Another squize: Powder River MOA to tripple in size???

From AOP and Wyoming Pilots Assn.

I have a student who believes you cannot fly in MOAs and Alert areas. Near as I can figure, the only difference is that ATC will not give you tradfic advisories in that kind of airspace. Military traffic can and does fly anywhere. Maybe the expansion is just to lessen the load on ATC? They are not increasing the number of military airplanes.

bob turner said:

They are not increasing the number of military airplanes.

Click to expand...

Maybe not conventional aircraft, but what about drones?

I grew up in the current MOA. one of the radar stations was about 6 miles away. Pretty impressive to see and hear a B-1 go over at 500 mph. Every fall when Dad was filling up the pens with freshly weaned calves one of them things would roar over and cause a nice stampede...and your truly would be out on horseback rounding them back up...and then fix fence for a few hours. Seeing them go over wasn't so cool after you got to fix the same fence 5 times.

bob turner said:

I have a student who believes you cannot fly in MOAs and Alert areas. Near as I can figure, the only difference is that ATC will not give you tradfic advisories in that kind of airspace. Military traffic can and does fly anywhere. Maybe the expansion is just to lessen the load on ATC? They are not increasing the number of military airplanes.

Click to expand...

VFR traffic can fly in MOA airspace at any time, without restriction, and if there is ATC radar available, they should be able to provide traffic advisories. That said, some of the military planes are going to be low enough that there will be no guarantee they'd be seen on radar in any case....and they aren't going to stay down there all the time anyway.

MOAs permit military aircraft to operate at high speeds (greater than 250 knots, but generally below Mach 1) when below 10,000 feet msl, and permit "abrupt maneuvering" by military aircraft. Perhaps the biggest risk to small aircraft is getting run over by some jet jock with his pants on fire down at a few hundred feet or a pair of jets simulating air combat maneuvering.

Take off from a gravel bar and have a flight of F-16s or a B-1 bomber go screaming over your head at 540 knots........ And the B-1s have terrain following radar....they can fly low in marginal weather. And, B-1s are the big user of the current Powder River MOA.

Originally Posted by bob turner
They are not increasing the number of military airplanes.


Ursa Major Posted:

Maybe not conventional aircraft, but what about drones?

Drones cannot currently be flown in MOA airspace.....yet. Currently, it requires Restricted airspace for the military to operate drones, or they have to meet the "see and avoid" test some other way...like the drone is accompanied by a helicopter as it passes through non restricted airspace.

I am writing a strongly worded response to this proposed airspace expansion. I was involved in the expansion of the military airspace in eastern Alaska a number of years ago, and believe me, the military wants it all.

I recommend that anyone who flies in this part of the world or who MAY someday fly in this part of the world, write a letter to the address Ralph provided. The current Powder River MOA is HUGE, folks. And, the Air Force won't be happy till they overlie all this "vast wasteland" of eastern Montana and Wyoming and the western Dakotas with military airspace.

MTV

I hope you guys have a better response than what my congressional reps gave me. They didn't care a lick about private pilot's opinions. They want the federal dollars and they're convinced that handing over our airspace rights is an important step toward that end. My senators didn't mince words in making that clear.

What are the proposed altitudes? Surface to 180? 1000AGL? 4000 AGL? What are the planned times for use? Big blue usually doesn't work on weekends. In my Air Guard fighter days, we flew Sat mornings and both Sat and Sunday on drill weekend. Our main MOA had a bottom of 6000MSL and the other was 1000 AGL. Our military training routes or MTRs (low level routes in grey on your sectional) were 300agl to 500agl with tops of 1500-4000agl with a 2-4 mn corridor.

My guess is the entire MOA will not be used very often. ( I could be wrong) The large MOA complex around VOK is used only a few times a year for large exercises. The rest of the time only a portion is used and only an hour or so at a time a few times a day.

If you do choose to fly in an active MOA, use your xpdr, the fighters should see it and avoid you. (Can't comment on on B1 xpnr capabilities cause I don't know) try to stay to the edges if possible. (They don't want to spill out and get violated so they give usually use a several mile buffer from the airspace edges) look on your sectional where VR and IR MTRs enter the MOA and avoid if possible near the start of the MOA active time. Don't forget to check NOTAMs for active times.

Military flying hours have been and will continue to get cut. They may want the expansion so they can maximize training with the reduced flying hour budgets. That's what we did.

