HeloDude Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 ...THE HORROR... ...the horror... I cannot think of a single AF rotary wing mission that doesn't involve the carrying of people/passengers/survivors in the back as part of the mission...so I don't see unmanned helicopters coming to the AF anytime soon.
FishBowl Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 You mean "Shoot, Ready, Aim" ISNT the way it's supposed to happen? Shoot first;ask answer questions NEVER
HeloDude Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I thought the OG standing up before the drop and saying that two studs were getting RPAs with a signed guarantee of a manned follow on... A 'signed guarantee'? Have the guys who dropped RPAs seen this 'signed gurantee'? You guys are very gullible. I'm sure you also believe when leadership comes to you and says, "Have I got a deal for you!". The needs of the Air Force will always come before a retired CSAF's non-legally binded 'promise'. But hey, it's better to be lucky than good, so maybe it will work out for them, who knows? Personally I think it's a waste to cross-flow guys back to a manned aircraft after an RPA tour unless the Air Force at that time is fat on RPA guys and is hurting for guys in X MWS. Almost as much of a waste to pull a guy after UPT and send him to RPAs in the first place.
viper154 Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Assignment night is 3 weeks out for me. Have yet to see this "memo". As of yesterday the guys who dropped last week have yet to see it either. We were told we should have it in our hands in 2, 3 days tops, that was about a month ago. Edited August 6, 2015 by viper154
Clark Griswold Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Give these 1st assignment RPA dudes something to fly, pull the Tweets out of the boneyard and give'em at least 150 hours a year. Just waiting to cause deafness for a whole new generation... 1
LookieRookie Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Give these 1st assignment RPA dudes something to fly, pull the Tweets out of the boneyard and give'em at least 150 hours a year. Just waiting to cause deafness for a whole new generation... Just move some T-6's to Cannon/Creech, but then again, half the T-6 fleet is broken. 1
Clark Griswold Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Just move some T-6's to Cannon/Creech, but then again, half the T-6 fleet is broken. Well, shit... I was wondering how they were holding up. The Tweet would be sweet but a Viper Jet would kick ass and with a glass cockpit and 900 mile range the off station possibilities would make a GH in Grand Forks not that bad.
guineapigfury Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Personally I think it's a waste to cross-flow guys back to a manned aircraft after an RPA tour unless the Air Force at that time is fat on RPA guys and is hurting for guys in X MWS. Almost as much of a waste to pull a guy after UPT and send him to RPAs in the first place. It's generally not a waste to send a guy from RPAs to manned, because he'll stick around. The choice is often between sending a guy back to real airplanes or him separating. 1
MooseAg03 Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Give these 1st assignment RPA dudes something to fly, pull the Tweets out of the boneyard and give'em at least 150 hours a year. Just waiting to cause deafness for a whole new generation... The impact this would have on morale would be immeasurable. If I had the ability, I would take one of my days off to go brief/fly/debrief an actual flying sortie. It could mean opportunities for former MWS guys to instruct as well. Our risk averse leadership would never let this happen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
HU&W Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Give these 1st assignment RPA dudes something to fly, pull the Tweets out of the boneyard and give'em at least 150 hours a year. Just waiting to cause deafness for a whole new generation... I partly agree, but nothing with an ejection seat. The life support/physio footprint for 500 dudes to fly just 1-2 times per month would be insane. Tones or even a fleet of T-53's like they bought for USAFA would make much more sense as a platform to build and maintain airmanship.
HeloDude Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 It's generally not a waste to send a guy from RPAs to manned, because he'll stick around. The choice is often between sending a guy back to real airplanes or him separating. So the AF should cross-flow all their pilots who want a new airframe for fear of them separating? If a slick 130 guy wants to go AC's or MC's but will seperate if he can't, then the AF should give him what he wants to stay? Don't get me wrong, if it makes fiscal/mission sense to do it, then fine, but why should a cross-flow from RPAs to manned aircraft be treated any differently than other cross-flows? If anything, it's worse for the reasons that have already been stated. Cross-flows are expensive, and put an experienced pilot into an aircraft where they're now going to be less experienced than their peers. A bunch of sharp Huey pilots back in the day wanted to cross-flow to MH-53's but only so many got the opportunity...just the way it was. This issue has become much more emotional (to include for the AF leadership) than logical. 1
Royal Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 After the VSP/RIF shitshow last year could we really expect anything different? The VSP debacle is one of the less shocking things I've witnessed over the last several years.
guineapigfury Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 So the AF should cross-flow all their pilots who want a new airframe for fear of them separating? If those separations are driving a crisis, then yes they should. That's what we have in RPAs right now. Clearly defined follow on assignments would help manning. If a guy shows up to an RPA squadron with 2 years of ADSC and no hope of going back, he's probably leaving at the first opportunity. If he's got a 3 year tour with a ticket back to his prior airframe, the USAF probably gets 3 years of RPA work out of him instead of 2. Or maybe he doesn't 7 day opt and the USAF gets 3 years of RPA work instead of zero.
