AF wastes money doing missions CAP can do at little cost

[CAPPAO]

This story in the Sherevport Times has me scratching my head.

Why would the USAF be proud of the fact that very expensive bombers were used to take pictures of disaster areas when CAP can do it for so much less cost to the taxpayers?

Once again, when it comes to keeping our parent organization briefed about our capabilities, apparently not everyone gets the memo.

In fact, according to CAP, we offer our clients:

1. Aerial imaging with ability to quickly transmit high resolution digital photos within minutes. Have ability to contact aircraft to re-task or request different photo orientation.

2. Able to perform aerial reconnaissance of critical infrastructure such as power plants, gas pipelines, and reservoirs.

3. Can accomplish missions at a fraction of the cost of other agencies. Members are volunteers who are reimbursed only for expenses.

4. 100+ Satellite-Transmitted Digital Imaging Systems (SDIS) used to transmit still-frame digital pictures in near real time. Can also communicate directly with these aircraft from almost anywhere.

5. Typically $120 - $160 per hour of flight time, depending on aircraft used.

Anyway, read the aricle below and tell me that as a CAP member and taxpayer you aren't annoyed. (well, everyone but Sparky Carales in Texas will be. He's never annoyed when CAP is passed over for a mission that is perfectly suited to our resources!)



B-52s fly search-and-rescue missions after hurricanes
September 24, 2008

B-52 bombers at Barksdale Air Force Base put surveillance advancements to good and peaceful use in a pair of missions flown last week.

The sorties were "an effort to gather both high resolution digital imagery and full motion video of the destruction left in the wake of Hurricane Ike," states a release from the 917th Wing, the Air Force Reserve unit at the base.

The Wing's 93rd Bomb Squadron provided one of the crews, with the other supplied by the 96th Bomb Squadron of the active-duty 2nd Bomb Wing.

"This is the first specialized use of the B-52 in a strictly humanitarian role as a search-and-rescue platform using advanced forward-looking infrared and visible light video recording equipment," the release states. "Both missions took more than 700 images of oil platforms, oil tankers and the shoreline infrastructures along the coast between Galveston and Houston."

The missions also gathered more than two hours of full-motion video of the destruction, current flood area and routes suitable for emergency recovery crews to get in and out of the affected area, which should help agencies and teams trying to provide aid to the stricken area.

"Barksdale B-52s and aircrew from both the 917th Wing and 2d Bomb Wing have been on intermittent alert for a potential search-and-rescue application since Hurricane Gustav," the release said. "These two flights were considered a test of the concept of operation for future use of the B-52 in a more expanded role in assisting with rescue efforts on land and at sea."

[LtCol White]

There are many cases that can be made to justify these flights so I don't think it is appropriate to say that USAF is wasting money on this.

Depending on weather conditions, CAP aircraft cannot fly. The B-52 is unaffected by this. CAP does not fly over water missions out to oil rigs. The B-52 can accomplish the mission MUCH faster than a CAP aircraft so the urgency of the info plays a role in who does it. As the article states, this was also a feasibilty test by USAF for this use of the B-52.

There were CAP aircraft flying damage missions after the storm so you can't say B-52s did it all and CAP sat on the ground.

[heliodoc]

^^^

Hard to argue..

How about AF proficiency flights???  Would you rather have aircrews Stateside, parking it??

[Flying Pig]

I would agree the B-52 is a rather large SAR platform....however, their optics and imaging capability is unbelievable and nothing CAP has even compares.  The equipment I have on my C206 at work leaves CAP in the dust.  Im not annoyed.

Here is what most people dont understand.  Those B-52's fly ANYWAY.  The pilots are still being paid the same amount whether they fly or not, the fuel for those bombers is bought in hundreds of thousands of gallons at a time in bulk.  The pilots train, they do proficiency flying etc.  Im sure they spent a few hours doing their mission and headed back.  I dont think they broke the bank doing it. This time, they were able to get some time in and did something useful for a stateside mission and it made the base a valuable asset to the community during a peacetime mission.

As far as Maj. Carrales?  I dont think Ive ever read anything about him being happy about CAP being passed over for anything.

