• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Combat Generation: Drone operators climb on winds of change in the Air Force

Status
Not open for further replies.

gecko65

PV-1
Combat Generation: Drone operators climb on winds of change in the Air Force

By Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 28, 2010; A01

The question, scrawled on a Pentagon whiteboard last fall, captured the strange and difficult moment facing the Air Force.

"Why does the country need an independent Air Force?" the senior civilian assistant to Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the service's chief of staff, had written. For the first time in the 62-year history of the Air Force, the answer isn't entirely clear.

The Air Force's identity crisis is one of many ways that a decade of intense and unrelenting combat is reshaping the U.S. military and redefining the American way of war. The battle against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq has created an insatiable demand for the once-lowly drone, elevating the importance of the officers who fly them.

These new earthbound aviators are redefining what it means to be a modern air warrior and forcing an emotional debate within the Air Force over the very meaning of valor in combat.

Since its founding, the Air Force has existed primarily to support its daring and chivalrous fighter and bomber pilots. Even as they are being displaced by new technology, these traditional pilots are fighting to retain control over the Air Force and its culture and traditions.

The clash between the old and new Air Force was especially apparent in the aftermath of the 2006 strike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq.

Predator crews spent more than 630 hours searching for Zarqawi and his associates before they tracked him to a small farm northeast of Baghdad.

Minutes later, an F-16 fighter jet, streaking through the sky, released a 500-pound bomb that locked onto a targeting laser and killed Zarqawi.

The F-16 pilot, who faced no real threat from the lightly armed insurgents on the ground, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the same honor bestowed on Charles Lindbergh for the first solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean.

The Predator pilots, who flew their planes from an Air Force base outside Las Vegas, received a thank-you note from a three-star general based in the Middle East. Senior Air Force officials concluded that even though the Predator crews were flying combat missions, they weren't actually in combat.

Four years later, the Air Force still hasn't come up with a way to recognize the Predator's contributions in Afghanistan and Iraq. "There is no valor in flying a remotely piloted aircraft. I get it," said Col. Luther "Trey" Turner, a former fighter pilot who has flown Predators since 2003. "But there needs to be an award to recognize crews for combat missions."

[more here] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022703754_pf.html
 
Drones

Paging Ken Stallings, paging Ken Stallings, would Ken Stallings please report to the Outhouse.:running:

Regards, Rob:ernae:
 
I'm no big fan of these radio controlled combatants but I'm glad they do the job. It's only a matter of time before our enemies learn how to jam the control signals (they currently can tap the video feeds with 26 dollar software).
 
I'm no big fan of these radio controlled combatants but I'm glad they do the job. It's only a matter of time before our enemies learn how to jam the control signals (they currently can tap the video feeds with 26 dollar software).

I'm afrad of that too.

*End Replay to quote*

Predator pilots are geting riped off. F-16 pilot gets a Distinguished Flying Cross for pushing a botton and 30 min of fly time while the Predator crews spent 630 hours searching and get a pat on the back.

WTF?!?
 
Solution: Let the air force be the high-nosed jet and bomber jockeys they always were and outsource the drones to the army who *will* be thankful for every flying eye they can get.

I'm not just limiting that proposal to the armed forces of the US.
 
They still deserve a great big thankyou. All involved do...

Remote forms of attacking is a totally new avenue of battle. Someday it will probably be satellites, zapping people from high altitude.



Bill
 
Please, don`t forget that these things are killing scores of innocent civillians.

There are places in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where daily life gradually are becomming a real version of Terminators "Skynet".

These drones are bitterly hated, and they are certainly NOT winning harts and minds in the areas where they are operating.

That is perhaps a little more important, than who is getting the "glory"


Jen
 
Manned aircraft have also accidentally killed people. In the FOG of war it is sometimes hard to know for certain where your bombs will hit and who is below. Real war is not glamorous.

Maybe one of the reasons the Predators and its like are hated is that they are effective? Actually, unlike the fighter which is limited on time and fuel and has a pilot who could be scared and nervous, the remote pilot often has the time and security to be extra careful as to just whom he is stricking. This I would think would reduce collateral death and injury.
 
