Enlisted Drone Pilots

[Clark Griswold]

I am sure this has been brought up before (not just in this thread as referenced above) but since the announcement that enlisted RPA operators has come out - has anyone with an ounce of influence just offered that we bring back WO's for the RPA enterprise first, see how it works then maybe expand to manned platforms? 

Dorr has a 2013 article on the subject:

https://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/303250026/The-time-bring-back-warrant-officers-now

but following the announcement that they are looking at them for RQ-4 ops, I have heard nada on this idea, anyone else have anything else?

 

[Prosuper]

As a retired MSgt I like the idea of WO's. When I was active I was totally not competitive for E-8,9 since my career path kept me on the flightline for 23 years. Being a MSgt in my position with a chance to move into WO ranks would be very tempting. Just wondering what the age cutoff would be or would they just offering to first termers to keep the the E-8's and E-9's placated. 

[Lawman]

Just for perspective with the Army WO community, our UAV guys all have to spend prior time as UAV operators. There isn't a specific street to WO program for UAS the way we have for aviation. Even if there was though you would likely see the majority (70-75%) of the community being prior enlisted same as we see in Aviation. The idea with WO is you are a technical and operational expert not just a 2/3 pay Lt. Now the cross trainer aviator guys who transitioned out of helicopters would be the weird ones in the population. That's more of us farming out jobs to the 58 community.

I'd say on average most of our guys come into the WO community with 14 years of usable service in active duty before they hit 20, so most guys are only going to get as high as CW3 before they can opt out which keeps some of the competitiveness down in the Helo pilot world for the guys who come straight off the street and need the full 20 meaning if you don't make 4 you get out before retirement. That won't be as big an issue now that the pension is going away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Interesting - just thinking about this as I saw the article come up for enlisted RPA pilots, I thought it would be (an AF WO program) mainly recruited from the enlisted cadre, just thinking the sharp E-3 to E-5 range typically but also with off the street hires and really done on "simmer" type of manning with the capability to go up to full boil if required.  I wouldn't restrict it to just that range but just what I imagined it to be, if the AF had or has the common sense to change with the times.

The RPA enterprise but in other carrier fields (ABM, Manned ISR SO, Airborne Linguist, etc...) lends itself to this; it could be a path for better retention, career development / progression / professionalization, etc... the RLO's in these fields will naturally be threatened but it is just the best manning construct unless it will no longer be a sin or exceptional to be a passed over Capt on the way to 20 years AD service in the Reg AF.

[Azimuth]

13 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

Just for perspective with the Army WO community, our UAV guys all have to spend prior time as UAV operators. There isn't a specific street to WO program for UAS the way we have for aviation. Even if there was though you would likely see the majority (70-75%) of the community being prior enlisted same as we see in Aviation. The idea with WO is you are a technical and operational expert not just a 2/3 pay Lt. Now the cross trainer aviator guys who transitioned out of helicopters would be the weird ones in the population. That's more of us farming out jobs to the 58 community.

I'd say on average most of our guys come into the WO community with 14 years of usable service in active duty before they hit 20, so most guys are only going to get as high as CW3 before they can opt out which keeps some of the competitiveness down in the Helo pilot world for the guys who come straight off the street and need the full 20 meaning if you don't make 4 you get out before retirement. That won't be as big an issue now that the pension is going away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jobs that would be WO jobs in the Army, Marines, and Navy including the LDO's in the Navy), are farmed out to SNCO's in the USAF. The RPA pilot and some Enlisted aircrew jobs should be WO's.

[M2]

On 12/24/2015 at 6:43 AM, Azimuth said:

Jobs that would be WO jobs in the Army, Marines, and Navy including the LDO's in the Navy), are farmed out to SNCO's in the USAF. The RPA pilot and some Enlisted aircrew jobs should be WO's.

Agreed, but the USAF would rather pay an enlisted guy/gal to do those jobs than resurrect the WO program...

