What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Swizzle]

14 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yeah, I wonder if it just means people will be completely ineligible for promotion at 5+ APZ

Checks with how I read that legal'ese, outside their "window-of-opportunity"

[MCO]

On 11/10/2019 at 6:05 AM, Chuck17 said:

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

I can second that I’ve heard similar rumblings in my corner that this may be coming down the line soon, though I haven’t seen specifics.

[SFG]

soo... 2-line PRFs and all the associated racking and stacking hustle and bustle for our next groups of 2-BPZ and 1-BPZ folks meeting this next O-5 board or not...

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, K_O said:

soo... 2-line PRFs and all the associated racking and stacking hustle and bustle for our next groups of 2-BPZ and 1-BPZ folks meeting this next O-5 board or not...

Ours are due to the wing Nov 14.  This Thursday.

[Clark Griswold]

Interesting article on AF culture and resistance to changing it, focusing on the rated force.

SYNCHRONIZING CHANGE AND AIR FORCE CULTURE: MODERNIZATION AND THE DIRTY SECRET OF AIRCREW SHORTAGE

Worth the 10 mins to read IMO.

[Hacker]

56 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Interesting article on AF culture and resistance to changing it, focusing on the rated force.

SYNCHRONIZING CHANGE AND AIR FORCE CULTURE: MODERNIZATION AND THE DIRTY SECRET OF AIRCREW SHORTAGE

Worth the 10 mins to read IMO.

It is interesting that Maj Byrnes' analysis doesn't incorporate or consider the results of the late-90s fighter crossflow program.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Hacker

[raimius]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Interesting article on AF culture and resistance to changing it, focusing on the rated force.

SYNCHRONIZING CHANGE AND AIR FORCE CULTURE: MODERNIZATION AND THE DIRTY SECRET OF AIRCREW SHORTAGE

Worth the 10 mins to read IMO.

Crossflowing RPA operators would still get you wingmen/co-pilots, just ones with far better air sense (and closer to retirement).  I suppose you could upgrade them faster, but it's not as good a fix as simply retaining your pilots who are already experienced.

[HuggyU2]

23 minutes ago, Hacker said:

It is interesting that Maj Byrnes' analysis doesn't incorporate or consider the results of the late-90s fighter crossflow program.

Any idea how many pilots were selected for the crossflow?   If it was like the early and mid 90's, it was a very small number.  

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, Hacker said:

It is interesting that Maj Byrnes' analysis doesn't incorporate or consider the results of the late-90s fighter crossflow program.

I remember a little about those programs but they were just before my time (99 yr group dude) so I'm low SA on that topic.

Nothing readily popped up from a Google search, what was the result of that initiative?

8 hours ago, raimius said:

Crossflowing RPA operators would still get you wingmen/co-pilots, just ones with far better air sense (and closer to retirement).  I suppose you could upgrade them faster, but it's not as good a fix as simply retaining your pilots who are already experienced.

Copy, I agree with his overall sentiments but see that it is not a perfect fix for immediate problems, it (his proposals/observations) are really critiques of the legacy culture in the rated communities of the AF and they're impact in a changing operational environment.

[FLEA]

48 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I remember a little about those programs but they were just before my time (99 yr group dude) so I'm low SA on that topic.

Nothing readily popped up from a Google search, what was the result of that initiative?

Copy, I agree with his overall sentiments but see that it is not a perfect fix for immediate problems, it (his proposals/observations) are really critiques of the legacy culture in the rated communities of the AF and they're impact in a changing operational environment.

Fair to say though that the pilot shortage has largely cultural causes and that culture change is not immediate. The general at the beggining of his article is likely going to end up displeased that there isn't an easy answer to this. 

[Clark Griswold]

Fair to say though that the pilot shortage has largely cultural causes and that culture change is not immediate. The general at the beggining of his article is likely going to end up displeased that there isn't an easy answer to this. 

Agree that the referenced GO is looking for the silver bullet when it is one of several cultural problems but if it is describable and can be reduced to one word or phrase, I would say it is the loss of prestige.

That sounds bad as prestige I think has an undeserved negative connotation but the loss of prestige of the rated community in the AF is fundamentally “it” as to What Is Wrong With The AF. That idea has other stuff in orbit around it (loss of trust as adults and officers, emasculating treatment by shoe clerks for meaningless reasons, etc...) but I think that is what mainly ails the rated community


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

12 hours ago, Hacker said:

It is interesting that Maj Byrnes' analysis doesn't incorporate or consider the results of the late-90s fighter crossflow program.

