# USAF Proposes Single-Operator MQ-9 Cockpit



## dimsum

> The USAF now operates 60 continuous surveillance orbits with the MQ-9 and MQ-1 Predator, which requires a cadre of about 1,000 pilots and 1,000 sensor operators.
> 
> By redesigning the ground station for single-pilot operations, like the Lockheed Martin F-16, the air force could potentially reduce the manpower requirement by hundreds of sensor operators, Otto says.
> - See more at: http://www.uasvision.com/2015/10/29/usaf-proposes-single-operator-mq-9-cockpit/#sthash.huQfPdSb.dpuf



http://www.uasvision.com/2015/10/29/usaf-proposes-single-operator-mq-9-cockpit/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've no payload operator experience on a UAV, but I know how busy things can get for the operator once 'things start happening'.  I could see this perhaps working for routine surveillance, but maybe not so much in a dynamic environment.

I am curious to see the thoughts of this on here from people who have GCS seat time.


----------



## dimsum

I can't see this happening in anything other than transit.  I have trouble seeing how one can use radios, Chat and maintain a camera as well as monitoring aircraft (if in orbit).

This, coming from someone with GCS seat time (in both seats).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I can't see this happening in anything other than transit.  I have trouble seeing how one can use radios, Chat and maintain a camera as well as monitoring aircraft (if in orbit).



I thought it seemed...busy...but my only GCS time was the guided tour.



> This, coming from someone with GCS seat time (in both seats).



Thinking back to the good ol days of your last posting?  Just think, now you are getting to enjoy a fine, fine day in the ditch!   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Anybody sees the irony in trying to reduce the number of "pilots" you need to fly pilotless planes.  ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I can't see this happening in anything other than transit.  I have trouble seeing how one can use radios, Chat and maintain a camera as well as monitoring aircraft (if in orbit).
> 
> This, coming from someone with GCS seat time (in both seats).



Guess what single seat attack pilots do?!


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Anybody sees the irony in trying to reduce the number of "pilots" you need to fly pilotless planes.  ;D



They're not Pilotless. The Pilot just isn't inside of them.

Single-seat fighters seem able to use targetting pods and drop/launch weapons fairly well, so I cannot say that a UAV job cannot be done by one person. I would not think it ideal, though.

Decent technology and a good GCS may make it feasible.

We typically operated Sperwer with four in the box (Mission Commander, Aerial Vehicle Operator, Payload Operator, and an Int Guy.

I wouldn't say that the Sperwer system, including its GCS, was crappy, but - yes, it was crappy. Each crew position only had one monitor, so the AVO had to constantly flip through pages on it to see his complete instrumentation. Comms between the box and outside was via Mirc chat, so the MC spent a bunch of time typing and it's hard to fly while doing so. Voice would have been better and that, combined with a few other simple technical improvements, could have allowed the MC and AVO to be combined (and, as a side benefit, I'd have been able to shout at the clueless thuds [some of them certainly were, but some were alright-to-good] on the other end of the fibre-optics cable when they were not paying attention). The Int Guy did not have to be in the box at all, but some Rotos had MCs who did not have a Tac Hel and/or recce background and I think that he/she was added in order to compensate for any such lacks.

We were very envious of the Reaper GCS. The air conditioning actually worked, they had more monitors than a Best Buy, and, oh, the comfy chairs....

One can only dream of such comfy chairs. We had standard Staples rolly office chairs with, were one fortunate, all five casters.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Guess what single seat attack pilots do?!



The distracting part is the Chat - it's the same program as the ones in the TOC, etc. and we need to monitor XX chat windows.  

As an analogy, imagine replacing all tactical comms that manned aircraft do by voice with chat messages to XX different agencies.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> We typically operated Sperwer with four in the box (Mission Commander, Aerial Vehicle Operator, Payload Operator, and an Int Guy.



For background, Heron had 2 stations:  GCS and Int Cell (Canadian) or GMS (Ground Mission Station - Australian).  GCS had the Air Veh Operator and Payload Operator, while GMS (Canadian) had 3 Int Ops or (Australian) 1 ISRO (Mission Commander, usually Int O but can be various), 2 Int Ops and an EW team.  

Comms were mostly Chat to customer/tasking authority and radio for ATC, with ICS for the two boxes.  Again, lots of things were trialled and by the end of the Australian tour, and the GCS looked very different than the beginnings of the Canadian tour with more TV screens bolted on, etc.  EITS - what you saw was prob half of the hardware that I was using by the end.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I have seen where we've had 2 NavComms; 1 to handle the 'comms' on the multi's, HF etc and one as the "Mirc Monkey" with XX windows to monitor; both hit points of being saturated.  Each platform has its own variations on how they ANC, I doubt a single-seater would be able to monitor XX chat windows...


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Anybody sees the irony in trying to reduce the number of "pilots" you need to fly pilotless planes.  ;D



Actually, the USAF wouldn't be reducing the number of RPA Pilots but Sensor Operators.  It would be interesting to see what would happen to them, since they're a specialized (ie. off the street) field that doesn't really have any manned counterpart.

