<p>
</p>
<p>[Predator</a> Pilots Suffering War Stress](<a href=“http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news]Predator”>http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news)
[UAV</a> PTSD - Google Search](<a href=“UAV PTSD - Google Search”>UAV PTSD - Google Search)</p>
<p>And yes, they’re all in NV.</p>
<p>Uh…okay, minor bit of clarification. ALL the RPV control stations are NOT in Nevada (as in Creech AFB).</p>
<p>Quite a lot of the missions are now flown by members of the CA, AZ, ND, and NY Air National Guard. Their “pods” are on station at their bases. And other ANG units are transitioning to the UAS/RPV mission.</p>
<p>Only the AD folks are at Creech.</p>
<p>I stand corrected. Thanks, sir.</p>
<p>I see…so it definitely seems like that the Air Force is transisitioning to RPV’s then?</p>
<p>What effect will this have on the future careers of officers? Will we eventually go to RPV’s altogether?</p>
<p>The effects are a bit scary…who knew that you were more likely to become a combat causualty when you weren’t even physically near the fighting!</p>
<p>A good question. Where are we going?</p>
<p>I think you have to look at the “big picture” here. BTW, I HATED that phrase when I was a 'dink, and even a junior officer. Only when I became a senior officer (age, no stars) did it really start to “make sense.”</p>
<p>Currently we have fighters that cost $25-$40M each when they were bought…back in the late 1970s and early/mid 1980s. Those are the BIGGIES like '15s, '16s. The Hog was MUCH cheaper.</p>
<p>NOW…the B-2 cost us over $1.5 BILLION each. When the one crashed at Anderson AFB a few years ago (its on Youtube) that’s what we lost. To put that in perspective: The USS Enterprise, the worlds largest (length, not weight) aircraft carrier only cost $450+ MILLION dollars. The latest, USS Nimitz class with ALL things done, costs $4+/- Billion. Basically when the B-2 crashed it was like watching an aircraft carrier sink!</p>
<p>And the F-22…care to guess? the program costs are approximately $65 Billion and we’re going to get 187 jets. The 'net says the “flyaway cost” of the jet is ~ $142Million…but with the program costs added, each jet is over $340Million.</p>
<p>Think we can sustain those numbers?</p>
<p>Then…look at the capability of the UAS/RPV that we have NOW “overtly.” They can carry weapons (MQ-9 Reaper routinely carries Hellfire’s and 500lb GPS/Laser bombs.), can loiter for almost a full day (24 hours) and they don’t put a pilot or crew in danger.</p>
<p>Think about it: 4 Reapers overhead…you have a strike force above your troops that doesn’t have to go to the tanker every 30 minutes…and no pilot is at risk.</p>
<p>For recce? The U-2 is going away and being replaced by Global Hawk. Cheaper to operate, no pilot, etc…etc…</p>
<p>Air refueling…the Navy has already displayed an F-18 with a “hands off” A/R capability. Now…put that ability into an RPV/UAS and you have an aircraft that can go “theoretically” indefinitely. Put weapons on it…you see where this is going?</p>
<p>The F-35…supposed to be an amazing aircraft! Cost? Nobody knows. GAO said as high as $97 million in FY2008 dollars…nobody seems to know and for good reason: they aren’t here yet and nobody knows how many will be purchased (here in the USA and overseas). So until you know that…the end-unit cost…unknown.</p>
<p>Does anyone really think the USA will buy 2,000 or more of these? Manned fighters? When the RPV/UAS world is developing so quickly?</p>
<p>I do not. I think it will be the last manned fighter and like the F-22, I think it will be purchased in MUCH lower numbers.</p>
<p>Sorry for the long post, but I think this is where the AF of the future is going…big picture.</p>
<p>The only pressing issues I see are people’s trust of RPVs and points of failure.</p>
<p>I sure hope we are develping multiple methods of control for these things. It would suck to lose 90% of our airpower capability because somone created a debris field that hit our comm. satellites…</p>
<p>The only pressing issues I see are people’s trust of RPVs and points of failure.</p>
<p>I sure hope we are develping multiple methods of control for these things. It would suck to lose 90% of our airpower capability because somone created a debris field that hit our comm. satellites… </p>
<p>True, I agree with that statement…It’s a bit of a liabililty if we lose communitcation with the RPV’s…but then again, there is the economic fact that they are much, MUCH, cheaper to produce.</p>
<p>Aren’t there many people in the service, and Congress, that question why we are building F22’s and F35’s? I mean, the F15 has a great record as a fighter plane</p>
<p>fliege89, what impact has RPV’s had on Air Force culture/identity? Do you think that we may someday have Generals/ Chief’s of Staff who only flew RPV’s?</p>
<p>Sure we’ll have general officers that only flew UAS/RPV’s. Heck, we have lots of generals NOW without wings! </p>
<p>And rightfully so!</p>
<p>I am now going to speak sacrilege: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A PILOT TO COMMAND PILOTS!</p>
<p>There, I said it.</p>
<p>When you realize that over 86% of the USAF does NOT fly…why should the “upper command” be exclusively flyers? Not smart, IMHO. And yes folks, I am an AF pilot; UPT class 84-06.</p>