Jake

I do suspect drones are one of the issues. Here, we are theoretically supposed to stay 2000' above the CMR Wildlife refuge... and the Hays MOA comes down to 500' agl....and yes they do go supersonic periodically. We basically just see and avoid if the MOA is active and of course, would never go over the CMR at low altitude. During the Breaks Flyin...we let them know we are out there and invite them to dinner...we have had them cancel and reschedule around us. Good guys out there just having fun. All that said....they stinking full well don't need to quadruple the size of any MOA and I'll tell them so. R

Ralph,

As you know, the 2000 foot altitude over National Wildlife Refuge and National Park areas is a RECOMMENDATION, not a regulation. I think the concept of don't be stupid pretty well covers it, though there are some zealots out there. But if you get any crap from them, I'd be happy to help.....

MTV

I am curious who the intended users are. The only reason for a MOA that large is for large force exercises like a red flag or green flag with lots of AMRAAM shooters. Not many of those guys left in the neighborhood. (DLH, FSD and Mountain Home/Boise are it for the northern tier fighters now that GTF are C130s now) Fighters are fuel limited so they would have to be based near by or hit a tanker going and coming. Might be someone wants to take money and assets from Nellis. Red Flag Alaska advertises way bigger airspace ( ie better training) than Red Flag Nellis to entice units to spend precious TDY money there. Let me ask around. Fight the expansion and find out what is really driving this.

Jake

I have had ATC drop me in active Alert and MOA airspace. I have seen more military aircraft at low altitudes and high speeds along Interstate 8 in Arizona than I ever have in MOAs. I stay low enough that if they aim at me I shall land.

Interesting. My recommendation is that if you are vfr cruising around and are going to fly through a MOA, just call the nearest ATC folks and tell them what you are doing or at least where you are. ATC will broadcast your position, intentions, and altitude to any entity using the moa. I believe military regulations will require that at least 2,000 feet of separation from known traffic in the MOA. I can't think of a fighter with more than an hour of loiter time, so typically these giant MOAs will only be utilized for that portion. It is very common for the MOAs to be notamed for several hours, however actual "active" time is usually one hour or less. I would be personally much more concerned about the low level routes that are published on every sectional. How many people can look at their local chart and point to where these guys are operating in the low level environment where we are typically found? Pull out your sectional/foreflight and look around- they are slightly shaded routes that are labeled with VR or IR plus a number. For example, VR413 with a line on the chart. These routes are depicted as a line, but are typically a 3-5 mile wide corridor that miltary aircraft operate from 100-2000'. Yup- very low. The fighters near I-8? Check the chart. Bet you a nickle there is a low level there that the marine dudes or Luke field guys use to train low. Either way, it is true that we will soon see many less users of ANY airspace. Unfortunately GA seems to be included in that list.

I suspect that the potential users are the B-1bimbers from SD. Everyone seems to think MOAs are about fighters....the Bone goes fast too.

MTV

Living in the middle of the Powder River MOA, I can tell you that B-1's are pretty cool for a while, but like Clint said, they get old awful fast. They treat the 500' agl requirement more like a suggestion most of the time. We were fencing a couple years ago when one came over really low and just as he went over us, he pulled up into a steep climb, we could actually feel the heat from the afterburners and it blew my hired man's hat off! Calling Ellsworth, where they're based out of, to see if there are active flights a certain day does no good because a fair percentage of the time they say they don't have planes up, we see them all day. Thanks Ralph for posting this, my letter will be in the mail tomorrow.

Military operators generally do NOT monitor ATC when working in a MOA or Restricted area. That is the whole point. You can operate as close to how you would in combat. Most fighters have two radios, one UHF and one VHF or two UHF. When you hear them "cleared tactical" it's kinda like "squak VFR, frequency change approved" when you leave flight following. When you are fighting, one radio is on inter flight and the other is command and control like AWACS or GCI or the common freq to talk to the bad guys for flight safety. They monitor Guard 243.0 so ATC can alert them but the only time I have ever been called by ATC on guard is for a weather recall or airspace violation.

The offending B-1 could be from Dyess, they can fly for many hours and use each other's low level routes. The B1 does not have a 500' agl requirement any more than you do. Some segments of their routes are cleared down to 100'. We had only one 100' section on the routes we owned. The rest were 300 or 500 agl. They still are supposed to comply with the FAA 500' from any noun. (Person place or thing) the last few years the military has been pushing a "fly Friendly" program where we mark noise complaints (you calling in and giving your location) with a one mile ring and avoid that spot in the future. My tactics shop had hundreds of those marked for Minnesota and Wisconsin. We would consider them small arms or manpad threats in our training.