[BFM this]

11 minutes ago, M2 said:

Agreed, but the USAF would rather pay an enlisted guy/gal to do those jobs than resurrect the WO program...

Not a new idea, really.  Back in the middle of the last century, the Marine Corps recognized that, absent Mission Commander or any weapons release duties, Navigation was just another process oriented set of skills.  A slice of the career field was carved out for line leadership (WOs), but otherwise Marine Navs, from WWII and through legacy KC-130s, was an enlisted MOS.

Edited December 27, 2015 by BFM this

[Azimuth]

2 hours ago, M2 said:

Agreed, but the USAF would rather pay an enlisted guy/gal to do those jobs than resurrect the WO program...

Which is bullshit. And another reason why ATC folks are leaving in floodgates as well.

[Learjetter]

A dinosaur perspective for your consideration:

American airpower has always been conceived, planned, and employed by officers. Missileers are officers, fighter and bomber pilots are officers. All are our primary trigger pullers for airpower.

Their doctrine, tactics, plans, operations, joint and combined integration and c2 are all built and executed by officers specifically experienced and grown to do those jobs.

"Farming" out isr (armed or not) to e's or wo's is doable, but there will still need to be a large experienced cadre of officers to do the employment planning and execution.

Enlisted and wo's have different training and expectations (not capability)....none of which exist higher than wing level.

We let folks fly bombers as CGOs so we can use the best of them on staffs...where the hard work of airpower exists. This is why lots of senior guys say "you're easily replaced"...there are a lot of folks who want to be CGOS and fly jets.

It's a cycle, guys...and what's good for the Air Force over decades is growing a diverse officer corps capable.of thoughtful airpower employment.

LJ

[Lawman]

A dinosaur perspective for your consideration:

American airpower has always been conceived, planned, and employed by officers. Missileers are officers, fighter and bomber pilots are officers. All are our primary trigger pullers for airpower.

Their doctrine, tactics, plans, operations, joint and combined integration and c2 are all built and executed by officers specifically experienced and grown to do those jobs.

"Farming" out isr (armed or not) to e's or wo's is doable, but there will still need to be a large experienced cadre of officers to do the employment planning and execution.

Enlisted and wo's have different training and expectations (not capability)....none of which exist higher than wing level.

We let folks fly bombers as CGOs so we can use the best of them on staffs...where the hard work of airpower exists. This is why lots of senior guys say "you're easily replaced"...there are a lot of folks who want to be CGOS and fly jets.

It's a cycle, guys...and what's good for the Air Force over decades is growing a diverse officer corps capable.of thoughtful airpower employment.

LJ

That isn't exactly true.

There had always been Enlisted pilots as part of the Army Signal and follow on Army Air Corps, and indeed were always enlisted pilots in the opening days of the Air Force. It was only as a separate service that the USAF reinvented what it was to be a pilot and killed those communities along with the idea of Warrant/Limited Duty Officers.

Culturally look at some of the whole "only ____ can be responsible enough to do _____" that the Air Force has gone through. There was a time where the only people that could fly an armed drone had to be tactical jet guys because the idea of a Transport or Tanker pilot suddenly shooting missiles was such a forbidden thought. That stands in stark contrast to all three of the other combat services where we have our trigger pullers being mostly enlisted. I'm not just talking about rifleman either, Artillery and Tanks units are lead by officers but plenty of E6/7s command tanks, gun crews, sections/platoons of such. The idea that only officers can and should be the tip of the operational spear is completely your own doing. Look at the Gunship community, nothing is lost on the pilot from his later senior leadership because he had dudes in the back pulling triggers and operating sensors that don't wear stripes instead of bars. It's a mix of Es and Os in the fight to achieve the same thing, effective employment of air power to influence the joint fight.

If the idea is officers need to be there for the accountability and responsibility required then way not extend the same requirement for JTAC/CCT who employ far more ability to influence the battlefield or political picture through the misuse of air power. Those guys arguably have even more responsibility put on them than the TacAir community let alone drones since they are running the CAS fight.

