AF Drone Pilots in short supply

Henning said:
You start marketing to them in 8th grade, you get games into the market, you make a movie genre where the dude saves the world with his drone and the hot chick rims him. You develop the talent you need from youth on.
Click to expand...

The problem is, there is no way to make a video game out of flying drones. The reality is, it's too damn boring. As for the movie idea, even kids know there isn't much heroic about pushing a button remotely and killing someone far away. They already made the movie anyhow. Ender's Game. It was a great book and very ho-hum movie. Didn't play well to the kids at all.

On the other hand, what does play well to kids in the theaters is stuff like The Hunger Games, Iron Man, Star Wars, or Harry Potter. All up in your face, hand to hand combat stuff. Kids know heroics when they see it and drones ain't it.

Having said all that, one of the most popular toys at Christmas was little drones with cameras on them. It seems there is a popular fad for drones with cameras on them. Everybody from 5 to 80 seems to really want one. There are people practicing their skills right now. If they really do have a shortage of pilots (I really doubt this) they just need to recruit from the general public outside the military. If that goes against the grain with military tradition, then contract it out to civilian companies.

There are people willing to do the job, but they don't want to do boot camp, nor put up with bull crap military culture and traditions. And why should they? As this thread illustrates, they get no love from their jealous fellow soldiers and they don't have to live the same life as being in the field. Does somebody really need to know how to march in formation, shoot a rifle, or endure public humiliation from superiors to be an effective drone pilot? I don't think so.
 
josephbelt01 said:
I don't know where all the negativity comes from. Drone pilot? They'll pay me 100K AND let me occasionally bomb ISIS? Where do I sign up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Usually the negativity comes from guys that are forced to transition to RPAs after doing an assignment in a manned platform. After working your butt off for over a year in UPT, then doing your training for your MWS and flying that for a few years, most people get used to the idea of actually flying airplanes for a living. I would be incredibly ****ed off and looking for the first door available to get out if that had happened to me. Thankfully it didn't, but it happened to a lot of my friends and that's plenty reason to have a bad attitude - at least for a little while. Either way, they all did very well, got the job done and made the organization better. They just weren't happy about it - they went to pilot training to fly airplanes, not RPAs.

The USAF tried the RPA only track of "pilot training" but that didn't pan out for various reasons. I've heard a wide variety of reasons, but never saw anything concrete as to why that program was halted.

**Edit: The $100k a year? Yep, you'll get there, but anyone who joins the USAF for the money is kidding themselves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dav8or said:
The problem is, there is no way to make a video game out of flying drones. The reality is, it's too damn boring. As for the movie idea, even kids know there isn't much heroic about pushing a button remotely and killing someone far away. They already made the movie anyhow. Ender's Game. It was a great book and very ho-hum movie. Didn't play well to the kids at all.

On the other hand, what does play well to kids in the theaters is stuff like The Hunger Games, Iron Man, Star Wars, or Harry Potter. All up in your face, hand to hand combat stuff. Kids know heroics when they see it and drones ain't it.

Having said all that, one of the most popular toys at Christmas was little drones with cameras on them. It seems there is a popular fad for drones with cameras on them. Everybody from 5 to 80 seems to really want one. There are people practicing their skills right now. If they really do have a shortage of pilots (I really doubt this) they just need to recruit from the general public outside the military. If that goes against the grain with military tradition, then contract it out to civilian companies.

There are people willing to do the job, but they don't want to do boot camp, nor put up with bull crap military culture and traditions. And why should they? As this thread illustrates, they get no love from their jealous fellow soldiers and they don't have to live the same life as being in the field. Does somebody really need to know how to march in formation, shoot a rifle, or endure public humiliation from superiors to be an effective drone pilot? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

The game doesn't teach them the reality of the real world, it teaches them the requisite skills including the concepts of patriotism and valor in an entrainment format. The movies create the deception of reality in their minds. Once they sign the line, then reality can come into play.

The Marines don't battle dragons with swords either, but that's how we advertise it.
 
N3368K said:
Thanks for showing your ignorance about artillery operations.
Click to expand...

You have a serious lack of vision. Henning is pretty fantastical in the things he types, but he is right. RPVs are coming to the battle field. Google is working hard on it now. An Abrams tank is ideal for remotely piloting. I'm sure there are technical challenges, but very soon they won't need people in them anymore.