If the GCS can be changed so that all chat is taken out and replaced by secure voice, that will be a massive step in possibly reducing it to a single-person job.  However, MQ-9s are primarily ISR and not strike aircraft.  Even in the manned world, ISR aircraft (P-3s, MC-12s, etc) are currently multi-crew with a sensor operator dedicated to looking down the EO/IR.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The distracting part is the Chat - it's the same program as the ones in the TOC, etc. and we need to monitor XX chat windows.
> 
> As an analogy, imagine replacing all tactical comms that manned aircraft do by voice with chat messages to XX different agencies.
> 
> For background, Heron had 2 stations:  GCS and Int Cell (Canadian) or GMS (Ground Mission Station - Australian).  GCS had the Air Veh Operator and Payload Operator, while GMS (Canadian) had 3 Int Ops or (Australian) 1 ISRO (Mission Commander, usually Int O but can be various), 2 Int Ops and an EW team.
> 
> Comms were mostly Chat to customer/tasking authority and radio for ATC, with ICS for the two boxes.  Again, lots of things were trialled and by the end of the Australian tour, and the GCS looked very different than the beginnings of the Canadian tour with more TV screens bolted on, etc.  EITS - what you saw was prob half of the hardware that I was using by the end.



If I had room in the aircraft, I am pretty sure I could manage the chat.  I know what mIRC is and I have used it in the CAOC.  It ain't that bad.

Single pilot[\s] operator UAV is feasible, provided your selection for the position is appropriate.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If I had room in the aircraft, I am pretty sure I could manage the chat.  I know what mIRC is and I have used it in the CAOC.  It ain't that bad.
> 
> Single pilot[\s] operator UAV is feasible, provided your selection for the position is appropriate.




Alright - I'll bite.  What is appropriate for your selection of RPA Pilot?  

I'm keeping "Pilot" as opposed to "Operator" as any MARS officer will tell you, "Pilot" as in harbour pilot has been in use a little while prior to the lighter-than-air variety.


----------



## SupersonicMax

If you make it single pilot, you need to have a selection that is similar to what the selection for fast jet is, consistig of both objective and subjective evaluation of capabilities (perhaps minus the above average hands and feet).  Being able to properly multi-task, fast and correct decision making, based on limited available information being the most important skills to master.


----------



## Baz

If you make it single seat vs two then there will be a decrease in capability and/or an increase in training bill, no matter how you cut it.

I can see it working for the roles nearer strike.  For the roles nearer ISR collection, I'm not so sure.

Fast jet guys are selected to be very good at what they do.  They aren't any better, or even as good, as what some others do; like multi mission long endurance and surveillance and attack, or long endurance ISR collection and analysis.  You would be hard pressed to do what a Cyclone does with less than four; heck, managing the radar completely can eat up one (although EITS can correct me).


----------



## SupersonicMax

Baz said:
			
		

> If you make it single seat vs two then there will be a decrease in capability and/or an increase in training bill, no matter how you cut it.
> 
> I can see it working for the roles nearer strike.  For the roles nearer ISR collection, I'm not so sure.
> 
> Fast jet guys are selected to be very good at what they do.  They aren't any better, or even as good, as what some others do; like multi mission long endurance and surveillance and attack, or long endurance ISR collection and analysis.  You would be hard pressed to do what a Cyclone does with less than four; heck, managing the radar completely can eat up one (although EITS can correct me).



I don't believe that 2-seat always increase capabilities.  It can, in some cases decrease your capabilities in half, having 1 guy dedicating half of his brain to sorting the other person out and the other half to doing his job.  A well coordinated crew can indeed be a force multiplier but it is definitely not a given.  Your training bill will decrease as you only put half the people through the pipe and some items that would be duplicated in both syllabi could be omitted.  

I am pretty sure I could do, with some training, pretty much any job in an aircraft.  I don't think everyone, with some training, could do my job. This may sound obnoxious, but I believe that we select our Fighter guys pretty well and I believe they are the best the RCAF has to offer in terms of technical officers.


----------



## Baz

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure I could do, with some training, pretty much any job in an aircraft.  I don't think everyone, with some training, could do my job. This may sound obnoxious, but I believe that we select our Fighter guys pretty well and I believe they are the best the RCAF has to offer in terms of technical officers.



It is obnoxious.

Reality is, pretty much any selected aircrew in the RCAF could be trained to do your job... it would just take longer and would be prohibitively expensive; and wouldn't produce as good a product.

Conversely, you would require just as much training as anybody else to do our jobs.  You think you could shorten the passive acoustics course?  You think you can be a Maritime Crew Commander without the same experience.  You think you are inherently better at putting a helo on a moving deck at pitch 5 roll 20.

I am also very good at what I do... and I'm very good at what I did in the military.  I also don't think I can do your job, nor the job of a senior defence scientist.

Ironically, I also knew that was exactly what you were going to say.  And you don't even realize that what you are saying is you think you are better than me.  In your mind even though I just retired with 26 years service, you know more about all of the military than I do.