[Learjetter]

Concur. We had enlisted pilots...but Eaker had no enlisted planning ops at Pine Tree.

This is "of our own doing" and we've done it on purpose since 1947.

[Azimuth]

1 hour ago, Learjetter said:

Concur. We had enlisted pilots...but Eaker had no enlisted planning ops at Pine Tree.

This is "of our own doing" and we've done it on purpose since 1947.

Time for a change.

[Lawman]

Concur. We had enlisted pilots...but Eaker had no enlisted planning ops at Pine Tree.

This is "of our own doing" and we've done it on purpose since 1947.

If you are already generating the next generation of Eakers and Lemays with the 60-70% burned out manning you have now it's not like expanding your roles to enlisted/WOs to get to 90% manning won't still achieve that goal.

The WO/Enlisted pilots aren't gonna suddenly steal command/staff slots and vital flight time. They are gonna give you the man power to:

1. Take the constant burn out down and give your O-drone community some breathing room.

2. Allow the AF more opportunity to breed leaders and not managers because not as many burned out guys with potential are going "F this place" and walking.

3. Get guys the PME/Schools/back to a jet/TDYs they need to progress because they can leave the line without the mission suffering.

If anything this would help big blue, not hurt it.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Learjetter said:

Concur. We had enlisted pilots...but Eaker had no enlisted planning ops at Pine Tree.

This is "of our own doing" and we've done it on purpose since 1947.

Doesn't mean it is right or correct with the times, missions, systems and cadre of today.  The AF can not remain static or damn near so and remain relevant. 

I demand the world accept that I refuse to use manning & personnel constructs other than ones made 60+ years ago and everyone else will just have to help me with all the inefficiencies & self-inflicted wounds I give myself and all the problems it causes to the other team members I am supposed to support, that is piss poor head in the sand thinking.

Like it or not, the way we do things needs to change just like our force composition changes.  Do we still have hundreds of BUFFs and 135s sitting alert waiting for the call?  No, because the requirements changed so we changed with it.  Do we need every cockpit to be filled with a regularly commissioned officer with a bachelor degree because that is a good/only way to ensure we get a high quality individual or at least have a good chance at selecting that?  No, we have a reasonably educated general population to hire from if an AF WO program were to come back and if we mostly recruited from the enlisted cadre for this (which would be my choice) we have an above average population set in terms of education and first hand appraisals of performance from their time as E's.

This is another test of history that the AF is sadly failing.  We have a growing requirement, we are legally allowed to have a manning solution that is less expensive, less overhead intensive, more easily scalable for adjustment and would be highly effective at solving a current and growing problem while simultaneously solving other manning problems at the same time (fix the RPA pilot problem, one less bill to be paid from other stressed aviation communities i.e. 11Fs, 11Ss, etc... and another SUPT grad not having to be sent where a new 18X WO could go).

We have way more reasons to change than to Keep Calm and Carry On.

I feel like this is the AF vs. reality sometimes...

 

 

[Karl Hungus]

6 hours ago, Learjetter said:

We let folks fly bombers as CGOs so we can use the best of them on staffs...where the hard work of airpower exists. This is why lots of senior guys say "you're easily replaced"...there are a lot of folks who want to be CGOS and fly jets.

It's a cycle, guys...and what's good for the Air Force over decades is growing a diverse officer corps capable.of thoughtful airpower employment.

Interesting. 

Seven of eight 2005 year group IDE selects have 7 day opted/palace chased recently at a certain large MAF base, if a certain Wg/CV is to believed.  Seven of eight.  I suppose he could be lying, of course.  But those are your supposed "best" CGOs that you want to use on staffs "where the hard work of airpower exists", and yet they're bailing.  Not to mention your average non-IDE select CGO peon, who is also bailing. 

Given how "easily replaced" these CGOs are... I think it's safe to say the fears of a pilot stop-loss are unfounded, right? 