HU&W Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 If those separations are driving a crisis, then yes they should. That's what we have in RPAs right now. Clearly defined follow on assignments would help manning. So would treating RPA's like an actual MDS, and not treating people going to them as if it's a lesser assignment/airplane by telling them it's temporary.
guineapigfury Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 So would treating RPA's like an actual MDS, and not treating people going to them as if it's a lesser assignment/airplane by telling them it's temporary. We'll know if that's a feasible plan when the 18Xers hit the end of their ADSCs.
nrodgsxr Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 So the AF should cross-flow all their pilots who want a new airframe for fear of them separating? If a slick 130 guy wants to go AC's or MC's but will seperate if he can't, then the AF should give him what he wants to stay? Don't get me wrong, if it makes fiscal/mission sense to do it, then fine, but why should a cross-flow from RPAs to manned aircraft be treated any differently than other cross-flows? If anything, it's worse for the reasons that have already been stated. Cross-flows are expensive, and put an experienced pilot into an aircraft where they're now going to be less experienced than their peers. A bunch of sharp Huey pilots back in the day wanted to cross-flow to MH-53's but only so many got the opportunity...just the way it was. This issue has become much more emotional (to include for the AF leadership) than logical. I think if you were the one being forced to spend a majority of your UPT ADSC in drones you wouldn't feel that way. Drones != UH-1
HeloDude Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I think if you were the one being forced to spend a majority of your UPT ADSC in drones you wouldn't feel that way. Drones != UH-1 You just proved my point by saying the word 'feel'. This is all emotional. The RPA world is here to stay and it's growing...it's becoming more of of a priority than some other MWS's as RPA's are fulfilling an extremely important mission. If guys are fearful that they'll get an RPA out of UPT and think it's to big of a risk to not get a manned airframe and spend ten years flying RPA's then they shouldn't go to UPT...someone else will be glad to take their slot. As for the guys dropping them right now, sorry, the needs of the Air Force will always come before your personal desires--they signed a 10 year commitment to go to UPT and the AF fulfilled their end of the deal, and now the pilot must fulfill theirs. At the present time, they can always quit before graduation. I'm not saying that getting an RPA out of UPT wouldn't suck (since 99.9% of guys go to UPT for a manned aircraft) and wouldn't 'feel' the best...I empathize with them. But I've been 'promised' something by the AF several times to only have it not be fulfilled several times over the long years. What it has taught me is that the AF doesn't truly care about what I want, and the needs of the AF (whether I disagree or agree if the need is legitimate) will always come before my desire or 'feelings'. You young guys need to learn this sooner rather than later. Of course, it's always better to be lucky than good. ...and of course UH-1's are better than RPA's!! Rucker is the best track you can get! 1
whiskeychevelle Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I'm not saying that getting an RPA out of UPT wouldn't suck (since 99.9% of guys go to UPT for a manned aircraft) 100%
sqwatch Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 You just proved my point by saying the word 'feel'. This is all emotional. The RPA world is here to stay and it's growing...it's becoming more of of a priority than some other MWS's as RPA's are fulfilling an extremely important mission. If guys are fearful that they'll get an RPA out of UPT and think it's to big of a risk to not get a manned airframe and spend ten years flying RPA's then they shouldn't go to UPT...someone else will be glad to take their slot. As for the guys dropping them right now, sorry, the needs of the Air Force will always come before your personal desires--they signed a 10 year commitment to go to UPT and the AF fulfilled their end of the deal, and now the pilot must fulfill theirs. At the present time, they can always quit before graduation. I'm not saying that getting an RPA out of UPT wouldn't suck (since 99.9% of guys go to UPT for a manned aircraft) and wouldn't 'feel' the best...I empathize with them. But I've been 'promised' something by the AF several times to only have it not be fulfilled several times over the long years. What it has taught me is that the AF doesn't truly care about what I want, and the needs of the AF (whether I disagree or agree if the need is legitimate) will always come before my desire or 'feelings'. You young guys need to learn this sooner rather than later. Of course, it's always better to be lucky than good. ...and of course UH-1's are better than RPA's!! Rucker is the best track you can get! and you can get away with sh-tty leadership/policy like this until you can't anymore. you're forgetting that the airforce is full of people. in my opinion, it is this kind of fvckupery that caused the self licking ice cream cone that is the disaster of UAV manning - people won't stay in the community because it sucks/they didn't want to fly droids, then the schedule gets worse because there aren't enough people, then people leave because the schedules sucks. it was this "shut up and color" mentality that built the uav community under gates/schwartz. another thing you're forgetting is the affect of morale. I had never experienced a squadron with low morale until I got to droids- it makes sh1t weird, and perpetuates the retention problem. staff an MWS with people who don't want to be there, and you pay the bill at the end of their ADCS because they won't stay. Here's another opinion of mine. When I left, the 18x'ers were just showing up. I thought they would gradually replace all us cranky fvcks and the morale issue would recover. it sounds like the opposite is happening and the attitude of all the disgruntled UAV controllers has now spread to the 18x community. You can create/enforce sh1tty policy/leadership like you suggest, just don't be surprised when the community sends you an invoice of low retention.
