UAVs

[nightsta1ker]

Not a true statement. it was bantied around in 2009 quite a bit, but none of the billets I've seen for UPT graduates or pilot slots have reflected such figures. Far from it, in fact.

 

In 2009 a large increase was made to the number of UAV operators, which included staffing, but the USAF is still not creating more UAV "pilots" than pilots of manned aircraft. It's just not happening.

 

Having spent a lot of time operating in close proximity to large numbers of UAV traffic, however, I have a very dim view of most of the unmanned programs, especially with regard to safety for other air traffic.

 

You have posted 6 replies to this topic, but have yet to share anything interesting. Why don't you share your knowledge and opinion rather than just negate what others say with vague implications that you know the inside scoop but are not willing to share it.

Edited October 15, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[avbug]

Again, if you should know, you would know, wouldn't you?

[Falko]

..... And you don't know what you don't know.....

[nightsta1ker]

Again, if you should know, you would know, wouldn't you?

 

And there you go again playing the "I know a secret" game (which I think is rather childish, not to mention unprofessional). If you know something that should be kept hush hush, you don't go around mouthing off about how you know something hush hush. Your best bet would have been to just keep your mouth shut when this topic came up rather than say 'your wrong, but I can't say why because if you don't know then I really shouldn't tell you'. For one, it makes your argument invalid for all practical purposes on this forum, for two, it makes you look like a twelve year old.

Edited October 16, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[avbug]

Look, the fact is that in most cases, UAV's are used for purposes that don't involve a lot of public exposure. UAV's are generally applied either in locations that are too hazardous for manned operations, or for low-observable, extended use that aren't conducive to manned operations. In such cases, indeed in many cases, UAV operations are not public information, and haven't been. While the general public has been made aware for nearly fifteen years of regular UAV operations over the continental US, the public has not been informed in many cases about specifics, when, what, and where. This continues to be the case.

 

The US military operates UAV platforms, in many cases larger platforms than what are described in the previously posted map. I can tell you that based on my own experience operating around and with that equipment. What is in use and where is not something I can discuss. If agencies and departments and users of the equipment are inclined to advise you, they will. It's not my place to do so.

 

What is germane to the discussion is that UAV operations have been present far longer than the opening of the thread would suggest, and they're more pervasive than provided, too.

 

Also of interest is the threat that UAV's present. Most certainly we're going to see an increase in unmanned traffic over the continental US in the near future. It's not something we're going to avoid. Those who think it's safe, or as safe as manned traffic either have a distinct agenda, or aren't very well informed.

 

Based on my own personal experience operating in concert with and around heavy UAV traffic, I will say that even the more sophisticated platforms are not particularly reliable with respect to holding altitude or being where they say they are, and they're not very good at dealing with other traffic, either.

 

UCAV equipment tends to view it's target through a very narrow window, much akin to watching the target through a paper towel tube. No peripheral view of other traffic or surrounding areas is generally given. Much of the UAS/UAV traffic isn't voice-capable, and while some (not all) of the traffic does have transponder capability, much of it doesn't, or doesn't employ a transponder.

 

I have seen UAV traffic up close (night, same altitude, less than a tenth of a mile, high closure) when it's reporting a thousand feet off, and I've seen a lot of UAV traffic much closer than intended when it wasn't where it was supposed to be. In another location outside the US, I had a pile of wreckage behind my hanger which was once a very expensive, sophisticated UAV that lost link...and crashed into our base area. It wasn't supposed to do that. They do.

 

UAV's are, in my opinion, a big hazard to aerial navigation. I'm not at all concerned about losing my job to a UAV; the jobs I've done, including manned versions of the same thing the UAV's are doing in many cases, aren't threatened by the UAV missions. Indeed, I've been called in to take over a mission being performed by UAV traffic before, because the UAV lost the target or was unable to proceed. It happens. (I've also been relieved by UAV equipment over a target area, too). UAV's do perform very useful and important functions. However, I've seen some very hazardous conditions when faced with UAV traffic in a busy area, and also in some very rural not-so-busy areas. While the details are not appropriate here, I had what I considered a very close encounter with a large, sophisticated model three years ago; it was not an isolated incident.

 

UAV traffic ought not be considered lightly. Those arguing whether or not they'll lose their job to the UAV are barking up the wrong tree.

 

For one, it makes your argument invalid for all practical purposes on this forum, for two, it makes you look like a twelve year old.

 

I really don't care what it looks like, or more specifically, what you think it looks like. Clearly once again this is a subject you don't know much about, and apparently you feel threatened by that, or perhaps embarrassed by that. This cannot be helped. For someone that calls himself "nightstalker," you ought to have a much greater knowledge of the topic, particularly if you plied your trade downrange. Perhaps you were too busy being tied to refueling probes and beaten with yardsticks to take the time to get informed. Who knows?