It is indeed a cycle, and growing a diverse (intriguing use of that word in the current environment) officer corps capable of thoughtful airpower employment is indeed good for the AF.  I'm skeptical that the AF is really doing that as well as it thinks it is, though, for various reasons.

It'll be very interesting to see if the senior management narrative changes over the next couple of years. 

[Learjetter]

Karl, I have no idea if stop loss is being considered or not. But, we've done it before, so I suppose it's not out of the question.

If 7 of 8 IDE selects are PCing, then the ARC (and the total force) benefits. Nothing wrong with service in the ARC. If they are separating, then I'll thank them for their service and wish them well. It sounds like the SR at that wing is stratting based on merit and not member's intent...that's a good thing, right? I think so. People bloom at different stages in their careers...some excel at tactics or WIC, then perform less strongly on staff or in command. Others do the opposite. Leadership's challenge is creating a winning team with the players you have.

I used "diverse" to cover areas of airpower thought, not physical attrubutes.

No where did I say we were doing it well, just that we'd been doing it to ourselves.

We've all looked at O6 and O7 promotion lists and wondered how some dweeb got promoted. But we've also nodded in concurrence at other names on the same list.

But, this thread is about enlisted RPA pilots, so I'll shut it here, and the discussion can continue about whether we think this idea serves Airpower well, or not.

[guineapigfury]

If we go to a primarily enlisted pilot community in Global Hawks, where do we select the Global Hawk SQ/CCs and DOs from?  Assuming you want to select from those with RQ-4 experience you'll be picking from a much smaller pool of candidates.  You could go with the "import a random LtCol with no RPA experience" technique that has been such a catastrophe in MQ-9s.

[M2]

Air Force manpower management has always been a clusterfuck, it just gets worse sometimes more than others.  I am not against a WO program, I just know the USAF won't adopt it because of my first sentence.  It works in Army aviation where those who want to fly go that route and those that want to rise up in rank and command become officers. 

The AF has been breech-loading its people--and especially its officer corps--for decades, and I don't see any improvement in the immediate future no matter who becomes the CSAF.  Everyone thought that Welsh would be the redeemer who unfucks all that was done by those before him (Schwartz, Moseley); but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.  He may be a nice guy, but he's not the savior everyone thought he'd be.  Unfortunately, I see that continuing to be the case for the time being.

One exception, kudos still go to SecAF James for canning Flops in Blue.  I never thought I'd see that happen in my lifetime, and maybe just maybe it is an indicator that there is a change on the horizon but I still won't hold my breath.... 

[TnkrToad]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

That isn't exactly true.

There had always been Enlisted pilots as part of the Army Signal and follow on Army Air Corps, and indeed were always enlisted pilots in the opening days of the Air Force. It was only as a separate service that the USAF reinvented what it was to be a pilot and killed those communities along with the idea of Warrant/Limited Duty Officers.

Culturally look at some of the whole "only ____ can be responsible enough to do _____" that the Air Force has gone through. There was a time where the only people that could fly an armed drone had to be tactical jet guys because the idea of a Transport or Tanker pilot suddenly shooting missiles was such a forbidden thought. That stands in stark contrast to all three of the other combat services where we have our trigger pullers being mostly enlisted. I'm not just talking about rifleman either, Artillery and Tanks units are lead by officers but plenty of E6/7s command tanks, gun crews, sections/platoons of such. The idea that only officers can and should be the tip of the operational spear is completely your own doing. Look at the Gunship community, nothing is lost on the pilot from his later senior leadership because he had dudes in the back pulling triggers and operating sensors that don't wear stripes instead of bars. It's a mix of Es and Os in the fight to achieve the same thing, effective employment of air power to influence the joint fight.

If the idea is officers need to be there for the accountability and responsibility required then way not extend the same requirement for JTAC/CCT who employ far more ability to influence the battlefield or political picture through the misuse of air power. Those guys arguably have even more responsibility put on them than the TacAir community let alone drones since they are running the CAS fight.