 

Different times. Didn't you hear? Wing don't need to keep visual while maintaining TAC position while working sensors on the sweep while not making an ass out of himself in the AOR. It's all BVR datalink Betty EZ-bake oven, pick-your-position formation and Windows 10 pop-up fire control systems.  So easy a regional FO can do it, hell he might be better at it!  Add some 2-piece snag-o-matic Army Cosplay in there for good measure (who needs their limbs after an ejection anyways) and 11F shortage fixed! 😄 

 

 

[Hacker]

On 3/10/2020 at 9:03 AM, Clark Griswold said:

I remember a little about those programs but they were just before my time (99 yr group dude) so I'm low SA on that topic.

Nothing readily popped up from a Google search, what was the result of that initiative?

Results were mixed, to be fair, but skewing heavily toward being not very successful.  I've posted on baseops previously about the half-dozen guys I knew who'd done it and the difficulties they faced in the fighter world.  All high-achievers, fantastic dudes, and excellent officers (and obviously great aviators in whatever heavy platform they came from), but the majority not particularly well suited to decisionmaking at the speed and G of the fighter business.

My take, based on the guys I personally interacted with, was that it wasn't a talent issue so much as it was an experience issue, but that the experience early on in a pilot's career was important to their performance further on down the line.

All that being said, it was the only time in "recent history" that the writer's idea was actually attempted, so I'd think that the data would be useful to evaluating the hypothesis.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Hacker

[Hacker]

On 3/10/2020 at 12:14 AM, HuggyU2 said:

Any idea how many pilots were selected for the crossflow?   If it was like the early and mid 90's, it was a very small number.  

I don't know the total numbers, no.

So far as I'm aware there was only one board, and those guys were going through IFF and FTU about the same time I did in the 98-00 timeframe.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Hacker

[Magellan]

Here is an example of a heavy to fighter guy that seemed to do well enough for himself.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/611899/brigadier-general-daniel-j-orcutt/

 

[12xu2a3x3]

23 minutes ago, Magellan said:

Here is an example of a heavy to fighter guy that seemed to do well enough for himself.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/611899/brigadier-general-daniel-j-orcutt/

 

would love to hear him speak unencumbered about this.

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, Hacker said:

Results were mixed, to be fair, but skewing heavily toward being not very successful.  I've posted on baseops previously about the half-dozen guys I knew who'd done it and the difficulties they faced in the fighter world.  All high-achievers, fantastic dudes, and excellent officers (and obviously great aviators in whatever heavy platform they came from), but the majority not particularly well suited to decisionmaking at the speed and G of the fighter business.

My take, based on the guys I personally interacted with, was that it wasn't a talent issue so much as it was an experience issue, but that the experience early on in a pilot's career was important to their performance further on down the line.

All that being said, it was the only time in "recent history" that the writer's idea was actually attempted, so I'd think that the data would be useful to evaluating the hypothesis.

Copy that, it is probably the only data set to study if the AF were inclined to take up Maj Byrnes ideas, or this particular one.

Agree on that base of experience, acquired at an early stage in one's military flying career is crucial and likely what led to a higher rate of difficulty, sub-par performance you observed in cross-flows.  I would still support a Heavy/RPA/Recce/FAIP cross flow program but with lead in experience building to promote a better cross flow fighter pilot / wingman.  

What that lead in experience would be for these already rated dudes coming from a non-fighter assignment would be is the $64,000 question, unfortunately we don't have a platform like the A-37 in the inventory that took pilots from all platforms that met a requirement and built tactical experience in aircrew from other backgrounds. 

Cross Flow (X to fighters) is not / would not solve all the AF's cultural problems but I think it would be beneficial.  Costs to be sure but in the rated community I think it would have a sizable positive impact, particularly with aviators in the beginning of the career looking for that second shot and likely to stay for a career with a background that could make a well rounded leader.  Benefits to the AF and the fighter community I believe also if executed properly.

Good article on the A-37:

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-super-tweet-8974282/

[Longhorn15]

This guys article has a logic problem.  If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

RAND also says we should put more FAIPs into fighters since they meet the definition of experienced faster.  The problem is, they really aren't any more experienced than anyone else except in admin and tend to progress along with their non-FAIP peers.  

