Schwartz slams retired generals in contracting

[CommunityEditor]

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz took aim at retired generals working for defense contractors involved in the tanker dispute while also announcing a new career track for unmanned aerial vehicle pilots during his speech Tuesday at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in Washington D.C.

“I’m speaking of the unfortunate deterioration of the relationship between the Air Force and industry that of late has manifested a hyperbole of insensitivity and a lack of proper communication,” he said.

“My personal view is that military professionals including those who have retired from active service have an obligation to refrain from taking sides in public debates on key acquisition programs.”

Awkward applause from the crowd, packed with current and retired Air Force generals, followed Schwartz’s critiques.

Yesterday, Schwartz and Secretary Michael Donley said a decision on the tanker could be delayed as much as four years because of the failed acquisition process for the Air Force tanker that will replace the KC-135 and KC-10.

Schwartz also explained how the “insatiable” demand for Predator and Reaper missions over Iraq and Afghanistan has led to the need for more UAV pilots.

The Air Force will immediately start taking pilots straight from undergraduate pilot training while also setting up a new career track for UAV pilots to fill that need, Schwartz said.

In the near term the Air Force will start sending UPT graduates straight to fly UAVs during their first tour. One hundred pilots will be selected each year for as many years as this type of need remains, Schwartz said.

Air Force officials said last week these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour, which will last three to four years.

Starting in January, a group of 10 active duty officers — not pilots — will be the first to test if the Air Force could develop a pipeline of pilots that would fly only UAVs during their careers.

Concerning the nuclear problems that have plagued the Air Force, Schwartz said fixing those problems is his top priority. He said he plans to address these issues with Air Force and Defense Department officials at the service’s Nuclear Summit scheduled to meet on Thursday.

Schwartz said yesterday Air Force leaders have read the report released Sept. 12 by the Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management into the Air Force’s nuclear enterprise and will the discuss the task force’s recommendation to align all Air Force nuclear missions under Air Force Space Command and rename it Air Force Strategic Command.


Article: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...speech_091608/
Schwartz's speech: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/...08schwartz.pdf

The defense Industry wouldn't exist without retired military who have the inside track on deals with DoD! Money makes the world go 'round.

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

[i]The Air Force will immediately start taking pilots straight from undergraduate pilot training while also setting up a new career track for UAV pilots to fill that need, Schwartz said.

In the near term the Air Force will start sending UPT graduates straight to fly UAVs during their first tour. One hundred pilots will be selected each year for as many years as this type of need remains, Schwartz said.

Air Force officials said last week these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour, which will last three to four years.

Starting in January, a group of 10 active duty officers — not pilots — will be the first to test if the Air Force could develop a pipeline of pilots that would fly only UAVs during their careers.

Article: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...speech_091608/
Schwartz's speech: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/...08schwartz.pdf

The desires of the Chief are commendable, but are naive. This is the result of over 10 years of operational UAV service without one single General Officer being UAV qualified (how many fly the F-22?) And those service members who are qualified with hundreds or thousands of UAV flight hours? Their inputs are summarily dismissed. If the General's staff had done their homework, they would have found both initiatives have been tried before and failed.

Time and time again, the length of training for UAV trainees have been reduced and cut. The community is not allowed any continuation training (CT - training outside the combat environment to hone skills or learn new techniques). The community is not allowed any Mission Qualification Training (MQT) outside the combat environment itself. Just what quality of F-15 pilot would you turn out if the current RTU syllabus were cut in half, no MQT training, and no CT were allowed? You’d get your butt handed to you. And now we're proposing sending fresh nuggets to training with no previous weapons system experience into combat with a total of 2 months of training. Have we learned nothing?

As for "these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour", that promise has been broken for years and by the hundreds for pilots at Creech right now - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

The UAV community has been made into a black hole - no appreciation for the sacrifice and contribution made by UAV crews, no professional military education in residence allowed, and no escape, but separation or retirement. The upper echelons of the Air Force should be embarrassed by their lack of commitment to support this community.

UAV driver

[BERSERKER]

What? Not a "yes man"? Kudos to General Schwartz. Time to shake things up! This is exactly what the Air Force needs more of! I'm considering taking back anything negative I've said about him after the 4-star summit "Blues Monday" decision.