Dude, 

       If we're going to talk about the truth, let's talk about the whole truth WRT to enlisted Air Corps pilots. The enlisted pilot thing worked great before, primarily because of economics. The Great Depression made enlisted pilot positions viable during the interwar period. We have the exact opposite economic problem right now. I don't have the stats, but a disproportionate amount (perhaps all) of the interwar enlisted Air Corps aviators were prior O's whose active-duty time as reservists was up. The Army, in its infinite wisdom, didn't let the Air Corps officers get to any more than 12% of the overall Army officer corps through 1939. Bottom line, most of those who attended flying training in the 30s were either flying cadets, with a much smaller number regular officers, and an even smaller number enlisted. The flying cadets and sergeants who graduated would earn reserve commissions, but would only be able to remain on active duty for a year or two. This was so room could be made for yet more reserve officers who were graduating from flying training and entering AD. After the one or two year AD stint, they had the option of becoming traditional reservists or reverting to enlisted rank. 

       The other two members of Chennault's "Three Men on a Flying Trapeze" demo team were enlisted pilots . . . who were reserve Lt's who were trying to compete for a very limited number of regular commissions. They reverted to their Lt rank on days when they flew demo's. Another example--Maurice M. Beach--who ultimately became a Brig Gen. He went through flying training as a Sergeant, pinned on Reserve Lt. rank and served as an AD Lt for two years, then reverted to his prior enlisted rank & kept flying. Shortly before the war, he got an AD commission again, and ultimately went on to command the 53rd Troop Carrier Wing, which towed the gliders across the Channel on D-Day. 

       Bottom line, the enlisted pilot idea worked great, primarily because the American economy sucked so badly in the 30s that serving as an enlisted pilot--with the possibility of earning a regular commission--was far better than the prospects in the civilian sector. That ain't the case today. My perception is that pilots are leaving in significant numbers now in large part due to the greater economic opportunities available to them in the civil sector. If such is the case, it would be galactically stupid to spend the time and money training enlisted pilots, with the hope of retaining them with even worse pay and benefits in the current economy. 

       Enlisted RPA operators might work, if there is no market for RPA pilots in the civil sector. Given that, from this forum (I'm certainly no expert on the RPA field), there are plenty of good opportunities for RPA pilots in the civilian world, the enlisted Global Hawk idea is unlikely to be successful. While I'm happy that the Air Force is trying to think outside the container, and perhaps it's at least worth setting up a test program to see if it's viable, I have difficulty seeing this work in the long term. 

TT

[Lawman]

That isn't exactly true.

There had always been Enlisted pilots as part of the Army Signal and follow on Army Air Corps, and indeed were always enlisted pilots in the opening days of the Air Force. It was only as a separate service that the USAF reinvented what it was to be a pilot and killed those communities along with the idea of Warrant/Limited Duty Officers.

Culturally look at some of the whole "only ____ can be responsible enough to do _____" that the Air Force has gone through. There was a time where the only people that could fly an armed drone had to be tactical jet guys because the idea of a Transport or Tanker pilot suddenly shooting missiles was such a forbidden thought. That stands in stark contrast to all three of the other combat services where we have our trigger pullers being mostly enlisted. I'm not just talking about rifleman either, Artillery and Tanks units are lead by officers but plenty of E6/7s command tanks, gun crews, sections/platoons of such. The idea that only officers can and should be the tip of the operational spear is completely your own doing. Look at the Gunship community, nothing is lost on the pilot from his later senior leadership because he had dudes in the back pulling triggers and operating sensors that don't wear stripes instead of bars. It's a mix of Es and Os in the fight to achieve the same thing, effective employment of air power to influence the joint fight.

If the idea is officers need to be there for the accountability and responsibility required then way not extend the same requirement for JTAC/CCT who employ far more ability to influence the battlefield or political picture through the misuse of air power. Those guys arguably have even more responsibility put on them than the TacAir community let alone drones since they are running the CAS fight.