Drone operators have useful kinetic experience that only translates to a very small slice of what fighters do.  Similar to FAIPs being good at an ILS, it isn't that relevant to being a good tactical aviator.

[HossHarris]

5 hours ago, Longhorn15 said:

This guys article has a logic problem.  If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

RAND also says we should put more FAIPs into fighters since they meet the definition of experienced faster.  The problem is, they really aren't any more experienced than anyone else except in admin and tend to progress along with their non-FAIP peers.  

Drone operators have useful kinetic experience that only translates to a very small slice of what fighters do.  Similar to FAIPs being good at an ILS, it isn't that relevant to being a good tactical aviator.

Faips progress a bit faster than their peers... slightly. But not really important. 
 

Your issue highlights why Adair T38s worked fairly well. Cheap, plentiful, and UPT newbies that went there got faip-like hours with added tactical experience. As an added bonus the Tyndall Adair kids got to fly to/from/in the same airspace and see the b-course missions and debriefs (from the other side of the table). I think it freed up a lot of brain cells later since they weren’t having to learn motherhood (to from airspace, shot Val litany, etc) fresh in the b-course. 
 

also was the way upt next was headed (at least last I heard). UPT to IFF to Adair to bourse. 

[theoriginalturk]

14 hours ago, Longhorn15 said:

This guys article has a logic problem.  If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I believe this analysis of the opening of the article is gratuitous and misrepresents the spirit of the article. 

In regards to RPAs from the author, "The Air Force seems intent to simply refuse to purchase or integrate commercially available modifications that would answer each of the concerns, then claim the aircraft are not viable. " which is a sentiment that is widespread here and on other aviation forums.

The Col. in the story seemed to try and get the General to think along the lines of, "perhaps given the disparity in production, perhaps more missions and/or opportunities could be given to the RPA community given our cost and retention advantages". Either missions in the form of more capable RPAs or opportunities to alleviate manning issues in our sister 11x community. The generals immediate refusal to even consider such an idea is partially what the whole article is about.

The sentiment of being emasculated and being second rate is so widespread in this community that the best way to cope is to just joke about it. Its not perceived emasculation, it is woven into the very fabric of URT. There was a thread a few weeks ago about an RPA guy who was feeling pretty down. Best piece of advice on that thread was for the Lt. to buy his own plane and pursue his aviation development on his own dime and time. No one purposed any type of solution coming from big blue to alleviate these sentiments. Are RPA "pilots" actually pilots? Seems like we still haven't even answered that basic question.


 

[HuggyU2]

9 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Your issue highlights why Adair T38s worked fairly well. Cheap, plentiful, and UPT newbies that went there got faip-like hours with added tactical experience. As an added bonus the Tyndall Adair kids got to fly to/from/in the same airspace and see the b-course missions and debriefs (from the other side of the table). I think it freed up a lot of brain cells later since they weren’t having to learn motherhood (to from airspace, shot Val litany, etc) fresh in the b-course. 

Although most of you weren't around for it, ADAIR was around in the 70's and 80's at Tyndall, Hickam, and other places using the T-33.  Some of those pilots racked up a shit-ton of T-33 hours (1000-2000 hours) before transitioning to the Eagle.  

I never did it, but those I know that do/did say it is very cost effective.  

Years ago, Beale T-38's used to work with Fresno's Vipers on occasion.  We did a variety of "different" presentations for them and it was great training for all of us.  

[SurelySerious]

6 hours ago, theoriginalturk said:

I believe this analysis of the opening of the article is gratuitous and misrepresents the spirit of the article. 

In regards to RPAs from the author, "The Air Force seems intent to simply refuse to purchase or integrate commercially available modifications that would answer each of the concerns, then claim the aircraft are not viable. " which is a sentiment that is widespread here and on other aviation forums.

The Col. in the story seemed to try and get the General to think along the lines of, "perhaps given the disparity in production, perhaps more missions and/or opportunities could be given to the RPA community given our cost and retention advantages". Either missions in the form of more capable RPAs or opportunities to alleviate manning issues in our sister 11x community. The generals immediate refusal to even consider such an idea is partially what the whole article is about.

