UAVs-
Building a More Credible Force
U.S. Air Force restrictions on the management of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operators have reduced the developmental potential of these technologies. A training plan that more effectively utilizes the USAF personnel resources would result in a more operationally robust UAV force. This proposed training plan first recognizes the importance of experienced combat pilots in the development and integration of UAV technologies into the combat air forces. However, it also recognizes the inherent differences between UAVs and traditional aircraft. This paper addresses two of these differences. First, because pilots do not physically fly in the UAV, they would rather be assigned to traditional flying units. Secondly, the different physiological and motor skills requirements of UAV operators as compared to pilots justify different training requirements. Taking these two items into account, the new plan recognizes budgetary, personnel, and cultural constraints within the Air Force while maximizing personnel training dollars. The proposed training plan uses limited Air Force resources more effectively, resulting in a more motivated and combat capable UAV operator force.
The UAV Community is Growing
The capabilities of unmanned aerial vehicles continue to expand with the advent of new technologies. Recently, UAVs proved their combat worthiness in operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. These successes only increase the demand for the limited UAV resources. Not surprisingly, the amount of money invested into UAV research continues to grow.[1] At the same time the number of manned aircraft within the Air Force inventory continues to decline.[2] As the number of UAV airframes increases, so will the demand for individuals to remotely operate these air vehicles.
Military leadership continues to call for the advancement of UAV technologies and support these calls with defense dollars. Senator John Warner, chairman, Senate Armed Service Committee believes that by the year 2010, one-third of deep strike aircraft should be unmanned. General Jumper, in his Global Strike Task Force, calls for UAVs to have the capability to maneuver around, or go through advanced defensive systems. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report states, “The Department of Defense will procure unmanned combat aerial vehicles and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles such as Global Hawk.” These beliefs by senior leadership are supported by a 2004 fiscal year budget request of over $1 billion for Air Force UAV production and development.[3]
Once tasked only for reconnaissance, advances in technology allow modern Air Force UAVs to support regional combatant commanders like never before.[4] Many experts state that the Air Force is still anxiously awaiting the arrival of its unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). However, the successful Nov 2002 attack on a senior al Qaeda terrorist in Yemen proves that the Air Force already maintains a platform capable of combat. The Predator A, although often operated by Central Intelligence Agency operatives and often restricted by numerous operational constraints, is deployed to many theaters of interest, proving its limited operational worthiness. The advent of the Predator B only enhances these capabilities. Predator B eliminates some of the operational constraints of the A model, will be capable of increased loiter time, an internal payload of 750 lbs, and an external payload of 3000 lbs. In addition to Hellfire, the Predator B will be capable of employing a variant of the combat proven GBU-31, the GBU 30, a 500 lb class version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).[5] In addition to the Predator B, the Air Force also presses forward with its development of the UCAV. Currently under some pressure for reevaluation of its operational requirements, the UCAV has already successfully undergone initial flight testing. [6] Whatever the result of the testing program, the UCAV will bring additional combat capabilities to UAVs beyond those of the Predator.
Uninspired Pilots Flying UAVs
The challenge of finding volunteer pilots to serve as willing UAV operators has been no small task. A former Predator squadron commander characterized a large part of his squadron personnel as those classified as, ‘sick, lame, or lazy,’ within the personnel system.[7] On April 29, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported a story, “Top Guns Grounded: Pilots Fume at Duty on Unmanned Craft,” which focused on the discontent felt by fighter pilots stationed at Indian Springs while flying the Predator.[8] Only in the past 6 or 7 years have the Predator and Global Hawk had a significant impact on the assignment system. Before that time pilots never heard of anyone ever getting a UAV assignment. There is no doubt that over time, UAV assignments will continue to work their way into the culture of Air Force pilots. However, there is also no doubt that as long as Air Force pilots continue to go through a traditional pilot training program where they are required to fly aircraft, that they will resist these assignments.
Few professions garner as much enthusiasm and excitement as military aviation. Throughout the twentieth century numerous stories of daring aviators thrilled movie theater audiences and readers alike. Millions have read the tales of the brave test pilots in The Right Stuff. Even more have seen daring naval aviators dance the skies in Top Gun. What pilot cannot relate to the poetic words written by John Gillespie Magee Jr.? Pilots pursue the aviation profession not just because it’s a job. For the most part, pilots fly because they love to fly. Flying challenges pilots, both physically and mentally, often drawing on their bravery and courage. Pilots join the Air Force to fly airplanes because of their inherent love of flight, not to control UAVs from the ground.
The next decade of UAV operations promises numerous capability upgrades.[9] As UAVs move from a supporting role to more of a supported role, they will require the expertise of combat experienced aviators. There is no question that fighter and bomber pilots, navigators, and weapons systems operators are the most qualified individuals to develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures of UAVs for incorporation into the combat air forces. These air warfare experts bring to the planning tables experience that no one else can.
The challenge becomes how to continue the development of these very important UAV technologies, while keeping the pilot force motivated, inherently a difficult task. While current Air Force policy states that UAV operators must either be rated pilots or navigators,[10] one option would be to indefinitely continue to force pilots into ‘voluntary’ UAV assignments. However, this option brings with it several disadvantages. First, it forces Air Force pilots into assignments they do not want. Although comprised of professional aviators, what pilot cannot relate to the disappointment of being assigned to a base where their flying skills, skills that they have been training for years to develop, will no longer be challenged? Second, related to the staffing of these positions by pilots, is the opportunity cost by not staffing UAV operator positions with non-pilots. As UAV operators, the thousands of highly motivated individuals not medically qualified for aviation service now have an ideal position to serve on the ‘tip of the spear’ in an operational combat unit.