----------



## Baz

By the way... we just suffered through a Comd RCAF that didn't know what most of us did, didn't care, try to stuff us into his limited view of the world, failed miserably, and thought we were all beneath him.   He was a product of your selection system...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Baz said:
			
		

> It is obnoxious.



As I said, I know.  And I don't really care.  It is what I believe.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Reality is, pretty much any selected aircrew in the RCAF could be trained to do your job... it would just take longer and would be prohibitively expensive; and wouldn't produce as good a product.



Not quite.  A lot of people fail along the way.  Some will do other jobs, like ACSO.  I have never heard of an ACSO failing off a course and being re-mustered to pilot and making it to Hornets.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Conversely, you would require just as much training as anybody else to do our jobs.  You think you could shorten the passive acoustics course?  You think you can be a Maritime Crew Commander without the same experience.  You think you are inherently better at putting a helo on a moving deck at pitch 5 roll 20.



I think, in general, you could shorten most courses and lower some of the experience requirements for upgrades.  We have 500 hours Captains (with 2-3 years on squadron) qualified as Mission Commanders, leading multi-national packages.  I don't think it's far stretched to believe they could upgrade to a Crew Commander in a short amount of time.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> I am also very good at what I do... and I'm very good at what I did in the military.  I also don't think I can do your job, nor the job of a senior defence scientist.



I have not said you (or anybody else) are not good (or very good) at what you do.  What I am saying is most fighter pilots would be good in any technical trade, and that the opposite is not necessarily true.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Ironically, I also knew that was exactly what you were going to say.  And you don't even realize that what you are saying is you think you are better than me.  In your mind even though I just retired with 26 years service, you know more about all of the military than I do.
> [/quote
> 
> I don't discredit your experience or how good you are at what you do (did).  I do believe though that in order to make it in a single seat fighter/attack aircraft, you need abilities (cognitive and technical) that other technical trades do not need that could help in those other trades.  A fighter pilot will fly an aircraft, manage a formation, talk to multiple external agencies (tactical & ATC), manage multiple sensors, fuse information, collect information, manage/employ weapons. And I can't really take a break for 5 minutes (and perhaps clear my head) and handoff some of my responsibilities while I take a piss.  I still need to do all of the above while taking a piss.  You do this for 6-9 hours at a time.
> 
> I am not saying I do all these individual tasks as good as the guys in the P-3 from my Hornet (after all, I am task-managing and prioritizing).  What I am saying is that if I was to dedicated 100% of my time to one or two of the tasks (like it happens in a multi-crew environment), I would be able to do as well or better.


----------



## Baz

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As I said, I know.  And I don't really care.  It is what I believe.
> 
> I think, in general, you could shorten most courses and lower some of the experience requirements for upgrades.  We have 500 hours Captains (with 2-3 years on squadron) qualified as Mission Commanders, leading multi-national packages.  I don't think it's far stretched to believe they could upgrade to a Crew Commander in a short amount of time.
> 
> I am not saying I do all these individual tasks as good as the guys in the P-3 from my Hornet (after all, I am task-managing and prioritizing).  What I am saying is that if I was to dedicated 100% of my time to one or two of the tasks (like it happens in a multi-crew environment), I would be able to do as well or better.



It's good your job requires arrogance to be truly aggressive,  because you have lots of it.

We had one of your's at 443 quite a while back.  Barely made crew commander and almost flew a crew into the water.  And here's what your community says: we only let him go because he was weak (but he made Major) and we were biased against him (cause as you say haters got to hate).

I've flown with pilot's that talk like you... they were a pain in the assessments because even though they didn't really understand what we were doing, they got in our shorts.

I'm actually quite sure you'd be better than some of us, but not all of us.

But here's what makes me angry, you actually think you are better than those crews at what they do because you made jets, even though you have no idea what they do.  And you belie hat every year of your experience is worth five of theirs. 

And in all that it was people from your community that pretty much destroyed some other ones... figure that...


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If you make it single pilot, you need to have a selection that is similar to what the selection for fast jet is, consistig of both objective and subjective evaluation of capabilities (perhaps minus the above average hands and feet).  *Being able to properly multi-task, fast and correct decision making, based on limited available information being the most important skills to master.
> *



That is exactly what a TACCO on an MH or TACNAV on an Aurora does.  

Seeing as RPAs are pretty much done with the "hands and feet" part (automatic takeoff/landing, flying via keyboard/mouse/trackpad or waypoints), arguably ACSOs are ideal RPA Pilots.


----------



## Loachman

We had a bunch of fighter guys dumped into 10 TAG in the eighties. I've been trying to think of any who were not complete thuds. So far, I've not been able to.

Roles and machines are different.

Learning how to fly a given machine is not particularly difficult. Learning to employ it effectively certainly can be.

