Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[disgruntledemployee]

In some of the HATRs I've read and had to check out, some RPAs (maybe all) do not receive RAs nor do they even know if they generate one. So its not really "sense and avoid," but more like "get the hell out of my way, I'm blind as a bat and can't see you."

Out

[Lord Ratner]

Probably the nacelle lights that eclipse the sun when it comes to burning my retinas. Bonus points if they're full bright when we're going in and out of thick clouds at night...1/2 the time it's OK, the other 1/2 my NVGs are instantly 100% washed out and I nearly hit the damn wing of the tanker.

That said, thanks for always being cool and turning them down when I ask.

I hate those lights, but half the time I tell the boom to turn them off I have to hear about how much they help the receiver that we won't see for another 2 hours.

They don't make finding a dimly lit runway off the wing very easy either.

[SurelySerious]

Is "I got him on the fish finder" the only option for rpa's? What is this "approved sense and avoid system" mentioned?

The mq-1/9 don't have any tcas system, just mode 3/c. At best, they have a JREAP tie in to link16 in theater. Everything else is based on radio/mIRC calls and counting on procedural decon.

[waveshaper]

"Lady Hawks" recognized for their record setting flight.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/11/21/air-bases-all-female-flight-crew-recognized-by-community.html?comp=1199436026997&rank=1

[Majestik Møøse]

Fucking heinous waste of money, on top of being discriminatory.

"Hey can I be a part of this record flight?"

"No, you're a man!"

Edited November 22, 2014 by Majestik Møøse

[stract]

Almost as bad as those flashing blue and red lights that you guys forget to turn off at night.

flashing blue and red lights? They aren't cops. And you probably need to retake that color vision test...

[Mark1]

"Lady Hawks" recognized for their record setting flight.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/11/21/air-bases-all-female-flight-crew-recognized-by-community.html?comp=1199436026997&rank=1

Congratulations ladies.

You can take your place behind every other woman who has stunted progress towards gender equality by feeling the need to suggest that a woman accomplishing something extraordinary is more special than it would have otherwise been because it was a woman who accomplished it. Because of course, we don't expect much from you...you're just a woman.

[hispeed7721]

"Lady Hawks" recognized for their record setting flight.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/11/21/air-bases-all-female-flight-crew-recognized-by-community.html?comp=1199436026997&rank=1

Where's the special article and celebration for EVERYTHING that's been accomplished (in the military and not) by a team of only men...

Like has been said, what a heinous waste of time, money, and oxygen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McDonut]

Is "I got him on the fish finder" the only option for rpa's? What is this "approved sense and avoid system" mentioned?

It seems so. The AF needs to get serious about fixing the soda straw problem that RPAs have.

I'd say we should strap cameras 360 degrees around them, but bandwidth to bring those feeds home would be an issue.

This technology is still many years out, but it will be awesome when we get software that can identify other aerial vehicles/threats visually and determine their relative positions, then transmit that to the container.

Edited November 23, 2014 by McDonut

[zach braff]

Gen Carlisle seems concerned about the manning situation. For our war in Afghanistan being "over" and only a very "limited operation" the COCOMs sure aren't letting up in their demand for CAPs.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/04/exclusive-u-s-drone-fleet-at-breaking-point-air-force-says.html

zb

[TnkrToad]

Gen Carlisle seems concerned about the manning situation. For our war in Afghanistan being "over" and only a very "limited operation" the COCOMs sure aren't letting up in their demand for CAPs.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/04/exclusive-u-s-drone-fleet-at-breaking-point-air-force-says.html

zb

Honest questions:

- What is the current status of the Army's Gray Eagles (Predator equivalents)?

- If they exist in significant numbers stateside, why are COCOMs not screaming for them to be deployed to theater, and furthermore why is this not even mentioned in the article?

