Dexedrine use by USAF aircrew

[Royal]

I know that SF/SD and aircrew have been using Dexedrine or other amphetamines since WWII, but it seems that the use is getting out of hand. 96% use in some units in a campaign where we had total air superiority?

"During the recent conflict some British commanders would joke - away from the cameras - that they weren't expecting much opposition from the Iraqi's, it was the Americans they were worried about. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the world's premier fighting force. If the use of amphetamines is found to be a factor in friendly fire incidents then the US Air Force may have to reconsider its policy."

I know we used to make the same 'jokes' in Bosnia and Afganistan. I have all the respect in the world for the American forces I have worked with (mostly the USN and USMC) but there is now a genuine fear of the USAF in British frontline units.

Any thoughts?

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/05/week_1/01_speed.html

[papabear]

Isn't the use of the drug a response by the USAF to compensate for critical manpower shortage?

[FallenAngel]

there is now a genuine fear of the USAF in British frontline units.


Oh, you mean the 1.5% of the USAF that actually SEES combat right? The SMALL SF groups and the Combat Pilots make up a very small minority in the AF. Nearly 98% of the AF does administrative like duties...supplies, radar, etc etc.

But yes, there is a major man power shortage across the US board. Since the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold war, there are a fraction of the amount of men doing several times the work. (figures from 2001 I remember said it was 1/3 of the men doing 3 times the work compared to 1991.)

Now, Technology makes ALOT of this doable....but there is still significant shortages. :)

[fng]

If I am not mistaken, I think the other survices prescribe something similar to their people as well. I read somewhere that the Navy issues go-fast pills to their BUD/S candidates during Hell Week. (I guess they would almost have to.) There was also an SF soldier on the news that looked like he was jacked on something. Maybe it was a gallon of espresso but he looked like he was about to jump out of his skin (or had to pee really, really bad).
Any thoughts?

[papabear]

Given the nature of their tasks and their unique qualifications, one might argue that these sorts of drugs are necessary for SF units, who may have to stay out in the field and be alert for extended periods of time. However, with the USAF it would seem that this is far from the ideal. If it is ever established that the use of these drugs does impair the judgment of pilots, then one would hope that other solutions to the manpower problem can be found and implemented.

[GearGod]

Did you guys hear about the 2 pilots that got charged with murder when they accidentally bombed some ground friendlies? I think its BS its a bloody accident they didn't intentionally do it

[96B]

A big factor in the size of our military today as compared with pre Desert Storm would be Clintons budget cuts and downsizing during his two terms.

With regards to the pills I can definately see SOF guys using them when needed but USAF? No offense to anybody but personally I am skeptical of the Air Force's flyboys because there have been so many incidents that makes them look trigger happy such as attacking a "target" when not even being directly threatened. There will always be accidents in war and we should keep that in mind but I think in some cases it should really be looked at and investigated thoroughly. I remember reading about an SF team that got attacked by a Spectre and they even had that tape that is supposed to signify friendly all over their vehicles. They even could hear the Spectre crew radio chatter as they were locking onto them and I would assume they attempted to warn the crew before it was too late but to no use they were attacked and yet another FF incident occured. Imagine your loved one being killed in action only to find out it was by his own side especially when it probably could have been prevented with more attention to detail and precautions taken.

[GearGod]

Still shouldnt be charged with murder.. Perhaps a discharge but thats about it

[96B]

Agreed

[Royal]

Still shouldnt be charged with murder.. Perhaps a discharge but thats about it

I take it you are reffering to the incident in Afganistan in April 2002 where USAF reserve pilot bombed a PPCLI (Canadian) unit on exercise killing 4 and wounding 5, having twice been ordered to hold fire by the fighter controller?

If that isn't gross negligence what is?

[BiZ]

If you ignore/disregard/or choose another course of action that is against direct orders and it results in friendlies deaths then of course you should be facing some very harsh questioning and possible punishment, including being charged with murder.

It can't really be deemed an accident when the express purpose of releasing ordanace is to destroy/kill the target in question.
They (the pilots) went against orders and engaged a target they were told not to, resulting in death and serious injury to friendly non hostile forces, that in my books would suffice to be charged with murder.

