What I fail to understand is why people want to draw a line between unmanned and manned when dealing with weapons delivery.
If I'm sitting at 20,000ft and spiking an LGB to target on a TV screen in my cockpit via the targetting pod - what's the difference whether I sit in a FJ or in a cabin 4,000 miles away?
If I fire an AMRAAM at a target 35 miles away that I'm heading towards and tracking on RADAR (well outside of visual range) and I only see a fireball some 15 miles away when the target blows up - what's the difference?
What has more
direct effect in a campaign, a Predator firing a Hellfire successfully against a Taliban leader or a manned C-130 delivering freight into Bastion or KAF - one is supporting the campaign and one is providing direct campaign effect?
The British Army get this right in declaring "Combat Arm" (which are the likes of the Infantry or AAC) and then "Combat Support" (which are the likes of REME or Int Corps) - although I know declaring the Royal Artillery as "Combat Support" causes some upset. If the RAF were to do the same then I would suggest it would be the following:
Combat Arm
FJ (ie. Typhoon, Tornado, Hawk)
Armed RPAS (ie. Reaper)
Armed RW (ie. Chinook, Puma, Merlin)
Support Arm
AT (ie. C130, C17, Voyager, A400M, Tristar, A-109, HS125, BAe 146)
AAR (ie. VC10, Tristar, Voyager)
ISTAR (ie. E-3D, RJ, Sentinel, Shadow)
SAR (ie. Sea King)
Training (ie. Hawk, Squirrel, Tucano, Tutor)
The list above does not exhaust all types but gives the idea.
As for campaign medals for RPAS driving - Yes
As for bravery medals for RPAS driving - No
As for QCVSA for RPAS driving - Yes
As for Green Endorsements for RPAS driving - Yes
As for AFCs (for "an act or acts of valour, courage or
devotion to duty whilst flying, though not in active operations against the enemy") - why not?
As for DFCs (for "an act or acts of valour, courage or
devotion to duty whilst flying in active operations against the enemy") - why not?
I really can't see why the above is all that difficult...
iRaven