And I'll bet that the Kiowa job was more demanding than any fighter guy's job. Most of the fighter retreads in 10 TAG went to Twin Hueys. Only one, of which I personally knew, did a Kiowa tour. He did not once, in his two years as the absolute worst CO that I have ever seen, fly a single tactical mission on an exercise.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't believe that 2-seat always increase capabilities.  It can, in some cases decrease your capabilities in half, having 1 guy dedicating half of his brain to sorting the other person out and the other half to doing his job.  A well coordinated crew can indeed be a force multiplier but it is definitely not a given.  Your training bill will decrease as you only put half the people through the pipe and some items that would be duplicated in both syllabi could be omitted.



Serious question:  If 2-seaters don't increase capabilities, then why do Strike Eagles, Super Hornet Fs and Growlers have a CSO/WSO in the back at all?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> If you make it single seat vs two then there will be a decrease in capability and/or an increase in training bill, no matter how you cut it.
> 
> I can see it working for the roles nearer strike.  For the roles nearer ISR collection, I'm not so sure.
> 
> Fast jet guys are selected to be very good at what they do.  They aren't any better, or even as good, as what some others do; like multi mission long endurance and surveillance and attack, or long endurance ISR collection and analysis.  You would be hard pressed to do what a Cyclone does with less than four; heck, managing the radar completely can eat up one (although EITS can correct me).



Nothing to correct, RADAR is/can be a very busy seat to sit in.  No matter the mission, we (NASOs, dry sensor types) rotate periodically.  I've sat one seat for entire missions when it was beneficial to not switch out for even a momentarily loss of SA; 11 hours is a LONG time on EO/IR except for visits to the Stanley Cup.

There is also the aspect of flying low in IMC, close to land/hazards, etc.  Nothing will ruin your day like bumping into a rock/rig/iceberg at 220 kts.  If you can't handle the responsibility for XX lives being in your hands, you have no business warming the RADAR seat.   :2c:


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That is exactly what a TACCO on an MH or TACNAV on an Aurora does.
> 
> Seeing as RPAs are pretty much done with the "hands and feet" part (automatic takeoff/landing, flying via keyboard/mouse/trackpad or waypoints), arguably ACSOs are ideal RPA Pilots.



I don't think they are required to do it (make the correct decision fast, etc) to the level that a fighter pilot needs to be doing it (sts).  I have been on a P-3 a couple of times before and I have seen what guys do at their stations.  It is, for the most part, a rather focused task rather than a multitude of tasks (which is a lot more like what you'd do flying an RPA). I think the Hornet is by far the easiest plane I have flown.  It's the dozens of other tasks that are difficult to manage. Very much like an RPA?(Easy to fly, lots of sensors and things to manage?).

As far as the 2-crew concept, I said that it is not a given that you double the manpower in the cockpit.  I did not say it never or rarely does.  I work with F/A-18F pilots and they seem to agree with me....  Put the wrong combination of people/personalities in a cockpit and you reduce your capabilities vs a single seat aircraft.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As I said, I know.  And I don't really care.  It is what I believe.
> 
> Not quite.  A lot of people fail along the way.  Some will do other jobs, like ACSO.  I have never heard of an ACSO failing off a course and being re-mustered to pilot and making it to Hornets.
> 
> I think, in general, you could shorten most courses and lower some of the experience requirements for upgrades.  We have 500 hours Captains (with 2-3 years on squadron) qualified as Mission Commanders, leading multi-national packages.  I don't think it's far stretched to believe they could upgrade to a Crew Commander in a short amount of time.
> 
> I have not said you (or anybody else) are not good (or very good) at what you do.  What I am saying is most fighter pilots would be good in any technical trade, and that the opposite is not necessarily true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, I also knew that was exactly what you were going to say.  And you don't even realize that what you are saying is you think you are better than me.  In your mind even though I just retired with 26 years service, you know more about all of the military than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't discredit your experience or how good you are at what you do (did).  I do believe though that in order to make it in a single seat fighter/attack aircraft, you need abilities (cognitive and technical) that other technical trades do not need that could help in those other trades.  A fighter pilot will fly an aircraft, manage a formation, talk to multiple external agencies (tactical & ATC), manage multiple sensors, fuse information, collect information, manage/employ weapons. And I can't really take a break for 5 minutes (and perhaps clear my head) and handoff some of my responsibilities while I take a piss.  I still need to do all of the above while taking a piss.  You do this for 6-9 hours at a time.
> 
> I am not saying I do all these individual tasks as good as the guys in the P-3 from my Hornet (after all, I am task-managing and prioritizing).  What I am saying is that if I was to dedicated 100% of my time to one or two of the tasks (like it happens in a multi-crew environment), I would be able to do as well or better.
Click to expand...


Max, you sound like such a pompous *******.  You may be a good fighter pilot but that's all you'll ever be.  With an attitude like yours, you wouldn't cut it in any Army unit, actually you'd probably wake up one day with some Naphtha in your coffee.

It's attitudes like yours that are the reason our whole military is so dysfunctional, there is no I in team, get over yourself already.  Stick to flying planes and let others that have proper social skills make the big boy decisions.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Thank you Humphrey, I appreciate your insight.  Thanks for telling me what I'll be and won't be.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Thank you Humphrey, I appreciate your insight.  Thanks for telling me what I'll be and won't be.



