Military AI Works

From AF Daily Report 5 Aug 08

Ready for the Future: Airmen of the New York Air National Guard's 174th Fighter Wing are on their last deployment to Southwest Asia with the F-16 fighter. On their return, they begin the changeover to another type of strike aircraft--the hunter-killer MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. The Syracuse-based airmen will be the first Air Guardsmen to take up the MQ-9 mission, courtesy of BRAC 2005 and the Air Force's Total Force game plan. "The only way that we can keep our hand in the fight ... is that we transition to a future weapons system, and that's the MQ-9," said Lt. Col. Timothy Lunderman, who is commanding the 332nd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. It will take about nine months for the unit's Viper pilots to learn their new UAV roles and four months to train sensor operators, normally enlisted airmen, but Lunderman noted there is no equivalent job in the 174th FW right now. Although Lunderman is positive the wing will accomplish the switch, he said it could be a challenge to find airmen for the sensor ops position and corollary satellite communications systems and imagery intelligence jobs. The wing's F-16 maintainers recognize the unit's survival depends on the switch, according to SMSgt. James Davison, the unit's maintenance operations center superintendent, but he said, "It will be a sad day when the last F-16 departs Hancock Field, because with it will be many memories and some top-notch maintainers." (Balad report by SSgt. Don Branum)

No way, the Cobras are giving up their F-16s............That's not cool. I used to always here them on the ATC radio operating in the MOA's up there in upstate New York. They always had the coolest callsigns, Cobra, Snake, Viper, etc.

Will they still be based at KSYR??

So sad

I just graduated from Syracuse University and I used to love walking home from class on a Spring day to hear the F-16s practicing over campus. I remember this past April there was about 2 or 3 weeks where they were flying EVERY DAY from like 10AM to 6PM, it was awesome. Everytime I came home I would fly jetBlue who's lounge was on the runway side of the airport, used to get a seat right in front of the window and watch the Vipers do some pretty sick a$$ takeoffs. The best was I parked on top of the parking garage in the row closest to the runway, as soon as I opened my trunk to get my bag I heard that unmistakable roar, and sure enough 3 Vipers departed for some TNGs pullin hard Gs on takeoff.

I know for a fact that a lot of people over there are upset about the transition. Colonel Basile (former CO) spoke at my school May of 2007 and in a very politically correct way pretty much said UAVs suck and no one is happy about the upcomming transition lol

So many memories, unfortunately that's all they are now....





As far as basing I've heard 3 rumors, either they stay at Hancock Field, aircraft stay and Hancock Field and are flown from Rome/NEADS, or the whole unit moves up to Fort Drum and the aircraft operate out of Wheeler-Sack AAF.

People can say what they want about UAVs... there IS a place for them. I've said before that I understand pilots not wanting to have to give up the cockpit for armchair flying and I don't disagree with that but in the current war, they are a valuable resource. I don't think they are the end all be all of the USAF weapon systems(like SOME people in government) but I recognize their value in recce and limited QRF roles.

The USAF should either remove the mission from their control and give it to the USA or change who flies UAVs. Since I doubt the USAF would ever give up the asset, they should bring back the Warrant Officer program and give UAVs to WOs. This would allow the technical experts to continue to be in a field that requires them rather than pulling officers from their platform to do a 3 year tour and then put them in career broadening tour, etc...

I agree with every thing you just said SMOC, very well put

Well said SMOC. There is a budget-tail to operating any system and UAVs are no exception. Lots of inter-related factors to consider, however; The UAVs aren't just for direct support of troops. They are in the news for that reason. But they are also being used for coastal patrols and as we recently saw even domestic recon in the CA fires. So who will control them is important both for the type of operations and by extension-who gets the $ in their service budget and who handles the procurement and maintenance functions. As outlined in the original item, they are flown by rated pilots and the sensors are operated by specialists. AFAIK the pilots maintain currency in fixed wing aircraft also. As in most new Air Force Speciality codes, there is some initial foot-dragging until the new rating is established. Then people gravitate into it because they like it. I was once advised by a Senior NCO that the AF hired me first as an officer and then they assigned me where there were AF needs. Sometimes people lose track of that. I heard a few say- just let me fly, I don't want to do anything else. But that would screw up the expected progression of the
Officer and Enlisted forces. Experience and knowledge grow a more capable force. To leave someone 'stuck' at some level would inhibit that growth. Just my opinion about service and job speciality within the force.

