Enlisted Drone Pilots

[ILoveScotch]

Hard for me to believe that the reason we can't find better locations for RPAs is comm infrastructure spending. That's all I'm saying.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Problem is, there's no will from leadership. This needs to change.

[Guardian]

That's just the line I was fed.

[Clark Griswold]

34 minutes ago, ILoveScotch said:

Where there's a will, there's a way. Problem is, there's no will from leadership. This needs to change.

Bingo.

A lot of money has already been spent so Creech, et al will remain open but for new MCE sites there are plenty of places where expansion could happen without the time differential to make life better and an RPA assignment way more desirable,  just a suggestion (already put out there sts) but putting MCEs and a DCGS in Europe (Poland or Czech Republic) would be way better on the body clock and about 100x desirable than some of the present locales but as you say leadership doesn't care or care enough to do something about it

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

The reason the current bases were largely chosen was for already in place infrastructure which would be crazy expensive to redo into bases not equipped with said infrastructure.

As for E's conducting strategic ISR, I agree. But in reference to conducting ISR and providing kinetics or lasers that aide in kinetics to the battlefield from a platform that has offensive weapons, I disagree.

Would love to hear your thoughts on why "E's" can't employ weapons properly?  I bet it's great.  

[Guardian]

The reason the current bases were largely chosen was for already in place infrastructure which would be crazy expensive to redo into bases not equipped with said infrastructure.

As for E's conducting strategic ISR, I agree. But in reference to conducting ISR and providing kinetics or lasers that aide in kinetics to the battlefield from a platform that has offensive weapons, I disagree.

Would love to hear your thoughts on why "E's" can't employ weapons properly?  I bet it's great.  

How about we hear why you think they can or want to be burdened with the responsibility for 1/4 of the pay?

[ILoveScotch]

4 minutes ago, Guardian said:

How about we hear why you think they can or want to be burdened with the responsibility for 1/4 of the pay?

Burdened... lol.

[Guardian]

Well the rest of the military agrees that enlisted shouldn't be the sole responsibility of release of ordinance from aircraft so I'd say the burden lies on you friend.

[Lawman]

Well the rest of the military agrees that enlisted shouldn't be the sole responsibility of release of ordinance from aircraft so I'd say the burden lies on you friend.

Ummm what?

You realize we have E's sitting in something with as much Firepower as an MLRS accepting fire missions, verifying coordinates, and releasing what is a metric butt load of Angry explosives right?

Your CCTs on the ground control and coordinate the release of everything from a 20mm gun run to a fully loaded B-1 bomber... Do they not have rank and pay enough for that level of responsibility? Because the ALO they work for sure gets paid more without the responsibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah saying Officers should be responsible for effects sounds rational, but only in a vacuum when you don't look at the dozens of other readily available examples of high responsibility jobs done by enlisted personnel where a guy with stripes and no bars has the yes/no on whether something happens. Great example: Jump Master

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

How about we hear why you think they can or want to be burdened with the responsibility for 1/4 of the pay?

What I thought.  

Currently I can bring about the same amount of whoop ass as a measly agm114 and I be just a lowly po' sweaty.  

Edited March 19, 2016 by uhhello

[Guardian]

Well the rest of the military agrees that enlisted shouldn't be the sole responsibility of release of ordinance from aircraft so I'd say the burden lies on you friend.

Ummm what?

You realize we have E's sitting in something with as much Firepower as an MLRS accepting fire missions, verifying coordinates, and releasing what is a metric butt load of Angry explosives right?

Your CCTs on the ground control and coordinate the release of everything from a 20mm gun run to a fully loaded B-1 bomber... Do they not have rank and pay enough for that level of responsibility? Because the ALO they work for sure gets paid more without the responsibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah saying Officers should be responsible for effects sounds rational, but only in a vacuum when you don't look at the dozens of other readily available examples of high responsibility jobs done by enlisted personnel where a guy with stripes and no bars has the yes/no on whether something happens. Great example: Jump Master

Didn't see any reasons stated as to why an E should be in charge of and final authority for an airframe dropping ordinance without any non E oversight.

In all of those examples you have O's making the final decision.

[Homestar]

43 minutes ago, uhhello said:

What I thought.  

Currently I can bring about the same amount of whoop ass as a measly agm114 and I be just a lowly po' sweaty.  