No problem Max, my pleasure! You sort of remind me of Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, only you have a god complex.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It's too bad I don't believe in god...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It's too bad I don't believe in god...



Well of course not, why would you need to believe in yourself?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Loachman said:
			
		

> We had a bunch of fighter guys dumped into 10 TAG in the eighties. I've been trying to think of any who were not complete thuds. So far, I've not been able to.
> 
> Roles and machines are different.
> 
> Learning how to fly a given machine is not particularly difficult. Learning to employ it effectively certainly can be.
> 
> And I'll bet that the Kiowa job was more demanding than any fighter guy's job. Most of the fighter retreads in 10 TAG went to Twin Hueys. Only one, of which I personally knew, did a Kiowa tour. He did not once, in his two years as the absolute worst CO that I have ever seen, fly a single tactical mission on an exercise.



I'll backtrack slightly, flying helicopters is one thing most of us would have problems with.  Not impossible, but a lot of habbit patterns, translating in muscle memory, to unlearn.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> It's good your job requires arrogance to be truly aggressive,  because you have lots of it.
> 
> We had one of your's at 443 quite a while back.  Barely made crew commander and almost flew a crew into the water.  And here's what your community says: we only let him go because he was weak (but he made Major) and we were biased against him (cause as you say haters got to hate).



Actually, the way I remember it- that particular ex-fighter pilot did fly it into the water. Rather more to the point- his poor decision making and incomplete aircraft systems knowledge allowed the aircraft to settle itself on the water.

But hey- he was the product of "superior selection" and "superior training"  :


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I'll backtrack slightly, flying helicopters is one thing most of us would have problems with.  Not impossible, but a lot of habbit patterns, translating in muscle memory, to unlearn.



Stop being a douche, Max.

There is different types of military flying in the CF- no one type of flying is inherently superior.

MH is not superior to Fighters; fighters are not superior to MPAs; etc. I have been around long enough to recognize that different roles call for different skill sets. I have met awesome operators in every community; just as each community produces thuds. You may be a great pilot Max, but you are trending perilously close to the Thud line, in my books, for your uneducated attitude towards everything not 3 or 4 Wing...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, the way I remember it- that particular ex-fighter pilot did fly it into the water. Rather more to the point- his poor decision making and incomplete aircraft systems knowledge allowed the aircraft to settle itself on the water.
> 
> But hey- he was the product of "superior selection" and "superior training"  :



What you're basically telling me is fighter pilots are Spartans?  ;D ... That's ok we all know what happened to them.  >


----------



## SupersonicMax

SKT,

I have never said other communities don't have exceptionnal performers.  In fact, I have met with a couple of P-3 guys that flew in my package that did an exceptionnal job pre-strike to provide information that shaped how we did (or did not) conduct the strike.  They went, as a crew, beyond what I or the theater had asked from them and maximized their presence and sensors to do it.  And this, the general population will never get the good news stories of those because they are largely boring to the genral populace (no sensionalism or finger pointing possible).

What I really said (perhaps in a very clumsy way) is that the attributes the fighter community looks for can translate into pretty much all other communities (helicopter pilot is the only aircrew position I can think of that would be the exception), because we do a lot of the tasks others do, by ourselve all at once.  The opposite is not necessarily true.  Given that these attributes are tested on a daily basis both objectively and subjectively during training to a fairly high standard, I believe most fighter pilot could successfully complete other's training.  Thuds happen in every community, I agree.  This is normally the exception, not the norm.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> fighters are not superior to MPAs



Damn right they're not. op:

Holy fuck, is this what the average Officers mess on a Wing is like?   ;D

P-3 = American.  CP-140 (or, the Sleek Greyhound of _DEATH_...aka SGOD) = Canadian.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Damn right they're not. op:
> 
> Holy frig, is this what the average Officers mess on a Wing is like?   ;D



Mess?  What is this place you are talking about?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> SKT,
> 
> I have never said other communities don't have exceptionnal performers.  In fact, I have met with a couple of P-3 guys that flew in my package that did an exceptionnal job pre-strike to provide information that shaped how we did (or did not) conduct the strike.  They went, as a crew, beyond what I or the theater had asked from them and maximized their presence and sensors to do it.
> 
> What I really said (perhaps in a very clumsy way) is that the attributes the fighter community looks for can translate into pretty much all other communities (helicopter pilot is the only aircrew position I can think of that would be the exception), because we do a lot of the tasks others do, by ourselve all at once.  The opposite is not necessarily true.  Given that these attributes are tested on a daily basis both objectively and subjectively during training to a fairly high standard, I believe most fighter pilot could successfully complete other's training.  Thuds happen in every community, I agree.  This is normally the exception, not the norm.




There is no "perhaps" about it.  It's not what you're saying that's the problem, it's the way you say it.  Tact is an important quality, especially for an officer.  You should try and develop some.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Holy fuck man.  Give it up.