Obviously we don't have all, or most of the facts, but I'm just stating my opinion on what has been mentioned here and what I've read in the papers, and my opinion stands even if they were Canadian, UK, Aussie etc pilots engaging any friendly forces, so don't accuse me of "yank bashing" just because they were USAF pilots and not somebody else.

If you are expressly given and order, more than once, and still act on your own then you are on your own and will face the full force of any fallout.

I wonder what all the US members opinions would be on the forum if it had been Canadian Pilots dropping ordanace on US forces?

[spider_csk]

if the use of amphetimines is this wide spread among strike pilots, then maybe its the reason for the disparity between the amount of Blue on Blue by US pilots as opposed to british and other UN pilots, or maybe this could also be contributed to by the nature of the training that US pilots recieve, im not accusing them of being gung ho or anything, its could be that the aggresive nature of ground forces training (which by its nature has to be emotive, you cant be passive about a situation when your face to face with the enemy) has permutated into the USAF doctrine, its just worrying that it seems to be such a bias towards USAF Blue on Blue, i know the USAF opperates far more missions than everyone else, but maybe this too could contibute, do you really need to have over 1000 missions being flown a day? are there really that many targets to engage?, in modern warfare there seems to be an increased attutide that air support is like american express, you dont leave home without, these all combined must create such a great strain on the USAF that mistakes are bound to happen.

Oh and on the subject of drugs, the Brit army has its own substance abuse problem that is rife.... tea... you cant get us to do a thing till weve had a cuppa

[Trigger]

If you ignore/disregard/or choose another course of action that is against direct orders and it results in friendlies deaths then of course you should be facing some very harsh questioning and possible punishment, including being charged with murder.
Agree totally.

[admar2]

Compare the number of blue on blue incidents with the numbers of sorties flown and you'll probably come up with a percentage of incidents that is a great deal less than %1 I bet. NO system is perfect. The increased demand on airpower coupled with the reduction in Fighter and Bomber Wings no doubt contributes to Blue on Blue incidents. Pilots are not robots, and the operational tempo that requires them to fly 8-10-12 hour missions is ridiculuous.


As far as the number of blue on blue incidents caused by US pilots compared to other countries, I would be interested to see how the percentages stacked up when the numbers of sorties flown by each country is taken into account.

if the US is flying 80% of the sorties then it stands to reason that numerically there would be more US blue on blue incidents.

[papabear]

Hi... I thought I read a post on the forum explaining what the colors mean when one says blue on blue, etc. Can anyone refer me to it? If not, could anyone reproduce it here? Blue on blue is used for "friendly fire", blue on red is used for fire that hits the enemy, and for cilivians I think it's blue on white? Or is it a different color? I think there were 4 or 5 colors used to describe the various possibilities. Thanks very much!

On second thought... I think I found the info somewhere else. Blue on black is used who has been hit is a mystery. I think blue on white is correct if civilians have been hit. Am I missing any others?

[Smoothie104]

Blue on Pink means they bombed woodland!

[Royal]

Hi... I thought I read a post on the forum explaining what the colors mean when one says blue on blue, etc. Can anyone refer me to it? If not, could anyone reproduce it here? Blue on blue is used for "friendly fire", blue on red is used for fire that hits the enemy, and for cilivians I think it's blue on white? Or is it a different color? I think there were 4 or 5 colors used to describe the various possibilities. Thanks very much!

On second thought... I think I found the info somewhere else. Blue on black is used who has been hit is a mystery. I think blue on white is correct if civilians have been hit. Am I missing any others?

The new(ish) NATO STANAG on map marking is as follows;

Blue Oblong symbol - Friendly
Red Diamond symbol - Enemy
Green Square symbol - Neutral
Yellow Quatrafoil symbol - Unknown

If you want to download the details go to http://www.mapsymbs.com/index.html

Tom Mouat is an ex-Brit officer who has produced a free downloadable font for the new symbols...

[papabear]

Thanks!