[CAPPAO]

What I understand as a taxpayer is that the B-52s cost approximately $25,000 per flight hour to operate and that CAP flights cost only $120 to $160 per flight hour.

What I understand as a CAP member is that while the USAF is trying to come up with creative new reasons -- like taking images of disaster areas -- to justify keeping and maintaining their B-52s, our SDIS system is more than adequate to do the same task and is already paid for.

Bottom line is that when assistance is needed, the USAF would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to do something CAP already knows how to do at little cost.

What a waste for everyone.

PS to Flying Pig: Thanks for sticking up for Sparky. Now I know he has a least one friend.

[G+10]

I have to disagree. What Flying Pig and Helidoc said about training flights is spot on. Those guys would have been shooting instrument approaches, flying low level, what have you. As a taxpayer those flight hours are a sunk cost.

John

[davedove]

Exactly, the pilots need their flight hours.  This time, instead of just going up and flying around for a while, they actually did something useful.

In this case, getting CAP to do the mission would actually cost more because you would have the cost of the training flight plus the CAP flight.

[a2capt]

.. yup. They fly anyway, so why not use the opportunity to do something *different* ..

At least they're probably well aware of their onboard armaments at this point..

A friend that flew A-6's told me of all the 'antics' in training, such as locking on to cars on the desert interstate stretches, tracking them for 'targeting' practice, etc. Wanna visit someone across the country? See if the airport has flight support for your aircraft type- accomplish your 'mission' and go visit someplace for an afternoon.

They're flying anyway. They need to work the equipment in actual varied scenarios. So..

If anything, it's money saved- It could be said that they left CAP available for something else that they probably could not do with the B-52s as easily.

[Eclipse]

And you know....

...there are better ways to phrase your concern over this than the headline you used, which will now live in Google forever. 

[CAPPAO]

Yeah davedove and others, I guess it's better to have the USAF spending $25,000 an hour trying to teach their aircrews to take disaster images than to practice doing what these aircraft were designed and built to do -- fly low-level bombing missions!

So tell me, when they've perfected this new capability of theirs, do you think CAP will be getting more or less disaster recon missions than we do now?

PS to Mr. Eclipse: I stand by my headline, which is neither profane nor obscene, but the opinion of an informed taxpayer.

[DNall]

we're just winding down the largest civilian photo recon mission in history (supposedly), so I might be able to comment on some of this.

In fact, according to CAP, we offer our clients:
1. Aerial imaging with ability to quickly transmit high resolution digital photos within minutes. Have ability to contact aircraft to re-task or request different photo orientation.

Actually, pics were transferred between mediums, imprinted with all required data in the customer format, and had bad frames rejected. Then at the end of the day we'd fly a box of thumb drives to Austin - so 24hr turn around, and at the cost of an extra flight, plus a whole lot of incidentals you aren't accounting for.

2. Able to perform aerial reconnaissance of critical infrastructure such as power plants, gas pipelines, and reservoirs.

3. Can accomplish missions at a fraction of the cost of other agencies. Members are volunteers who are reimbursed only for expenses.

Members are screwed over to get your mission done... there's a whole lot of inbound/outbound sorties with a 3-to-1 ratio for volunteers to cover a position & rotate back out to work or just away. Those alone can be tens of thousands. There's also incidentals: we just bought a truck load of thumb drives; FEMA bought us a sat internet system, but we'll pay for the service; we got spot trackers for our GTs & aircraft, again paying for the service... there's a lot more cost involved there then the hourly fuel/maint cost of a cessna.

If you total it all up, is it still cheaper than the closest alternatives? yeah probably by a bit, but it's also probably less capable to the same extent.

4. 100+ Satellite-Transmitted Digital Imaging Systems (SDIS) used to transmit still-frame digital pictures in near real time. Can also communicate directly with these aircraft from almost anywhere.

You mean the sat phone with worthless autodialer & laptop? Is that really a "system" or is it more likely to be held together by duct tape. I've never seen this system work consistently. I'd favor real-time delivery of video, but stills should go back to a processing point before being sent on as raw data.


In other words, CAP's capabilities brief to the public/customers/etc is pretty much BS. 60 years ago we were capable of flying around with a camera to the window & bringing that info back to authorities. In fact, we did do that. So, what the hell have we accomplished. I swear half the time I really believe our members are here to fly for cheap and don't care at all about the mission. I don't want to believe that's true. I know it's not for so many great people. We MUST increase our capabilities in a serious way, not this BS they keep running out there.

