F-16.net

Quote:

Then why are they all rated officers?

You buy the next round Bunny.

You mean UCAV pilots? Because the Chief of Staff decided that if we're going to put missiles and bombs on the things, it's going to be an officer with his finger on the pickle button - and as it stands now, it's going to be a former fighter/bomber pilot's finger. Man, I hope that changes soon.... losing Vipers, standing up more Predator squadrons.... I wonder where they'll get the UCAV pilots.... Bang Head

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Veteran Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 471 Status: Offline

Quote:

You buy the next round Bunny. Wink

Well, that would kinda mean everybody gets root beer. They'd kinda laugh if I flashed my ID. I only said that becaue it is not theoretically required of UCAV pilots to be as physically fit as a normal fighter pilot because he isn't pulling the G's a normal fighter pilot is. As I understand, a normal pilot has to be at least moderately fit for all those G's (I don't know the actual AF reqs for it). Though, how many fit Star Wars geeks are there Wink

. Anyway, joke to far. Yeah, its funny to watch things I see in class actually happen in the real world. Every modern aircraft have all started the spiral of death, cut numbers cost goes up, cost goes up cut numbers. And so on and so forth.

Elite Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2454 Status: Offline

LordOfBunnies wrote:

it is not theoretically required of UCAV pilots to be as physically fit as a normal fighter pilot because he isn't pulling the G's a normal fighter pilot is.

He or she is when they are taking their hack flights. They also fly T-37s in addition to their "Star Wars game". Possibly 38s as well, but I do know they fly Tweety Birds.

Also, I don't believe it is required they have fighter time, per se, only that they have silver wings on their chests.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

At the moment you need to have pushed a red button before to do it (sts) on a Predator. But hey, you get to fly a Tweet!!!!

Elite Joined: May 17, 2005 Posts: 984 Status: Offline

Ships without sails? Trains without engineers? Talking over the air? Seeing storms and land with invisible rays? Cooking with radio beams? A phone with no wires that I can carry in my pocket? A computer that an average man can own? An automatic pilot? A man walking on the moon? Recording sound and papers with laser beams? UCAV's? It will never happen.......

ok again, im off topic here...

TenguNoHi wrote:

Ya suck it up and get over it. I have very strong ideals so I have never been a big fan of respect for this oppinion but perhaps others feel different.

-Aaron

...my intent wasnt to attack your postion on what you said, but rather, it just bothers me that technology is going to take over. So whenever i hear that kind of stuff i cringe.

Elite Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 922 Status: Offline

I wasn't refering to you viperman26 Cool

Was refering to some egg heads in my det. But like I said; I have some extremely conservative and extremely solid views on what service SHOULD be. So not everyone may agree with me.

-Aaron

Does anyone here see a moral and ethical problem with operators engaging targets without actually being in combat. Or what they have proposed is that the UCAV will do all the work, all the operator will really do is just give it clearance to engage the target. My ROTC class had a discussion about it, and we see a large problem with taking the human brain out of the cockpit. Other problems, which I have in no way any clue about, is if it is possible for an enemy nation to "Hack" into UCAV controls, and then reset the peramiters. Could it be possible for an enemy Nation to take our own Combat assests and then use them against us? I hope the guys in the offices think about this stuff..... I hope.

Elite Joined: May 11, 2004 Posts: 2890 Status: Offline

Opie150th wrote:

Does anyone here see a moral and ethical problem with operators engaging targets without actually being in combat. Or what they have proposed is that the UCAV will do all the work, all the operator will really do is just give it clearance to engage the target. My ROTC class had a discussion about it, and we see a large problem with taking the human brain out of the cockpit. Other problems, which I have in no way any clue about, is if it is possible for an enemy nation to "Hack" into UCAV controls, and then reset the peramiters. Could it be possible for an enemy Nation to take our own Combat assests and then use them against us? I hope the guys in the offices think about this stuff..... I hope.

Opie,

I actually started a thread, "Are UCAVs really such a good idea?" way back on May 19 of 2004 Wink

. You might want to revive it as its been dormant for a really loooonnnnng time and it could probably use some new life Smile

.

Have fun Very Happy

!

Elite Joined: Jun 29, 2004 Posts: 961 Status: Offline

Pilots are required for all UAV ops (UCAV included) not because of the combat ("big red button") scenario but because the USAF belief is that a UAV is still an aerospace vehicle flying around a bunch of other aerospace vehicles and only rated officers have the proper (i.e. military provided) training to do it right.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2832

I do get a chuckle though when I see UAV/UCAV pilots wearing flight suits. Laughing

Hey buddy, where's your G-suit, helmet and chute and pistol? Laughing

O.K. I can at least see the pistol as a good idea, if you are deployed. Smile

Elite Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2454 Status: Offline

Roscoe wrote:

a UAV is still an aerospace vehicle flying around a bunch of other aerospace vehicles and only rated officers have the proper (i.e. military provided) training to do it right.

Thank you! It really peeves me when people act like this is some sort of computer game, where no one gets hurt, and all you do is fly like you're playing Falcon 4.0...

If people don't want to see what a misguided drone will do when it impacts an Eagle or Viper, then they will understand why only a rated pilot should do that job.

BTW, back on topic, I'm with Gums. If they didn't put an A in the Viper's designation, which is a bigger bomb truck than the Raptor, then they definitely didn't need it in the Raptor's designation. This is what I thought the entire time I worked for LM...However, one didn't want to say that too much, as one wouldn't want to rock too many boats. Wink

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

It's nice to see logic and common sense win out for a change. But this is going to be a terrible blow to the F-15 and F-16 communities. With the previous designation, after a day of getting waxed at BVR and ACM, at least they could accuse the Raptor driver's of being Fighter Attack Guys....

I think we'll need to change the name of the forum.

Elite Joined: Oct 21, 2005 Posts: 757 Status: Offline

loflyn wrote:

But this is going to be a terrible blow to the F-15 and F-16 communities. With the previous designation, after a day of getting waxed at BVR and ACM, at least they could accuse the Raptor driver's of being Fighter Attack Guys....

LOL!

Gums is right. One thing I criticize the USAF harshly on is their "political correctness" and their lack of effort (or willingness) to maintain heritage. They change the name of "this" and "that" and the history of whatever it is effected (and sometimes continuity of history) is shot up.

In the Raptor's case, retired General John Jumper and then Sec Of The AF Roche changed the F-22's designation to "F/A-22" in their view to acknowledge the Raptor's strike capability. In reality (and everybody knows it) it was a marketing ploy to build support for the fighter. Everybody in the Air Force was required to call it the "F/A-22" yet most everybody else, even in the civilian leadership, referred to the Raptor as the "F-22". Not that I'd think anybody here would, but if you research and see some of the past hearings at the Capital on the F-22 when the designation change was made, you can see that all the lawmakers referred to the Raptor as the "F-22" as Jumper was sitting there. Did anybody buy it?

I'm not saying Jumper had bad intentions on what he did. It was a time where he probably felt something more needed to be done and what he believed in. But this has been done more than once and I know from personal experience that it is a good way to also associate your name to something. Leaving your legacy, so to speak.

Now current AF Chief Of Staff General Moseley changes the name back. Good for him as it keeps the historical heritage. He'll also be associated with the redesignation that probably never should of happened. He'll also be the one who will have to pay for all the changes in the manuals, TOs, documents, etc. And that'll be a pretty penny.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Airforce to Drop the 'A' in "F/A-22"