UAVS Flown by NON-PILOTS

[Eclipse]

Who are we "dog-fighting"?

[notaNCO forever]

Who are we "dog-fighting"?

poodles

[DG]

Who are we "dog-fighting"?

Are you saying we never again will see air to air combat?

[lordmonar]

After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.

Yet. 

[Eclipse]

Who are we "dog-fighting"?

Are you saying we never again will see air to air combat?

I'm saying that the likely hood of it becomes increasingly slim as the weapons get more sophisticated.  There are very few countries left that are our adversary that also have an aerial capability to challenge us.

That doesn't mean never, that mean less likely - and we can't continue to pay for every possible scenario that might occur.  And at some point the UAV's will become capable of air-to-air (assuming they aren't already).  Immersive VR environments that put the "pilot" in the "cockpit" while still on the ground will provide 360° views as if they were there (assuming we're not wet-wired into the controls by then).

If you accept the statement that the "last fighter pilot has been born", that's still a 20-40+ year stretch of manned flying, just in decreasing numbers, especially for combat aircraft.

Imagine what tech will be like in 40 years.

[stratoflyer]

^Definitely not good recruiting rhetoric.

[Eclipse]

AFB Had this today, funny:  http://www.afblues.com/comics/uav-baby.wmv

[heliodoc]

UAV life MAY not be as happy as one would think right now

look at DefenseNews.mht

[DG]

"Schwartz also explained how the "insatiable" demand for Predator and Reaper missions over Iraq and Afghanistan has led to the need for more UAV pilots.

The Air Force will immediately start taking pilots straight from undergraduate pilot training while also setting up a new career track for UAV pilots to fill that need, Schwartz said.

In the near term the Air Force will start sending UPT graduates straight to fly UAVs during their first tour. One hundred pilots will be selected each year for as many years as this type of need remains, Schwartz said.

Air Force officials said last week these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour, which will last three to four years.

Starting in January, a group of 10 active duty officers - not pilots - will be the first to test if the Air Force could develop a pipeline of pilots that would fly only UAVs during their careers."

[NC Hokie]

In the near term the Air Force will start sending UPT graduates straight to fly UAVs during their first tour. One hundred pilots will be selected each year for as many years as this type of need remains, Schwartz said.

Air Force officials said last week these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour, which will last three to four years.

I'm not a pilot but this has to be a BAD thing for those 'lucky' enough to get slotted into UAVs.  Three to four years of essentially playing a video game is sure to degrade their actual piloting skills (situational awareness, etc.), to say nothing of the effect it will have on their ability to withstand the physical aspects of manned flight ops.  I wouldn't be surprised if some of these pilots never make the transition back to manned flying.  This would have a negative effect on morale, add even more stress to UPT, and ultimately result in wasting valuable training dollars on pilots that will never be fully utilized.

Methinks they'd better get the UAV-only program spun up post haste!

[desertengineer1]

Interesting analysis.  Wrong on almost every count.

OK, just for an "I told you so" moment - the application rules have been released.  Here's what was reported in the local base paper regarding non-pilot applications:

1.  Completion of Basic Aviation Skills (TBAS) test.

2.  Captains with 4-6 years of Total Active Federal Commissioned Service as of 5 Jan 2009.

3.  NOT a current pilot (umm... duh)

4.  Combat System Officers, Panel Navigators, EWO, WSO [I assume this means only these can apply?]

5.  Officers and ABM's are eligible to compete if they are not currently in training, awaiting training, or previously eliminated from UPT.

6.  Non-rated line officers are eligible [How nice of them to consider non-flyers... LOL!]

7.  Be less than 30 years old Jan 5, 2009.

8.  AFQT minimum score of Pilot greater than 25, Navigator greater than 50 (if no AFQT, complete AFQT by Oct 31, 2008)

9.  Two years time on station by July 1, 2009.

10. No previous military pilot training experience.

__________________________________________________________

My analysis..  I TOLD YOU SO...

If you go down the list, particularly concentrating on 2, 4, 7, and 9, as an all-inclusive set of requirements, essentially NO non-flying officers qualify.  Even throwing out the Navigator/EWO/WSO requirement, you will NOT find very many officers with 2,5,7, and 9. 

The application criteria, IMHO, eliminates almost all non-flying officers not qualified for eventual UPT competition in the first place (reference my original post). 

I've been doing this for about 20 years now.  It's going to be a long time before the pilot circle is broken.

Spacing - MIKE

[lordmonar]

Interesting analysis.  Wrong on almost every count.

OK, just for an "I told you so" moment - the application rules have been released.  Here's what was reported in the local base paper regarding non-pilot applications:

1.  Completion of Basic Aviation Skills (TBAS) test.

2.  Captains with 4-6 years of Total Active Federal Commissioned Service as of 5 Jan 2009.

3.  NOT a current pilot (umm... duh)

4.  Combat System Officers, Panel Navigators, EWO, WSO [I assume this means only these can apply?]

5.  Officers and ABM's are eligible to compete if they are not currently in training, awaiting training, or previously eliminated from UPT.