Bottom line, my understanding is that Army RPAs--to include the Predator-equivalent Gray Eagles--deploy and redeploy with their parent units, which by definition means that LD/HD assets are available stateside but going grossly underutilized. If RPAs are LD/HD assets that COCOMs desperately need, and the Army has Grey Eagles stateside, but is unwilling to give them up (while Air Force RPA units are getting crushed), why is this not much bigger news? We love to bash the Air Force for not being team players/being unwilling to support the guys on the ground, but this would seem to indicate that the Army is equally culpable of screwing over its own people/our coalition ground partners. Of course, if the Army is in fact supporting joint warfighters by detaching their RPA units from their parent divisions and releasing them to support broader joint requirements, why is this not bigger news?

[guineapigfury]

Honest questions:

- What is the current status of the Army's Gray Eagles (Predator equivalents)?

- If they exist in significant numbers stateside, why are COCOMs not screaming for them to be deployed to theater, and furthermore why is this not even mentioned in the article?

Bottom line, my understanding is that Army RPAs--to include the Predator-equivalent Gray Eagles--deploy and redeploy with their parent units, which by definition means that LD/HD assets are available stateside but going grossly underutilized. If RPAs are LD/HD assets that COCOMs desperately need, and the Army has Grey Eagles stateside, but is unwilling to give them up (while Air Force RPA units are getting crushed), why is this not much bigger news? We love to bash the Air Force for not being team players/being unwilling to support the guys on the ground, but this would seem to indicate that the Army is equally culpable of screwing over its own people/our coalition ground partners. Of course, if the Army is in fact supporting joint warfighters by detaching their RPA units from their parent divisions and releasing them to support broader joint requirements, why is this not bigger news?

There is an excellent white paper on this topic. I'll look for it the next time I'm at work.

[Lawman]

Honest questions:

- What is the current status of the Army's Gray Eagles (Predator equivalents)?

- If they exist in significant numbers stateside, why are COCOMs not screaming for them to be deployed to theater, and furthermore why is this not even mentioned in the article?

Grey Eagle is being restructured as part of the 58 divestment as part of the "Full Spectrum CAB" model.

At the moment, no they don't exist in significant numbers nor will they ever exist in the numbers currently enjoyed by GFCs in our current Stability Ops model. When you have currently 3 CABs in all of Afghanistan that would leave you with roughly 20 GEs in the country to support whichever RCs they are set to cover. However as of right now there is only one full spectrum CAB in the Army.

That doesn't even begin to cover the, not really being designed for independent units to attach as needed where needed to SOCOM.

Gray Eagle and Shadow are going to form a huge part of our recon element since we are losing our air scouts. Basically each of he CABs 2 Apache battalions (24 ship SQD equivalent) will have a company (6-10x UAS) of one or the other dependent if they are Attack or recon. Rather than having 30 Kiowas in a recon regiment and a single heavy attack battalion of Apaches.

[Champ Kind]

Lawman, does the aviation branch have a school equivalent to USAFWS that focuses on tactics and integration? Just curious since Army Aviation is directly tied to GFCs, and you guys (doctrinally, at least) integrate with the other branches in your service as you plan/execute.

[Lawman]

Lawman, does the aviation branch have a school equivalent to USAFWS that focuses on tactics and integration? Just curious since Army Aviation is directly tied to GFCs, and you guys (doctrinally, at least) integrate with the other branches in your service as you plan/execute.

No, and it's a fight to get anyone to listen to myself and others in the closest thing to a tactics and employment track because for 12 years we haven't done anything but club dudes in man dresses with impunity.

Also we have nothing even resembling 3-1 or a vault to study it in so those of us that know about yours cheat and steal it. Definitely nothing platform specific hour we are trying to push out a generic helicopter 3-1 equivalent in the next 3 years.

We can barely get aviators into joint fires or any other kinds of course. Occasionally you will hear of a "Master Gunner" course, but that's not an actual tactics class it's how to design gunnery ranges.

