RAF urged to recruit more UAV operators.

[Hangarshuffle]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/09/royal-air-force-recruit-video-game-players-operate-reaper-drones

Apologies if posted by others today, article about why the military needs more operators and which sector of the demography they should be recruited from.

Not that I am in any way suitable to be asked to step forward as a recruit, but if I was I would knock it back.
Not supported by law if you kill the wrong person, or the rules change, or attitudes change now or in the future - being liable to be prosecuted basically, or sold out.
Also psychologically I think it would **** me up, sighting someone and pressing the kill button.
Anyway my respect in spades to the people who accept that and carry on in their duties. Someone's got to.

[Danny42C]

Hangarshuffle,
...sighting someone and pressing the kill button...

71 years ago that was the general idea, as I remember.

D.

[Melchett01]

I'd argue they're wrong and shouldn't be recruiting Play Station fanatics just because they are good at playing games. If they need to, change the aptitude tests to ensure they are specific to RPAS ops and include a psychological element to try to screen out those who might have the aptitude but lack the ability to deal with the stresses and strains cited as a problem in the same way some other Branches use psychological profiling to assess suitability / risks.

Many of the the individuals the AM is talking about are the same tech savvy ones who spent the summer with their heads down chasing Pokemon around the country and frankly seem to lack the broader awareness and interpersonal skills I'd want to see in intelligent war fighters. I also have my doubts just how mentally robust this often self-absorbed generation actually is. Just because you're good on a games console doesn't make you fit for combat in a complex operating environment. This isn't a game and you can't stick a quid in the slot to continue when it goes wrong.

[pr00ne]

Melchett,

"I also have my doubts just how mentally robust this often self-absorbed generation actually is...."

Take a look at the hundreds and hundreds of this generation who are currently limbless from Iraq and Afghanistan, or never made it home, and hang your head in shame.

[KPax]

Melchett, crass comment, on the forum subject there are a lot of 'hackers' now working for certain agencies, different but not too much.

[Melchett01]

Sorry, not crass in the slightest and I won't be apologising for having an opinion that doesn't quite fit in with a liberal line of thinking. Having served on the RW fleet in both Iraq and Afghanistan I am well aware of the standard of those who have served and come home broken. They represent some of the finest our country has to offer, but I believe are a minority in comparison with many of their contemporaries who are often ignorant, self absorbed and generally unaware of anything that doesn't happen on social media.

And as the AM is talking about recruiting from current and future generations of 18 years olds not recruiting from those who served as 18 year olds in past wars, I don't even think your comparison is valid.

[Phil_R]

I'm no longer quite young enough to be the target of Melchett's generalisation, but I would point out that many of the people who made the very poor decisions to attack Iraq and Afghanistan were old enough to be my father.

I would hesitate to put myself under their orders, and I wouldn't necessarily consider an unwillingness to do so as a lack of moral fibre. More the opposite, in fact.

Good and bad people exist in all age ranges, I think.

P

[muppetofthenorth]

They represent some of the finest our country has to offer, but I believe are a minority in comparison with many of their contemporaries who are often ignorant, self absorbed and generally unaware of anything that doesn't happen on social media.

Just because they haven't needed to be tested doesn't mean they couldn't do it.

The noisy minority shouldn't be mistaken for the average majority, they overwhelming proportion of whom are no different to previous generations.

Indeed, it's accusations like yours that they're somehow less capable that is causing a lot of sociological and political problems.

[MSOCS]

Melchett,

The sheer quantity of medals (look that word up) on the chests of this generation speak louder than your cretinous comments.

Have another sherry and poke yourself in the eye. You might see more clearly.

[ExRAFRadar]

Melchett said:

"Many of the the individuals the AM is talking about are the same tech savvy ones who spent the summer with their heads down chasing Pokemon around the country and frankly seem to lack the broader awareness and interpersonal skills I'd want to see in intelligent war fighters. I also have my doubts just how mentally robust this often self-absorbed generation actually is. Just because you're good on a games console doesn't make you fit for combat in a complex operating environment. This isn't a game and you can't stick a quid in the slot to continue when it goes wrong."

And just how many Squaddies do you think have A Level Maths or Philosophy?

[SARF]

I think melchetts point is that we should not be recruiting 17 yr old play station whizz kids to do this particular job.. yes they may have the skill set .. but it's not a game. And when they get older will be they able to deal with the remote killings they have made ..
sure that applies to all young military people but it's once removed and I agree that these kids being recruited may not be the right candidates. For decision making and for dealing with the whole thing in later life

[Finningley Boy]

I don't know how this impacts on the candidate profiles, but I was under the belief that all had to learn to fly first anyway?