6.  Non-rated line officers are eligible [How nice of them to consider non-flyers... LOL!]

7.  Be less than 30 years old Jan 5, 2009.

8.  AFQT minimum score of Pilot greater than 25, Navigator greater than 50 (if no AFQT, complete AFQT by Oct 31, 2008)

9.  Two years time on station by July 1, 2009.

10. No previous military pilot training experience.

__________________________________________________________

My analysis..  I TOLD YOU SO...

If you go down the list, particularly concentrating on 2, 4, 7, and 9, as an all-inclusive set of requirements, essentially NO non-flying officers qualify.  Even throwing out the Navigator/EWO/WSO requirement, you will NOT find very many officers with 2,5,7, and 9. 

The application criteria, IMHO, eliminates almost all non-flying officers not qualified for eventual UPT competition in the first place (reference my original post). 

I've been doing this for about 20 years now.  It's going to be a long time before the pilot circle is broken.

Spacing - MIKE

I don't think you are reading those rules right.

[wingnut55]

The Canadians are using UAVs for search and rescue now, this year in their annual exercise they simulated finding a downed pilot in the woods, and the dummy pilot was a member of the Parliment (Smart move)
They are moving full bore

[PHall]

The Canadians are using UAVs for search and rescue now, this year in their annual exercise they simulated finding a downed pilot in the woods, and the dummy pilot was a member of the Parliment (Smart move)
They are moving full bore

Apples and oranges....

The FAA will not allow UAV's to fly in unrestricted airspace without an escort.
The Canadians don't seem to have that problem, at least not out in the bush.

Get the FAA to allow UAV's to fly anywhere unescorted and the use of UAV's for SAR in CONUS will be feasible.

[wingnut55]

TFRs are often used around a Disaster area, and UAVs have been flown over that area, the UAV does not have to be a global hawk in size, UAVs (And there are thousands). I know the FAA policy, however the FAA is a very political organization, driven by politics of big business, We are not, nor is General Aviation, look at the cost of Av gas (no reason for av gas to be $6.00) GA has little voice in congress. CAP has little voice in the Pentagon, Military officers still see us as the little kids dressed up in Halloween soldier costumes parking cars.

[Mustang]

I don't see how they can replace "real" pilots in dogfights.

After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.

Aerial combat and the Thunderbirds' demo routine have next to nothing in common.

[DG]

Aerial combat and the Thunderbirds' demo routine have next to nothing in common.

Wrong.  They have everything in common.

Both are hand flown.  Can not use an autopilot.

[Eclipse]

I don't see how they can replace "real" pilots in dogfights.

After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.

Aerial combat and the Thunderbirds' demo routine have next to nothing in common.

Both are increasingly irrelevant in today's threat spectrum?

[DG]

Both are increasingly irrelevant in today's threat spectrum?

Particularly if your interest lies in IT.

And not in flying skill.

[LoyalNine]

Its my first post here at CAP Talk and I am very new member of The Civil Air Patrol (NOT SURE IF THE INK IS YET DRY ON MY MEMBERSHIP CARD) but I would like to contribute to this conversation.

I believe UAV's are absolutely the future of combat aviation.  Any current fighter/attack aircraft is capable of FAR more than the any pilot. Many of us (me certainly included) enjoy the romantic notion of an actual human being at the controls but it's likely not the future.   

If the same mission can be accomplished with the same or greater probability of success (along with less risk to a service members life) then please tell me the reason for taking that risk.  The fact is that combat aviation is (theoretically) a job that can be done with a UAV.  These are no robots in the sky. They still have a human being at the other end who ultimately needs to pull the trigger.  Imagine going against something that was completely unmanned -- It would be near impossible to win an air to air engagement.  (ever try to beat a computer chess machine set to expert mode?)   Situation awareness is an issue that could be dealt with not only with technology but with more manpower per mission (i.e. split the duties between say 3 pilots instead of one).   

A UAV in combat ops could pull G's and perform maneuvers that would tear the intestines out of a human inside the cockpit.  It is an issue that really does need to be looked at critically.  I sincerely hope that those command level types that will make the decisions on this issue in the future do not dismiss it because it breaks with tradition.

We must remember that though combat aviation is cool, it is generally a support role.  It takes boots on the ground to take and secure an area.  Therefore it would be impossible to have a platoon of "Unmanned Rifleman" secure an small village and then provide medical care to those that live there.  A combat air patrol or AG mission could be done without hesitation given the technology.

If I was in UPT I might be a bit nervous about pulling that duty too... but what are ya gonna do?? Time marches on.  I bet those cavalry types were really ticked off when they decided to actually take their horses away many years ago.

Its probably about time sell your stock in the company that makes piddle packs.