[Eclipse]

PS to Mr. Eclipse: I stand by my headline, which is neither profane nor obscene, but the opinion of an informed taxpayer.

Assuming you filed a proper 1040 last year, at least you're 1/2 right.

Not only is your angst misplaced, benevolent partners in an endeavor air their grievances in private.  Next time you want to complain about our public image or relationship w/ the USAF, remember your contribution...

[pixelwonk]

For someone implying to be on the "NHQ Public Affairs Team" from the email address in their profile, I'd expect quite a bit more respect and/or at least discretion when referring to someone you don't care for.

The argument regarding the use of the aircraft is so full of holes it's laughable.

troll.

[hatentx]

I would have to agree with most everything being said.
1.  The 52's are flying anyways and are already budgeted those flight hours so make them do something productive besides touch and gos on my airfield.
2.  Hello FLIR.  I don't know about everybody else but our aircraft doesn't have FLIR.  I am not sure what Generation FLIR they are on but I am sure it is good enough to over lay and take picture at night.
3.  If a B52 upsets you doing recon and SAR well to let you know the Army had Apaches on stand by ready to be deployed in to the AO as well for SAR.  The reason for this is the optics.  It is to easy for an Apache and a Blackhawk to fly around at night Apache sees them and Blackhawk picks them up.
4.  As a tax payer I am glas to see these equipment used for more than profiecienty.  Koodos to the AF for useing the budgeted money to do more than fly circles.
5.  It was a huge area and while CAP were able to handle the responsibilities and most likely more it was a joint effort now just the CAP show.  Kinda a one team one fight idea.
6.  Now those aircrews have some good training for when they go down range or are deployed to some other country and have to do humanitarian missions or SAR mission over there.  Oh and believe me they happen over there all the time as well.
Sorry for my long rant.  Just wondering what those that are so critical did during it all.  And props to Major C for busting A$$ while this was going on.  A lot of stuff was going on in his neck of the woods.

[NC Hokie]

Yeah davedove and others, I guess it's better to have the USAF spending $25,000 an hour trying to teach their aircrews to take disaster images than to practice doing what these aircraft were designed and built to do -- fly low-level bombing missions!

Taking "disaster images" can be used to train for tasks such as damage assessment and target identification.  If they're gonna fly to do this anyway (and they are), it makes sense to get something else out of the deal.

BTW, B-52s don't do low-level bombing.

[notaNCO forever]

 The picture quality they get is probably a heck of allot better then what CAP photos are.

[wingnut55]

the GAO will get to the bottom of some things, lets face it the USAF is under the gun for many very bad decisions that are costly. With the Federal Budget about to go in the direction of the stock market, you can bet your sweet bippie CAP will be a shinning light in all the "Golly the Federal Government is Broke" how are we going to do this inexpensively??

However, we have to get real! do we really need 500 Aircraft?? some wings cannot get 150hours on their aircraft. Maybe we need fewer but a few more that are faster. The GA-8 is one, what an air pig, we needed maybe 6 really good Archer systems on a 180knot aircraft, 3 hours you could be 500 miles. Oh well, I think we used way too many b-17s in WWII but know one listens to me.

[LtCol White]

Yeah davedove and others, I guess it's better to have the USAF spending $25,000 an hour trying to teach their aircrews to take disaster images than to practice doing what these aircraft were designed and built to do -- fly low-level bombing missions!

So tell me, when they've perfected this new capability of theirs, do you think CAP will be getting more or less disaster recon missions than we do now?

PS to Mr. Eclipse: I stand by my headline, which is neither profane nor obscene, but the opinion of an informed taxpayer.

You may be expressing your opinion as a taxpayer, and you have every right to do so, but when you do it on here in the context of CAP, your opinion also reflects on CAP.  MANY of us here are working hard to strenghten our relationships with USAF both locally and nationally. These threads are public forums open to anyone who wants to read them and to make accusatory statements like this is not helpful at all since it does reflect on the organization and not just you as "Joe Taxpayer".