There was a time when the horse was a fearsome weapon on the battlefield and no one could imagine armies winning battles without the thunder of hundreds of horses charging the enemy. What happened to those horses?

There was a time when the airplane could not be envisioned to do anything other than observation and was relegated to the signal corps. That changed faster than anyone could have imagined.

In the 1920's there were visionaries that could see that the airplane was a strategic asset and much more than just troop support, but they got laughed at by many. Thankfully for us, enough military planners listened to the visionaries. The US has proven again and again that absolute control of the skies guarantees success on the ground or water.

The future is coming and hopefully we don't make the mistake of fighting the wars of tomorrow with yesterday's weapons.
 
josephbelt01 said:
I don't know where all the negativity comes from. Drone pilot? They'll pay me 100K AND let me occasionally bomb ISIS? Where do I sign up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would too. I don't think they get paid $100,000 though, do they?
 
The Artillery community has been talking about and trying to develop the technology for the last several decades. Until liquid propellants are perfected, and they are still a ways off, there will always be manned artillery. Even MLRS which is pretty technically advanced has issues with ammo reload which require human intervention. Simple issues such as selection of a viable firing position just isn't available yet. Too many variable which simply cannot be mapped to the necessary level of detail.

The Crusader howitzer program was trying to work towards much of this, but it was deemed way too expensive with significant and limitations and ultimately shelved.

Forward observation has enjoyed great technological advances with laser designators and smart weapons. It may be closer than the actual firing battery to full automation someday, but so long as there are warm bodies on the battlefield, there will be someone nearby to coordinated indirect fire assets.

I spent many years on both sides; development and deployment within the Artillery community. I still have friends actively working there. Are they working towards truly autonomous systems? Yes. Are they anywhere reasonably close. Nope.


Sent from my iPhone
 
Dav8or said:
I would too. I don't think they get paid $100,000 though, do they?
Click to expand...


If you are a 15 year Major in the USAF on flight pay you are pretty close to $100k depending on where you live. The take-home is certainly on par with a >$100k job in the private sector.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
N3368K said:
The Artillery community has been talking about and trying to develop the technology for the last several decades. Until liquid propellants are perfected, and they are still a ways off, there will always be manned artillery. Even MLRS which is pretty technically advanced has issues with ammo reload which require human intervention. Simple issues such as selection of a viable firing position just isn't available yet. Too many variable which simply cannot be mapped to the necessary level of detail.

The Crusader howitzer program was trying to work towards much of this, but it was deemed way too expensive with significant and limitations and ultimately shelved.

Forward observation has enjoyed great technological advances with laser designators and smart weapons. It may be closer than the actual firing battery to full automation someday, but so long as there are warm bodies on the battlefield, there will be someone nearby to coordinated indirect fire assets.

I spent many years on both sides; development and deployment within the Artillery community. I still have friends actively working there. Are they working towards truly autonomous systems? Yes. Are they anywhere reasonably close. Nope.
Click to expand...

Like I said, eventually. If mankind lasts long enough in our current mode of operations, the technology will inevitably be developed, there is no stopping progress except extinction. The question is how do we apply our technology.

Is there a GPS/laser designator that reads out the coordinates of where the designator is targeting?
 
Last edited:
EvilEagle said:
If you are a 15 year Major in the USAF on flight pay you are pretty close to $100k depending on where you live. The take-home is certainly on par with a >$100k job in the private sector.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Gotta be more than that. I'm a Navy O4 with 15 and my after tax take-home is about $96k (I don't get flight pay).
 
Here's one thing that I've tired of after 18 years flying/ground assignments in the Air Force. Big Blue has this fantasy that everyone should *want* to do what it has requirements for. Then, when there isn't enough supply for the demand, we figure that by throwing money at the supply problem it will be fixed.

That doesn't work in the military by and large. If you have a supply problem, then the answer is to 'requisition' your way into a solution. That means for undesirable career fields, you assess way more than you'll need because there will be fewer guys sticking around to the later years. Then, when because you have enough young guys (with a 6-8+ year commitment) to fly the line, train the pipeline, and cover the overhead positions at the unit level, more realistic duty days/schedules become a reality.