Agreed... officer before AFSC. And there are those that need to be reminded that is a privilege to serve in the US military, not a right that they remain in their current rating.

My point is only that if the USAF brings back Warrant Officers(as of now they are the only branch in the US without them), it could benefit the USAF as a whole. Warrant Officers will never have to worry about career broadening, never have to worry about command positions and could very well spend their entire career being technical experts on a weapon system that becoming more and more prominent. Right now, officers are only spending three or four years tours and then rotating back to another airframe(or school or career broadening). When that occurs, that's the loss of a valuably trained UAV pilot. And chances are(at least in the current career map of USAF officer), it's unlikely (s)he would return to UAVs unless forced. WOs could spend most, if not all, of their career in UAVs and still make rank as well as be command pilots in UAVs.

I'm not sure if pilots maintain currency while assigned to UAVs. I assume you mean simply flying(Cessnas, Beech, etc...) as opposed to military aircraft as I'm fairly certain that doesn't happen. I wouldn't think they would have to as it's really nothing more than a special duty assignment and they don't remain current in special duty.

I recently came back from a family reunion where one of my 2nd cousins attended. Andy has been in the Air Force for almost 12 years now and has been base in Germany for most of that time. For the past several years he has been a crewman aboard an AWACS.

He is presently trying to transfer to UAV training as a sensor operator. Thanks to some info that the Colonel has shared with us I was able to tell him a few things about the program that he wasn't aware of. Or that he would admit to.

So it seems that there are people out there who do wish to become part of this program.

But, I can see where it is almost a kick in the pants to be flying Vipers one day and Reapers the next.

Exactly, it depends on what AFSC your comming from. Someone from the back of an AWACS or office I'm sure would jump on the chance to be a UAV operator. But someone from an ejection seat would obvi not like it and view it as a step down....I know I would lol

No doubt there are uniformed personnel who would LOVE to be part of the UAV program, from both the officer and enlisted fields. And obviously there is a place for those volunteers and the UAV program should welcome them(as long as they're viable candidates). However, that still takes someone out from his career field to train him into a new one. If he's enlisted that could affect his/her promotion rate based on testing criteria. If he's an officer it could affect his/her promotion rate based on his "check boxes." The idea should be to create UAV AFSCs and keep people inside of that career path... realistically WOs seem to be the best choice. The USA and USN let them fly as experts in their field, I think the USAF could do the same with their UAV program.

Official in Ohio: According to an Aug. 1 report in the News-Journal, the Air Force has formally stipulated that the 179th Airlift Wing will fly the C-27J Spartan Joint Cargo Aircraft, probably beginning in 2012, and until then will fly C-21 Learjets. The 179th is destined to lose its C-130s per BRAC 2005, and USAF officials had signaled last year that the unit would get the Spartan. Additionally, the newspaper reported that the Ohio Adjutant General, Maj. Gen. Greg Wayt, the Air Force might give the 179th AW a formal training unit mission for the C-27.

I have known guys to move to another state to stay in a particular airplane.

The idea of using Warrant Officers is fine, except it would cause the Air Force to bring that rank back. I recall all the turmoil it caused when it was eliminated. I don't recall all the details but it did disrupt the Enlisted grade structure because it was unique and most units did not have any slots to put them in.

Good thread guys, but as USA WO, I've seen some change in the upper levels. The Army wants the WO's to lead more now then ever, for the aviators, that means less time in the cockpit. The USN Flying WO is still in the test phase, with the fleet still waiting to get them and pass the results. I do agree, I hate to see another jet unit replaced with UAV's and I would NOT want to step out of the cockpit!

Victory103 wrote:Good thread guys, but as USA WO, I've seen some change in the upper levels. The Army wants the WO's to lead more now then ever, for the aviators, that means less time in the cockpit. The USN Flying WO is still in the test phase, with the fleet still waiting to get them and pass the results. I do agree, I hate to see another jet unit replaced with UAV's and I would NOT want to step out of the cockpit!