[Rangercap]

The picture quality they get is probably a heck of allot better then what CAP photos are.

Agreed... a 3000 lb airplane, with a scanner in the back seat holding an 8 megapixel Nikon SLR with a telephoto lens? or a B-52, gross weight 450,000 lbs, with a 22 MP or BETTER fixed digital camera... you can't ask for a better platform for aerial photography.

Brian
PAWG

[Major Carrales]

I think the main point most are missing here is that this is a major COMMUNITY (in the larger sense thus "all caps") effort.  An entire region of Texas, the nation's 4th largest city and a whole coastal community area are damaged in a HISTORY altering way.  The scope of the activity is huge.

Everyone has a role to play.  From CAP's photography mission to the boots on the ground via the police/fire/EMS to anything that can be provided...including the use of significant USAF resources like B-52s.

We are not in "competition" with these people...any of them...we are an augmenting tool that is used by the USAF and Federal authorities (sometimes State and local) as is seen fit in the larger sense.

I a pleased that my Nation's resources, like USAF B-52s, are involved in the effort "with" us.  We as CAP have done a lot in this mission.  We have been given a set of mission objectives to which Citizen Airmen answered the call.  Like militiamen in colonial times, I, and many many others, left my work...in my case my classroom...for three days.  An associate of mine left his employment with a large firm for as long.  Can none of you grasp the concept?  Will none of you?

What has been done en re Gustav and Ike from CAP Officers is a far more traditionally American concept than some of you will give credit.

That is the point...SERVICE.   Service in crisis times where we help our fellow humanity in a voluneer spirit without pay or the promise of anything more than the worth one feels when they have done their duty.

Once a person loses that sense of SERVICE...I would submit it is time for that person to leave CAP for more rewarding opportunities.  But, if you feel that call...like the Colonial militiaman that mustered to save his community from anything from fire to flood, invader to disrupting criminals...then this is your billet.

[JayT]

Yeah davedove and others, I guess it's better to have the USAF spending $25,000 an hour trying to teach their aircrews to take disaster images than to practice doing what these aircraft were designed and built to do -- fly low-level bombing missions!

So tell me, when they've perfected this new capability of theirs, do you think CAP will be getting more or less disaster recon missions than we do now?

PS to Mr. Eclipse: I stand by my headline, which is neither profane nor obscene, but the opinion of an informed taxpayer.

So, why don't you go through every USAF mission every flown back to 1947, and see how many meet your standards for an effective use of tax payer money?

Why is it important that CAP get's these disaster recon missions, exactly? Is it more important that the job gets done in the best way possible, or that you're the one in the cockpit?

[Pumbaa]

Come on Sparky, the whiners need something to complain about...  Whaaaaa CAP is not used enough... whaaaaa We can do it cheaper... whaaaaaa.....

[DNall]

Everyone in the military is dedicated to service to their country. When a disaster hits, they want to do their part. If you're a blackhawk pilot or an MP then that's easy. If you're a bomber pilot, you feel useless. If there's a way for you to make a useful contribution while operating on your existing training budget & operating in a way that meets proficiency standards for your primary mission, then it becomes 1AF/CC's call what resources he'll put on the board & what he won't. He's the chessmaster making all the decisions on air resources. We're just a pawn, as any other resource would be.

[a2capt]

As was also noted, taking pictures of disasters .. is still taking pictures. The B-52 has camera equipment on board for something. It's still training and they go through the same steps. Just what the camera sees is different.

[Pumbaa]

Can CAP do Thermal Imaging, real time? Can it do infrared?  Can it get images that are of such detail you can read the plates on a car?  Can we go out in virtually any kind of weather?

I think you know the answer to that.  For the most part we are hand holding a camera.  That has its purpose.

Seems to me that the AF has tools in the shed and they use them.  The CAP tools have limitations.

We have to know what our own limitations are, rather than crying that a B-52 is taking "our" photo missions.

If CAP wants to be relevant in the upcoming years it will need to invest in technology that can be put on a lot more planes.  REAL TIME image processing that does not need aircrew intervention such as emailing the images via satellite.  Infrared video/ cameras, FLIR. The list goes on...

Again, hand holding a camera at 105mm will not give you all the details that the cameras in mama blues planes.

