Yeah I know, sorry. Was responding to some part of the thread about 1-2 pages back.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Aerial Vehicle Operator (AVO) a.k.a. Drone Operators Requirements
- Thread starter navyofficer
- Start date
I get you man. It can be frustrating. The change will come. But I wouldn't expect the VFA or VMFA or VMA or HMLA communities to get on board with that article- and I'm not sure you guys wrote it for them anyway. Maybe you did? Who were you guys writing it for?
Since you guys published that article the USMC decided to go all in on MQ-9 for the VMUs. Except they don't have anything strike in their core METS.
They bought a shooting platform and then decided to use it as a giant Scan Eagle, and do stuff that a balloon in the moronosphere could do (probably better).
The USMC (or DoD) still doesn't have a group 1 UAS center of excellence or tactical schoolhouse. All of these lessons we're learning about the effectiveness of small UAS in Ukraine aren't being catalogued and will be lost to time in a matter of months of the conflict ending.
I do stand by my statements about Spool. He's a good guy and he's really smart. I don't think he and I got along- anyone that jumped ship when we saw the writing on the wall as to where the community was headed probably didn't either. He used to send out emails to officers and SNCOs who were in his circle. I got exactly one of those emails. It read a lot like your article.
So maybe @Swanee can comment here - General Atomics seems to be positioning the idea of "folding wing" MQ-9's operating off CVN and LHD's. Is this fluff or is there meat here?
Our British friends seem to have embraced the idea: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-to-trial-variant-of-reaper-drones/
Our British friends seem to have embraced the idea: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-to-trial-variant-of-reaper-drones/
Hmm. Is this a contractor developed capability, not driven by customer requirements that may have found a home? I am pretty sure I have been reading that never happens.
GA has been pushing this idea for a few years- especially when the VMUs divested of the RQ-21.
Honestly, I don't think it's too good of an idea. A sort of pipe dream for GAs legacy mid 90s design that has carried them this far. The AF has already put a sundown date for the Reaper - though I'm sure we'll fly it in the Guard for a decade beyond that. The Navy already has the MQ-25 and the Triton. While this does meet the USMCs goals of having a UAS that flies off of, and back on to, a boat- you have to ask what a MEU commander is going to take off the already crowded boat and leave at home to bring this along.
As much as I hate saying this- we're probably better served just keeping our GCS employment model as is, and have a few MQ-9s forward deployed with a little maintenance det on those little islands throughout our AORs. We could vuild a pack out that can go in the back of a C-130 or C-17 to get them in the AOR if need be.
A GCS on a boat is a beacon in the EM spectrum, and if you're going EMCON you probably want the vision that a persistent UAS gives you. Better to be in receive mode there.
I suppose it could be fun for a little Doolittle Raid type assault just to prove we can do it.
I'll be interested to see what the Brits come up with though!
Honestly, I don't think it's too good of an idea. A sort of pipe dream for GAs legacy mid 90s design that has carried them this far. The AF has already put a sundown date for the Reaper - though I'm sure we'll fly it in the Guard for a decade beyond that. The Navy already has the MQ-25 and the Triton. While this does meet the USMCs goals of having a UAS that flies off of, and back on to, a boat- you have to ask what a MEU commander is going to take off the already crowded boat and leave at home to bring this along.
As much as I hate saying this- we're probably better served just keeping our GCS employment model as is, and have a few MQ-9s forward deployed with a little maintenance det on those little islands throughout our AORs. We could vuild a pack out that can go in the back of a C-130 or C-17 to get them in the AOR if need be.
A GCS on a boat is a beacon in the EM spectrum, and if you're going EMCON you probably want the vision that a persistent UAS gives you. Better to be in receive mode there.
I suppose it could be fun for a little Doolittle Raid type assault just to prove we can do it.
I'll be interested to see what the Brits come up with though!
They are obviously tweaking the wing design and everything, but for carrier landings in general you want a power on, steep glideslope with the right nose up pitch attitude. The MQ9 and its glider-ish heritage is exactly the opposite. Seems like a challenging problem to make the conversion.
Concur. But they won't be putting a tailhook on it, and there is no way the airplane can support the weight of heavier gear- not without a lot of sacrifice.
Perhaps they'll take a page out of sailplane design and put 90* trailing edge flaps and decent spoilers on it. Though it will still have to flare.
Edit: And don't forget that it still isn't an all weather airplane... Again. I think it's a bad idea- GA is grasping at straws.
Last edited:
I dunno. I think GA is doing what they have to do to keep the Q-9 family relevant. I also think theyve got the right idea with the Mojave project - get the thing as untethered from a big admin/mx tail and able to operate from austere fields as possible. And I mean for-real-austere, not "Air Force austere".
Best thread I could find to post this interesting report about UAV's over Langley AFB in December (as much as I dislike Rogoway, it is okay once you get past the self congratulations).
Shaebonk2012
New Member
Hey,Just a question man, no need to get aggressive about it. I think it's entirely normal to ask questions about what to expect.
Thanks for the response!
I am applying for OCS and AVP was my final designator but i have not found anyone on NASNI that has this designator. Does anyone know someone i might be able to do a appraisal for my OCS package. I already have 1 pilot/nfo and 2 SWOs one an O5 and the other an O3
Shaebonk2012
New Member
Hey,Just a question man, no need to get aggressive about it. I think it's entirely normal to ask questions about what to expect.
Thanks for the response!
I am applying for OCS and AVP was my final designator but i have not found anyone on NASNI that has this designator. Does anyone know someone i might be able to do a appraisal for my OCS package. I already have 1 pilot/nfo and 2 SWOs one an O5 and the other an O3
Framer
Member
Prior AVP applicant. They don’t care about you having a AVP interviewer, there will be a grand total of zero AVPs in the fleet right now, they’re all at Pax River at FRS or in P Cola still in school. From what I know, they want you to have LORs from pilots, not much NFOs. You’re on NASNI and there is a lot of helo squadrons that used to operate the MQ-8C, including a whole FRS for it at HSC3.
You’re also close to Pt Mugu where legitimate UAV squadrons currently exist. I was able to get a LOR from one of the members of that squadron during my application process.
My advice to you: get with your Commissioning Programs Coordinator (usually a O-4ish), him/her to hop on FLTEMPS and use their juice to show you the stats of people currently in school. That’s what my old AMO did for me, and it showed me how truly competitive AVP is. It’s full of first classes that aged out of SNA/SNFO basically on their last chance to fly, stacked with awards and some had double degrees, one guy has a masters.
This is not meant to discourage you, I just don’t want you to fall into the trap I fell into. I saw the minimums and decided “they’ll pick me up!”, got that dashed quickly.
Also join the FB group for AVP as well, you’ll be able to converse and find a legitimate mentor to guide you.
The above is about as good advice as any. AVP is still a very new program and the process is still in flux, including Millington's ideas of the 'ideal' candidate or what makes you competitive. For now, you can't go too wrong following the same process and advice for any other pilot/FO OCS applicant.
For what it's worth, the Navy is still institutionally not sure how it feels about making Warrants from outside their traditional sources of E-7s and promotable E-6s. I think it's at least one of the things that contributed to the demise of the Flying CWO program a few years back. So while I can't personally confirm what @Framer said about them picking hot-running E-6s who are otherwise pilot qualified but too old, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.