There is a push to create some kind of a weapons school for TACOPS as well as giving TACOPS (our closest equivalent) some kind of evaluation power but that is being fought tooth and nail by the IP branch because they are the sole holder of the red pen and don't view TACOPS as a real track but can't find a way to fold this into their realm.

Really the Army doesn't put enough emphasis in aviation so we don't have the resources to get where we need to be. I've seen exactly 1 secret level pilots briefing ever, and that was on 429 ROE not threats or tactics etc.

[TnkrToad]

Grey Eagle is being restructured as part of the 58 divestment as part of the "Full Spectrum CAB" model.

At the moment, no they don't exist in significant numbers nor will they ever exist in the numbers currently enjoyed by GFCs in our current Stability Ops model. When you have currently 3 CABs in all of Afghanistan that would leave you with roughly 20 GEs in the country to support whichever RCs they are set to cover. However as of right now there is only one full spectrum CAB in the Army.

That doesn't even begin to cover the, not really being designed for independent units to attach as needed where needed to SOCOM.

Gray Eagle and Shadow are going to form a huge part of our recon element since we are losing our air scouts. Basically each of he CABs 2 Apache battalions (24 ship SQD equivalent) will have a company (6-10x UAS) of one or the other dependent if they are Attack or recon. Rather than having 30 Kiowas in a recon regiment and a single heavy attack battalion of Apaches.

I forgot about the Shadow. Okay, so help me out with this, then. From what I can find on the interwebz the Army has:

- 450+ Shadows

- Somewhere between 75-150 Warriors/Gray Eagles

What I just read from you above is that approx 20 of these RPAs are currently deployed in Afghanistan. I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I'm often wrong. Otherwise, that would seem like a pretty underwhelming commitment of resources to the fight (even after accounting for training/depot mx/etc.). Is it really true that less than 30% of the Army's Grey Eagles (and less than 5% of the overall Grey Eagle/Shadow fleet) are deployed in Afghanistan, at a time when CENTCOM is apparently screaming for every single airframe they can get their hands on? What am I missing here?

[magnetfreezer]

I forgot about the Shadow. Okay, so help me out with this, then. From what I can find on the interwebz the Army has:

- 450+ Shadows

- Somewhere between 75-150 Warriors/Gray Eagles

What I just read from you above is that approx 20 of these RPAs are currently deployed in Afghanistan. I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I'm often wrong. Otherwise, that would seem like a pretty underwhelming commitment of resources to the fight (even after accounting for training/depot mx/etc.). Is it really true that less than 30% of the Army's Grey Eagles (and less than 5% of the overall Grey Eagle/Shadow fleet) are deployed in Afghanistan, at a time when CENTCOM is apparently screaming for every single airframe they can get their hands on? What am I missing here?

Army aviation is owned by the Army ground unit commander. If brigade X or whatever is homestation or someplace where they don't need airplane Y, the commanders won't give up their airplanes to support brigade Z (fear that they'll lose the capability, cause wear and tear for the next deployment, etc). That's the true difference from the AF centralized control, decentralized execution concept (although we execute very centralized as well); the CFACC controls all the air assets and doles them out where they can make the most difference for the overall CFC objective, whereas organic assets only support the owning command level whether or not that's the most efficient.

BL: It's easier to complain about why the AF isn't doing more X to the COCOMs rather than convince other Army units/HHQ to reallocate assets

[17D_guy]

Really the Army doesn't put enough emphasis in aviation so we don't have the resources to get where we need to be. I've seen exactly 1 secret level pilots briefing ever, and that was on 429 ROE not threats or tactics etc.

So glad that thing happened in 1947 where we don't have to worry about that. We don't put enough to aviation assets on our own!

[SurelySerious]

Army aviation is owned by the Army ground unit commander. If brigade X or whatever is homestation or someplace where they don't need airplane Y, the commanders won't give up their airplanes to support brigade Z (fear that they'll lose the capability, cause wear and tear for the next deployment, etc). That's the true difference from the AF centralized control, decentralized execution concept (although we execute very centralized as well); the CFACC controls all the air assets and doles them out where they can make the most difference for the overall CFC objective, whereas organic assets only support the owning command level whether or not that's the most efficient.