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

[Eclipse]

Can it get images that are of such detail you can read the plates on a car?

Yes.  A 10+ Optical camera with at least 5Megapixels will get you there, and that's tech that is 5 years old.

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

I have, keep the lens off the glass and get a good pilot, its not that big a deal.  Otherwise, I agree with the rest of what you said.

[DNall]

We have to know what our own limitations are, rather than crying that a B-52 is taking "our" photo missions.

If CAP wants to be relevant in the upcoming years it will need to invest in technology that can be put on a lot more planes.  REAL TIME image processing that does not need aircrew intervention such as emailing the images via satellite.  Infrared video/ cameras, FLIR. The list goes on...

absolutely

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

I have, keep the lens off the glass and get a good pilot, its not that big a deal. 

While technically true, you're still going to get a percentage of unusable images. 20-30% in our recent experience. When operating in TFRs under time hacks to have the data processed & returned & a massive take order, there isn't time to leisurely tool around making sure you got each shot just right or retaking them. Also, it's very tiring to keep yourself propped up & off the sides of the aircraft. After a few days you're beat to hell. I'm just saying it's a serious challenge; not as easy as it sounds; and, lots of room to improve that technology.

[Eclipse]

After a few days you're beat to hell. I'm just saying it's a serious challenge; not as easy as it sounds; and, lots of room to improve that technology.

Too true - its amazing how physically intense it is. 

You're just sitting in the back of the plane taking photos, and I've come out sweat dripping and exhausted.

[DNall]

you shulda come down for all the work here recently. It was educational.

[Smithsonia]

CAP got into the SAR business for the reasons stated in this thread. A B-24 went down in December 1942 near Taos NM. A B-17 found it. B-17s flew at $400.00 PER HOUR. The B-17 tried in vain to drop rescue supplies and organize a rescue party. The first drops were half a mile a away. In deep snow they might as well dropped those items in the ocean. It wasn't until the Alamosa, CO. CAP courier service was asked to "see what you can do."

An intrepid pilot and observer were dispatched. They actually landed on Bald Mountain (Also known as Mt. Baldy) in a 65HP Taylorcraft not once, twice or three times but 8 different times to bring relief supplies that sustained the crew of 10 men for 3 days until the ground team could make their way through the snow for the final rescue. At that time the primary tasking of the CAP was expanded to include SAR. Everything old is new again.

Taken from the Neprud book. (Flying Minutemen)

[Eclipse]

An intrepid pilot and observer were dispatched. They actually landed on Bald Mountain (Also known as Mt. Baldy) in a 65HP Taylorcraft not once, twice or three times but 8 different times to bring relief supplies that sustained the crew of 10 men for 3 days until the ground team could make their way through the snow for the final rescue. At that time the primary tasking of the CAP was expanded to include SAR. Everything old is new again.

Dumb question, but if they could land 8 times, why didn't they just evac everybody via air?

Even with serious injuries, getting to medical help has to be better than laying in the snow.

[Flying Pig]

^Thats a pretty cool story.  Id never heard of it.  I need to get that book.  I wondered about picking up the crew also, but Im thinking a 65 Hp Taylor craft on Mt. Baldy is just about maxed out on weight anyway!

While were on the subject of optics....My Dept Air unit is most likely going to be upgraded from the basic Gyrocam to the Thermal/Video Gyrocam.  At a cost of about $320,000. Thats with install on a C206.  I think the Airvans would be better off equipped with this than the ARCHER.  For those who have never used FLIR, I can assure you, its the way to go for SAR.  FLIR can be used day or night as well.  Ive found people hiding in bushes during the day with FLIR where the eye couldnt see them. The Gyrocams color video also has a night time Night Vision mode as well.   We will be upgrading our monitor to the AeroMap or the Avelex monitor.  The nice thing about the monitors is that they are 12-15 inch LCD and the monitor itself has a 3 hour memory so you can video your target and it stores in the monitor, or, you can record to a thumb drive.  The monitor is about $8000, although there are monitors that are as little as about $1500.  Yeah....quite a cost but this is what the big kids are using now and this is the quality our customers are rapidly coming to expect. So for a comparison, what did ARCHER cost per plane?

