| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| U.S. Drone Fleet at ‘Breaking Point’ |
| 2015-01-05 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 Looks like the USAF + USDOD have a case for more budget appropriations as drones??? More Drones, versus more Boots on the ground, versus more ISIS direct threats to attack the USA??? * TOPIX > [NewsMax] MAJOR GENERAL PAUL VALLELY:ISIS "ON TARGET" FOR EXPANSION IN 2015. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2015-01-05 23:24 |
| #10 "Smallish airplanes without pilots has never really caught on with the USAF." Sure they have -- so long as they're called "missiles". |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2015-01-05 20:35 |
| #9 Simple. Force the idiot Zoomies to accept Warrants as pilots for Drones and rotary wing. Works for the Army. And if the USAF cant bring itself to that, then give THOSE assets to the Army and Marine Corps, which *will* fly them. A-10s included. I'm sick of this idiocy in the USAF. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-01-05 18:07 |
| #8 There are probably lots of pilot wannabes who may not be physically qualified to be pilots, but would make excellent drone pilots. Me, for example. With 20/200 eyesight, the Naval Aviation recruiters practically laughed at me when I talked to them. (I also don't have the obnoxious macho jock personality that a lot of pilots have). My Air Force son has a good friend who flunked out of flight school because he had severe motion sickness. Not at all good in a plane, but unless they put the drone pilot's seat on gimbals, motion sickness should not be a problem flying a drone. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-01-05 17:53 |
| #7 Checking Wikipedia... We built a hundred and four mq-9 airframes at a cost of 12 billion dollars... they also claim a flyaway cost of 17 million dollars. The program-cost-per-airframe is about the same as the flyaway cost of an airplane that can actually survive in contested airspace. If we called it an MQ-35 Lightning IV people would be outraged at the lack of cost effectiveness. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-01-05 17:19 |
| #6 Smallish airplanes without pilots has never really caught on with the USAF. Can't imagine why. A Predator costs more than an A-10 and is a lot less survivable than an A-10 in hostile airspace. Pakistan only lets us fly them in their territory because it lets them pretend they're cooperating with us in the War On Terror, charging us exorbiant fees for the right and opportunity to blow up low-level flunkies with Hellfire missiles at a couple hundred thousand dollars a shot. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-01-05 17:11 |
| #5 The USAF will disband itself before they ever let an NCO fly a drone. Trust me on this. During the 'pilot shortage' of the 80s and 90s, there was a learned report which suggested letting NCOs fly transports, tankers and helos, or bringing back WOs. They shied away from that like the Devil from holy water. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2015-01-05 17:06 |
| #4 Smallish airplanes without pilots has never really caught on with the USAF. Can't imagine why. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-01-05 16:28 |
| #3 The money quote from the article: But it takes more than just pilots to operate the drone fleet. In addition to the pilots who “fly” the MQ-1s and MQ-9s, there are sensor operators who work the cameras and other intelligence-gathering hardware onboard the unmanned aircraft. Further, there are maintenance crews who have to fix those drones. Perhaps most crucially, drones require hundreds of intelligence analysts who have to comb through thousands of hours of video surveillance footage to understand what the flight crews are watching. “Some have looked at this as a problem with just RPA pilots and the number of them required for these CAPs, but that ignores the tail required for supporting RPA operations,” a senior Air Force official said. “This tail requires hundreds of man-hours to support every hour of flight in forward operations, maintenance, and most starkly in the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of the intelligence that RPAs create.” The problem for the Air Force is that even as the demand increases on the drone fleet, fewer new troops enter the ranks while more and more veteran operators vote with their feet. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2015-01-05 16:15 |
| #2 Don't want to fly Warthogs. Don't want to fly drones. What do they want to fly? Desk chairs? If it is a staffing problem, I know a whole army (heh) of nerds who would love to play. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2015-01-05 14:30 |
| #1 If the Air Force is still requiring all drones to be flown by commissioned officers on flight status, then they could easily solve the problem by allowing enlisted airmen not on flight status to handle many of the flights - as does the Army - I'm not sure about the other services. Or - if the Air Force cries loud enough - strip that service of involvement with drones - and let the other services handle all drone missions. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2015-01-05 12:39 |