 

This isn't the forum for an in-depth discussion about this topic, particularly with regard to mission, location, and type. The fact is that this equipment has been operating in the USA for a long time now. Articles that suggest otherwise are poorly informed. You are likewise poorly informed.

 

There's a big difference between noting this information, and providing details. Your responses indicate very clearly that you're NOT the person to have or be provided that information. If that chaps your hide, so be it.

Edited October 16, 2012 by avbug

[nightsta1ker]

Look, the fact is that in most cases, UAV's are used for purposes that don't involve a lot of public exposure. UAV's are generally applied either in locations that are too hazardous for manned operations, or for low-observable, extended use that aren't conducive to manned operations. In such cases, indeed in many cases, UAV operations are not public information, and haven't been. While the general public has been made aware for nearly fifteen years of regular UAV operations over the continental US, the public has not been informed in many cases about specifics, when, what, and where. This continues to be the case.

 

The US military operates UAV platforms, in many cases larger platforms than what are described in the previously posted map. I can tell you that based on my own experience operating around and with that equipment. What is in use and where is not something I can discuss. If agencies and departments and users of the equipment are inclined to advise you, they will. It's not my place to do so.

 

What is germane to the discussion is that UAV operations have been present far longer than the opening of the thread would suggest, and they're more pervasive than provided, too.

 

Also of interest is the threat that UAV's present. Most certainly we're going to see an increase in unmanned traffic over the continental US in the near future. It's not something we're going to avoid. Those who think it's safe, or as safe as manned traffic either have a distinct agenda, or aren't very well informed.

 

Based on my own personal experience operating in concert with and around heavy UAV traffic, I will say that even the more sophisticated platforms are not particularly reliable with respect to holding altitude or being where they say they are, and they're not very good at dealing with other traffic, either.

 

UCAV equipment tends to view it's target through a very narrow window, much akin to watching the target through a paper towel tube. No peripheral view of other traffic or surrounding areas is generally given. Much of the UAS/UAV traffic isn't voice-capable, and while some (not all) of the traffic does have transponder capability, much of it doesn't, or doesn't employ a transponder.

 

I have seen UAV traffic up close (night, same altitude, less than a tenth of a mile, high closure) when it's reporting a thousand feet off, and I've seen a lot of UAV traffic much closer than intended when it wasn't where it was supposed to be. In another location outside the US, I had a pile of wreckage behind my hanger which was once a very expensive, sophisticated UAV that lost link...and crashed into our base area. It wasn't supposed to do that. They do.

 

UAV's are, in my opinion, a big hazard to aerial navigation. I'm not at all concerned about losing my job to a UAV; the jobs I've done, including manned versions of the same thing the UAV's are doing in many cases, aren't threatened by the UAV missions. Indeed, I've been called in to take over a mission being performed by UAV traffic before, because the UAV lost the target or was unable to proceed. It happens. (I've also been relieved by UAV equipment over a target area, too). UAV's do perform very useful and important functions. However, I've seen some very hazardous conditions when faced with UAV traffic in a busy area, and also in some very rural not-so-busy areas. While the details are not appropriate here, I had what I considered a very close encounter with a large, sophisticated model three years ago; it was not an isolated incident.

 

UAV traffic ought not be considered lightly. Those arguing whether or not they'll lose their job to the UAV are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

 

I really don't care what it looks like, or more specifically, what you think it looks like. Clearly once again this is a subject you don't know much about, and apparently you feel threatened by that, or perhaps embarrassed by that. This cannot be helped. For someone that calls himself "nightstalker," you ought to have a much greater knowledge of the topic, particularly if you plied your trade downrange. Perhaps you were too busy being tied to refueling probes and beaten with yardsticks to take the time to get informed. Who knows?

 

This isn't the forum for an in-depth discussion about this topic, particularly with regard to mission, location, and type. The fact is that this equipment has been operating in the USA for a long time now. Articles that suggest otherwise are poorly informed. You are likewise poorly informed.

 

There's a big difference between noting this information, and providing details. Your responses indicate very clearly that you're NOT the person to have or be provided that information. If that chaps your hide, so be it.

 

Thank you. That was exactly the kind of information we needed. And I agree with you 100%. I know a fair amount about UAVs overseas. Not much about them here other than the usual government agencies and military. My total lack of knowledge is about how the Feds plan to implement them in the future, over US cities. One piled into our Brigade commanders office in 2006 (lucky for him he wasn't in it) and I have seen the aftermath of other incidents as well. In regards to your personal jabs about my military career, go ahead. I know what I was read on about and I keep it to myself. Most of it is pretty boring anyway. I don't go around making myself out to be some super swoopy soldier. I wasn't. I was just a kid. I did the best I could, which probably left a lot to be desired. Your needling just goes on to prove what a bully you can be, and your valuable input is tainted by this.