 :deadhorse:


----------



## SupersonicMax

Thanks again Humphrey, you are invaluable to this discussion and my career development.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Holy frig man.  Give it up.
> 
> :deadhorse:



8)


----------



## George Wallace

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure I could do, with some training, pretty much any job in an aircraft.  I don't think everyone, with some training, could do my job. This may sound obnoxious, but I believe that we select our Fighter guys pretty well and I believe they are the best the RCAF has to offer in terms of technical officers.



I am pretty sure that you have BS'ed yourself for far too long.  Let's admit it; you are a "one hit wonder".  Do not in any way think that Fighter guys can move on to be the best that the RCAF can offer in terms of technical officers once their days in the sky have come to an end.  Many have proven to be quite the opposite.  Some the most disastrous of failures.  

Many occupations in the CAF, not just your elitist group, have to multitask, and for much longer periods than you do.  Many have to go sleep deprived for days, not having a nice warm comfortable bed to sleep in after 6-9 hours.  Every occupation has relevance.  Every occupation has its experts who are very good at what they do.  Do not fool yourself that you are so special to be able to 'switch chairs' with them at any time and do their job in any semblance of a competent manner.  You most likely can't.


----------



## Baz

Max,

You are absolutely correct... you were selected to be good at what you do; more to the point, you were actually selected so that the government could train you to do what you do with as little cost as possible. 

You are also correct that you have the most challenging job in the CF that needs those skills.  What you don't seem to understand is that we also have been trained and have experience in our skills.  In my first tour I took another helicopter, an USN p-3, and a few ships under my control to prosecute my discretion and did it well; they choose my crew (I was the CC) to take tactical control because we sounded like we knew what we were doing.

Could you learn and excel at my ex job; almost certainly yes, but it would take time and experience.  Could you function as part of a crew, I'm not sure.  Will you be a good staff officer or joint commander, I have my doubts with the way you speak.  Are you a professional officer based on the way you speak; in some ways yes and in others definitely no.

I've met and worked with some very good and very bad officers from numerous communities; based on my interactions with you you need to grow up to be in the first bunch.  One of the best fighter pilots I worked with was a USN F/A-18 one; he had been part of the F-35 test team, and was going home to get a squadron.  We bantered back and forth a lot, but at the end of the day we learned from each other.  He also already had a good idea what other Naval Air communities did, but never did he seriously demean them.

As I said, I am biased because of what some of your predecessors have done to other communities when they reached the top.  However, even knowing that, lots of people in your community think only fighter guys can Command fighter guys, which is blatant rubbish.

I remember Gen Watt, who was MH, said to us that his job was to run an Air Force, and MH was just part of it.  Gen Blond in,  on the other hand, talked entirely about what his fighters were doing, and how we had to support them.

This chain has made me think about why I bother coming here.  Some of it may be to hear my own voice, but I also learn from other's.  Why are you here, to show your superiority and belittle others?

There are a few people here who I know have the experience and intelligence to learn from; ERC, dapaterson, PPCLI GUY, all spring to mind to start with, they have my respect.  If and when you grow up you might be one of them, but you are not right now...


----------



## Baz

So, As we have spent entirely too long discussing Max, back to the subject at hand.

I think we have firmly established that for a good.chunk of what a Reaper class UAV does, if you select and train the pilot to the level of a fighter pilot, then they could do the job as well.  Question: is that more effective then training two crew.to a lower level, as you don't have the environmental considerations of the jet?

However, my opinion is that when doing longer.ISR type missions having a a payload operator that is more focused on the discussion back to the ISR organization increases the effectiveness.

NATO AGS has a surprisingly large crew, but it includes surveillance.officers and Int analysts.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baz, Dimsum and/or Loachman: Am I correct in assuming (from what I've read) that most larger UAVs have two crews: one that handles takeoffs and landings and another that flies long (often 24 hour long) missions?

If that's true then I'm _guessing_ that the takeoff/landing job requires either or both of:

     1. Specialist _pilot_ skill sets; and/or

     2. Proximity to the takeoff/landing site (visual contact?)

Is that correct?

But what about the people "flying" the UAV during its 'normal' mission? Do they have to be fighter pilot and/or sensor specialist types or could we have a two man crew of people who _operate_ UAVs in flight? I'm not suggesting they would have "lesser" training, just different ~ able to fly (but not take off or land except in dire emergencies) and to manage the payload (sensors and weapons and C2 links.

Or am I off in could-cuckoo land?


----------



## Baz

ERC; I  can only speak to the Global Hawk.

Yes, the landing and take off crew, which is just a single pilot and technical stuff, is based on proximity to the airfield.

For the Global Hawk, there is also the issue of airspace management.   It requires an IFR ticket, which normally only pilots hold.  There has been talk of allowing others to get an IFR rating, but I'm not sure if that would be cost effective.