Dude, 

       If we're going to talk about the truth, let's talk about the whole truth WRT to enlisted Air Corps pilots. The enlisted pilot thing worked great before, primarily because of economics. The Great Depression made enlisted pilot positions viable during the interwar period. We have the exact opposite economic problem right now. I don't have the stats, but a disproportionate amount (perhaps all) of the interwar enlisted Air Corps aviators were prior O's whose active-duty time as reservists was up. The Army, in its infinite wisdom, didn't let the Air Corps officers get to any more than 12% of the overall Army officer corps through 1939. Bottom line, most of those who attended flying training in the 30s were either flying cadets, with a much smaller number regular officers, and an even smaller number enlisted. The flying cadets and sergeants who graduated would earn reserve commissions, but would only be able to remain on active duty for a year or two. This was so room could be made for yet more reserve officers who were graduating from flying training and entering AD. After the one or two year AD stint, they had the option of becoming traditional reservists or reverting to enlisted rank. 

       The other two members of Chennault's "Three Men on a Flying Trapeze" demo team were enlisted pilots . . . who were reserve Lt's who were trying to compete for a very limited number of regular commissions. They reverted to their Lt rank on days when they flew demo's. Another example--Maurice M. Beach--who ultimately became a Brig Gen. He went through flying training as a Sergeant, pinned on Reserve Lt. rank and served as an AD Lt for two years, then reverted to his prior enlisted rank & kept flying. Shortly before the war, he got an AD commission again, and ultimately went on to command the 53rd Troop Carrier Wing, which towed the gliders across the Channel on D-Day. 

       Bottom line, the enlisted pilot idea worked great, primarily because the American economy sucked so badly in the 30s that serving as an enlisted pilot--with the possibility of earning a regular commission--was far better than the prospects in the civilian sector. That ain't the case today. My perception is that pilots are leaving in significant numbers now in large part due to the greater economic opportunities available to them in the civil sector. If such is the case, it would be galactically stupid to spend the time and money training enlisted pilots, with the hope of retaining them with even worse pay and benefits in the current economy. 

       Enlisted RPA operators might work, if there is no market for RPA pilots in the civil sector. Given that, from this forum (I'm certainly no expert on the RPA field), there are plenty of good opportunities for RPA pilots in the civilian world, the enlisted Global Hawk idea is unlikely to be successful. While I'm happy that the Air Force is trying to think outside the container, and perhaps it's at least worth setting up a test program to see if it's viable, I have difficulty seeing this work in the long term. 

TT

You missed the point of my counter Lear's point. His point was without officer participation the senior leadership levels of the Air Force will suffer as will the decision process at those echelons.

If this was as simple as "they don't pay me enough" then throwing 125 grand at it like the AF has should fix the problem right? I mean it worked in all those other shortages of pilots you guys are having? Maybe just maybe since even in an uptick of airline hiring and expanding drone opportunities the Army/Navy/Marines aren't having the man power issues you are having while at the same time spending less (or in the case of the Army No) money on incentivizing staying in is a sign you guys have the problem.

Nobody is in here arguing replace all the line pilots with enlisted drone operators. What I and others have been arguing is if you don't think it'll work just because you never did it you are being intentional blind to this exact model succeeding elsewhere. Enlisted/WO communities that don't have to go do the all the crap box check "career broadening" opportunities are more apt to stay than you give them credit for. They also don't have the same opportunities in the outside a commissioned pilot would have since as a population they don't have the corresponding civilian education. And in a world where you are now effectively losing that 20 year golden ticket for guys finishing a 12 year ADSO to limp towards finding new options is going to be paramount.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

Dude, 

[...]

       Bottom line, the enlisted pilot idea worked great, primarily because the American economy sucked so badly in the 30s that serving as an enlisted pilot--with the possibility of earning a regular commission--was far better than the prospects in the civilian sector. That ain't the case today. My perception is that pilots are leaving in significant numbers now in large part due to the greater economic opportunities available to them in the civil sector. If such is the case, it would be galactically stupid to spend the time and money training enlisted pilots, with the hope of retaining them with even worse pay and benefits in the current economy. 