Edited October 16, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[iChris]

 

Just to illustrate, the USAF is now training and sending more UAV pilots into service than traditional pilots. True statement.

 

Not a true statement. it was bantied around in 2009 quite a bit, but none of the billets I've seen for UPT graduates or pilot slots have reflected such figures. Far from it, in fact.

 

In 2009 a large increase was made to the number of UAV operators, which included staffing, but the USAF is still not creating more UAV "pilots" than pilots of manned aircraft. It's just not happening.

 

Having spent a lot of time operating in close proximity to large numbers of UAV traffic, however, I have a very dim view of most of the unmanned programs, especially with regard to safety for other air traffic.

 

 

A number of articles tell a different story. Just a few listed below:

 

“By 2015, the Pentagon projects that the Air Force will need more than 2,000 drone pilots for combat air patrols operating 24 hours a day worldwide. The Air Force is already training more drone pilots — 350 last year — than fighter and bomber pilots combined.”

New York Times, A Day Job Waiting for a Kill Shot a World Away, July 2012

 

“The U.S. Air Force is training more drone “pilots” than those who will be at the controls of traditional aircraft, according to the Air Force chief of staff.”

 

“To date, there are reportedly around 1,300 people controlling the Air Force’s arsenal of Reaper, Predator, and Global Hawk drones, and the Pentagon plans to add about 2,500 pilots and support crew by 2014, according to an article in published August 3 by The Times (of London)”.

 

New American, U.S. Air Force Training More Drone, Than Traditional, "Pilots", August 2012

 

“Though the Pentagon is increasing its fleet of drones by 30 percent and military leaders estimate that, within a year or so, the number of Air Force pilots flying unmanned planes could be higher than the number who actually leave the ground, much about how and where the U.S. government operates drones remains a secret. Even the pilots we interviewed wore black tape over their nametags. The Air Force, citing concerns for the pilots’ safety, forbids them to reveal their last names.

 

It is widely known that the United States has three different drone programs. The first is the publicly acknowledged program run by the Pentagon that has been operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other two are classified programs run separately by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, which maintain separate lists of people targeted for killing.”

 

New York Times, The Drone Zone, July 2012

Edited October 16, 2012 by iChris

[avbug]

Previously the track into UAV operations was through UPT: one had to be a pilot before being assigned a UAV billet. That's no longer the case. The USAF isn't training UAV pilots any longer: the training pipeline isn't for officers, as a rule, it's for enlisted, and they're operators, not pilots. Operations are takeoff and landing, with nearly all other aspects of the operation performed through automation of varying types.

 

Completion of pilot training, through UPT/SUPT, takes a year. A training course for basic UAV operation...a month. Whereas previously UAV operators were graduates of pilot training programs, beginning in 2008, the USAF transitioned others into the training pipeline independent of pilot training, with the goal of separating the two pipelines.

 

In 2009, a number of papers reported that the USAF was turning out more UAV "pilots" than "real pilots" during a large increase in UAV platforms and purchases (USAF isn't the biggest operator of UAV's incidentally). This misleadingly suggested that of all the pilot assignments (F15, C17, etc), more were going into UAV's than anything else. It's untrue.

 

One could say that the USAF trains more security police than "real pilots," or more medical personnel than "real pilots," but then one would be comparing apples and oranges.

 

While the USAF has expanded the training of UAS/UAV/UCAV operators, the USAF has also separated the training, and the numbers you think you're seeing don't take into account the fact that many of those in the UAV training pipeline are staffers. A better comparison would be to compare not only all the "real pilots," but all the loadmasters and flight engineers, too. When you'er talking staffers, mission specialists, and others, these are included in the numbers of those being trained into UAV operations, and to use those inflated numbers against those of "real pilots" is incorrect, untrue, and misleading.

 

Military operations are also staffing aircraft with civilian pilots in certain cases. GOCO (government owned, contractor operated) aircraft are in use performing the same missions as the UAV's. C-12's and BE300/BE-350's, Dash 7's, PC-12's, DHC-6's, and other platforms are conducting these missions, often staffed with civil pilots and military personnel, and expand the numbers of aircraft that the USAF and US Army provide over target areas, without showing reflected increases in pilot training. The aircraft are still manned platforms put in use, and there's still a big difference in the qualifications and training of the UAV operators vs. the pilots operating in those operations and locations.

 

Don't believe everything you read in the Times.

[herceng]

iChris..I appreciate you including links to the info I was thinking of when I made my post.