Now, the problem is that takes manpower that Big Blue will have to conduct a manpower study on, the develop a solution for, then go to Congress for approval to implement the solution. The problem we encounter with this is Congress says no, do more with less.

So, Big Blue needs to either figure out how to improve the sales pitch to get Congressional approval, redo the math to up the bodies per airframe requirement and reallocate the funding/manpower to do it, or change who is out in those seats.

With a finite number of officer billets, if this is truly a crisis for the AF, then something has to change, because status quo has failed.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Gotta be more than that. I'm a Navy O4 with 15 and my after tax take-home is about $96k (I don't get flight pay).
Click to expand...


I wasn't shooting for an exact number. I was just responding that yes, if you stay in long enough you'd be making $100k+ flying RPAs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Henning said:
The game doesn't teach them the reality of the real world, it teaches them the requisite skills including the concepts of patriotism and valor in an entrainment format. The movies create the deception of reality in their minds. Once they sign the line, then reality can come into play.
Click to expand...

Patriotism and valor are skills that one learns? I'm a gamer and have been for decades. I love it. I have played Call of Duty and Halo for years. I can tell you that video games teach you no valuable real world combat skills what so ever and they don't teach you patriotism, or valor. About the only skill that might translate to the real world is the trash talking!:lol: Again, the real skills needed to successfully complete a drone combat mission is way too boring for a game. No one would play.

Movies can and have been used to warp reality and inspire people to join in combat, but to join the drone corps? Not much of a movie there. The drone pilot can have a seat at the table in the league of super heroes and be on the team, but much like the tired character of the computer nerd helping to solve crimes on TV, the drone guy would be relegated to be a tool with a support role and never the hero.

The Marines don't battle dragons with swords either, but that's how we advertise it.
Click to expand...
Man, I totally missed that recruiting video. You have a link?
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Patriotism and valor are skills that one learns? I'm a gamer and have been for decades. I love it. I have played Call of Duty and Halo for years. I can tell you that video games teach you no valuable real world combat skills what so ever and they don't teach you patriotism, or valor. About the only skill that might translate to the real world is the trash talking!:lol: Again, the real skills needed to successfully complete a drone combat mission is way too boring for a game. No one would play.

Movies can and have been used to warp reality and inspire people to join in combat, but to join the drone corps? Not much of a movie there. The drone pilot and have a seat at the table in the league of super heroes and be on the team, but much like the tired character of the computer nerd helping to solve crimes on TV, the drone guy would be relegated to be a tool with a support role and never the hero.



Man, I totally missed that recruiting video. You have a link?
Click to expand...

Couldn't find the dragon one, found these though.:lol:
 
Henning said:
Nice. One of those would be handy to have.
Click to expand...

You could make one by taping a laser range finder and a smart phone together. The range finder tells you how far it is to the distant point on the field and the smart phone knows where you are and what direction you are pointing. A little math and you would have the lat and long of the distant point.
 
The problem is, the Air Force drone program is directed by people who don't know them, and don't like them. As I've mentioned before, this is identical to what we went through in Space Operations when I was in the Air Force.

The problem is, the Air Force has control of too many disparate mission areas and any that don't involve humans piloting aircraft get short shrift. People don't WANT to be assigned to these areas, since it tanks their upward progress ("career broadening" is a euphemism for "you're not going to fly for a couple of years"). And the fact is, progression is limited in the Air Force if you're not a pilot.

The solution is to reorganize DOD. Close Air Support goes back to the primary user, the Army. If they want A-10s to support the troops, it's up to them to convince Congress to acquire them. A US Space Force to handle all space operations.

Put UAV and Cyber operations into single US Cyber Force (you can bet cyber operations are getting rearmost mammary gland from the Air Force, Army, and Navy brass, too). *Give* an expert UAV operator the change to make Lieutenant General, some day.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Put UAV and Cyber operations into single US Cyber Force (you can bet cyber operations are getting rearmost mammary gland from the Air Force, Army, and Navy brass, too). *Give* an expert UAV operator the change to make Lieutenant General, some day.
Click to expand...

Oh gawd no! The cyber folks are already too self-important.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Oh gawd no! The cyber folks are already too self-important.
Click to expand...