<p>Take a look around and some of the more brilliant leaders you’ve seen or read about…they didn’t always have the same career field as that in which they were commanding. And they’ve done well. My BEST squadron commander? (KC-135’s, F-15’s, T-38’s)</p>
<p>He was a KC-135 Navigator!</p>
<p>I fully expect to see IN MY LIFETIME a non-rated Chief of Staff of the USAF…it will happen. And that’s not a bad thing.</p>
<p>The air force cannot and will not ever eliminate the human fighter pilot. Too much tradition and the like are behind it. But in actuality, the money issue is pressing and it is cheaper to fly drones around all day and shoot at the bad guys. But, nothing can ever replace a human “inhabited” aircraft in combat as for decision making, etc. Talk of the UAVs and possibly making a robot fleet(if they haven’t already) makes me sick…because I feel many aspects our air force needs the human capability inside of the airframe, not in a little box with an arcade game inside of it. For those who want to fly UAVs, I like you guys. Just makes more pilot slots available for those who dream of flying from an actual cockpit =)</p>
<p>I like your enthusiasm but I’m sorry to say I think you’re wrong.</p>
<p>The “manned fighter” is dying quickly. What’s the purpose of having one? There won’t be any more “air to air” battles on the order of WWII/Korea/VNam…the technology and tactics have evolved FAR beyond that. Think about it…35 years after the Korean War…I flew a jet (F-15C) that, had it existed with its current weapons, during the Korean War, would have enabled me to literally destroy a squadron of MiG’s in one fight. And it wouldn’t have been that hard because I could have taken the first batch out BVR (beyond visual range). </p>
<p>Now? This is 20 years later…the missiles are MUCH better than they were when I was flying the Eagle…range, capability, etc., FAR superior. A manned fighter in a “jet to jet” fight is a big target; technology determines a LOT re: who lives and who dies. </p>
<p>And to what end? We’re not escorting large bomber formations to bomb fixed targets. Think about it…you want to take out a high value target…currently we either shoot a cruise missile at it or we send something like the F-15E in. So, let’s be different and use more current technology…let’s arm up a Global Hawk…if I do that, why do I need to send a manned plane into a danger/threat area? Send the RPV…it strikes the target and returns. If its downed, it’s less expensive than the manned aircraft and I don’t have to worry about a rescue operation (which puts a LOT of folks in danger as they try to locate and rescue the downed crew) and extraction.</p>
<p>“…cannot and will not ever eliminate the human fighter pilot…”</p>
<p>I think they will. And I think it will probably take place in my lifetime, if I’m lucky enough to live another 30 years or so.</p>
<p>FYI…I’m a 50 year old guy, still serving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s going to happen.</p>
<p>Futureafacadet-- you better lose that attitude pretty quickly, or I don’t think that you will be successful at the academy, or in the military.</p>
<p>flieger- First, I’d like to thank you for you service…do you know when they would phase out all manned fighter craft? Do you think Cargo planes/ helo’s will become RPV’s soon as well?</p>
<p>At this point, I don’t think anyone knows the timeline of the coming transition.</p>
<p>I’d put money on cargo pilots being phased out first though. The decision making involved with flying a fighter just seems significantly harder to perfect.</p>
<p>Petko is correct; nobody has any idea of what/when/where. The future of flying in the AF is a constantly evolving process.</p>
<p>What it will ultimately come down to, IMHO, is: can the UAS/RPV do the mission at an acceptable level of success/reliability? IF it can, then I think you’ll start to see the migration begin.</p>
<p>Cargo aircraft…not to scare the FEDEX/UPS pilots out there but…think Global Hawk. Takeoff from Beale, overfly Tahiti, overfly New Zealand and perform recce mission, then fly on to an Australian AFB and land there: on time. It’s been done, several years ago, and since then many times. And it works. </p>
<p>Okay…so why not do that with a LARGE aircraft? The ability is there NOW but I’m not sure the “powers that be” internationally are ready for that. Not YET. But it’s something that can be done NOW. </p>
<p>Fighters…again, can we do it now? Not overtly. We don’t have anything flying out there that has the heavy lift capability combined with the performance. That’s “overtly.” I have no idea what’s out there covertly. And if I did, I sure wouldn’t be talking about it! :-)</p>
<p>But…there is a jet UAS/RPV out there; it’s called the RQ-170 Sentinel. It looks like a small version of the B-2. Can it carry internal weapons? I don’t know. BUT IF IT COULD…then you have a JET striker…now…take it one step further…make one that’s maneuverable like a fighter (or more, no pilot on board allows MUCH higher G forces) and that carries weapons…</p>