 

Avbug..there may well be some semantic distinction between which pilots are trained where and how they matriculate to manned aircraft or UAV's, but my comment was intended to generally highlight the rapid growth in UAV technology and use. Within the Air Force, these stats seem to reflect where the Air Force sees itself going in the future. It's pretty clear that lots of people are interested in civilian/commercial applications for UAV's, and since this technology is a military baby, stands to reason that many markets off base will see a similar growth as soon as they're given the green light.

 

As far as the Air Force goes, UAV pilots are still pilots and they're still officers. The Sensor Operators are enlisted. Neither of their training pipelines are a month long. I've heard some of the Army UAV's are flown by enlisted guys, some with no prior aviation experience, but that's third hand. Certainly someone here will be happy to correct me.

 

When I'm not deployed with the Air Guard (like I am now), I've been peripherally involved in a DOJ funded program that has been studying affordable aviation options for small to mid-sized law enforcement agencies, and while the program initially focused on evaluation a number of light sport-fixed wing aircraft, powered parachutes, etc., there has been an increased focus on UAV's over the last couple years. The FAA is the biggest obstruction at this point, and that's being worked on by lots of people that have lots of interest in seeing this work.

 

So...I guess my point is while nobody is threatening to send you or FlyingPig a pink slip, there are vast changes on the horizon. Many aspects of manned aviation can't be replaced. I think we all agree on this, but many can. Like it or not.

[herceng]

Again, just to highlight;

Article about a commercially designed UAV, intended for use with such things as wildfires and agriculture (typically manned aviation tasks), demonstrated at an Air Force base.

 

http://www.krtv.com/news/uav-takes-flight-over-malmstrom-afb/

[Mikemv]

It's like something out of sci-fi: The bad guy, dressed in black, runs from police officers and manages to shimmy up a drainpipe and hide on a deserted roof. But then from behind him rises a small computerized helicopter that tracks his every move.

 

Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern is considering the possibility of outfitting his office with the latest in unmanned drone technology, making it the first law enforcement agency in California to use this kind of technology.

 

They earned their stripes in combat, and now unmanned aerial drones are being used "http://www.usnews.co...r-surveillance" across the country to help law enforcement officers cut costs and still curb crime. The small, lightweight devices are being billed as a cheap alternative to helicopters.

With a 4-foot wing span, the 4-pound drone, armed with a live camera, can cost anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000, but can also give police officers a bird's eye view of the bad guys, as NBC notes.

The first arrest using drones happened in North Dakota, according to the LA Times, but so far, no California law enforcement agency has used them.

Not everyone is happy about the new development of this crime-fighting technology. Not surprisingly, the ACLU is especially upset about the drones, saying flying them over people's backyards could lead to an invasion of privacy.

After first trying a drone about a year ago, Ahern is looking into testing one during the upcoming "Urban Shield" exercise, which brings together 30 different law enforcement agencies, in a couple weeks.

What do you think, are drones creepy?

 

Sorry about the crappy text that was present previously. i did a copy and paste and did not reread the text.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Mikemv

[avbug]

Note that the miniature UAV was demonstrated at Malstrom...not the tasks.

 

The folks floating these ideas are one-trick ponies, offering a single-dimensional view of the "task."

 

Oversight on a fire is performed by ASM modules, leadplanes, air attack, and various helittack or helicopter platforms, as well as tankers. It's a lot more than flying in circles, looking at a fire. Aerial communications by a live person handling multiple radios at once, as well as complex involved interaction with ground and air assets is the major function of the air attack platform. That's not going to be replaced by a UAV. An ATGS is a firefighter who has 20 or more years of ground firefighting and management experience, who knows what each person on the ground needs, who can direct the tactics of the fire, act as an airborne air traffic control unit for the fire traffic area, manage assets over the fire and on drops, provide eyes in the sky for ground troops, including weather and wind assessment, fire movement and behavior, guiding vehicles and people in and our of fire areas, save zone coverage, and responses to tactical emergencies. This isn't something conducive to UAV operations.

 

In short, one loses a LOT with a UAV over a fire.

 

In agricultural operations, there's a lot more to applying chemical than flying over and making an assessment of the crop using a sepctroanalysis, or photograph. One needs to travel to the field, examine the crop, count the predators or insects, identify the diseases, make recommendations, and treat the crop. Actually applying the chemical is only part of that, but an important part, and not something best done by a UAV.

 

I don't see UAV's taking over either of those roles.

 

As for creepy, not really. It's just a camera in the sky; some have better capabilities than others, but it's just another vantage point.

 

Aircraft fly over your back yard now. Before deploying overseas, we practiced on people here in the US...we often tracked people to and from their homes, to parking lots, to businesses, along highways and rivers, at day and at night. We'd find properties with interesting features and practice making covert assessments of what we saw, in great detail. It's done every day.

 

My back yard has a brick wall around it. People can't see in from the street, but anyone flying over certainly can. What's new?