I've heard the same thing regarding USA WOs... obviously since you are one I'm sure you're more in the know than I am. I by no means am trying to say WOs can't or shouldn't be leaders(as they are commissioned officers(CW2 and up), so they should lead) but that's stretching the purpose of the WO. WOs are supposed to be technical(and/or tactical) experts in their given career field that serve in positions that require a longer time in position than an officer would be allowed. In what capacity do they want the WO to lead?

The USN flying WO program is still early, like you said. I believe they're almost ready to graduate their first helo pilots so they should start getting to FRS soon.

The USAF(in my own opinion... although it does seem to be on the enlisted mind as well of those serving) made a mistake eliminating WOs. They claim that the two supergrades of E-8 and E-9 could cover the role of the WOs but that's not really the case. But more to the point in this conversation, in keeping with the tradition the USAF only wants commissioned officers flying so they can't hand the mission to enlisted personnel. As I've said above, WOs could spend an entire career in UAVs and not be hurt in terms of rank, become the tactical and technical experts on the platform and alleviate the amount of AD officers being moved out of their career path to be dumped into the UAVs. You're right that there would be an issue of having to re-create the rank but again, it's the only branch in the US without them while all the other branches also have supergrades.

I, too, have known people who changed ANG states in order to remain in a given platform... and although I don't have any stats to back me up I would guess that number is higher when they try to replace their aircraft with UAVs.

A very interesting discussion on WO's. I have enjoyed it. Pretty timely.

This month's copy ( Aug 08 ) of "The Officer", Reserve Officers Association of the United States, had an article titled: The Warrant, Warrant officers celebrate 90 years of technical expertise and leadership in the Army".

The article stated that "Army Warrant Officers are soldiers, technical experts, officers, and leaders who manage and maintain increasingly complex battlefield systems. Chief warrant officers are commissioned by the President and have the same legal status as their traditional commissioned officer counterparts. However, warrant officers remain single-specialty officers whose career track is oriented toward progressing within their career field rather than focusing on increased levels of command and staff duty positions."

In 2007, the article states, "There were 22, 000 men and women in the Warrant Officer Cohort, making up 2 percent of the total US Army:
56% active duty
32% ARNG
12% USAR

Warrant Officers served in 15 Army branches, filling 67 MOS's, with 34.6% being aviation warrant officers."

For more info on the history of the Army Warrant Officer:
http://www.usawoa.org/WOHERITAGE/Hist_of_Army_WO.htm

As an instructor of the Warrant Officer Advanced Course in the 1980's, even then the none branch specific topics were heavily leaned towards leadership and writing skills, much the same, at that time, as the commissioned officers received.

Rick Kirk

Just thought I'd chime in(again) and say that the Air Force times had an article recently about 13 points that airmen suggested for the CSAF to make the USAF better. One of those 13 points was to bring back WOs to reduce workload stress on UAV personnel(as well as other career fields). I have to say, all 13 points were spot on.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... ef_080208/

SMOC wrote:Just thought I'd chime in(again) and say that the Air Force times had an article recently about 13 points that airmen suggested for the CSAF to make the USAF better. One of those 13 points was to bring back WOs to reduce workload stress on UAV personnel(as well as other career fields). I have to say, all 13 points were spot on.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... ef_080208/

As one of my old bosses used to say, "LOKTM"=looks OK to me. The troops always know what is best. The wise Commander listens to them.

From AF Daily Report 15 Oct 08
First F-16s Depart Hancock: The New York Air National Guard's 174th Fighter Wing yesterday started its 18-month transition from the F-16 fighter to the MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle with the departure of the first two F-16s for good from the wing's home at Hancock Field ANG Base, near Syracuse. These F-16s are headed for a new assignment at Edwards AFB, Calif., and represent the beginning of the end of the 174th's F-16 mission, according to a release by the New York State division of Military and Naval Affairs. Col. Charles Dorsey, the wing's vice commander, said it was "bittersweet" to see the first F-16s go, as the unit has been flying Vipers since 1988. But added that the unit is "excited to open a new chapter of combat aviation" with the coming MQ-9 mission. More F-16s will depart Hancock as the transition progresses, and wing members are supposed to begin training with MQ-9s in 2010. Nearly 200 of the wing's airmen and 14 of its F-16s returned home in August from the unit's eighth and final rotational deployment to Southwest Asia with F-16s.