ViperMan

Well in any case, there is a big difference. Fly along side different "fighter pilots" who come from different cultures and backgrounds, i.e. people who may have drastically different ideas about what "fighter pilot" means (it's not just flying a pointy nosed jet), and you'll start to grasp the difference I'm talking about. In a sentence, it's about your attitude towards yourself and own flying skills, rather than a self-aggrandizing projection you put out towards the world and other people. Many pilots from other cultures don't have the right attitude towards their J.O.B., and it reflects in their Air Force's capability. Our Air Force isn't immune to those attitudes, but in general they are far less prevalent. Further, the community has a way of making those types your "one and done" crowd - of course, this all exists within the constraints of "needs of the AF" and "luck and timing are everything." Hell, you can plunk down $2K and "fly a fighter" (https://aircombat.com/flight-programs/combat-flight-programs/advanced-air-combat-tactics-maneuvering/) - I don't think anyone would argue that experience doesn't make you a fighter pilot. Lol, I don't think anyone is 'gatekeeping' as you put it, and also agree that plenty of "heavy" dudes could hack it if given the opportunity. I think the main objection to your original post was that you seemed to imply that four years spent flying C-17s/130s would somehow translate to walking right into a fighter FTU...most people's objection was to that implication. Finally, the only real question here is if the USAF does need to pull from the MAF to staff fighter cockpits, why shouldn't they pull from those who have already spent six months flying something (T-38s) that builds the core skill set that translates directly to flying something else fast? You'll likely have greater success than if you roll the dice on those who haven't. It's a numbers game here, right? Of course there are exceptions, but if you are making decisions at an institutional level, you've got to draw the line somewhere. At the end of SUPT is probably the appropriate place to do that.

"fly a fighter" being the operable phrase - there is a large difference between "flying a fighter" and "being a fighter pilot" - Saudi "F-15 pilots" are not equivalent to US F-15 fighter pilots. Yuuuuuuuge difference. So I guess I agree with you?

6.9 second google search suggests otherwise: Fall 2015, 11F shortage: 511 (https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featurekeeping-them-flying-the-us-air-forces-struggle-to-retain-fighter-pilots-5776168/). Spring 2016, 11F shortage: 723 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/10/the-air-force-fighter-pilot-shortage-is-already-a-crisis-and-it-could-soon-get-even-worse/). Aug 10, 2016: "Air Force Secretary Deborah James said that the service could be short about 1,000 fighter pilots “in just a couple years,” prompting the service to ask Congress for the ability to boost financial incentives to recruit and keep pilots." To me, a "couple of years" suggests 2018 - at the earliest. Six months later... Spring 2017, 11F shortage: 1211 (https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/the-air-force-is-thinking-about-paying-pilots-up-to-455-000-to-stay-in-uniform). No issue there? That didn't take long. Finally, last time I checked, when Congress is "probing" your organization, it's usually because you're not nailing it (https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1135200/congress-probes-military-pilot-shortage/).

Yeah, most of what he said. Congress (#2) is a great idea, and one that I think would go a long way to proving the USAF cares about the capability provided by aviators. Establishing trust (and maintaining it) is multidimensional and takes years. Why the bonus and flight pay have been allowed to languish for the last 20+ years is criminal, and sets a clear non-verbal subtext that we are not important and/or that the AF has become complacent. Congress (#3) is probably the most important factor I see as going towards dudes bailing out. No one wants to live in Cannon, Creech, anywhere else in BFE New Mexico, or wherever TF else there are powerful politicians who are allowed to keep certain communities alive by sucking off of the DOD tit. This alone causes millions of $$$ of AF assets to walk away every year for greener pastures. JCOS (#1) and USAF (#5) are also valid. The boils down to proper utilization of resources, which, given the AF's proclivity towards buying up big-screen TVs like they're going out of style, gives me little hope that it will change. I always put the 179 idea in the AF responsibility bucket. Maybe that idea was/is by direction of the JCOS, but I think even if it is, the AF should be much more verbal about a service-level requirement that only exists for one reason: to not give people their due credit for service provided.

I call BS. It's department heads that are O-6s while in the position - after they are done, they then retire as O-7s.

Ever heard of a "no-stepper"? Try it out sometime. It'll fix SNAPs pretty quick. And, it can be fairly therapeutic:

The F-16...outlasting the F-4, F-15C, F-15E, F-18, F-22, and, probably, the F-35 since 1979...

Yeah, this - I don't know anyone who DOESN'T fly with one.

Oh sorry, I checked CNN and as of two seconds ago, they had nothing up...I get it now...

Come again? Say reason for thread title.