The sentiment of being emasculated and being second rate is so widespread in this community that the best way to cope is to just joke about it. Its not perceived emasculation, it is woven into the very fabric of URT. There was a thread a few weeks ago about an RPA guy who was feeling pretty down. Best piece of advice on that thread was for the Lt. to buy his own plane and pursue his aviation development on his own dime and time. No one purposed any type of solution coming from big blue to alleviate these sentiments. Are RPA "pilots" actually pilots? Seems like we still haven't even answered that basic question.


 

People who go through URT are factually not pilots.  You’re also talking from shortsightedness: for at least ten years the majority of this forum was advocating for a companion trainers for pilots assigned to UAVs. 
 

Frankly, the spirit of this article sounds a lot like gratuitous whining like Longhorn alludes to than any actionable solution. 

Edited March 14, 2020 by SurelySerious

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Although most of you weren't around for it, ADAIR was around in the 70's and 80's at Tyndall, Hickam, and other places using the T-33.  Some of those pilots racked up a shit-ton of T-33 hours (1000-2000 hours) before transitioning to the Eagle.  

I never did it, but those I know that do/did say it is very cost effective.  

Years ago, Beale T-38's used to work with Fresno's Vipers on occasion.  We did a variety of "different" presentations for them and it was great training for all of us.  

Damn it that would have been fun...  Well kept T-33 in aggressor colors for a what could be if the AF still gave a shit about flying... #bitterandcrusty

Add pods, radars, sensors, etc... with a new build airframe, engines, avionics, links, etc... you have a platform to segue to different missions:  aggressor, light attack, support and utility platform, flight based training, etc...

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

People who go through URT are factually not pilots.  You’re also talking from shortsightedness: for at least ten years the majority of this forum was advocating for a companion trainers for pilots assigned to UAVs. 

Frankly, the spirit of this article sounds a lot like gratuitous whining like Longhorn alludes to than any actionable solution. 

Amen.  They took the CTP from the Global Hawk right as I got there.  The CTP budget to rent Aero Club aircraft and fly all the GH pilots at the time (early 2000s) cost less than the copier toner budget for the FY at the 12th RS about 90k at the time, it was cheap and effective therefore it had to be killed.

[HuggyU2]

52 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

The CTP budget to rent Aero Club aircraft and fly all the GH pilots at the time (early 2000s) cost less than the copier toner budget for the FY at the 12th RS about 90k at the time, it was cheap and effective therefore it had to be killed.

Yes, that was a decision that saved no money, and ruined an excellent program.  

I remember when "they" were giving the hairy eyeball to the T-38 CTP at Beale back in the 2006 timeframe.  IIRC, we were flying around 3700 T-38 hours.  

Around 2005, there was an F-22 at Hill that sucked a gear pin down the intake and trashed the engine.   

Damage cost?  About $6.9M... more than the entire 3700-hour budget of Beale's T-38 CT program.  

Edited March 14, 2020 by HuggyU2

[Clark Griswold]

15 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Yes, that was a decision that saved no money, and ruined an excellent program.  

I remember when "they" were giving the hairy eyeball to the T-38 CTP at Beale back in the 2006 timeframe.  IIRC, we were flying around 3700 T-38 hours.  

Around 2005, there was an F-22 at Hill that sucked a gear pin down the intake and trashed the engine.   

Damage cost?  About $6.9M... more than the entire 3700-hour budget of Beale's T-38 CT program.  

I remember that.  

Everything that doesn't fit some mold I have yet to perfectly visualize that the Bobs in charge think is right is always under the gun regardless if it is chump change in terms of money, personnel and trouble while adding value that is either not readily quantifiable like induced crew retention for military only opportunities, morale or military flight, tactics and leadership development.

Bean counting a-holes with low experience in operations, intensive military training (participation in mil exercises, mission qual tng, etc..) or formal qual training don't realize that quantity of experience has a quality all its own.  Just the shear number of sorties a mil pilot flies is going to put him/her/it (for the wokesters) into unforseen circumstances, hopefully rise to the occassion, learn something and debrief it to their peers so they all get stronger. 

Repetitions build experience, proficiency and confidence.  That confidence is the basis of a good pilot so they can use more their nugget when things are not as planned, excrement hits the fan or they need to help a member of the team who is trouble/not as strong.

Rant complete.  Buy cool iron AF and get your mojo back.