<p>You fly it like you do the MQ-9 Reaper…and it’s a jet, highly maneuverable, heavy weapons load, no fear, no concerns about losing a pilot…WHY would I need a manned aircraft if I could have this? But then again, why worry about the maneuverability? One-on-one fighter combat is, I think, done. Sit back at standoff range, use BVR shots to kill the other guys aircraft, and if possible, NEVER get close enough to make it a real fight.</p>
<p>It won’t be this year, and it probably won’t be before 2020…but I think by 2020 you’ll see a LARGE RPV/UAS presence in the USAF and the role of the pilot will have evolved considerably.</p>
<p>It’s going to be a VERY interesting time!!</p>
<p>FYI…the US Navy went through something similar decades ago. You went to USNA and then you went to the fleet and a BATTLESHIP. THAT was the assignment to get you promoted, great assignments, etc…etc… And that was true UNTIL World War 2. Then all of Billy Mitchell’s “theories” about airpower were proved and the aircraft carrier and the air wing FOREVER supplanted the battleship in the navy.</p>
<p>Might the RVP do that to the fighter pilot in the USAF?</p>
<p>Maybe.</p>
<p>Regarding the imminent demise of fighter aircraft, I continue to be amused at the same, though slightly varied arguments that predict fighters will be made obsolete by some new technology. In Viet Nam, guns in fighters weren’t going to be needed because of long-range missiles that could shoot down the bad guy BVR. Interesting how the ROE made VID mandatory… Soon, the guns were needed but the F-4 (replaced the F-8) didn’t have one. The Air Force scrambled to get one retrofitted in theirs. </p>
<p>RPA’s will be formidable, but I would imaging an unmanned wing man, or two, lead by a manned aircraft. We are very lucky to enjoy the type of uncontested airspace that makes the use of Pred A/B possible. Look at the Georgian UAS film chronicling how a Russian Mig shot it down. Surprised it didn’t use a gun. </p>
<p>Don’t count the manned fighters out yet. The FedEx guys and UPS… wanna fly RPA?</p>
<p>Currently, I do not see any programs to provide an RPA operator with anywhere near the SA that fighter pilots have…nor have I heard speculation to that effect.</p>
<p>Once the “looking through a straw” problem can be efficiently solved, I’d be looking for the demise of manned fighters.</p>
<p>I can tell you that there is a furious test/development program going on right now at Edwards AFB for the “UCAV” which is the “Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle” which translates to “fighter without a pilot.”</p>
<p>Has the manned fighter died? Of course not; and that’s not what I’m saying, and I don’t think anyone out here in the “field” is saying that. What we are saying is: its days are numbered by </p>
<p>a. Cost
b. RPV cababilities
c. “Political winds” such that: do NOT put our people at risk if a machine can do it without a pilot…etc…etc…</p>
<p>Currently folks are correct: you can not build the “SA” at a ground station that you can in the cockpit of a fighter. But (and I flew fighters) here’s the counter: “So what?” True, right now I can’t fly a UCAV “to the merge” and go “beak to beak” with a fighter…</p>
<p>BUT WHY WOULD I WANT TO?</p>
<p>I get improved SA via Link-16…then when the moments right, I light up my target, pop off a Slammer (AIM120), and then “go dark” and watch…HE has to immediately honor that threat and attempt to defeat the incoming missile. And the odds of defeating a properly used slammer…not so good; he’s most likely toast.</p>
<p>Oh, this happens BVR…we never see each other. No gun fight (that’s NOT a smart place to be) and no maneuvering like in WWI,WWII, Korea, VNam…again, that kind of fight can get you killed.</p>
<p>So back to my UCAV…armed with AIM120s, Link-16, etc…etc…and whatever else is out there that I am NOT privy to…</p>
<p>Don’t think I can do that from the ground station?</p>
<p>It won’t happen today, this year, or probably even this decade.</p>
<p>But it WILL happen. Technology is just improving TOO quickly and making the modern battlefield so much more lethal.</p>
<p>As much as I don’t want to admit it, the fighter pilot will be extinct before long. Maybe not during our careers so much, but there’s a push in that direction. Computers do it better, it’s as simple as that. If the human mind can think it or do it, a computer can, too, and probably a lot faster.</p>
<p>I was always one of those “a computer will never be able to fly a combat aircraft” type, but once I got started in my CompSci classes, I’m realizing anything is possible with a computer.</p>
<p>To be honest, the only sure way of getting a fighter slot is going Guard. No, the Guard guys don’t get Active Duty benefits and may even have to find a civilian job, but they know what they’ll be flying at the end of UPT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to have to disagree. Give yourself, and humanity, a little more credit than that.</p>
<p>See also: [Technological</a> singularity](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity]Technological”>Technological singularity - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Current computers do not have creativity. They are VERY good at doing what we program them do do, but other than that…</p>
<p>
Didn’t we say this before Vietnam?</p>