If you have animals ( cows horses mink ) call the base, tell the operator you want to talk to public affairs. Let them know you want your place added to the flight operations no fly database. I can't guarantee it will never happen again but it should reduce the overflight of your place. I have taken the calls and caused the calls at the base. I still feel bad about those emu in California. If it is seasonal, let them know that too. (Calving, mink breeding)

Jake

C130jake said:

Military operators generally do NOT monitor ATC when working in a MOA or Restricted area. That is the whole point. You can operate as close to how you would in combat. Most fighters have two radios, one UHF and one VHF or two UHF. When you hear them "cleared tactical" it's kinda like "squak VFR, frequency change approved" when you leave flight following. When you are fighting, one radio is on inter flight and the other is command and control like AWACS or GCI or the common freq to talk to the bad guys for flight safety. They monitor Guard 243.0 so ATC can alert them but the only time I have ever been called by ATC on guard is for a weather recall or airspace violation.

The offending B-1 could be from Dyess, they can fly for many hours and use each other's low level routes. The B1 does not have a 500' agl requirement any more than you do. Some segments of their routes are cleared down to 100'. We had only one 100' section on the routes we owned. The rest were 300 or 500 agl. They still are supposed to comply with the FAA 500' from any noun. (Person place or thing) the last few years the military has been pushing a "fly Friendly" program where we mark noise complaints (you calling in and giving your location) with a one mile ring and avoid that spot in the future. My tactics shop had hundreds of those marked for Minnesota and Wisconsin. We would consider them small arms or manpad threats in our training.

If you have animals ( cows horses mink ) call the base, tell the operator you want to talk to public affairs. Let them know you want your place added to the flight operations no fly database. I can't guarantee it will never happen again but it should reduce the overflight of your place. I have taken the calls and caused the calls at the base. I still feel bad about those emu in California. If it is seasonal, let them know that too. (Calving, mink breeding)

Jake

Click to expand...

Jake,

Good advice if you already live under a MOA. But your experience differs considerably from mine. I know multiple calls requesting no low flights along the Charley River, but almost every float party reported them. The AF "management" repeatedly claimed that the jets were actually flying high, that they just SEEMED to be low. Right.

AF Commanders (including several birds and at least one three star) asserted repeatedly that NO Air Force fighter pilots are ever "carded" to fly below 300 feet, and that the vast majority are only permitted to fly above 500 feet. I think I still have papers with those assertions.

Then some folks from NPS provided video....geo referenced....taken from a bluff above the River. The bluff is less than 300 feet above the River. And, that video showed F 16 after F 16 go by, well below the camera, and at warp speed.

MOA airspace can and is also used by allied pilots as well. When the commanders told us that their pilots NEVER fly below 300 feet, and VERY few fly as low as 300 feet, we asked why they insisted on needing that low airspace so allies could fly "realistic" missions in their profiles. Bottom line is that even after being publicly proven wrong, the AF commanders continued to assert that their pilots don't fly that low. They wanted that airspace, and politicians seem to believe that Generals never lie.....

And, we're not talking MTRs here, we're discussing MOA airspace. In any case, anyone who has spent much time in or around MOA airspace has similar experiences. Somewhat different scenarios.

Look, i served in the military, and I am a big supporter of the military's ability to train. BUT, ask military pilots when was the last time military fighter pilots flew into ACTUAL combat zone below a few thousand feet.....In the first Gulf War, the British Tornado pilots went into Iraq at their usual very low level profile. And got their butts shot off.

And, a B 1 ingressing to a target at 500 feet? Really? Everyone with a Kalashnikov or a Stinger has a shot at that guy.

When I have ( on several occasions) asked military commanders why they need to train so low, when in fact they simply don't fly those type missions in actual combat, their response is to mutter something about covering all possible scenarios....then our friendly politicians would explain to me that I shouldn't EVER doubt a military commanders veracity.

bottom line is that flying low is fun.

MTV

mvivion said:

bottom line is that flying low is fun.

Click to expand...

I hope they have on-board radar and/or some systems to monitor ads-b if cruising at 0.75mach and 500ft agl.