This is not the issue. Nobody doubts your awesomeness. I just fail to see why your Union isnt more upset about doing the same work as an officer for less pay. At the very least you should be demanding equal pay for equal drone work. 

[Lawman]

Well the rest of the military agrees that enlisted shouldn't be the sole responsibility of release of ordinance from aircraft so I'd say the burden lies on you friend.

Ummm what?You realize we have E's sitting in something with as much Firepower as an MLRS accepting fire missions, verifying coordinates, and releasing what is a metric butt load of Angry explosives right?

Your CCTs on the ground control and coordinate the release of everything from a 20mm gun run to a fully loaded B-1 bomber... Do they not have rank and pay enough for that level of responsibility? Because the ALO they work for sure gets paid more without the responsibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah saying Officers should be responsible for effects sounds rational, but only in a vacuum when you don't look at the dozens of other readily available examples of high responsibility jobs done by enlisted personnel where a guy with stripes and no bars has the yes/no on whether something happens. Great example: Jump Master

Didn't see any reasons stated as to why an E should be in charge of and final authority for an airframe dropping ordinance without any non E oversight.

In all of those examples you have O's making the final decision.

Ummm... No you don't.

You know how many officers are in a Tank Company? 4 (3 LTs and a CPT)... You know how many tanks are in a tank company? A lot F'ing more than 4. Do you think those tank company and platoon commanders are stopping to verify the release of ordnance off their sections tanks? Or pimping directly what targets they are and aren't permitted to engage? Hell the first Sgts got his own tank he sure as he'll isn't asking a PL what to do with it. Same with an artillery Battery. Same with engineers who conduct virtually all their combat ops without direct oversight of engineering officers because they are tasked to support a ground commander who knows nothing about the how of the system and just provides his intent for the mission.

I'd like to introduce you to a system called AFATIDS... Where an FSO (enlisted guy on an observation point) can literally sent a digital text message fire mission via a computer to a gun battery or MLRS/HIMARs also operated by enlisted personnel who can then dependent upon position relative to the fire support coordination line of that mission accept and fire on that target. Without ever talking to a captain...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

And none of those have to do with aircraft.....

[ILoveScotch]

Because death from above is different than death from the ground. Come on, man... we don't get paid more because our finger is on the button.

[Lawman]

And none of those have to do with aircraft.....

Holy F dude.

You realize 15 years ago your argument would be on whether or not tanker and 130 guys had the tactical where with all and experience to release ordnance and that only Viper/Hawg/Strike guys should be shooting from drones right?

What's funny is death from above within the BSOs AOR has nothing to do with whether you are a 1Lt or LtCol or E3, and everything to do with that BSOs approval authority passed through that JTAC via a 9 line.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

And none of those have to do with aircraft.....

Holy F dude.

You realize 15 years ago your argument would be on whether or not tanker and 130 guys had the tactical where with all and experience to release ordnance and that only Viper/Hawg/Strike guys should be shooting from drones right?

What's funny is death from above within the BSOs AOR has nothing to do with whether you are a 1Lt or LtCol or E3, and everything to do with that BSOs approval authority passed through that JTAC via a 9 line.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your first point literally makes zero sense. Also don't forget that even though the JTAC gives the cleared hot the air craft commander has the final day of whether or not to release weapons.

If you are going to challenge the norm and rationales used for why this shouldn't happen just because of a pilot manning problem you are going to have to do better than that with your arguments.

[Lawman]

And none of those have to do with aircraft.....

Holy F dude. You realize 15 years ago your argument would be on whether or not tanker and 130 guys had the tactical where with all and experience to release ordnance and that only Viper/Hawg/Strike guys should be shooting from drones right?

What's funny is death from above within the BSOs AOR has nothing to do with whether you are a 1Lt or LtCol or E3, and everything to do with that BSOs approval authority passed through that JTAC via a 9 line.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your first point literally makes zero sense. Also don't forget that even though the JTAC gives the cleared hot the air craft commander has the final day of whether or not to release weapons.

If you are going to challenge the norm and rationales used for why this shouldn't happen just because of a pilot manning problem you are going to have to do better than that with your arguments.