FB:)

[newt]

I would be more than happy to do it! I may be 60 something but I'm sure I could sit in a nice air conditioned cubicle and fly a drone! Can't see what all the fuss is about! Oh and I can fly and am sure I can make the right decisions about who is the bad guy! Any chance I could fly it over Scotland? Just a thought! Lol. Best get my tin hat on and have another dram!👽

[Melchett01]

I must admit to being slightly baffled by the direction this has gone and how individuals have tried to make a connection between 2 previous conflicts, which I no way alluded to let alone mentioned in my original post, and my thoughts on recruitment and selection of suitable individuals for future capabilities. I might be missing something, but that's a leap of logic that I'm just not seeing. To my mind SARF picked up exactly on the crux of my point whilst others have been arguing a completely separate issue.

That said, I'm not going to change my opinion, namely that selecting RPAS crews on the basis of being good Play Station / gamers is not the right way ahead, and that for the issues outlined by the AM, we need a more nuanced approach to selection which includes psychological as well as psychometric screening - the crux of my argument which nobody actually responded to.

At the most basic level, if any of us here on this forum had gone through OASC and expected to be selected having listed Play Station expertise on our application, we may have been given a hearing only out of curiosity and I very strongly suspect we wouldn't have been successful. The notion of locking oneself away for hours on end to play solitary games might develop motor skills, but it does not develop any of the leadership or interpersonal skills we have always looked for and will need as the battlespace becomes ever more complex. Technical skills will only get you so far and we already select on the basis of motor skills through aptitude testing; the ability to deal with ambiguity and lead through it to a successful conclusion will, in my opinion remain as important. Furthermore, being a Play Station and social media guru is no guarantee of resolving the mental health issues the AM noted, hence my comment of expanding psychometric testing to include psychological testing - again, a point nobody responded to.

There are plenty of studies, reports and books out there that support my original statement, namely the current generation of 18-24 yr olds, maybe older, lack a broader intelligence and awareness of their surroundings and social skills. If you think I am being harsh, as pr00ne et al seem to suggest - even though this is wholly unrelated to the conduct of individuals in previous conflicts, despite the attempt to link the issues - there are studies out there - and published in the same paper as the original post - where Millennials seem to perceive themselves as lacking awareness and being self absorbed. There are plenty of reports, but to get you started:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/04/millennials-see-themselves-as-greedy-self-absorbed-and-wasteful-study-finds

The jury is still out as to the benefits or otherwise of video games and social media, but I don't think there's much doubt that the levels of continued exposure likely to be required to fit into the category of individual the AM was discussing is likely to cause some degree of change to neuroplasticity, ability to hold attention and other mental characteristics. For a start, what we often think of as multi-tasking by bouncing around multiple websites whilst watching TV and having a conversation seems now not to be a good example of multi-tasking, but doing several things badly at once.

The so what behind my original point is this. The motor and spatial skills generated by hours on a console are already tested for. But the soft skills required to deal with and lead in the sort of complex environments we fight in are not, I contend, as prevalent in many Millenials as in previous generations. Future operations are going to be more complex, more nuanced and require a far greater level of awareness, soft skills and fluid intelligence needed to handle legal and moral ambiguity not seen in any of our time on ops. Locking yourself away to complete the latest first person shooter in record time using off the chart motor and spatial skills isn't going to help that The days of being a genius operator simply because you hit 170 on the aptitude tests at OASC are over - get used to that now, it will save time later.

To base your recruitment and selection of RPAS crews, already a sensitive area, on a cohort of youngsters who admit themselves they are less aware and engaged but who have some notional skills developed from hours in front of Call of Duty or Twitter and can do lots of things at the same time badly is a dangerous route that answers none of the issues the AM alluded to. As far back as 2003, General Colin Powell warned against making a connection between warfare and video games when discussing some flippant media comments on the OIF air campaign. You can't just hit reset and go back to level one in war if you get it wrong. He might just have had a point - or would he have been flamed as well had he suggested that on here?

Hopefully that makes my original point clear.

[HP90]

As a member of the above referenced generation, who will admit to having hunted for certain fictitious creatures on my phone, but who would also like a career in an RPAS GCS, I'd like to take issue with some of the points raised above.

I agree with the sentiments that taking gamers out of their bedrooms and putting them in a GCS is not a good idea. Far more important, in my opinion, is making sure future RPAS operators have a very good understanding of the complexities of the modern battlefield (it's no longer about two uniformed armies fighting each other, just look at Syria - your enemies' enemy is your friend, but also your friends' enemy, etc.). Hybrid Warfare like we've seen from Russia also complicates the picture.

A good understanding of modern RoE, the (often ambiguous) legal and moral justification for employing a weapon, and an understanding of the consequences of squeezing the trigger, are also very important. And above all else, a strong moral constitution, including a willingness to refuse to squeeze a trigger when RoE may be violated, even if instructed to do so by a senior politician, is a must.