Chaff Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 The 18X community sounds much worse on these forums than what I have actually seen in the squadron. Shift works sucks no matter who you are, but 18Xers generally seem to be motivated people who enjoy what they are doing, especially when they are single Lts living in Vegas. There are nowhere near as many cranky fvcks around as there were 3 years ago. Still mobility senior Capts / new Majs who have been in RPAs for 3-5 years trying everything they can to get to a manned aircraft but they should soon to be the minority. All the previous UPT directs have been sent to manned aircraft or have decided to stay. All the figher dudes who were good medically and wanted out are back in a fighter or have orders for a fighter assignment.
Stitch Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I partly agree, but nothing with an ejection seat. The life support/physio footprint for 500 dudes to fly just 1-2 times per month would be insane. Tones or even a fleet of T-53's like they bought for USAFA would make much more sense as a platform to build and maintain airmanship. How about a bunch of these. Acro capable, fighter/T-6 like feel, decent legs for cross-countries. Sure there's some assembly required, but once its all said and done they'll come in about $125K each after paint, avionics, tax, title, dealer prep, etc... put six or so at at each drone base, O & M dollars would be a ton less than maintaining a bunch of Tweets or T-6s. Meanwhile, T-53s while super nice rides, come in around $380K plus. 1
HU&W Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Great points but I don't think experimental is going to work. What about Extra 330lt's? Fully certified, no ejection seat or g suit to worry about, and you can do acro/form and then shoot an ils.
Tulsa Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Why not start an aero club at the UAV bases? If the USAF won't pay to alleviate the monotony, wouldn't you pay for it yourself?
Clark Griswold Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) I partly agree, but nothing with an ejection seat. The life support/physio footprint for 500 dudes to fly just 1-2 times per month would be insane. Tones or even a fleet of T-53's like they bought for USAFA would make much more sense as a platform to build and maintain airmanship. How about a bunch of these. Acro capable, fighter/T-6 like feel, decent legs for cross-countries. Sure there's some assembly required, but once its all said and done they'll come in about $125K each after paint, avionics, tax, title, dealer prep, etc... put six or so at at each drone base, O & M dollars would be a ton less than maintaining a bunch of Tweets or T-6s. Meanwhile, T-53s while super nice rides, come in around $380K plus. Agree on the Extra and negative on the ejection seat aircraft, I have a friend who maintains them as UPT MX contractor, a zero zero chair ain't cheap to buy or maintain. Whatever happened to the T-3's? Assuming you could un-McPeak them... Why not start an aero club at the UAV bases? If the USAF won't pay to alleviate the monotony, wouldn't you pay for it yourself? The GH had an arrangement like this back in the day, squadron paid for the $100 cheeseburger you and buddy would go and get about once a week. Typical flights were Beale to Vandenburg or Tahoe with a couple of approaches for currency. Not the most exciting flying but you could keep an entire squadron legitimately current for less than $200k a year and your squadron's money just went to MWR who ran the aero club. If I were still in UAVs I would pay for it myself as I did a few times (sts :-). They killed the above described program ( CTP - Companion Trainer Program ) in 05 right as I got there... bait & switch a-holes. Edited August 7, 2015 by Clark Griswold
stract Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Whatever happened to the T-3's? Assuming you could un-McPeak them... they were chopped up and sold for scrap. Pennies on the dollar.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now