Please, don`t forget that these things are killing scores of innocent civilians.
There are places in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where daily life gradually are becoming a real version of Terminators "Skynet".
These drones are bitterly hated, and they are certainly NOT winning hearts and minds in the areas where they are operating.
That is perhaps a little more important, than who is getting the "glory"
Jen

It's a War and collateral damage has been a part of all conflicts.
And as one who has 'been there and done that' there NO glory in war.
:australia: :unitedstates: :newzealand:
 
Please, don`t forget that these things are killing scores of innocent civillians.
There are places in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where daily life gradually are becomming a real version of Terminators "Skynet".
These drones are bitterly hated, and they are certainly NOT winning harts and minds in the areas where they are operating.
That is perhaps a little more important, than who is getting the "glory"
Jen

Ummm ... yeah. :icon34:

When those that are deemed "our enemy" will actually come out and fight in the open as "real men" and not the pansies they are, in using non combatant human shields as cover, then maybe, just maybe, the mortality rate of collaterally damaged civilian populations will go down.

Oh! And actually "not so innocent" civilians. If they were innocent, they'd leave the area as they were instructed to do, but since they stayed, then their loyalty to the insurgents has to be brought into question.

Until then, it rains on the righteous as well as the unrighteous. Sorry.


With regard to the unmaned vs the maned ... I think the remote pilots got screwed on this one ... and the one pilot that did fly got over-rated.
 
Yeah, I was thinking about Ken when I read the story and posted the thread.

I don't see this technology going away, and I agree with Bill that it's only going to progress to an even more technological sort of thing.

And my apologies, Panther - I wasn't intending to provoke anyone when I made the thread. :kilroy: just thought it was an interesting story and knew Ken had some background on the subject
 
When those that are deemed "our enemy" will actually come out and fight in the open as "real men" and not the pansies they are, in using non combatant human shields as cover, then maybe, just maybe, the mortality rate of collaterally damaged civilian populations will go down.

I'm pretty sure they would go out and fight if you offered them a good, old-fashioned one-on-one at noon on equal terms.

But as long as it's lasers versus sticks and stones, don't expect fair warfare.

Oh! And actually "not so innocent" civilians. If they were innocent, they'd leave the area as they were instructed to do, but since they stayed, then their loyalty to the insurgents has to be brought into question.

The civvies have been living in the area for probably most of their life and don't want to give up what they have. I also doubt they're as nomadic in nature as we in the highly industrialized parts of the world are.
And especially not when "aliens" (best and most appropriate term I can think of) command them to leave.
Death threats by the insurgents in whatever form are also often a factor.

If you really want to make every civvie in the area leave, offer them $1000 p.p. for starting a new life somewhere else or offer them a similar motivation. Although money always works...
 
I'll never forget when Israel precisely targeted and wiped out a missle launcher that was lobbing missles into a downtown major city. The enemy stated Israel shot innocent people, perhaps 14 or more. Israel had footage of the exact building, the missle being launched several times, and all the people standing around it.

hello.....



Bill
 
... But as long as it's lasers versus sticks and stones, don't expect fair warfare. ...

Exactly my point. I don't expect them to offer anything in the way of a "fair" fight, and therefore their using the indiginous locals as human civilian shields is a major error in their reasoning.

There have been enough incidents no only in Afghanistan, but around the world where it has been proven, that if you use the indiginous locals as shields, some of them are gonna be collateral damage, and that the use of indigenous locals doesn't work as shields.

Not saying its right one way or the other, but ... as the saying goes ... skata happens.
 
A couple of points to note. The Taliban are not hiding amongst the population, THEY are the the population. They are defending their land against a FOREIGN aggressor. I would do the same. As for the fair fight mano a mano it is pretty hard to do with a drone operator who is sitting at a desk 1000s of miles from the battle. Who really is showing the most courage here. The Afghans fight with what they have, you may not like their methods but when you are up against the most modern forces you fight like you have to. Or at least that what the Americans told the British in 1776.

Regards, Rob:ernae:
 
Courage

Don't matter if it's hash or homebrew, navy rum or amphetamines, whatever you need to stand up in battle. There is no doubting the Afghans courage or their tenacity.

Regards, Rob:ernae:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top