This. Had we not required the airframe to be compatible with the less-than-critical (read useful) capability to V/STOL we would have better-than-F-22 capabilities. As it stands, we don't, and the sole reason (IMO) is because of design sacrifices made to appease the Marine Corps. Don't forget that the F-22 also had major problems and software issues early on, but few would argue its current pre eminence as an air-to-air fighter - those are problems that can be (at least in principle) solved. Lockheed would have been more than capable to build the next gen fighter without the requirement to make an aircraft also a helicopter. Take one look at the "competition" to the F-35 and you'll have no illusions about how requirements influenced design choices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32. Lockheed was able to "package it up" in a prettier container, but she's still a pig.

Lesson (not) learned is that you don't let a kid (the Marines) sit at the grown up's table when making important DOD-wide acquisitions, or if you do, you don't allow them to have disproportionate influence on the outcome.

I wonder if they could have done $34,999.99? That would have made me laugh out loud, and I would have actually enjoyed being the staff-O that got to type up the MFR or whatever. "It is 'tiered', congressman..." I understand this better now, and FULLY grasp that everyone in the AF answers to someone, including the COS. HOWEVER, the fault of the AF isn't that they currently have their hands tied by Congress/must do what they say. No one is blaming them for that, but there is NO DOUBT the AF could have and should have seen this coming and postured themselves earlier during "cold ops" to deal with the inevitable. Congress will likely almost always say "no" to one of their "children" at first request. The AF (at least parts of it) interfaces with Congress on a daily or weekly basis. Those individuals who do, know this, grasp how the sausage is made, and understand that they're not going to get something the first time they ask. The point? They were negligent in not initiating this effort years ago - that's the problem and complaint. Bitching about $35K vs $34K is just good fun. I don't like blaming the messenger either, but I do think the AF has played a greater role in this "crisis" than just a message passer between the country's legislators and the line fliers. The 5-year hiatus on airline retirements built up a 5-year backlog of hiring that was certain to affect retention. Now, we're reacting, when we had all the opportunity in the world to be proactive. Seems like a missed opportunity, and one which, if properly addressed, would have been a staff effort actually worthy of receiving OPR bullets.

Mostly agree with you, but not on your point that paying everyone the same is a solution (hello socialism). If someone has a skill set that is in higher demand it can command a higher price, and it should. Now, the $1K difference between AFSCs is amusing AF logic, as if it was the product of some Rube Goldberg device, and I agree with you that if they're going to pay people equivalently the same amount/bonus, they should just make it the same across the board - $1K difference between 11Xs ain't going to make a difference in retention for those seeking money - it will make a difference for those who want to feel like they are valued by the organization - which a bonus structured like this goes a long way to undermining. That said, if there is a (much) greater need for certain AFSCs, they should reflect that in the bonus they offer. Ultimately though, I'm not one for bonuses and would prefer to see the AF tackle this problem in a completely different way that represents the value provided to the DOD that each AFSC brings. I would rather have them divorce the pay scale from O-whatever and align it with AFSC. At this point in my career, I struggle more with the logic of paying O-1/2/3/4/5/6s the same when different AFSCs bring inherently different value to the warfighting table. Same is true for Es.

For a recent example, check out his "analysis" on the Thunderbird mishap...laughable.

Does this mean the USN gets back Miramar?

If it was X-dollars pegged to inflation/pay raises, meaning they recognize its value decreases as other pays increase, I would have taken that as a signal that they realized there was a systematic issue with the bonus of the last 25 years - as it is, I don't really any positive signals being sent with the current suggested bonus levels.

I agree with you and enjoy most of your posts. Not meaning to $hit on anyone - I just prefer to be very to the point on this forum. As far as the "closing doors" comment, of course flying any USAF jet is a privilege, and one all dudes should be very proud of - I simply mean that the last time someone got taken from the T-1 track and thrown into the F-22 was never. My original intent was to properly frame the two youngins' mindsets regarding opportunities in pilot training - it was their posts which strongly suggested T-1 studs had "dibs" on certain assignments, and the suggestive use of "quotation" marks also implied that they thought it was BS some hot dog 38 shithead swooped in and took "their" assignment - as if to say that if you choose to go to 38s you are opting out of the opportunity to fly what is generally the desired assignment on the T-1 side of the house - which is a bullshit thought. I've pasted what I was really getting at below: Ehh, on second reading, it really isn't even implied - they outright said it.

Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc. SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does.

Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s. No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out.

Is it though? The USAF puts > $1M bucks into a guy over 54 weeks and then an additional $300K over the following 3 years to do that "job" - so call it $1.3M bucks for 4 years of work. Then, you wind up getting only 6 years out of the guy when he finally gets to an MWS...so...?

LOL.

(whispered tone) FA #1 to #2: "Janet, would you please tell the captain the intercom is stuck in hot mic!!!"

Sure, as long as they're retired military pilots.

No, you're not out of line - you're just thinking outside the box (sts). Why is it proper to pay people who do drastically different jobs and accept wildly different levels of risk the same salary? It's acceptable because of the meme that was installed in your brain in whatever commissioning source you came from that "we're all equal."