A change in Air Force policy governing the staffing of UAV operators would increase the motivation levels in the UAV community. It would allow for development of a UAV specific syllabus which would result in better trained UAV operators while at the same time saving a significant amount of training dollars. In the end the UAV community would benefit by providing a more combat capable force.
While the Predator and Global Hawk go through their trials and tribulations, the F/A-22 also undergoes development. Last year, the Air Force asked for volunteers to operationally test and evaluate the stealthy new fighter jet. Hundreds of fighter pilots volunteered to be one of the first to fly what will be the most capable fighter jet ever produced. After review by a formal selection board, the Air Force released its list of operational and test evaluation pilots. Not surprisingly, each of the seven pilots is a graduate of the premiere USAF Weapons Instructor Course at Nellis AFB. These highly qualified aviators will be responsible for test and evaluation of the Air Force’s newest and most capable fighter technology. This process of taking the most highly qualified individuals and tasking them with developing the tactics for new weapons platforms only makes sense. The important point to take away from the comparison of the F/A-22 with the Predator is this: Volunteers for the F/A-22 will continue to flood the personnel center. Once selected, pilots will have to be taken away kicking and screaming from their position as F/A-22 pilots. In contrast, Predator pilots seldom volunteer for their assignment. Once assigned to a Predator squadron they normally anxiously count the days until their departure. However, in order to develop UAV operations to their fullest, UAV squadrons require committed individuals, expert in their operation. UAV squadrons require individuals with a sense of ownership that have to be taken away kicking and screaming.
AVOs Maintain Different Training Requirements from Pilots
Now that multiple UAV squadrons have established themselves, and for the foreseeable future UAV operations will only continue to expand, why must we continue to train fixed-wing pilots to fly UAVs? The medical requirements to fly UAVs are different from those of manned aircraft. Of even more significance is the difference between the UAV operator-UAV interface and that of the pilot-aircraft interface. A fundamental difference exists between the two man and machine interfaces.
Currently, in order to be eligible for AVO training, the U.S. Air Force requires individuals to either be a graduate of Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training or a graduate of Undergraduate Navigator Training and also possess a current FAA fixed wing pilot and instrument certificate. There is no other public plan to develop a separate syllabus for AVOs. This policy is overly conservative and costing thousands in unnecessary training dollars. A new syllabus that focuses on the training requirements of AVOs and eliminates the Class A flight physical examination is required and overdue.
Individuals who aspire to grow up and one day become UAV operators should not require the same rigorous physiological training that pilot training candidates endure. UAV operators do not maintain the same physiological requirements. When the same physiological requirements are placed on UAV operators as those placed on pilots, the end result is wasted training dollars.
In addition to requiring different medical standards, UAV operations differ significantly from those of aircraft operations. The methods of controlling a UAV differ from that of a traditional aircraft. Some of these control mechanisms more closely resemble that of flying an aircraft with traditional stick and rudder skills. The Predator A model makes use of manipulation of a stick and throttle with the addition of keystrokes on a keyboard to control the air vehicle. Still other UAV control systems resemble more closely that of a fully automatic aircraft autopilot. Global Hawk does not use a control stick or a throttle. Control is accomplished completely through the use of keystrokes through a keyboard. Some have classified these various control systems as remote, semiautonomous, and autonomous.[11] As future UAVs complete development, vehicle control will fall under one of these three classifications or may operate across a combination of the three. New technologies will most likely continue the trend in automation. This will reduce the workload on the operator and is aimed at increasing survivability and combat effectiveness.
Another inherent difference between flying aircraft and controlling UAVs is the requirement of multiple datalinks. The datalink is the lifeblood of a UAV. UAVs depend upon datalinks for their flight control and sensor control. They also depend upon them for the monitoring of aircraft systems. Finally, a datalink makes it possible to transmit important data collected through onboard sensors. In order to effectively operate any UAV, a thorough understanding of the electro-magnetic spectrum is necessary. The allocation of bandwidth within a theater of operations will someday become the difference between whether a particular airframe can operate or not.[12] In contrast, nowhere in the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training syllabus is the management of the electro-magnetic spectrum covered in any detail.
UAVs vs Aircraft- Inherent Differences From an Aviation Safety Perspective
A review of USAF aviation mishaps continues to point out the fundamental differences between the control of aircraft and the control of UAVs. More importantly, it highlights the training dollars wasted to train UAV operators how to handle physiological situations that do not impact UAV operations. In the last ten years the Air Force has experienced multiple Predator and Global Hawk mishaps. Not a single mishap was related to physiological factors. In comparison, over the past ten years, the Air Force reported over 1000 physiological incidents in traditionally manned aircraft. These incidents included hypoxia, g-loss of consciousness, airsickness, and rapid decompression to name a few.[13]
Several of the UAV mishaps were due to the loss of one or more aircraft systems. In a traditional pilot training syllabus, pilots are taught how to recognize the loss of, or the impending loss of aircraft systems through several means. Obviously cockpit instrumentation provides an important reference. However, many indicators are a direct result of physically being in the cockpit – aircraft vibrations, unusual noises, odors, the sound of the airflow around the cockpit, and acceleration forces. These sensations do not exist in UAV operations. A tailored UAV syllabus would focus on these inherent differences and correct training deficiencies.
Reduction in Training Costs
An updated syllabus aimed at training UAV operators would result in a significant reduction in training costs as compared to the specialized undergraduate pilot training (SUPT) syllabus. Significant savings could be realized in three areas- first, a reduction in flying hour costs, second, elimination of the physiological training requirements of the SUPT syllabus, and third, increase in UAV simulator events.
Flying hour costs for the T-38 are $1500. Flying hour costs for the F-16 are upwards of over $3800. In comparison, flying hour cost for the Predator are significantly less expensive at under $200.[14] Elimination of the requirement for UAV operators to be rated pilots would eliminate millions of dollars of flying hour training costs.