So was Billy Mitchell. Like it or not, cyber is the future. The capability expansion when you don't have a human operator either in harms way, or limiting performance due to human G-limits is hard to ignore.
 
Henning said:
Like it or not, cyber is the future. The capability expansion when you don't have a human operator either in harms way, or limiting performance due to human G-limits is hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, cyber is important. But under the constant threat of cyber attacks by the Chinese and other foreign interests, CYBERFOR has created its own 'security theater' much like the TSA and airline security. They are not as effective as they want to think they are.
 
There is much more to 'cyber' though. The integration of command and control coms for a semi autonomous action force will require 'cyber' force as well.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Oh yes, cyber is important. But under the constant threat of cyber attacks by the Chinese and other foreign interests, CYBERFOR has created its own 'security theater' much like the TSA and airline security. They are not as effective as they want to think they are.
Click to expand...


You missed that Henning thinks Cyber is the kids flying the drones. He referenced G-limits.

Just think of all the G's you'd pull when the Chinese are hacking the Pentagon without remote operators! ;)
 
denverpilot said:
You missed that Henning thinks Cyber is the kids flying the drones. He referenced G-limits.

Just think of all the G's you'd pull when the Chinese are hacking the Pentagon without remote operators! ;)
Click to expand...

Correct, I consider the entire data based end of the business as 'cyber' not just the hacking, but even that comes into play as we start controlling weapons platforms with data streams of instructions which the weapons then execute autonomously. That takes specialist skills.
 
Henning said:
Correct, I consider the entire data based end of the business as 'cyber' not just the hacking, but even that comes into play as we start controlling weapons platforms with data streams of instructions which the weapons then execute autonomously. That takes specialist skills.
Click to expand...


Gosh. I guess all the 80s fly by wire aircraft with pilots on board were Cyber too. Haha.
 
One day it is likely that we'll no longer be required to pull G's. As it stands now the ability to pull G's is less important than it was 20 years ago. People always mention how great it will make jets when they can pull 20 G's because they aren't carrying pilots anymore. By the time that tech catches up, the tech that can defeat inbound missiles and finally give us a missile that works as good as the supplier says it will should have caught up also. The G pulling will be minimal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
Gosh. I guess all the 80s fly by wire aircraft with pilots on board were Cyber too. Haha.
Click to expand...

Not really, there was no direct control communications from anywhere but inside the aircraft possible. You can't hack into an F-16 from China or Saudi Arabia and and retarget it for your own sites.
 
EvilEagle said:
One day it is likely that we'll no longer be required to pull G's. As it stands now the ability to pull G's is less important than it was 20 years ago. People always mention how great it will make jets when they can pull 20 G's because they aren't carrying pilots anymore. By the time that tech catches up, the tech that can defeat inbound missiles and finally give us a missile that works as good as the supplier says it will should have caught up also. The G pulling will be minimal.
Click to expand...

But you still have a man in harm's way.
 
Henning said:
Not really, there was no direct control communications from anywhere but inside the aircraft possible. You can't hack into an F-16 from China or Saudi Arabia and and retarget it for your own sites.
Click to expand...


And you can't hack into any of the modern stuff either. They're not connected to the public Internet. For the RF based stuff it's just way cheaper and easier to jam it.
 
Henning said:
But you still have a man in harm's way.
Click to expand...


That's true, and that's the one argument for RPAs that none of us can deny. Most people lean on the G's as the big thing though when it honestly doesn't make that much difference.

I'm all for not getting shot at. BTDT, don't want to do it again. I will if called to, but if we can avoid that while still getting the job done I'm all for it. That's a LONG bridge from here to there though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
That's true, and that's the one argument for RPAs that none of us can deny. Most people lean on the G's as the big thing though when it honestly doesn't make that much difference.

I'm all for not getting shot at. BTDT, don't want to do it again. I will if called to, but if we can avoid that while still getting the job done I'm all for it. That's a LONG bridge from here to there though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not having a man in harms way changes the way we can fight. No longer are you going for the extreme cost method of protecting lives through reducing exposure by making the equipment so sophisticated you only need to send 2 to assure mission fulfillment, now you can go back to straight attrition economics with huge masses of simple $1,000,000 drones. For the price of one F-35 you can have a fleet large enough to overwhelm their air defense forces with the benefit of them expending a lot of their ammo to do it.