Which is exactly why taking an asset like the A-10, which can work across the entire battlespace, and passing it to the Army (in the retirement debate) and tethering it to a ground commander worried about a few kilometers would be a total waste. The lack of tactical focus Lawman pointed out is also worrying.

[Lawman]

I forgot about the Shadow. Okay, so help me out with this, then. From what I can find on the interwebz the Army has:

- 450+ Shadows

- Somewhere between 75-150 Warriors/Gray Eagles

What I just read from you above is that approx 20 of these RPAs are currently deployed in Afghanistan. I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I'm often wrong. Otherwise, that would seem like a pretty underwhelming commitment of resources to the fight (even after accounting for training/depot mx/etc.). Is it really true that less than 30% of the Army's Grey Eagles (and less than 5% of the overall Grey Eagle/Shadow fleet) are deployed in Afghanistan, at a time when CENTCOM is apparently screaming for every single airframe they can get their hands on? What am I missing here?

Shadows/Hunters are different and way the hell cheaper than a Grey Eagle.

There are a crap load of those deployed because they are owned down to individual battalions in some cases. The CAB portion of Shadow could happen tomorrow but since we haven't ditched all the 58s it's not needed yet. But as was stated by others this stuff is owned as organic unit property. No different than Unit A isn't going to give Unit B it's trucks and not train/equip while in the rear they aren't going to just move all the UAS platforms into theatre at the loss to garrison units. You can't just strip a BCT and CAB of all their stuff.

But yeah until we get all the CABs fully converted to Full Spectrum CAB the couple of Grey Eagles owned by an individual CORPs isn't going to provide anywhere near the number of eyes in the sky that the current environment enjoys/demands. Same as we don't have anywhere near the number of MC-12/U-28 type platforms and even if we did put max forces forward and forget the Garrison guys who are on the patch chart to go back your still going to be on the hook for a lot of commitment.

So glad that thing happened in 1947 where we don't have to worry about that. We don't put enough to aviation assets on our own!

Yeah unless you've been an ALO you really haven't seen the full lengths of the stupidity of ground leadership making air calls.

I like to tell people we aren't any better prepared for it, we are just a lot closer to the fire and get burned a lot more.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Lawman

[BB Stacker]

BL: It's easier to complain about why the AF isn't doing more X to the COCOMs rather than convince other Army units/HHQ to reallocate assets

This.

Also with Army RPAs you run into the nasty little fact that they are all controlled from in-theater as opposed to RSOing in from CONUS (fact of life/design limitation on the Shadow, conscious CONOPS choice with the Grey Eagle). That might not seem like a big deal but it actually significantly limits their flexibility compared to USAF assets...which is just another example of the differences in how the two services utilize/allocate/etc assets with similar capabilities. With the way we operate RSO the same iron stays in the AOR 24/7/365 and is controlled by a variety of units from the CONUS while we rotate people in/out to work the LRE and mx piece (which also means the LRE GCS's and support equipment stay in theater 24/7/365)...and those CONUS units can shift/surge to a different AOR if the AOR they were originally fragged to fly in is down for wx, is deemed a lower priority, whatever. Contrast that with the Army...all the iron (and GCS's, and support equipment, and people) have to rotate every x amount of months because it's tied to a specific unit, and if that area is down for wx everything associated with those assets is sitting idle.

The way the Army does things with RPAs may make sense from an Army-centric perspective but it's ing retarded from a "how do we most efficiently make use of a limited number of airplanes" perspective. So basically:

So glad that thing happened in 1947 where we don't have to worry about that. We don't put enough to aviation assets on our own!

