NEWS Air Force leadership talks frankly about pilot retention

[HuggyU2]

Sleeves rolled up... thin on content... acquisition buzzwords... is that what y'all took away from this? As hard as it is to believe, the AF is taking this shit very seriously. And they are spending a shit-ton of money to see if there's a better way. "Innovate or die" is a common mantra in the business world. And there's a reason that successful people I know subscribe to it. I'd think NA's and NFO's would be pretty stoked that someone was willing to spend money to find a better way to do business, and that they were finding a way to create better JO's for them to mentor.

You know, having spent 28 years in the USAF... every fucking day of it in a flying squadron... 7200 hours over the course of about 5000 sorties... I have a pretty good idea of what the AF does well and where they suck when it comes to flying ops. And 7 of those years were in the training command. Believe me, we need an overhaul. Now.

On the negative side: One statement on the video that strikes me as way off is what they say at the 1:17 point : "But the only way to recover from the pilot shortage is to produce more pilots". I realize the situation is bad and they need to produce. But you have got to retain the experience past their 10 year commitment. One could argue this is the case of the patient bleeding out of an artery and the doctor saying "get him more blood!". Oh... how about finding a way to stop the bleeding?!

On the bright side of things, the AF is willing to dramatically invest in new ideas and technologies that can drive a whole new paradigm in pilot training. I mean massive leaps. Is the Navy leading the way on this? No, they are not. In fact, has Navy pilot training changed much since 1987? It is great to see the AF isn't taking a parochial view and have invited the Navy to participate in this enterprise. Yes, we have a massive budget. But we will share it too. Despite what many of you may think, all of the Services will reap the benefits if the USAF finds a dramatically better way to do training.

Question: many of us know pilots that have flown fighters for over 10 years and have jacked up necks. Big time jacked up. This problem has been around a long, long time. Why hasn't this been a major training/operational issue? In the USAF, now it is... finally. What's the Navy/Marines doing for y'all?

Side note: it's pretty common for USN/USMC/USCG aviators to inter service transfer to the USAF. How often does the reverse happen? I know of only one guy. Because we are willing to take quality aviators in to the USAF, I believe it brings a whole new level of expertise that we didn't have before. My experience is in the U-2 Program, where I was directly responsible for creating the opportunity for USN/USMC/USCG pilots to come fly the U-2 circa 1997. I'm obviously a fan. Yes, there were some setbacks, but overall it's been wildly successful for DoD, in my opinion. And we've benefited from the "nautical perspective" when it comes to our tactical and strategic outlook.

So, why won't the Department of the Navy be more open to taking AF aviators? Is it our ascots? Or ironed flight suits? Or maybe because we can't get the hottest chick in Singapore? Maybe incorporating some new things... like more AF transfers... you'd get to see things from a different perspective that would make your war fighting skills even better (I know some of you shudder at the thought).

Will this USAF virtual aviator program succeed? No doubt, there will be failures. But I guarantee you that the AF will find some major cost-saving technologies that will be transformative.

You have to ask: why the fuck is today's pilot training still recognizable to a pilot like me who got his wings in 1986? The technological advances since then are off the chart. If Google/Apple/Oracle or whomever was running pilot training, it would probably look dramatically different every 10 years. So, I refuse to scoff at this effort to figure out a faster way to make better military pilots.

Yes... feel free to be cynical about the program. And I'll agree that the AF (oh, and the Dept of the Navy) is a bureaucratic nightmare of upper-echelon leaders that move around every 18-24 months, and have a problem actually fixing anything significant.

One thing to note is that the USAF readily admits there is a major problem with pilot retention. So much so that they put a flag officer... Brig Gen Koscheski... in a billet to figure this problem out (no clue who has replaced him since he left). What's the Navy leadership's position on Naval Aviator retention? Talking to my Navy/Marine buds, the Dept of the Navy leadership isn't willing to publicly admit the problem is as significant as it actually is. I have no idea if they are right... maybe all of you Squids and Jarheads are happy as can be, and if you are, then more power to you. My personal experience is that two of the three guys I met last week interviewing at my airline were Navy pilots... whatever that means.

As for the "taking the fun out of the job", I wouldn't have stayed for 28 had that been the case. And all of my Gold Wing U-2 Brothers wouldn't have made the jump either.

I'm sure tomorrow I'll edit this post after the Don Julio has worn off, and I realize that what I was trying to get across isn't what I wrote. Night.