http://www.gyrocamsystems.com/images/product_views/pdf/comp-C02-050808-IR.pdf

[Smithsonia]

Eclipse. Eight trips on to Mt. Baldy, without rescuing anyone? Not a dumb question at all. Take the Year 1942. Take the Norton Bomb sight. That was 2 trips. The men were expendable the secret of that bombsite, was not. (This is from my own deduction. In the book it says secret material was removed -- so add code books too.) The CAP also took out the machine guns. Eight trips out. First drop items were, chocolate, cigarettes, whiskey, matches, and water. How times have changed. Now we'd all get court marshaled for flying with tobacco and hooch.  They also brought in winter gear, sleeping bags, food, flare gun, and cans of sterno. There was one dead man among them and they didn't want to abandon his body. (another deduction on my part.)

[Pumbaa]

For the last month I have been flying pretty much 3-4 days a week doing CD.  After flying for nearly 4 hours per mission I am beat to hell as the Observer/ Photographer.  On average I take about 100 photos.

I generally shoot at 100mm with a Canon DSLR camera.  I swap out lens and go to my Canon Image Stabilizing lens and shoot 300mm.  And yes, a number of images get thrown out. "Not a big deal???  hog wash...  You try and stay on target at 300mm, you are going to be tired and in some case puke.

I have found that 300mm can bring you to the pukes if you are not careful.. I have also found that the best way to shoot is an extremely high shutter speed.  I shoot 800-1600 iso with a 1/5000th+ shutter speed.. yes that is 1/five thousandths plus.

Even with the quality I shoot, it still does not compare to the optics in the AF birds.

I shot these yesterday for a training class I am putting together.  Both are at 300mm.  Doable?  Yes.. but not easy.

The full image I can zoom in quite nicely.  but again, if not flying low, slow and steady you will get blur up close.

[Flying Pig]

Nice crib!  Local dope dealer? I dont see the weed.

[Pumbaa]

No that's my crib..

Like I said, took some other images that are not CD...  Doing a training class in Syracuse, NY in November.

Don't want to have the thread nazi's thinking I am showing CD images.

[Flying Pig]

Holy cow.....nice!  As someone who is currently taking a short break from trenching for sprinklers......I bow in your presence.

[Smithsonia]

I've been working on an optics package and photo upgrade for the scanner position. I started that conversation on Emergency Services Under Upgrading the Scanner.

[O-Rex]

Keep in mind that in many cases, funding for these types of USAF missions are "sunk costs," that is training money and other funds that can be legally diverted for a win/win (just as CAP does.)

Nothing beats low & slow high-res imagery, and USAF is well aware of it, and DOES utilize it.

We'll get some, but not all of it: there's plenty to go around. . .

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The picture quality they get is probably a heck of allot better then what CAP photos are.

Agreed... a 3000 lb airplane, with a scanner in the back seat holding an 8 megapixel Nikon SLR with a telephoto lens? or a B-52, gross weight 450,000 lbs, with a 22 MP or BETTER fixed digital camera... you can't ask for a better platform for aerial photography.

Brian
PAWG

The higher resolution only matters if you're trying to read license plates from flight level 400. That Nikon body with 8 MP is more than adequate for disaster assessment imaging, from as much as a mile high.

At some point, that increased resolution means nothing, unless you plan to enlarge an image to infinite proportions and not have it fall apart.

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

I have, keep the lens off the glass and get a good pilot, its not that big a deal.

While technically true, you're still going to get a percentage of unusable images. 20-30% in our recent experience. When operating in TFRs under time hacks to have the data processed & returned & a massive take order, there isn't time to leisurely tool around making sure you got each shot just right or retaking them. Also, it's very tiring to keep yourself propped up & off the sides of the aircraft. After a few days you're beat to hell. I'm just saying it's a serious challenge; not as easy as it sounds; and, lots of room to improve that technology.

If 20-30 percent of your take is unusable, and you're shooting a still life from the air, that's probably pretty reasonable. That's why you shoot quantity to get quality.

Heck, I've come back from NFL, MLB and NCAA baseball/football games with a much higher percentage of unusable photos (and even the best shooters are in the same boat). Many times, those games are played under insufferable lighting, and of course you need a fast shutter and a fast "film" speed.