[Lawman]

ImageUploadedByBaseops Network Forums1420520780.072625.jpg

Which is exactly why taking an asset like the A-10, which can work across the entire battlespace, and passing it to the Army (in the retirement debate) and tethering it to a ground commander worried about a few kilometers would be a total waste. The lack of tactical focus Lawman pointed out is also worrying.

Don't get me too off target on this.

We have some very tactically knowledgable dudes within the communities. What we don't have is a formal school or structure of authority within the unit like your model. The fighter guy I worked with while TDY was surprised but we also have more of a company identity (flight equivalent) vs a battalion (SQD). If you can imagine a squadron giving general guidance and then individual flights acting very independently that's more what you'd see in an Army aviation battalion. My boss is a senior O-3, I barely talk to the O-5 and I'm a mid level senior guy.

The big issue is getting it paid for to start a program. When the ground makes all the air decisions the big question on new aviation ideas is always "well why do you need this now?" And saying "because that's the way the Air Force does it" would go over like shitting on the table. Even amongst aviation a lot of guys look down their nose at the Air Force because they don't know any better than rumors and jokes etc. I'm one of the few guys around in the Army in general and Aviation specifically that's worked in a joint billet for the AF.

[TnkrToad]

Shadows/Hunters are different and way the hell cheaper than a Grey Eagle.

There are a crap load of those deployed because they are owned down to individual battalions in some cases. The CAB portion of Shadow could happen tomorrow but since we haven't ditched all the 58s it's not needed yet. But as was stated by others this stuff is owned as organic unit property. No different than Unit A isn't going to give Unit B it's trucks and not train/equip while in the rear they aren't going to just move all the UAS platforms into theatre at the loss to garrison units. You can't just strip a BCT and CAB of all their stuff.

But yeah until we get all the CABs fully converted to Full Spectrum CAB the couple of Grey Eagles owned by an individual CORPs isn't going to provide anywhere near the number of eyes in the sky that the current environment enjoys/demands. Same as we don't have anywhere near the number of MC-12/U-28 type platforms and even if we did put max forces forward and forget the Garrison guys who are on the patch chart to go back your still going to be on the hook for a lot of commitment.

Yeah unless you've been an ALO you really haven't seen the full lengths of the stupidity of ground leadership making air calls.

I like to tell people we aren't any better prepared for it, we are just a lot closer to the fire and get burned a lot more.

Lawman, thanks for your thoughts on all this. I hope you'll take my questions/discussions as critiques of your service, rather than you personally. So here goes:

When I'm talking to my Army buddies about air support to ground users, my response will be:

- The Air Force is putting every bit of its unmanned and manned ISR capability forward to support (due to the most-optimal employment methodology), while the Army keeps significant numbers of LD/HD RPA assets at home station due to its ridiculous operational concept for aviation. COCOMs aren't screaming for more trucks, or people for that matter (our civ leadership has declared peace is at hand), but they desperately want unmanned ISR

- From the above discussion, I presume the Army has excess capacity in its MC-12/U-28 equivalent fleet, but due to the same flawed concept it's actively denying that capability to theater, as well

- You can/should strip a BCT/CAB of particular assets--if those assets are LD/HD and thus desperately needed in theater, and the unit is far out from its next deployment

I'll go back to my original question, then: why in the farging world would Gen Carlisle, when discussing RPAs to theater not say, "We are pushing unmanned and manned ISR to COCOMs as much as we can--to the extent that we're breaking the backs of our aircrews (and in the process mortgaging our future). While it is, and properly should be the Air Force's role to provide unmanned/manned ISR & strike to COCOMs, you might want to talk to the Army, which is actively withholding excess capacity stateside. If you want the best possible ISR & strike support to ground users, you should look no further than the U.S. Air Force. In the short term, the Army should divorce its RPA units from their respective parent units and push them to the COCOMs to the max extent possible. In the long term, they should at the very least embrace the Air Force's operational concept--or even better give those assets to a service that will use them more effectively." Furthermore, why are we airmen not saying this every time we talk to our Army brethren?