 

[Flash]

Side note: it's pretty common for USN/USMC/USCG aviators to inter service transfer to the USAF. How often does the reverse happen? I know of only one guy. Because we are willing to take quality aviators in to the USAF, I believe it brings a whole new level of expertise that we didn't have before. My experience is in the U-2 Program...So, why won't the Department of the Navy be more open to taking AF aviators?

For the U-2 program it might be common but not so much for most of the rest of the USAF from what I've seen. The other folks that take in service transfers in my experience have been the reserves and National Guard, which provide far more flying opportunities Navy Reserve.

As for why the Navy and Marines take a lot of folks the other way, the Navy aviator career path is much more rigid than the USAF's limiting even folks internal to the Navy like folks who transfer from one aircraft to another. The Marines are special animal with that pesky TBS requirement for every officer among other things. I think the USCG is much more receptive to IST's because their career paths are a bit more flexible for aviators.

We also don't have special or unusual programs like the U-2, WC-130 and the others the USAF/USAFR/ANG has, almost all our aviation is dedicated to core Navy missions and we don't have much in the way of extras or specials. The few aviation special programs we have are outgrowths of existing, larger communities.

So less service parochialism and more career path limitations for odd ducks like a mid-to-senior O-3 IST folks in the Navy or Marines, sorry if that doesn't fit into your rant.

 

[HuggyU2]

All valid points, Flash. The fact you are posting sober means you have me at a disadvantage. However, having tested the waters myself a few time, I can attest to the "service parochialism" that you mention. It's very strong with the nautical services.

But my rant is over, the Don Julio has subsided to a mild headache, and there's no sense in me dissecting the issue any further while sober.

 

[insanebikerboy]

For the U-2 program it might be common but not so much for most of the rest of the USAF from what I've seen. The other folks that take in service transfers in my experience have been the reserves and National Guard, which provide far more flying opportunities Navy Reserve.

It's becoming more common in reg-AF than it used to be. The IST board is currently accepting 100% of qualified applicants for a transfer over. Who knows how long that will last but with the current situation of AF dudes bailing after the UPT committment is up, there will be a gradual influx of Navy/Marine dudes into regular AF flying squadrons.

 

[Flash]

It's becoming more common in reg-AF than it used to be. The IST board is currently accepting 100% of qualified applicants for a transfer over. Who knows how long that will last but with the current situation of AF dudes bailing after the UPT committment is up, there will be a gradual influx of Navy/Marine dudes into regular AF flying squadrons.

What is the total numbers though? Given the same factors for leaving the service still remain no matter which branch I would be surprised if the number was significant, much like transitions within the Navy.

 

[HuggyU2]

BikerBoy may have the info, but I don't. However, you should understand the AF has had a person at the Personnel Center (think "BUPERS") for over 15 years that handles interservice transfers. Though I don't track it, I know of a few that have gone to USAF tankers and RQ-4's. And a few active duty fighter types.

 

[Flash]

BikerBoy may have the info, but I don't. However, you should understand the AF has had a person at the Personnel Center (think "BUPERS") for over 15 years that handles interservice transfers. Though I don't track it, I know of a few that have gone to USAF tankers and RQ-4's. And a few active duty fighter types.

Two more things to keep in mind about going from USAF to Navy, first is that the USAF (USAF, USAFR and ANG) has a much larger aircraft fleet than the Navy and Marines with numbers like almost 400 KC-135’s, over 500 C-130’s and 222 C-17’s among others, and as a result needs a larger corps of pilots. Secondly, most Naval Aviation communities have specific naval-related missions (surprise!) in which a mid-grade O-3 IST would be playing catch-up to their Naval Aviator peers who are experts at their mission.

The one large community which has a very similar mission to their USAF counterparts would be VFA, but the training requirements to get them carrier qual’d would be a limitation both in training time and cost. Plenty of USAF exchange folks have done it but their very tiny numbers don’t have much of an impact on training, but a larger number of IST’s would increase the time and cost for that transition.

It is also important to note that all of the above is not just an impediment to IST’s but to folks who transition from one aviation community to another within the Navy as well. Transitions from one community to another in the Navy is still much more of a rarity than in the USAF, where doing a tour in another aircraft or transitioning is common and not an exception. While plenty of folks who transition do well in their careers the path is a bit narrower and with a bit more risk.

Finally, I would be remiss to point out that while the USAF has someone dedicated to transitions at the Personnel Center they also have an officer specialty whose primary job is running MWR’s, hotels and dining halls.