I always think twice about plowing into the MOAs around here - but I've never called for permission - my training says we didn't explicitly need it. Hell around Moab we are plowing through a restricted area but I know better than that in general.

MTV,

I guess I was hallucinating when I was flying in Iraq the summer of 03. We entered and departed every field low. I personally set 100 ft in my radar altimeter and kept the light on. We stayed as low as possible until out in the middle of nowhere then we climbed to altitude. Never got a scratch. The DHL airbus, C5 and C17 that were hit by missiles were all climbing up over the field. The bad guys were in town and not in the middle of the desert. In OEF, we stayed high until the airdrop phase where we slowed to drop speed and altitude. The fighters flew low for strafe and show of force.

The altitude needed to fly is based on the threat. Once most of the manpads and all radar threats were gone, we flew above the small arms threat until landing or an airdrop. With troops in contact and danger close, guns were often the only weapon available so low level strafe made a comeback. (All but the A10 guys had dropped it from training) there is a good video out there of a Tomcat kid doing his first ever strafe in Afghanistan. Got a medal and saved the day just in time so the F14 could be retired.

If we go into Iran, you can bet the first few days would be at very low level except the planes with the Romulan cloaking device. . My buddy led the first strike on Bagdad in 91 leading an F111 strike package in his EF111 jamming his butt off at 600kts+ and 100 ft at night. No one got touched but the targets. (He has a DFC to show for it) Everyone flew low until the radar threats were gone. Please don't talk out of turn when it comes to something you know little about. There are threat scenarios that require low and high level tactics to minimize risk. I know, I was there 92,03,04,08,09,2012 and Tactics Chief the last two deployments planning the missions and flying on my days off.

If you were dealing with Red Flag Ak airspace, I can understand. There was a huge push to move away from Nellis to AK. Put up an aggressor squadron up there run by my pilot training classmate. They tried to sell us on the awesome huge airspace and low level opportunities. (Lots of restrictions in the Nellis ranges believe it or not including the box in the middle you couldn't fly in where they keep the aliens) There was a VFR corridor that was in the way if I remember near Wainwright. I can see those guys not wanting their new playground messed with. Not sure if the fly friendly program started by the time you left AK.

I am curious about the Hays MOA. The 120th FG in GTF is switching to C130s and they control that MOA. They wont need one since they fly below 250kts normally during a low level. That may be good info to put in the letters.

Soy, the fighters should have xpdr interrogators besides radar so hopefully they will see you. We had APX76 xpdr interrogators in the F4 so we could see all the 1200 squaks and avoid them. Xpdr on if in a MOA would be wise.

Hope this helps,

Jake

Jake: First and foremost, thanks for your service.

I wouldn't know how pilots fly combat missions, and I'm willing to sacrifice a reasonable and necessary amount of flying freedom to make any pilot safer. But, I have spent 37 years living under the Hays MOA in the little town of Winifred...I know what goes on here. Because of our flyin, I talk to GTF flight ops once a year, always cheerful and great to work with. They have even rescheduled around our flyin here because they just didn't need to be out there with 40 Xpdrs going off. I have invited that fighter group to land and have supper with us any time they feel up to landing on 1600' of sod at Cow Creek. They have told me that with the 15s out there, they were not to fly below 500 agl, even though the MOA goes to 300' agl. In preparation for last year's flyin, I was at Cow Creek when one of those guys crused the Cow Creek strip...I thought he was going to land, we waved at each other while I was standing there. Through the years I have seen many flights like these which can best be described as "play". And yes the do break the sonic barrier out here. Hell, if I was one of those guys, I'd do it too. I usually just grin and enjoy the show. Back when there were 16s here, everybody in town once got to see them them buzz, with afterburners on and at much less than their 300 minimum, a Winifred foot ball game (practicing a target of opportunity?)...great show enjoyed. One night my wife and I were driving home and had a huge black plane approached silently and then poured on the engines directly above us...the vortices and noise shook our car. Neither of us saw or heard it coming and neither of us got to wear those pants again. Afterwards, it really was funny...but no way it was an accident. Many other great stories and memories...but to the point. Living and flying here is more dangerous than if we din't share this airspace with the guys, when the MOA is active your head better be on a swivel and cub really low, the relaxing dawn patrol turns into something else. They need to have places like this...I get that. But...they sure as hell don't need to continually increase the size of these things; they don't need to increase Powder River 4 times. I will politely let them know. I continue to smell a long term drone rat trap here. Again Jake, thanks. R