Incidentally, sometimes, we miss the shots. I chuckled inside a little when a photog from an unnamed metro newspaper missed a play one time, then yelled "SH@T!" in the photo bay.

/end war story

[DNall]

That's us calling 20-30% unusable - as in blurred, bad GPS, etc so we toss them out to have room on the thumb drive. The customer has more specific needs on target & no doubt throws out a much higher percentage. If a sortie comes back with 500 shots (which is ballpark) and the customer gets a couple dozen frames that meet their need, then that's a successful sortie.

Just so you understand, we're shooting well over 20,000 photos on this current mission. While the front end customer has specific needs, the back end users want a lot more. That's (ex) state insurance board adjusting rate maps, academic researchers, weather service, etc. What they'd like out of this is a systematic mapping of the entire damage area that they can't get from satellites. It's hard to meet that need.

[Viper QA]

What that article did not say is that those missions provided extremely valuable training for the B-52 aircrews. The AF, specifically Air Combat Command (ACC), very recently began testing the AN/AAQ-33 Sniper targeting pod on the B-52H. This was in response to the capability that the USAFR Command has on their B-52s with the AN/AAQ-28 LITENING II targeting pod. Even though Barksdale is an associate unit, ACC did not fund for the LITENING pod, USAFR Command did. Sniper pod integration recently began at Barksdale. I would venture to guess that the Buffs used to fly those SAR missions were equipped with the Sniper pod, serving two purposes; valuable training for the aircrews & SAR intel.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

DNall: I totally understand, having shot on CAP flights before. It's really not much different than professional shooting, so my point was that 20-30 percent going out the window first thing is pretty average.

When I come back from a game, I might shoot 200-300 frames and come back with three I'd be more than happy to use, and another 5-7 that I'm comfortable with. Of the others? Some will be out of focus, a split second too late for the action, or something.

When I shoot from a CAP airplane, my odds are much better. That's because I'm shooting stationary objects. That you need certain angles and you have to make several passes to satisfy an end user, well, I totally understand where you're coming from. If you're coming back from a sortie with an average of 500 frames, it sounds like you're shooting multiple targets....

Before everyone else drools over the B-52's equipment -- you don't need a 22MP camera to do the job. Sure, there are some images that will be better than others, but for someone to say that to shoot in a CAP plane, you need an elephant gun of a lens (like an f2 800?! That's NASA territory) and a multimegapixel CCD, well, I'd be inclined to believe the image itself isn't as important as the bragging rights!

[SJFedor]

What I understand as a taxpayer is that the B-52s cost approximately $25,000 per flight hour to operate and that CAP flights cost only $120 to $160 per flight hour.

What I understand as a CAP member is that while the USAF is trying to come up with creative new reasons -- like taking images of disaster areas -- to justify keeping and maintaining their B-52s, our SDIS system is more than adequate to do the same task and is already paid for.

Bottom line is that when assistance is needed, the USAF would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to do something CAP already knows how to do at little cost.

What a waste for everyone.

PS to Flying Pig: Thanks for sticking up for Sparky. Now I know he has a least one friend.

...you've never actually used the SDIS system, have you?

[Auxpilot]

What I understand as a taxpayer is that the B-52s cost approximately $25,000 per flight hour to operate and that CAP flights cost only $120 to $160 per flight hour.

What I understand as a CAP member is that while the USAF is trying to come up with creative new reasons -- like taking images of disaster areas -- to justify keeping and maintaining their B-52s, our SDIS system is more than adequate to do the same task and is already paid for.

Bottom line is that when assistance is needed, the USAF would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to do something CAP already knows how to do at little cost.

What a waste for everyone.

PS to Flying Pig: Thanks for sticking up for Sparky. Now I know he has a least one friend.

My guess is the forward thinkers at the Pentagon see the need for the B-52 as it has always been used, as a strategic bomber. Check the recent news articles about our friends over in Russia flexing their muscles again.

As a former member of the 96th Bomb Wing that spent a lot of days and nights underground in an alert bunker, the need for the 52 will never go away. The platform may change but the mission will always be there.