 

[HuggyU2]

Finally, I would be remiss to point out that while the USAF has someone dedicated to transitions at the Personnel Center they also have an officer specialty whose primary job is running MWR’s, hotels and dining halls.

Touche.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Touche.

I tire of the Navy culture of “scarcity” and “we can’t afford...” it’s been a major part of our culture. It’s stupid.

It’s why the Air Force bests the Navy in air warfare in every regard - even in air warfare missions in domains that that the Navy supposedly owns.

 

[croakerfish]

I tire of the Navy culture of “scarcity” and “we can’t afford...” it’s been a major part of our culture. It’s stupid.

It’s why the Air Force bests the Navy in air warfare in every regard - even in air warfare missions in domains that that the Navy supposedly owns.

We seem to WANT to cheap out and ghetto-rig everything. The Army and the AF have money to burn on pretty much anything but the Navy/MC can't scrape together money for squadrons to get extra flight suits...really?

 

[Brett327]

It’s because we have to divide our resources between ships subs and aircraft that all have to be recapitalized on different timelines.

 

[Farva01]

Moderators feel free to split off this thread jack...

Rebuilding the Forge: Reshaping How the Air Force Trains Fighter Aviators

The U.S. Air Force’s pilot training system has long been the envy of air forces around the world, but for the past several years it has failed to keep

warontherocks.com

So the above article started me on a tweet storm about changing Navy flight training (primarily tailhook) and is a good complement to the video that @ChuckMK23 posted. I liked the video and thought it provided some good insights. Some thoughts:

1. The Air Force is attacking the new initiatives the right way by using a small test group to work out the kinks. Nothing frustrates me more than the “that’s the way we have always done it.”
2. Neck and back pain management/prevention is absolutely something that needs to be taught starting in API. Once you get behind the power curve on that one there is no catching up.
3. Being a fighter pilot today is a lot more about sensor fusions/management than it is stick and rudder. VR and sims can definitely be leveraged for that.
4. However, going from a T-6 to an F-16 seems aggressive. The T-X bridge proposed seems to be a good step. Also flight hours at a lower cost while also reducing use on high-end fighters for time to train.
5. And agree that making more pilots is not the answer. Keeping more trained pilots needs to be the long term goal.

So what about Navy flight school?

I used to argue that it took longer for a Naval Aviator to get their wings because we needed more reps to get ready for the boat. That is why we had ACM and bombing flights prior to wings instead of the more specialized IFF training post wings the Air Force has. But does that limit the way the Navy needs to do it?
My proposal:
T-45 students execute a syllabus that teaches them the basics of flying instruments and formation while also getting ready for the boat. Once complete and winged, they move to another T-45 squadron in Lemoore or Oceana or Whidbey where they start Learning the more tactical things such as bombing, CAS, A/A intercepts, etc. they do this simultaneously while that squadron serves as an adversary unit for the fleet squadrons. They start out as a wingman and eventually move on to becoming a T-45 flight lead and then move on to the actual FRS for their fleet aircraft training.
Thoughts?

 

[robav8r]

It’s because we have to divide our resources between buy ships subs and aircraft that all have to be recapitalized on different timelines.

FIFY

 

[Recovering LSO]

T-45 students execute a syllabus that teaches them the basics of flying instruments and formation while also getting ready for the boat. Once complete and winged, they move to another T-45 squadron in Lemoore or Oceana or Whidbey where they start Learning the more tactical things such as bombing, CAS, A/A intercepts, etc. they do this simultaneously while that squadron serves as an adversary unit for the fleet squadrons. They start out as a wingman and eventually move on to becoming a T-45 flight lead and then move on to the actual FRS for their fleet aircraft training.
Thoughts?

I hate being the guy who immediately starts from a position of "no," but in this case there's one thing I can think of immediately that kills this idea: airspace. There isn't enough in Lemoore, Oceana, or Whidbey with the existing demand - adding more users (with shorter legs) is a thing.

 

[HooverPilot]

I hate being the guy who immediately starts from a position of "no," but in this case there's one thing I can think of immediately that kills this idea: airspace. There isn't enough in Lemoore, Oceana, or Whidbey with the existing demand - adding more users (with shorter legs) is a thing.

So go outside the box a bit. El Centro, the Carolinas (MCAS), Fallon? These aren’t that far and could be reasonable training grounds. Air space can’t forever be an excuse to prevent evolution. I was pretty involved in the VTJ production and I see merit in looking into ways like this to move the syllabus out of the 1970’s.