jazzdude

Okay, that jives with my understanding for the naval aviators I knew/worked with. Thanks For as messed up as the AF can be, I'm glad I'm here vs another service (from an "opportunity to get to retirement" perspective. Also, flying is awesome)

Anyone know what the other services are doing with promotions? My understanding was that the AF traditionally tends to promote faster and with higher opportunity (for the FGO ranks), so the recent changes to promotions affected us more. My interaction with both navy and army peers was that they were much more concerned about making O-4, and the army O-4s were concerned about making O-5. It doesn't sound like the other services continue passed over officers like we do either, especially the army. On the other hand, as an AF pilot, retirement send pretty much achievable as long as you don't elect to separate.

And you're still missing the point that it's a non issue that is being played likely for politics. Authorized/appropriated money for this is in the billions of dollars. And it's still a federal appropriation, so colors of money/time windows to use that money based on color of money/etc all still apply, just like the military budget (except that this fund was exempted from sequestration and fully funded). So the fact that the fund is executing almost all of it's money is a good thing. I get that the fund started reducing payments, as it was running out of money and likely was trying to make it stretch to get everyone who needs help some help. So that's got to be frustrating. But now another $10B got added, and the expiration pushed out to 2090, so probably should be good going into the future Hate on the president and administration all you want, but this particular issue shouldn't be a concern.

Not a big deal when you look at the numbers involved...close to $1 billion budget each year authorized/appropriated. So less that $1 million in withholds per year that were likely moved elsewhere to cover budget shortfalls elsewhere. Also below the threshold for congressional oversight/approval. So yeah, looks like pretty normal budget execution, regardless of the administration. Edit to add: The fund was extended in 2016, which may be why the withholds data starts there-new authorization starting in 2016.

This. Maybe stealth tankers solves the wrong problem. Along similar lines: https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2198566/afrl-afsoc-launch-palletized-weapons-from-cargo-plane/ (Summary: initial testing for launching cruise missiles from airlifters)

I guess I phrased my first question poorly: How does the fuel get to the FOB so it's available for the (K)C-130? I get what the author is after, but they need to look one step further to make it a viable solution. That FOB (assuming an island in the Pacific) would need port access and a fuel ship, or an air bridge to stage fuel (probably a dedicated C-17 sortie for every 2 C-130 refueling sorties). So how do we support the ACE concept while supporting all the other logistical movements required in a shooting war? One of the things we've taken for granted in the last couple decades is a permissive environment for resupply/logistics. I'd envision the ACE concept more being a last ditch effort to not die; hop the gen 5 fighters to safety by trading some C-130s that will fuel them (on the ground or in the air) and then also try to make a run for it before they're killed. Plus, the C-130 line is still open, so you can always buy another one (same for F-15/F-16)...

Interesting article, but ignores some glaring logistics issues. -Where is that C-130 filling up? It's not going to be flying that fast, so is the logistics hub where it gets it's gas going to be far enough away to be safe from attack while allowing the (K)C-130 to be close enough to be operationally relevant? -Where are those boom operators coming from? My pie in the sky idea: -Amphibious Tanker. Land in the ocean next to a fuel ship, onload gas, and go to meet the receivers. Harder to target since it's not a fixed logistics site, and eases the fuel logistics problem since you can move a large quantity of fuel on a ship easily. Also a much smaller footprint than an aircraft carrier.

Timing's everything.... Where were you in the AFROTC program? I guess the big question is if you've attended field training or not. Either way, guard/reserve is probably your best bet for AF flying. You may want to consider the other services as well though if you're going the "pilot or bust" route

The thing that worries me is not the increase in sim time, but that were losing out experienced instructors out on the line. At least on the heavy side, you've got about 1.5-2 years to learn before you're up for AC. But if you don't have good instructors and ACs, knowledge and skills get lost, and we relearn those lessons the hard way

And replace the lost CT flying with sim credible events? :) It'd been nice to have a cheap companion trainer, along the lines of a Cessna 172/182 or something similar, to keep building air sense as more same more stuff moves into the sim.

I feel like we've played that game before (trading people to buy airplanes) and it didn't turn out very well.

Yeah, but the AF never met that requirement. Even with UPT before syllabus cuts, guys were graduating with less than 200 hours, and going out to fly heavy transport category aircraft. Hell, there were many ACs (and IPs) that got certed before meeting ATP mins (other time excluded since the FAA doesn't count it).

Don't get me wrong, there's value in teaching multi engine fundamentals in an advance trainer. But the budget is essentially a zero sum game: if we want to recapitalize or replace the T-1, that money is coming from somewhere, so what do we cut?

There used to be the regional 250 hour wonders, but I guess they at least had 250 hours... I'm not sure I learned all that much in T-1s. Sure, intro to multi engine considerations and EPs, TOLD, and some quasi CRM. Low levels were also good, but that's really just vfr flying, and we can teach pilotage and dead reckoning in the T-6. That was my pet peeve in the T-6 syllabus; almost no real VFR training (to/from moa with a GPS backup isn't really taxiing those skills), and from what I understand what little there was got cut further. Is that worth a 6 month flying program and keeping up an extra airframe that's showing its age? The FTUs seem to spin up the 38 grads fine. The flip side is that once they get to a heavy airframe, they need to *fly*. I agree there's no substitute for air time. And ACs and IPs need to teach and reinforce good habits and air sense of on the line. And schedulers shouldn't be pairing the new CP with the brand new AC...

