# Looking for input on AF future and drones



## falconpunch (27 Dec 2013)

Hello all,

I'm not a servicemember; I'm a journalist and author working on a piece about drone warfare.

I know how servicemembers feel about certain elements of the media, so I just wanted to give a heads-up and say that I'm not looking to demonize anyone. Nor will I be quoting anything I find in here as a source. I'm doing this because I have read nothing but press reports and studies and would like to see how actual people in the AF feel.

The threads that I've turned up in the search about drones seem to have a slightly negative slant towards them. A lot of this seems to be because of the possibility of drones spying/killing on American soil. However, do you think drones themselves are more effective, or have the potential to be more effective, in the current Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts? It would appear that drones are not as vulnerable to fatigue as conventional aircraft, being able to stay in the air for much longer, but the targeted killings in Pakistan have cost a lot of civilian casualties. Is this due to failures of the technology, or is there something else I am missing?

Although the military has changed a lot I understand there is still difficulty when it comes to gender integration. I have often read complaints and excerpts from books that suggest the military has bent the rules when it comes to physical fitness standards for women, and that the presence of women in combat can be distracting for men's protective instincts. Since drones will remove pilots from immediate danger, do you predict that drone technology will allow women and possibly the less able (such as injured veterans) to participate more? Do you believe that drones will make the AF culture into a more laid-back, office atmosphere?

Finally, do you have an opinion on whether drones are "right" or "wrong?" A lot of people are talking about the societal implications of being able to kill through a screen. On one hand there is the concern that this will desensitize us and make bombing too convenient. On the other hand, drones protect the pilot physically and (to a lesser extent) psychologically, as there have been fewer reported instances of PTSD amongst drone pilots. 

I know this is a touchy subject but I would appreciate your candor. Cheers and thanks for your thoughts.

P.S Unrelated question: what role do PMC contractors play in the AF? How do you address them when speaking to them?


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2013)

Could you provide some links to articles that you have written/published in the past?

Before responding some of us would be interested in knowing a bit more about you and the type of work that you do.

 :subbies:


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Dec 2013)

You're asking a lot of questions about American military politics and policies, on a predominately Canadian military forum. Our drones don't have weapon systems (yet?) and we've been gender integrated since the early 90s.


----------



## dimsum (28 Dec 2013)

"Drones" imply a "fire and forget" system that has flight plans, etc. pre-loaded and intended to be shot down (e.g. target drones), with little to no human interaction once they're launched.  

OP, I think what you are referring to are Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/Systems (UAV/UAS).  It's a small but important point, especially since you're looking to write a piece about them.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Dec 2013)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> "Drones" imply a "fire and forget" system that has flight plans, etc. pre-loaded and intended to be shot down (e.g. target drones), with little to no human interaction once they're launched.
> 
> OP, I think what you are referring to are Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/Systems (UAV/UAS).  It's a small but important point, especially since you're looking to write a piece about them.



Further to Dimsum's point, the Canadian, British and German armies all used the AN/USD 501 reconnaissance drone manufactured by Canadair in the late 60s and into the 70s and later. (Force cuts saw the Canadian ones shelved after a couple of years but the other armies used them successfully in Europe for quite a while.) As I recall, the drone could be programmed to fly a route with four or five turns set into the flight path and a number of camera runs by its built in vertical and oblique camera suite. Its route ended at a planned recovery area, where it shut its engine off and deployed some parachutes to bring it safely to the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-89

While primitive by today's standards, it was leading edge technology then. Canadair then developed a remotely operated "helicopter" that looked like a peanut with contra rotating rotors in the middle of its body, but the Canadian government of the day failed to support it and the program folded and Canadiar got out of the defence systems business.


----------



## GAP (28 Dec 2013)

and this 

Warplanes: The Cylon F-4 Fleet Is Complete
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20131223.aspx
December 23, 2013

 The U.S. Air Force recently received its last QF-4 drone aircraft. Over 300 F-4 Phantom fighters were modified to fly by remote control and the last batch of 50 were delivered over the last four years. The last one had spent two decades in storage in the “boneyard” before being refurbished and fitted out as a UAV. The mods cost about $1.4 million per aircraft, plus the cost of getting a boneyard aircraft back in flying shape. The QF-4 first appeared when the U.S. Air Force retired its F-4 fighters in the 1980s and fully replaced the QF-106 in 1998. The air force ran out of retired (but still flyable) F-4s to convert this year.