However the mission crew commander and payload managers certainly do not have to be pilots.  They don't even need to be aircrew.  In some ways Naval and Army battle managers are better in the case of AGS in the surveillance role (which would include TACCO s).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, Baz, now another question ~ so that the depths of my ignorance are visible to all: do we you the CF still have _Herons_?







Is it (or something like it) suitable for surveillance, target acquisition and attack?


----------



## Baz

I'm not a heron expert.

I think we are out of the Heron business.  If memory serves the entire service including the airframes were "leased" for Afghanistan.

My opinion is it provides some (most) of the capability we would desire for land counter insurgency type ops.

It would not be what you won want for conventional interdiction (think AGS, JSTARS), maritime targeting (think Triton, maybe AGS, MPA, MH  for reactionary, Fire Scout), or certainly full up ISR.

I would think Reaper is much more rounded.

Dims um?  Loachman?


----------



## Baz

A tangential thought I had based on ERCs question...

Amongst the strengths and weaknesses of various platforms, a UAVs can loiter for a long long time (like weeks) and then make the kill, but they can't get into contested airspace.  Fighters can get it, with risk of course, but get pretty expensive for loitering.

However, if you want to get into really contested airspace and money is no object, you turn to a different type of unmanned which really lowers your risk: tomahawk.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baz said:
			
		

> A tangential thought I had based on ERCs question...
> 
> Amongst the strengths and weaknesses of various platforms, a UAVs can loiter for a long long time (like weeks) and then make the kill, but they can't get into contested airspace.  Fighters can get it, with risk of course, but get pretty expensive for loitering.
> 
> However, if you want to get into really contested airspace and money is no object, you turn to a different type of unmanned which really lowers your risk: tomahawk.




Thanks, Baz ... this sort of discussion if very helpful. I know that UAVs have both proponents and opponents, I, for one, am trying to understand what (and how big) their _niche_ might be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is tech coming down the pipe that will allow slow moving UAV's that could fly for weeks using a mix of fuel motor and solar powered motors, the problem would be energy management to sustain the batteries during darkness. They would also be easy prey for manpads and opposing airpower. I suspect the long loiter UAV's will be good for comm relay, limited visual usage.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I'll backtrack slightly, flying helicopters is one thing most of us would have problems with.  Not impossible, but a lot of habbit patterns, translating in muscle memory, to unlearn.



It's really easy. The only tricky part is learning to hover. The collective moves up and down, and essentially controls power. The problem is that "Up" means more power, whereas the similar "Back" motion on a throttle means less power. Conversely, "Down" on the collective, a similar motion to "Forward" on a throttle, means less power rather than more. This is a little confusing at first, as the helicopter moves down when one wants it to go up and vice-versa, and as that confusion grows the wrong-way-ism gets worse until the Instructor mercifully takes control. There is also a tendency to over-control with the cyclic at first. Once I clued in and related it to fine pressures rather than movements required for formation flying in the Tutor, I settled right down. The hovering thing took the better part of a lesson, and after that it was merely improvement over time. No flaps and speed brakes and landing gear and crap to worry about at all. The Kiowa almost knew just what I wanted it to do - I never had to think about it at all.

That's the easy part.

Keeping track of where the friendly ground guys were and the (known) enemy and - where the hell did my Number Two get to this time? - and A10s coming on station in twelve minutes, should be able to get this fire mission going before that, and dodging wires, trees and cows, and did that farmer just throw a potato at us, and - WTF is Number Two up to now? - and trying to monitor four nets plus the Observer trying to tell me what's around the corner and and and - that's the not-so-easy part.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Could you learn and excel at my ex job; almost certainly yes, but it would take time and experience.



And motivation.

The fighter guys parachuted into 10 TAG did not want to be there, and so had no interest in learning.

The only non-fighter seized-wing guy who I can remember coming into Tac Hel was a single-tour Buffalo driver who arrived in 427 Squadron as Deputy OC Slug Flight. He took it seriously and (threw wicked parties) and so did well, and stayed Tac Hel for the rest of his career.

I have some sympathy for those fighter guys, but not for their unwillingness to adapt. They just stayed miserable, and made others so. Both sides are fortunate that this never happened again, but Tac Hel much more so.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Baz, Dimsum and/or Loachman: Am I correct in assuming (from what I've read) that most larger UAVs have two crews: one that handles takeoffs and landings and another that flies long (often 24 hour long) missions?



That depends.

We conducted the entire mission for Sperwer, including launches and recoveries.. Sperwer was wholly-owned by the CF, though.

Scan Eagle and Heron were launched and recovered by the contractor, and handed over to CF crews for the tactical portion.

Predator/Reaper are entirely operated by military crews.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If that's true then I'm _guessing_ that the takeoff/landing job requires either or both of:
> 
> 1. Specialist _pilot_ skill sets; and/or
> 
> 2. Proximity to the takeoff/landing site (visual contact?)
> 
> Is that correct?



Sperwer and Scan Eagle were launched by catapult. AVOs were mostly 4 Air Defence Regiment Bombardiers with the odd Master Bombardier, and one of our four was a Sergeant aircraft tech.