PA probably used an ancient fact sheet; the T-1 originally was supposed to support the bomber track as well. That being said, it's still their screw up, as the latest fact sheet on AF.mil shows airlift/tanker only (or just walk across the street and talk to ops), so bad on them.

This is already done in the C-17 community, and has been this way for years Almost everything can be logged in the sim, and in theory you could get by with 1 local sortie per semi to log the events that can't be logged 100% in the sim

C-17 airdrop is an additional qual, only done at certain bases, by a small percentage of the crew force at those bases. It's also a qual that is not tracked by AFPC/our functional, so you get dumb things like sending a bunch of Airdrop ACs to teach UPT or to an airland base. Plus, airdrop qual also meant a significant decrease in flight time (less time on the road flying trips), and a significant pay cut (the jet is a per diem machine). Throw in a risk adverse command that prosecuted an airdrop crew for manslaughter after an ADRB cleared the crew of wrongdoing following a fatal jumper mishap (ultimately found not guilty), and yeah, a lot of guys dropped that qual like a hot potato. Almost all C-17 training is done in the sim, and we have quarterly CBTs on systems etc. The initial/recurrent qual/inst check is done in the sim, all EP training is done in the sim. Pretty much the only (airland) events that have to be done in the jet is a NVG assault landing each quarter, a tactical sortie each semi, and AR based on your training level. So it's not a big stretch for the C-17 community to do the basic strat mission with only sim training/currency. So yeah, we train similar to the airliners already, which covers a big portion of our day to day mission.

When I was instructing at UPT, I used to think, "man, was I that dumb when I was a LT?" This thought was then closely followed by "well, yeah, probably"

Sterling silver wings and letting them age naturally wins over the manufactured oxidized wings, though both beat the shiny wings

Different combatant commanders, different acceptance of risk. Plus it seems like we're doing a lot more kinetic stuff in the middle east than in the Pacific...I'm sure if stuff escalates in PACOM, dependents will get sent home pretty quick.

Just remember timing is everything, better lucky than good, and there's no justice. From what I saw of the FAIP drops, it seemed like the best chance of getting what you wanted is straight out of UPT. FAIP does give you a chance to reattack if what you want isn't there, but the competition increases. But there's no guarantee that what you want will be there in 3 years. And if you get deployed, then it's rough competing for the assignment you want ("what have you done lately for me"). My sq got around this by reclama-ing all the FAIPs, which unfortunately meant the MWS guys picked up the slack for deployment taskings. However, the toner sq didn't do this, and it seemed like the deployed FAIPs weren't happy with what they got in their drop. YMMV

When I was at Vance flying the T-6, there was no slack for being an MWS guy. Show for the flight meeting ~5 min prior to formal brief. Had friends commuting from Edmond making it in for formal brief (or for RSU or SOF duty). If you've got a long commute, hopefully your scheduler lines you up for first go (and doesn't bookend you with a long sit between flights), and gets you done with your day quicker, so your not sitting around. The flights I was in typically cut the long commuters loose earlier (ie skip formal release). But that can change with the flt/cc or sq/CC's policy. But overall, don't expect special treatment as an MWS guy coming to UPT, unless you consider sitting SOF special treatment...

Because we have to be different from the Space Force...

I agree with you on this, but the AF should've done this 10 years ago, when the first indications of a shortage were showing. But it didn't, putting us where we are now. Now, to give those opportunities, means taking a body from an operational unit because the shortage has gotten that bad. Can't even rob the MAF pilot pool anymore to at least get a pilot body in a staff seat that once was held by a CAF pilot. Same with non-flying deployments. MyVector is a step in the right direction. I was initially planning on just finding another flying assignment, and accepting that retiring as a major was a real possibility. Basically I had no desire to go to Scott and not fly in return for a miniscule increase in promotion opportunity. However, after some talks with my CC, I dug deeper in MyVector and found some staffs I didn't know about or think I'd have a shot at going to, and applied. I ended up getting my #2 choice, and going to work somewhere I thought I'd never have the opportunity to go to based on my DT vector. Pilot bonus up to $35K for most initial eligible pilots is another step in the right direction (even though RAND says it should be roughly $48K to really affect retention). So the ship is turning in the right direction, or at least starting to, but I fear it's too late, and the AF has just accepted the next 5-10 years are going to suck until it can produce it's way out of the problem.

There's one of the big issues-how do you get FGOs to want go to the staffs? And unfortunately, we're so far behind the power curve on pilot retention that even if a pilot FGO wanted to go to a particular staff, they may not be released to go. The bonus used to solve that problem via an ADSC (they don't have to want to go, but are bound by contact to go where the AF needs), but the take rate has been low for years. I think the AF had it's eye on the joint realm, and hence the huge emphasis on pole year (whether that's right or wrong is a different discussion). We've had a pretty good proportion of AF GOs at the joint level.