I think what the AM was trying to suggest, perhaps not very well, is that future recruitment will likely be based less on those with traditional flying aptitude (i.e. stick 'n' rudder) skills, and more on those who can absorb multiple streams of information while operating technologically advanced systems, for which the RAF must look to younger people.

A few more points:


Also psychologically I think it would **** me up, sighting someone and pressing the kill button.Well, ultimately, that is the point of air power. I never really understand those who serve but who seem to have a problem with that.


I also have my doubts just how mentally robust this often self-absorbed generation actually is.Says the generation who had their studies paid for by the state, and who were able to afford a house on minimum wage in their early 20s. http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif


Many of the the individuals the AM is talking about are the same tech savvy ones who spent the summer with their heads down chasing Pokemon around the country and frankly seem to lack the broader awareness and interpersonal skills I'd want to see in intelligent war fighters.So everyone who plays Pokemon Go lacks broader awareness, interpersonal skills, and intelligence? Even I will admit that some of those are not my generation's strong point (just like political correctness may not be others'), but making extremely broad statements like that is like saying that all older people are Brexiteers who support UKIP.

Also, pretty much every member of my generation are "tech savvy", and the RAF of the future will have a hard time recruiting anybody who ISN'T a gamer.

And on that note......OMG, there's a Pidgey outside! Gotta catch 'em all! :ok:
https://files.graphiq.com/620/media/images/t2/Pidgey_9485437.png

[Hangarshuffle]

I would be worried if I was to be pursued and prosecuted later on by my own side. We are now in an age when the actions of both police and military (that result in the death of both UK and foreign citizens) are analysed to the nth degree.
With a view to prosecution if it doesn't suit.
Whos to say, if one of our operators kills the wrong person in the wrong place, then they wont be extradited to face the music abroad in the future?
Sound far fetched? Not if you are at the bottom of the pile it doesn't.
That's among many of the reasons I wouldn't join to serve now.

[newt]

I really can't see what the problem is! If you drive a car and accidentally kill someone, you can go to jail! I sat on a line with a WE177 for many days. Do the modern Air Force pilots seriously think about not shooting or pickling because they fear prosecution if they get it wrong? What the **** is happening to us? Do you think a Russian pilot would have the same reservation? We might as well scrap our military and spend the money on the NHS!👿👿👿👿

[Hangarshuffle]

Come on newt, you know I'll bite. I was talking about myself - I couldn't / wouldn't do it. Others? That's their choice and all the better we all are for those people. What I'm saying is about the UK and how well our Governing bodies or our own leaders no longer seem to really want to ensure the relative safety of the people who do the dirty work.
We are in a very different age. And what I am saying is, in the future, maybe years in the future people who are acting/directing/operating weapon systems on our behalf may be sold out, that's all.
I mean this ongoing search for (generally infantry) people to answer for alleged failings in Iraq is a prime example. Or Sgt Blackman (convicted and gaoled). Or the BBC making a drama documentary about shot alleged gangster Duggan with the insinuation that a sort of shoot to kill policy was run by the Met. Or the pressure now being applied to reopen the case with the 1984 Battle of Orgreave. Or the recent press coverage about PSNI now investigating alleged wrongdoings by serving soldiers during the troubles (despite it now nearly 20 years since the Good Friday peace agreements.
Am I making my point?

Prove me wrong I do not think a Russian would be dragged into a Moscow civilian court to face retrospective charges from say their Afghan war, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia, although I'm sure they all acted like angels anyway.

[Lima Juliet]

Round 'em up, put 'em in a field and nuke 'em...
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Occupy-LSE.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMWZJlA0QA

[trim it out]

Should the complete footage/details of Sgt Blackman's actions ever be released then I think it would quell most of the outrage over his conviction, save for the die hards who think anybody that has been at the sharp end should be given free will to execute due to combat stress.

I kind of get the feeling there is a conception that UAS operators are given free reign to pick and choose which targets to prosecute and that they will end up in the dock for it. The reality is that there are far more people in the loop. In my experience, remotely operated weapon releases have been closely scrutinised by legad (amongst others) to ensure everyone is clapping to the same song. Anybody that has tried to get a look in at a flat screen TV in a headquarters location in Helmand whilst a track has been ongoing would recognise the bald patches of various staff officers trying to fathom out the person of interest's intent, as they stare at the pixelated dish dash flapping in the wind on a motorbike, as they stand 2ft away from the screen with their arms crossed holding their chins' deciding whether that was actually Obj Runamok smuggling .303s to Lash or simply Little Mo from the Dasht making his way to market in order to flog carpets.