This QF-4 arrived just in time because it wasn’t until September 2013 that the first QF-16 (remotely controlled F-16 fighter) made its first flight. These unmanned F-16s will be used as aerial targets, just as their predecessors were. The QF-16s are being converted from F-16s that have been retired from service. Currently at least 200 F-16s are scheduled to be converted. This first order of QF-16s is being delivered this year and six QF-16 aircraft have already been converted to remote (no pilot in the cockpit) flight control and they will be available for use in early 2014.

The process of equipping the F-16 with all the necessary sensors (cameras and remote feeds of the aircraft radar) and remote capabilities took longer than expected, even though there was a lot of experience doing this to older aircraft (F-4s, F-100s, F-102s, and F-106s). The QF type aircraft use GPS to help with navigation and to insure that QFs flying in formation don't collide with one another. The aircraft also carries sensors to detect near misses by missiles. The original plan was to introduce the first QF-16s in 2011, after deciding to do it in 2010. But there were technical problems that delayed the first QG-16 flying until September 2013. The QF-16s can still carry a pilot who can fly the aircraft or simply observe how the remote control process is working.

Training operations destroy up to 25 remotely controlled QF class fighters a year. The existing supply of decommissioned F-4s is exhausted and the QF-16s are arriving just in time. Before the QF-4, the air force had converted 218 F-100s (for use from 1983-92), 136 F-102s (from 1974-85), and 210 F-106s (1990-98) to act as full scale target aircraft. There are smaller UAVs that are also used as targets. The full scale models are needed to fully test the capabilities of new, and existing, missiles. Nothing like using real missiles against real targets to build pilot confidence and be sure the damn things work.

The UAV version of an aircraft is superior, in some ways, to one with a pilot in it. This is mainly because pilots black out when the aircraft makes turns too sharply at high speed. The air force discovered how effective this capability was during the 1970s, when they rigged some jet fighters to fly without a pilot and had them go up against manned aircraft. The QF-16 has already demonstrated its ability to carry out acrobatic maneuvers under remote control.


----------



## jeffb (29 Dec 2013)

RPVs do not kill anyone. The weapons that they employ do. The GPU-12 or AGM-114 that comes off the rails of a Reaper are essentially the same system as those that come off an aircraft with a pilot in the cockpit. I'm not really sure why the media likes to portray UAV/RPV systems as somehow morally different? Are not the cruise missiles that we have been using for decades the same sort of idea albeit with a lot loss discernment? 

RPVs allow the United States, Canada does not possess any weaponized RPVs, to deliver munitions with arguably greater target discernment without exposing any friendly pilots to harm. Unlike in a manned aircraft, the decision to release a munition can be made with the input of numerous experts including legal advisers, image analysts, national policy advisers, etc. These people are probably not under the same adrenaline effects that a fighter pilot would be and thus, should be able to make better decisions against targets that are not immediately identifiable as hostile. This, coupled with their long loiter times, make them ideal in low to no air threat environments.


----------



## dimsum (30 Dec 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> RPVs do not kill anyone. The weapons that they employ do. The GPU-12 or AGM-114 that comes off the rails of a Reaper are essentially the same system as those that come off an aircraft with a pilot in the cockpit. I'm not really sure why the media likes to portray UAV/RPV systems as somehow morally different? Are not the cruise missiles that we have been using for decades the same sort of idea albeit with a lot loss discernment?
> 
> RPVs allow the United States, Canada does not possess any weaponized RPVs, to deliver munitions with arguably greater target discernment without exposing any friendly pilots to harm. Unlike in a manned aircraft, the decision to release a munition can be made with the input of numerous experts including legal advisers, image analysts, national policy advisers, etc. These people are probably not under the same adrenaline effects that a fighter pilot would be and thus, should be able to make better decisions against targets that are not immediately identifiable as hostile. This, coupled with their long loiter times, make them ideal in low to no air threat environments.



A-freaking-men brother.  

I have not, to this day, found a compelling reason why a weapon launched off an RPA is any worse than one off a B-1 or A-10.  The "moral outrage" is that there are these things flying around shooting off on at whim.  Those people have watched too many Terminator movies.

If anything, the longer loiter time (hours, sometimes) means the RPA crews have made doubly or triply-sure that there aren't any civilians rather than the fighter rolling in within maybe minutes of seeing the target.  I'm willing to bet money that there have been potential strikes that were cancelled at the last minute due to that RPA feed.


----------