As much as I travel VFR I'm often under, in, or over multiple MOA's including the two mentioned above and I have had a variety of experiences that ranged from being specifically turned away from Truman Low when I called to check status (gotta watch those Truman's as they often get fast movers) and on that trip while going the wrong way I saw a B-2 launch from afar, I've also been greeted with nothing to see today come on through to there are fast movers at the east end, give them plenty of room. Even been followed and painted in my cub either that or my portable traffic alert thought someone was cooking microwave popcorn but it was kind of obvious when the threat was obviously S-Turning through a couple of miles behind me by the alerts. Call me paranoid but the one thing I won't do is plow through MOA's fat dumb and 1200 happy, thats for SteveE (and for the record, yes he runs with scissors).

Here I appreciate all opinions, and thanks to you guys with direct operational knowledge... and themention of low level training routs...is 100% right on some of routes as some of those are really LOW. Years ago I used to duck hunt a large lake just NE of KPNC and you could set your watch by the Beech Jets making their runs up the lake. Sure was good at keeping the birds moving. I understand that route got pulled after they ruined a Bald Eagle's day...

Jake,

thanks for the clarification. I respect your experience. I was heavily involved in the eastern AK MOA expansion on the civilian side. I discussed extensively this stuff with the commanders, and several lower ranks with current combat experience....but that was ten or twelve years ago, so is apparently dated. Your current experience is good information.

Nevertheless, this proposed expansion of the Powder River MOA is huge, and with so few military users in the area, it's difficult to justify in my mind.

finally, if I come across as overly negative on this, understand that the Eastern Alaska MOA process was long and difficult. Frankly, it was apparent that the Colonels running that show had their orders and were not about to allow a bunch of "little airplane guys" or recreationists prevent them from securing the world class airspace they wanted. While we extracted (with FAA concurrence) some mitigation measures, such as VFR corridors, a few years later the AF came back to remove those "concessions". I have to say the Captains and Lieutenants we interacted with both on and off the record were great during that process.

The good news in that area was that the AF operates a Range Control radar, and I highly commend them for their willingness to provide traffic reports to civil pilots in that airspace. In that airspace, when you enter, a call to Range Control will result in a report on what military aircraft are out there, where and at what altitudes....really helpful info. If there's a big push on, like a Red Flag, they'll tell you, and if you still choose to go through the airspace, they'll call off the push if necessary. The guys on the ground do work to assure safety.

Unfortunately, the size and scope of the Powder River MOA would make it impossible to provide this type of service there.

and, then there's always us NORDO cretins.

thanks again for the feedback.

MTV

Many of you may have forgotten the MOA expansion in Alaska a couple of years ago. It was met with fairly well represented objection from the civilian side. Here's what we end up with. It reminds me a little of a line from Star Trek. Resistance is futile. Good luck.

http://www.jber.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130820-016.pdf

65,000 sq miles of airspace.
2,490 sq miles of land.
42,000 sq miles of sea.
Alaska's senators must be thrilled.

The paranoid part of me thinks this is some sort of airspace grab to limit civilian use or expand some unknown use. Most countries do not have G airspace, they have F instead. CVFR for controlled VFR. Powder River is owned by Top Gun at NAS Fallon. Long way for even an F/A18E to go for training. MTV is right, no near by users. Makes it expensive for fighters to use. Not many bombers left to use an airspace that big without a range to drop on.

Too far away for Creech reapers and predators to go if they we're let into the airspace system to transit to the MOA. Is the DOD going to let non military agencies use of the MOAs? Our friends in Homeland security may be looking for a way to operate outside of their current domain. We have shrunk from nearly 50 fighter wings in 1989 to I think 17. We are down to 5 bomber wings. Not many users left so why the airspace expansion? The remaining force is flying hour constrained to the point 1/3 of the fighter force is non mission ready from sequestration cuts.

These questions need to be answered. The RAF is in the GA caucus I think. Any way they can get info from congress? SJ?

