Posted on Aug 25, 2015
Pentagon plan calls for contractors to pilot reconnaissance missions. A slippery slope for drone warfare?
13K
124
49
11
11
0
Private contractors may play a more significant role in armed drone warfare in the coming years, thanks to a Pentagon plan designed to drastically boost the ranks of drone operators amid an ever-increasing need for the missions they conduct.
Following widespread reports that America's drone force cannot keep up with its demands, the Pentagon announced this week it would increase the total number of active worldwide drone missions from current levels of roughly 65 to about 90 by 2019. The military will draw the resources – including pilots and the drones themselves – for 60 of these round-the-clock missions from its Air Force ranks, with assets for 10 to 20 coming from the Army or special operations forces and the remainder from private contractors.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday the contractors' role would be limited to reconnaissance flights conducted with drones owned by the government. They would not engage in the armed drone attacks that have helped define modern warfare, he said.
"We don't envision a time when they will be armed or need to be armed," Carter said, adding that these flights will be supervised "like everything else we do [with] contractors."
Still, some worry Carter's bureaucratic response, coupled with the military's need, leaves open the possibility of a troubling future for modern warfare.
Read more at ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/21/pentagon-opening-drone-missions-to-private-contractors
Following widespread reports that America's drone force cannot keep up with its demands, the Pentagon announced this week it would increase the total number of active worldwide drone missions from current levels of roughly 65 to about 90 by 2019. The military will draw the resources – including pilots and the drones themselves – for 60 of these round-the-clock missions from its Air Force ranks, with assets for 10 to 20 coming from the Army or special operations forces and the remainder from private contractors.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday the contractors' role would be limited to reconnaissance flights conducted with drones owned by the government. They would not engage in the armed drone attacks that have helped define modern warfare, he said.
"We don't envision a time when they will be armed or need to be armed," Carter said, adding that these flights will be supervised "like everything else we do [with] contractors."
Still, some worry Carter's bureaucratic response, coupled with the military's need, leaves open the possibility of a troubling future for modern warfare.
Read more at ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/21/pentagon-opening-drone-missions-to-private-contractors
Drones
Contractors
Warfare
DoD
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
5
5
0
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad - Gunny; I can see great gaping security holes opening up here.
I can also see the development of a whole new industry "Privately Funded and Directed Military Personnel and Equipment" - read as "Mercenaries" (you can't actually "off shore" those types of jobs).
The REALLY dangerous aspect of this is the fact that you will now have "civilians" engaged in "military activities" and that makes them "illegal combatants". It also makes the facilities used by those "illegal combatants" legitimate military targets. It also makes those "associated with and/or supporting" those "illegal combatants" legitimate military targets. [EXTREME EXAMPLE - A "Civilian Contractor" who just finished a shift piloting an UAV stops off at the 7-11 for a coffee. The 7-11 operator becomes someone who is "associated with and/or supporting" that "Civilian Contractor" and his apartment is blown up killing him, his wife, and his children - the explosion also sets fire to the building and it collapses killing the 106 occupants at the time. The "Civilian Contractor"'s wife, childern and the other 106 occupants of the building are "collateral damage" and - of course - much regretted.]
I can also see the development of a whole new industry "Privately Funded and Directed Military Personnel and Equipment" - read as "Mercenaries" (you can't actually "off shore" those types of jobs).
The REALLY dangerous aspect of this is the fact that you will now have "civilians" engaged in "military activities" and that makes them "illegal combatants". It also makes the facilities used by those "illegal combatants" legitimate military targets. It also makes those "associated with and/or supporting" those "illegal combatants" legitimate military targets. [EXTREME EXAMPLE - A "Civilian Contractor" who just finished a shift piloting an UAV stops off at the 7-11 for a coffee. The 7-11 operator becomes someone who is "associated with and/or supporting" that "Civilian Contractor" and his apartment is blown up killing him, his wife, and his children - the explosion also sets fire to the building and it collapses killing the 106 occupants at the time. The "Civilian Contractor"'s wife, childern and the other 106 occupants of the building are "collateral damage" and - of course - much regretted.]
(5)
(0)
1SG Patrick Sims
1 Lt. Clardy & Col. Mc. ---The intension of civilian drone pilots is provide intelligence--Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 as an example---That having been said, I believe there is a weapons position along with that of the pilot. A member of the military---active--reserve---national guard--or retired reserve should be on the triggers---My suggestion they be Vietnam Veterans was made, because most of us have already had to pull a trigger to survive, and would not be reluctant to do so again. Also, I would rather one of us did it, than exposing an unprepared person to the unpleasant experience of gunning down a human being. Most veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have children at home, and shouldn't be put through the trauma of killing people, than going home to their children. It's just common since. As far as the rules---laws---and regulations---I don't give a shit----I care more about the lives of our soldiers on the ground.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG Patrick Sims - First; I don't have any problem with "civilians" flying unarmed UAVs, I just have a problem with "civilians" doing the killing. If the military want's to "recall vets" that's just fine. If the government wants to organize an "active militia" and declare it to the opposition, that's just fine.
What I don't want to see is people suddenly finding themselves in the position of "unprivileged belligerents" whose extradition for "murdering" people would be difficult to oppose and/or who could possibly find themselves targeted as "terrorists".
It isn't WHAT you do, it's HOW you do it. Do a thing one way and it's perfectly fine. Do the same thing a different way and you end up in a real hurt locker.
What I don't want to see is people suddenly finding themselves in the position of "unprivileged belligerents" whose extradition for "murdering" people would be difficult to oppose and/or who could possibly find themselves targeted as "terrorists".
It isn't WHAT you do, it's HOW you do it. Do a thing one way and it's perfectly fine. Do the same thing a different way and you end up in a real hurt locker.
(1)
(0)
1SG Patrick Sims
Col. Mc---I have no wish to see sectioned killers with their fingers on the triggers of anything. Nothing justifies the murdering of innocent civilians, or a rampage of killings. As for the government recalling vets, or organizing an active militia, you and I both know that's never going to happen. Not within the confines of government anyway-- This whole idea sounds preposterous on the surface, and yet it only takes one man with a vision to make it work. Things that seem impossible, have been done before. Personally, I have no idea where to start, or where to turn for help. Should it come about, it would also give our soldiers a better chance of returning home to their families. That was the primary reason for my suggestion. It was not to give a bunch of old timers a last chance to go on a murderous rampage .
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG Patrick Sims - Sergeant; I wasn't suggesting that it would happen or that it should happen only that it would be the LEGAL way of making it happen if it was desired to actually do it.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
It's only a slippery slope if we let it be. Reconnaissance only (meaning drones not even capable of carrying ordnance) is fine in my opinion, but there needs to be a VERY clear line.
(5)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Just what we need, outsourcing our military while downsizing them. Be interesting how the culpability will be managed when something goes wrong? i.e., Blackwater.
(4)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
I worked side by side with civilian contractors in the HQUSCENTCOM SCIF in the 80s, have things changed?
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
This is troubling. Cut the military numbers and pay contractors....did the civilians take a pay cut for these ops, I DOUBT IT. Bad call.
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Agreed Sir, rotten idea. Not only will contractors cost more (the individual employees will make less while the owners will make millions), but where is the accountability under UCMJ? These are dangerous waters to tread, and IMO we need less contractors and more Soldiers.
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) - Captain; One of the rules of government budgeting is "If I can move that cost out of my budget while still controlling the activity then the move is a 'Good Thing' REGARDLESS of the actual cost of doing so.".
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google