I'm no apologist for our senior leaders (see my posts on the ACP thread), but the Air Force's RPA operational concept seems far superior to the Army. If such is the case, why do our senior leaders (and we) not say so--at least as often as Army dudes make ridiculous claims that airmen don't care about soldiers?

Edited January 6, 2015 by TnkrToad

[B52gator]

I'll just put this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGGpSemB_hs

[Lawman]

Lawman, thanks for your thoughts on all this. I hope you'll take my questions/discussions as critiques of your service, rather than you personally. So here goes:

When I'm talking to my Army buddies about air support to ground users, my response will be:

- The Air Force is putting every bit of its unmanned and manned ISR capability forward to support (due to the most-optimal employment methodology), while the Army keeps significant numbers of LD/HD RPA assets at home station due to its ridiculous operational concept for aviation. COCOMs aren't screaming for more trucks, or people for that matter (our civ leadership has declared peace is at hand), but they desperately want unmanned ISR

- From the above discussion, I presume the Army has excess capacity in its MC-12/U-28 equivalent fleet, but due to the same flawed concept it's actively denying that capability to theater, as well

- You can/should strip a BCT/CAB of particular assets--if those assets are LD/HD and thus desperately needed in theater, and the unit is far out from its next deployment

I'll go back to my original question, then: why in the farging world would Gen Carlisle, when discussing RPAs to theater not say, "We are pushing unmanned and manned ISR to COCOMs as much as we can--to the extent that we're breaking the backs of our aircrews (and in the process mortgaging our future). While it is, and properly should be the Air Force's role to provide unmanned/manned ISR & strike to COCOMs, you might want to talk to the Army, which is actively withholding excess capacity stateside. If you want the best possible ISR & strike support to ground users, you should look no further than the U.S. Air Force. In the short term, the Army should divorce its RPA units from their respective parent units and push them to the COCOMs to the max extent possible. In the long term, they should at the very least embrace the Air Force's operational concept--or even better give those assets to a service that will use them more effectively." Furthermore, why are we airmen not saying this every time we talk to our Army brethren?

I'm no apologist for our senior leaders (see my posts on the ACP thread), but the Air Force's RPA operational concept seems far superior to the Army. If such is the case, why do our senior leaders (and we) not say so--at least as often as Army dudes make ridiculous claims that airmen don't care about soldiers?

No offense taken. Like I said it's not hat I see things from the Army's side and it's more right it's that I'm often times not insulated from some of the Army's stupidity toward aviation because of the service name on my uniform not being able to hide behind the blue.

We can detach some elements, and you see that but the Army's structure is to have the modular BCT and its assigned CAB be their own entity to themselves. No it's not nearly as efficient as the JFACC divvying up his assets to meet the JFCs intent and the JGFCC's needs. However what it does do is leave any BCT fully capable of supporting its self in all contingencies.

The other problem as mentioned before is our deployment model. No offense but nobody in the Air Force (yes I checked with friends) is doing 12 in, 12 home, 15 in, 9 home, 12 in, 15 home, 11 in, 11 home, 10 in.... That is no kidding what an aviation battalion did between Iraq and Afghanistan since 05. So we are sending them, but when your units that are rotating in or out only have a handful of them to begin with it looks like a lot more home than are.

And keep in mind in order to certify for deployment a BCT and CAB have to demo their METL at NTC which means they would need their full components for that. Surging everybody forward right now would help meet the requests but your never going meet that request if we are being honest here. And we simply cannot maintain that stance permanently even with 48 BCTs and 13 CABs (a fifth of which we are cutting).

GFCs don't understand anything about aviation other than its expensive and it is never giving them all of what they want. No different than you hear the stupid argument of "AF doesn't want to do CAS!" When outside the light grey Eagle community there isn't a Wing in the AF that wouldn't be thrilled to strap green iron onto planes and come drop it on steel and bone for us. Best you can do is just try to ignore the louder screams and point to all the successes you've given them.