand...
[off-topic] I've always been curious how people with security clearances know when they can finally talk about "stuff"...do you get a memo telling you when something is no longer classified?
[/o-t]
 
SteveC said:
[off-topic] I've always been curious how people with security clearances know when they can finally talk about "stuff"...do you get a memo telling you when something is no longer classified?
[/o-t]
Click to expand...

In general, the answer is "never". Different levels of classification have different criteria for declassification, but personnel are never notified when a topic they've previously signed a non-disclosure agreement about has been declassified.
 
Mach.12 said:
yeah, I agree with that...not only the issue inherent with flying but also those inherent with being in such an environment. Like being accidentally shot at the clearing barrel.
Click to expand...

Actually, they could get shot/injured/etc at their own base or get in a car accident on the way home. At least they don't have to face the hazards of flying or being in country...but some certainly like getting those awards for that.
 
bunk22 said:
Actually, they could get shot/injured/etc at their own base or get in a car accident on the way home. At least they don't have to face the hazards of flying or being in country...but some certainly like getting those awards for that.
Click to expand...

With the exception of launch and recovery crews, but even they don't leave the main base. But they are at least in country.
 
Hacker15e said:
Quite an active thread on that over at BaseOps, along with a blogger who was a fellow AC-130 and RPA pilot with the author. I think you'll find that this author's opinion isn't widely agreed with.

Baseops:

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forum...ts-we-dont-get-no-respect/page__fromsearch__1

Blog:

http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2012/05/dave-blair-ten-thousand-feet-and-ten.html
Click to expand...

Skimmed the article, and the guy makes some valid points. I would say the likelihood of losing your aircraft, and possibly your life due to combat related activities is pretty small. We lose aircraft and airmen to training accidents all the time, but when was the last time we lost an aircraft to someone shooting at it? I honestly can't remember the last time.

These days, anyone can get killed in a domestic terrorist attack. At least the manned aircraft community has the ability to avoid, and shoot back. Not so for a UAV operator. He can be sitting at his workstation, and BOOM; never even knew what hit him. Probably a small risk, but a risk nonetheless.lty

And, I love how the "real" pilots talk about their sacrifices and time away from home, as though they didn't know that was part of the deal, and that they hadn't volunteered for it.
 
O&M said:
Skimmed the article, and the guy makes some valid points. I would say the likelihood of losing your aircraft, and possibly your life due to combat related activities is pretty small. We lose aircraft and airmen to training accidents all the time, but when was the last time we lost an aircraft to someone shooting at it? I honestly can't remember the last time.

These days, anyone can get killed in a domestic terrorist attack. At least the manned aircraft community has the ability to avoid, and shoot back. Not so for a UAV operator. He can be sitting at his workstation, and BOOM; never even knew what hit him. Probably a small risk, but a risk nonetheless.lty

And, I love how the "real" pilots talk about their sacrifices and time away from home, as though they didn't know that was part of the deal, and that they hadn't volunteered for it.
Click to expand...

The whole discussion is full of hurt vaginas all around.
 
MikeD said:
With the exception of launch and recovery crews, but even they don't leave the main base. But they are at least in country.
Click to expand...

True. A very good buddy of mine is a UAV driver...or RPA?? I forget now. We were commissioned together, he flew CH-46's with the Navy then switched USAF in 2003. He is a least a realistic guy who understands what they are what they are not.
 
Couple more thoughts on this. It seems to me that tthe author was simply advocating for his profession and his community; he was not impugning manned aircraft operations. However, the manned aircraft community felt the need to lay the smack down on the author. Insecure much?

Secondly, this whole debate reminds me of the regional vs. mainline debate; which are the "real" pilot? If you want respect, you'd better give some.

Finally, it seems to me that the UAV/RPA is the future of military aviation. The day may come when UAV guys outnumber manned aircraft (kind like the regional vs. mainline scenario). If that happens, well, what goes around comes around. Again, if you want respect, give respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top