Jake

This is either a rerun of the 2010 proposal, or a new start at the same thing. If you look at the map, this proposal is "massive". They propose to drop the floor to 500' throughout, add mach plus exercise, utilize the airspace most working days, etc.. I go out there frequently and this, would encourage anyone to go around...a long way. Really happy I don't live under it. All at a time when we are flying less? Here is the 2010 executive summary. http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100809-065.pdf R

If low level training was the only thing, I wouldn't be as concerned. But...... A couple of years ago a ex-Seal, Ryan Zinke was at the Montana Aviation Conf and I had a chance to talk to him for a couple of minutes. Mr Zinke was representing a UAS advocate group and was promoting UAS testing and all this money that would come to Montana from UAS testing. He made a statement that since the Hayes MOA was already in place, and there is so little air traffic within the area, its only logical that this could be opened up for UAS training and testing in a unrestrictive environment..... Maybe I'm paranoid, but if the need isn't there for low level training, I see expanding MOAs as a foot in the door. To me, there is already similar terrain in already designated airspace in the Western CONUS and expansion of Powder River unnecessary.

In his presentation promoting UASs, Mr Zinke had a slide that showed the high alt IFR traffic of the continental US as an example of how little traffic there is in this area compared to the rest of the country. Maybe there is a legitimate need for this area, but I don't like to see the area redesignated as if it doesn't really matter except to those few people using the airspace.(TIC)....

centmont said:

This is either a rerun of the 2010 proposal, or a new start at the same thing. If you look at the map, this proposal is "massive". They propose to drop the floor to 500' throughout, add mach plus exercise, utilize the airspace most working days, etc.. I go out there frequently and this, would encourage anyone to go around...a long way. Really happy I don't live under it. All at a time when we are flying less? Here is the 2010 executive summary. http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100809-065.pdf R

Click to expand...

That 2010 document is just the Draft EIS, I suspect that they now have a completed NEPA document including the final EIS... need to know that and read it (NEPA requires it be published) and are proceeding with the plan or a modification thereof that the final EIS will address.

Kirby

Talked to my airspace guy at the reserves. He says this has been in the works for 6-7 years. The summary says the expanded MOA will only be used for large force exercises (LFE) 10 times per year at once a quarter. Once they have it, it could get used more often than that but my guess would be single bombers filling local training squares. The logistics of a LFE will limit the use for large exercises. Fighters will have to deploy to Ellsworth. Minot is too far and would require a tanker. There are electronic warfare simulators in the area so Hays would most likely see little or no use in the future except maybe some slow ugly C130s from Great Falls. The sectional still shows the Navy Warfare Center owning the airspace. (not surprised) The summary says Ellsworth owns it now.

They do mention what I said earlier about letting them know when and where you don't want them to fly. A sonic boom from 10k is pretty loud and would freak out the cattle I am guessing. My moms old Golden couldn't take a thunderstorm without going nuts. In the old days, you had to be 30k or above to go supersonic over the continental land mass unless you were 20 miles from shore or in an approved restricted area like the one west of Salt Lake. Remember, this document is the environmental impact statement. If the airspace gets approved, there are no guarantees of the future operational use. I will look for the final EIS.

Hope this helps,

Jake

OLDCROWE said:

That 2010 document is just the Draft EIS, I suspect that they now have a completed NEPA document including the final EIS... need to know that and read it (NEPA requires it be published) and are proceeding with the plan or a modification thereof that the final EIS will address.

Kirby

Click to expand...

Good statement Kirby....

Do you or any one of us have any idea what you just said...................????

(these engineer's speak their own language)

I was talking to one of the board members from The South Dakota Pilots Ass. this week about this. They are organizing to object the expansion but he mentioned something that I had not considered. Ellsworth has been on the chopping block a number of times. This would probably insure it being a viable military location for a long time. He thought that we might not get much help from our governor or legislators in our battle to stop the expansion! --------I will write and object and do my part.---however---
I hate to be negative here, but I do not believe we have a snowball chance in hell of slowing this thing down. And those that mentioned drone testing in this area ----- my humble and uneducated opinion would be you hit the nail on the head. They will first enlarge the MOA and then start adding the other restrictions.
I am sorry fellow super-cubbers my glass is normally half full. But since I rolled into the 60-ish crowd a couple years ago I find myself becoming more cynical.
Again, I plan to write and fight till the fat lady sings so I can honestly say I did my best!

Tom

Here's the expansion proposal. There is no mention of drones from my brief skim. The Alaska proposal for MOA expansion always included drones. Of particular interest, read the second to the last page "miscellaneous" paragraph. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/aviation/docs/2014/proposed-powder-river-moa.pdf

Lots more info here including fact sheet and maps of the proposed changes. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/aviation/