That 9 line clearance has dick to do with the person releasing the ordnance. It's a clearance from the Battle Space owner or his designated representative which makes your air delivered fires no different from the supporting artillery or CCA in the total scheme of maneuver. Just because you don't like the idea of it doesn't mean there aren't enlisted personnel delivering similar or even greater effects in the target area who make the final decision themselves whether to pull that lanyard on the 109 they are sitting in. Again from where the actual impact of go/no-go is (the ground) the BSO could give a damn who or what does it just that their intent is met and their authority properly passed.

You know we have enlisted drone pilots in the Army who fire lasers and soon release ordnance (we are arming Grey Eagle). They do so without being babysit by officers every minute of that engagement or mission because they are designated by the commander with the authority to do such.

We used to have air artillery observers who were enlisted. It wasn't the PC of the aircraft that had the final say so on them employing artillery fired from the seat of that aircraft, it was on that guy. If you want to get down this whole well only officers should shoot weapons then wtf is 80% of Army Aviation doing with Air Mission Commanders and PCs of aircraft who are warrants with a Lt/CPT in the front seat or on their wing. Obviously we aren't responsible enough to be doing that job because we aren't RLOs right? That's about as much logic as your idea that somehow E grades aren't smart enough to learn something O grades are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Fun with assumptions.

If everyone else is doing it so they should to is your argument then tell me.....why do you think it is the way it is?

[Lawman]

Fun with assumptions.

If everyone else is doing it so they should to is your argument then tell me.....why do you think it is the way it is?

Because culturally you've forgotten where you came from and instituted an internalized idea that only ____s are good enough to drop ordnance.

Kinda like my first point that you shrugged off and ignored earlier. When we first started arming drones it was forbidden to even discuss puting anything other than TacAir guys at the controls because only they understood how to employ weapons. Those second class citizens of non Tac Air couldn't be trusted to make those kinds of decisions. Funny how that idea is abandoned because there simply aren't enough Viper/Eagle/Hawg guys to fill the requirement. Now you want to pretend that the idea that enlisted can't/shouldn't be trusted with the release of ordnance is any different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Incorrect fact. Non tac air guys have been in RPA seats from the beginning.

Incorrect Assumption. You think I am implying that E's aren't good enough. Or that I think this is some sort of class issue like the royals vs the surfs or something ridiculous.

Got anything else or just going to keep spouting off?

[Lawman]

Incorrect fact. Non tac air guys have been in RPA seats from the beginning.

Incorrect Assumption. You think I am implying that E's aren't good enough. Or that I think this is some sort of class issue like the royals vs the surfs or something ridiculous.

Got anything else or just going to keep spouting off?

Drones yes, but not releasing ordnance. Go ask liquid he gave a pretty good long dissertation about it in another thread. Hellfire was treated like some ridiculous high peak of only ____'s should be doing that.

The point is you're apparently tied to this idea of "just because other people do it isn't justification." Except your justification to not explore it is "well this is the way it's always been."

So have you got any legitimate reason to say an enlisted operator can't perform the job other than the dollars on their LES?

[Jaded]

Saying enlisted guys are not capable of dropping bombs would be like saying warrants aren't capable of piloting apaches.

[ILoveScotch]

There's something to be said about not putting an 18 year old COD player fresh out of basic behind a hellfire.

But a mature TSgt? I dunno, don't really see the big deal. Would sure free up a lot of pilots...

[Jaded]

No it wouldn't. It's a completely nonviable paradigm, but it's not because enlisted guys are somehow incapable of doing the job.

[Lawman]

There's something to be said about not putting an 18 year old COD player fresh out of basic behind a hellfire.

But a mature TSgt? I dunno, don't really see the big deal. Would sure free up a lot of pilots...

That's true with any weapons system though.

Look at the Abrams for a great example of crew member development where you are grown into responsibility from that 18 year old no nothing. You don't start on that gun, you're a loading it... Then a driver, and prove you can take commands and learn how the tank and then later the platoon moves and fights. Then and only then do you become a gunner where you physically move and fire that main gun at the direction and authority of the tank commander (also typically enlisted). Then (typically around E6/7) that seasoned tanker is under the authority of the overall unit commander given the authority and responsibility to serve as a tank commander. He doesn't get paid any more than he did if he was a driver or loader. It's not he job that brings him more money and there is not a minimum or maximum rank/cost structure that's going to dictate when he gets that job.