Pilot experience was not required in order to operate them, just a decent brain. The control panel for Sperwer reminded me of Star Trek Original Series control panels - a few largish, square, illuminated push buttons coloured red, yellow, and green and a couple of knobs to twiddle. All instrumentation was displayed on a single monitor for the applicable position. Each crew member could switch to another's software and assume that function, if necessary. I had the AVO's software up for launches and recoveries so that I could also monitor the instrumentation, and would occasionally check it briefly during quiet periods just to be on the safe side.

Proximity to the take-off/launch and landing/recovery (two different areas a few kilometres apart) is required in order to control the machines - intervisibility between GCS/GDT (Ground Data Terminal, which was separate and could be up to a km away from the GCS for Sperwer as it was designed for a conventional warfare scenario wherein nobody wanted to be near large emitters) is necessary. Sperwer launched and recovered autonomously (we had to do a manual recovery one night and that was a real joy - and that could not have been done by a single person; I was really impressed by the brilliant co-operation and co-ordination between my AVO and PO), but manual control was assumed shortly after launch, as soon as the antennae were tracking and locked on.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But what about the people "flying" the UAV during its 'normal' mission? Do they have to be fighter pilot and/or sensor specialist types or could we have a two man crew of people who _operate_ UAVs in flight? I'm not suggesting they would have "lesser" training, just different ~ able to fly (but not take off or land except in dire emergencies) and to manage the payload (sensors and weapons and C2 links.



That, too, depends.

Only the Mission Commanders on Sperwer were Pilots, and mostly, if not exclusively, Tac Hel. Tactical knowledge and experience were necessary and there are a few people alive because of my, and I presume others', prior operational experience.

Scan Eagle was operated by a pair of 4 AD Regt Bdrs/MBdrs. They were most likely more closely supervised, but I did not notice any problems. They seemed to lack confidence while speaking on the ATC net, though, judging by the hesitant voices.

All USAF Predator/Reaper Pilots were air-to-ground guys when I was in KAF, as the two jobs were very similar and involved weapons. None of the guys with whom I spoke expected to ever be moved back into a real cockpit. Consideration was being given to training pure Predator/Reaper Pilots as the programme expanded because they could not afford to suck as many guys as they needed out of real cockpits.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or am I off in could-cuckoo land?



Not in this regard.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Amongst the strengths and weaknesses of various platforms, a UAVs can loiter for a long long time (like weeks) and then make the kill



Not so much when armed. Weapons replace fuel as payload, and only a couple were carried. Typical armed Predator/Reaper missions, during my first tour at least, were around three hours. Ours were 4.5ish.

Everything's a trade-off.


----------



## dimsum

Actually, Heron launches and recoveries were usually done by the military crews.  Contractors could be used, but that wasn't common.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's really easy. The only tricky part is learning to hover. The collective moves up and down, and essentially controls power. The problem is that "Up" means more power, whereas the similar "Back" motion on a throttle means less power. Conversely, "Down" on the collective, a similar motion to "Forward" on a throttle, means less power rather than more. This is a little confusing at first, as the helicopter moves down when one wants it to go up and vice-versa, and as that confusion grows the wrong-way-ism gets worse until the Instructor mercifully takes control.



Reminds me of some of my first dates... without the benefit of an instructor


----------



## dimsum

Baz said:
			
		

> I'm not a heron expert.
> 
> I think we are out of the Heron business.  If memory serves the entire service including the airframes were "leased" for Afghanistan.
> 
> My opinion is it provides some (most) of the capability we would desire for land counter insurgency type ops.
> 
> It would not be what you won want for conventional interdiction (think AGS, JSTARS), maritime targeting (think Triton, maybe AGS, MPA, MH  for reactionary, Fire Scout), or certainly full up ISR.
> 
> I would think Reaper is much more rounded.
> 
> Dims um?  Loachman?



We are definitely out of the Heron business - the lease stopped in 2011 (Australian lease is still ongoing).  

Personal opinion:  It was ok for Afghanistan as an ISR platform, but it would have massive shortcomings in Canada even unrelated to weather.  It was powered by a 115-hp piston engine and cruised around 65kt.  It does have the capability for SATCOM but not in the version we used.  The one we had only had a laser pointer (not designator).  Finally, no weapons.

Reaper would be better in terms of dash speed (I read somewhere around 300kt?), SATCOM, sensor quality and weapons.  The one thing Heron had going for it in Afghanistan over the US platforms were that Int analysis was co-located with the GCS, which was in KAF.  So, analysis was near-real-time whereas the US platforms were in the US and I don't *think* had the same team or turnaround time for Int analysis.


----------



## Loachman

They were putting Int guys in the Reaper GCS at least occasionally when I was there.

And did I mention the comfy seats?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Reaper folks I was over to visit had a take-off/landing crew and a crew who took over the flight (who were quite far away geographically) once they reached a chop point.  

Very comfy seats.

This might be worth a watch...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html  Also available on Netflix if you use a VPN and can get the US content...so I've been told... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------