I would like to be taking those photos as much as the next guy but we still need to train our 52 jocks and my guess is that taking shots of EXACT geographic coordinates such as oil wells is great practice for laying ordinance in the back yard of the nuts that want to do us harm

[DNall]

When I shoot from a CAP airplane, my odds are much better. That's because I'm shooting stationary objects. That you need certain angles and you have to make several passes to satisfy an end user, well, I totally understand where you're coming from. If you're coming back from a sortie with an average of 500 frames, it sounds like you're shooting multiple targets....

I don't think you're understanding the mission. We're not shooting a set of selected targets - well to qualify, we did have a couple sorties like that from FEMA, but mostly not. The state stuff, which is the overwhelming bulk of the air mission, is a modified grid pattern with shots every so many seconds at an angle that we train and must have good GPS loaded on the frame. If that doesn't happen then the sortie is wasted, customer doesn't pay, and we do it again from scratch the next day.

In other words, there are no multiple passes. It's photographic mapping of the entire area, not specific targets. From that take, they will absolutely blow up frames to massive size & decide property by property where they are going to move the flood plain boundary lines, etc. We don't fly those "grids" (for lack of a better word) several times, we fly them once. We have to cover thousands of square miles.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

DNall: I think you're right -- I wasn't understanding the mission. That's gotta be a canine of the feminine gender to fly.... you have my sympathies.

[DNall]

I didn't really do any flying myself. I worked on ops, went out on the high profile GT sortie, and ran a POD site for a couple days. The most significant thing I did was working things out with Coast Guard on the ELT portion of the mission.

[RiverAux]

Gee guys, if the AF is already paying all their pilots and fuel costs to do training missions anyway, lets just go ahead and scap CAP since we apparently have nothing to offer and are just an excess expense. 

[PHall]

Gee guys, if the AF is already paying all their pilots and fuel costs to do training missions anyway, lets just go ahead and scap CAP since we apparently have nothing to offer and are just an excess expense. 

Sounds like a plan. I'm sure my congressman will be happy to get right on that.

The money they will save could be put to a better use, like maybe some bridges in Alaska!

[RADIOMAN015]

Well actually, the cost per hour for CAP aircraft is calculated differently than the AF cost per hour on their aircraft.  The AF takes into account the entire maintance & other base support overhead costs (including standard salaries calculations) to come up with a cost per flying hour.   CAP is basically looking at the operational/maintenance cost and doesn't really look at the overhead costs to run the program which at very least should be all the costs associated with HQ CAP in the operations directoriate.  (based upon total flying hours projeted for the year divided into total opeating costs).
I think CAP still is a very good deal cost wise.  HOWEVER, the AF has to fly training missions anyways "sunk costs" so if they have the capability to do some recon while on those training flights than there really isn't any additional cost because of this.

RADIOMAN

This story in the Sherevport Times has me scratching my head.

Why would the USAF be proud of the fact that very expensive bombers were used to take pictures of disaster areas when CAP can do it for so much less cost to the taxpayers?

In fact, according to CAP, we offer our clients:
3. Can accomplish missions at a fraction of the cost of other agencies. Members are volunteers who are reimbursed only for expenses.
5. Typically $120 - $160 per hour of flight time, depending on aircraft used.

Anyway, read the aricle below and tell me that as a CAP member and taxpayer you aren't annoyed.

[Eclipse]

Well actually, the cost per hour for CAP aircraft is calculated differently than the AF cost per hour on their aircraft.  The AF takes into account the entire maintenancece & other base support overhead costs (including standard salaries calculations) to come up with a cost per flying hour.   CAP is basically looking at the operational/maintenance cost and doesn't really look at the overhead costs to run the program which at very least should be all the costs associated with HQ CAP in the operations directorate.  (based upon total flying hours projected for the year divided into total operating costs)..

Not exactly - while actual "receipt cost" for a CAP flight is about $85-100 an hour depending on fuel costs, our bill-to rate is usually about $250 an hour.

Just like the USAF, no cost calculation is ever really going to be accurate.  The salary, capital, and related costs are fixed if the Airman is sworn and the airframe is procured.  The only "real" cost is any extra expense of fuel, per diem, and other costs incurred specifically for the mission itself, which could potentially be zero if the activity is scheduled during a training situation where the planes are in the air anyway.