We spend the most money of any military because we go to great lengths to keep our human soldiers safe. We have invested a lot in the technology to do that, if we can make it work, we should.
 
denverpilot said:
And you can't hack into any of the modern stuff either. They're not connected to the public Internet. For the RF based stuff it's just way cheaper and easier to jam it.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as secure. Everything is hack-able, it's all a matter of effort and resources.
 
Henning said:
There is no such thing as secure. Everything is hack-able, it's all a matter of effort and resources.
Click to expand...


True. Was cool to hear they put a bug in Iran's nuclear program. Stuxnet was pretty bold.

There's a really easy way to remove the worry about digital system hackers though. Make the hacker think they gained control...
 
denverpilot said:
And you can't hack into any of the modern stuff either. They're not connected to the public Internet. For the RF based stuff it's just way cheaper and easier to jam it.
Click to expand...

Or meacon it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
denverpilot said:
True. Was cool to hear they put a bug in Iran's nuclear program. Stuxnet was pretty bold.

There's a really easy way to remove the worry about digital system hackers though. Make the hacker think they gained control...
Click to expand...

Remember, everyone from EMME, to the Crips, to Islamic Jihad is in the ranks of our military.
 
Henning, I'm picking up what you're putting down. The technology gap is so much further than most people think. We can't even buy a missile that will go where we want it to - hell they can't develop one. Jammers are too cheap and can overcome anything in the X band. We already have a huge bandwidth problem with the small, non-maneuvering RPAs we field today. When/if we can ever develop the tech to have split-second maneuvering RPAs, we have to find a better way to get the info to the operators in real time. It is way more than video - there's an amazing amount of info you have to process in a tactical environment; way more than we can deal with if the tech did exist.

Have you ever seen ANY program that can produce an airborne platform (even as simple as the MQ-1) for $1M a copy? With the advances required to get that level of info transfer - not to mention the amount of processing power and anti-hack that it'd have to have we are talking way way WAY more than $1M a copy. Worth it? Sure, if it works. Convincing the taxpayer and congress to invest that kind of scratch? Not likely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
Henning, I'm picking up what you're putting down. The technology gap is so much further than most people think. We can't even buy a missile that will go where we want it to - hell they can't develop one. Jammers are too cheap and can overcome anything in the X band. We already have a huge bandwidth problem with the small, non-maneuvering RPAs we field today. When/if we can ever develop the tech to have split-second maneuvering RPAs, we have to find a better way to get the info to the operators in real time. It is way more than video - there's an amazing amount of info you have to process in a tactical environment; way more than we can deal wiith if the tech did exist.

Have you ever seen ANY program that can produce an airborne platform (even as simple as the MQ-1) for $1M a copy? With the advances required to get that level of info transfer - not to mention the amount of processing power and anti-hack that it'd have to have we are talking way way WAY more than $1M a copy. Worth it? Sure, if it works. Convincing the taxpayer and congress to invest that kind of scratch? Not likely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Technology advances quickly. The key is not to have RPVs, the key is to have autonomous operations capable platforms that get pre programmed for the mission, and can get data bursts with amended instructions underway or on station. The task is difficult but doable. The difficulty is a lot in keeping an operator in the loop.

The technology to make it all happen exists, it just still needs refinement. Once everything is developed though, excluding development costs yeah, I think a 6000lb AAV (Autonomous Aerial Vehicle, we already had a AUV, Autonomous Underwater Vehicle map the ocean floor under the polar ice shelf) for a million dollars if you don't have to meet the parts supply specs we require in a manned platform. If we can use off the shelf servos and components and such, and build the airframes of injection mold plastics with some reinforcing structure. Your most expensive components will be your sensor pack.

Think disposable methods of production. Once the software and sensor packages are complete, a wide variety of platforms can be built. The real trick is IFF/friendly fire stuff, but that can be dealt with in the camo patterns or marker on a helmet. Casinos have face recognition software that alarms them when a known cheat walks in the door. This technology can be adapted for that use.

We are a technologically brilliant species, these are not issues we can not overcome.
 
Last edited:
I hope you are right. I'd make a sizeable wager that it doesn't happen in our lifetime though. No freakin way...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top