Kudos to Gen Schwartz for opening discussing this major ethics problem. This is a very real problem, but it's not just confined to retired generals. I've been around the military for over 30 years and I've seen it many times. A defense contractor cozies up to an officer. A contract is awarded to the contractor. The officer retires and almost immediately goes to work for that contractor. He starts to work on his social network, recruiting more business from those who will be retiring soon... and ensuring his compadres that there is a job waiting for them upon retirement. The practice must end.

Why on earth can enlisted not fly? Why is that a Army grunt can fly a UAV, but A AF NCO cant? It make no sense that if we have enlisted out there that want to fly (me) but they require you to be a office. I know you can be a sensor operator, but If i cant be a pilot, then I wouldnt want to do it

The thing about not speakign out is silly. if you served your time, then you can say and do whatever you want in your civlian capacity


Plus i have over 4k hours of flight simulator trainign dating back to AIr Warrior II on AOL

If you want to fly, take the following steps: graduate from college, get commisioned, go to UPT and get your wings. UAV's are employing actual weapons against actual enemies and providing actual support to actual troops on the ground in harm's way. They are not a simulator. The one thing the USAF does right is that it requires a pilot to release weapons from an aircraft.

As far as putting new guys in the UAS - big mistake. THis is real world lives at stake kind of stuff, but combat capability takes a back seat to expediency.

[Okie]

Smokey,

I think the big reason is that the AF flies bigger UAS's than the Army. My understanding is that the Army has a bunch that are similar to RC airplanes and have to stay fairly low. The AF flies bigger ones that operate in airspace shared by real airplanes and provide a more strategic picture. I would guess the FAA is driving the commercial pilot's license requirement (for navs).

I have no problem with E's flying UASs. Heck, enlisted pilots did well enough in WWII. I think there needs to be some formal training for UAS pilots. The AF is looking for ways to cut costs, and I think that would be a good one.

For "unregistered", I would argue that there are first-assignment pilots that go to every other MWS out there. Why should the UASs be any different?

Originally Posted by Okie

Smokey,

I think the big reason is that the AF flies bigger UAS's than the Army. My understanding is that the Army has a bunch that are similar to RC airplanes and have to stay fairly low. The AF flies bigger ones that operate in airspace shared by real airplanes and provide a more strategic picture. I would guess the FAA is driving the commercial pilot's license requirement (for navs).

I have no problem with E's flying UASs. Heck, enlisted pilots did well enough in WWII. I think there needs to be some formal training for UAS pilots. The AF is looking for ways to cut costs, and I think that would be a good one.

For "unregistered", I would argue that there are first-assignment pilots that go to every other MWS out there. Why should the UASs be any different?

Mr Unregistered here:

People straight out of pilot training can do it - just not with the training resources "Big Blue" wants to spend on a UAV. They want something for nothing.

When you graduate from UPT, you get follow-on training at an RTU. If you go to fighters, you get a "fighter lead-in" course on top. Then you get to your unit and get some sort of MQT training - further seasoning with experienced pilots. From there you go to various deployments, including Red Flag/Green Flag/ etc, or the like BEFORE you ever get in a position to lay down hurt on enemy combatants with friendlies in close proximity.

The USAF UAV comminity RELIES on the seasoning a pilot got before they arrived. Those night C-130 air drops, getting your tanker to the right place at the right time in the worst weather possible, or rolling down the "chute" in your fighter before you ever end up in a Predator. Big Blue wants to give you 20 hours in the UAV aircraft and be ready for combat - they don't want to give you any more time.

As for "E"s flying - sure. Given enough hours, almost anyone can be trainined on any platform. Given enough time, your Grandmother could be tought to fly C-130s. The issue is how many hours do you want to spend? Big Blue has proven time and time again, they don't want to foot the bill for anybody other than experienced pilots to UAVs.

So at this point, I'm from Missouri - show me. Will they give "E" pilots a 6-8 month course? If so, it will probably work. But the track record is very poor for granting any additional training hours.

FYI - the Army UAV accidient rate is roughly 3 times what the USAF rate is - most likely due to less experienced aviators at the controls. No hack on them, more flight hours equals more experience.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

[Okie]

My mistake--I thought you were saying it couldn't be done. I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.