       Enlisted RPA operators might work, if there is no market for RPA pilots in the civil sector. Given that, from this forum (I'm certainly no expert on the RPA field), there are plenty of good opportunities for RPA pilots in the civilian world, the enlisted Global Hawk idea is unlikely to be successful. While I'm happy that the Air Force is trying to think outside the container, and perhaps it's at least worth setting up a test program to see if it's viable, I have difficulty seeing this work in the long term. 

TT

^^^This x 1000.

IMO, enlisted drone operators will only serve to worsen the USAF's manpower problems especially considering the limited throughput of the training pipeline. What in the world is going to keep an E-5 in who's doing the same job as an O-4, but who is paid 1/3 of the salary? Said person, who could command the same salary as the O-4 on the outside from "name-your-contract-drone-operator"? What, are we going to make QOL so much better for the Enlisted drone corps that they wouldn't dream of getting out? Fat chance, $hit still rolls downhill.

The basic problem that is causing our manpower issues hasn't been solved. Just simply throwing different meat into the grinder isn't going to be this magical panacea the AF is hoping for. I'm sure, though, that volunteers will be clamor to the entry gates, and this volume will serve to reinforce the narrative that "wow, that was a great idea!", until the 1st ADSCs start to expire...

[waveshaper]

8 hours ago, M2 said:

Air Force manpower management has always been a clusterfuck, it just gets worse sometimes more than others.  I am not against a WO program, I just know the USAF won't adopt it because of my first sentence. 

Things haven't changed much since the late 50's. Where would the Air Force get the positions from if they ever go back to the WO program?

Historical USAF WO document (long); The In-Betweeners.

https://warrantofficerhistory.org/PDF/AFA_1191tween.pdf

Excerpt; In 1958, Congress created two new enlisted grades, E-8 and E-9. The rationale was that enlisted
members were reaching the top NCO grades midway in their careers and had no place to go from
there. The services did not want to use officer authorizations to make more warrant appointments,
so the solution seemed to be to add another tier to the enlisted ranks.
In 1959, the year that the Air Force promoted its first master sergeants to E-9, it also announced
plans to phase out its warrant officer program. At the time, officials insisted there was no
connection between the two moves, but the correlation is hard to ignore. The Air Force admitted
that it had decided that warrant officers constituted an unnecessary layer of supervision between
the commissioned and noncommissioned ranks. Some years later, officials concluded that the
new senior noncoms were "capable of doing the same jobs as warrant officers."
Unlike warrant officers, the new NCOs were charged against enlisted strengths, and the services
could afford more of them. The law allowed only three percent of all enlisted members to be in
grades E-8 and E-9, but that was more than four times the number of warrant officers the Air
Force had at the time.
Pentagon Foolishness;
The advent of the supergrade NCO was not without its problems. In its first burst of enthusiasm,
the Pentagon foolishly passed most of the new slots to major commands to fill as they saw fit.
Many went to deserving master sergeants regardless of their specialties or positions. Commands
again were using the appointments to reward individuals rather than to fill valid requirements. It
took USAF several years to regain control over the supergrade program, define the superintendent
slots, and begin to fill them by centralized promotions.
Meanwhile, the Air Force had to make use of those several thousand warrant officers who were
left in the system. Most were assigned to commissioned officer positions. The service encouraged
early retirement and, in some cases, forced attrition.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by waveshaper

[pintail21]

20 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

If you are already generating the next generation of Eakers and Lemays with the 60-70% burned out manning you have now it's not like expanding your roles to enlisted/WOs to get to 90% manning won't still achieve that goal.

The WO/Enlisted pilots aren't gonna suddenly steal command/staff slots and vital flight time. They are gonna give you the man power to:

1. Take the constant burn out down and give your O-drone community some breathing room.

2. Allow the AF more opportunity to breed leaders and not managers because not as many burned out guys with potential are going "F this place" and walking.

3. Get guys the PME/Schools/back to a jet/TDYs they need to progress because they can leave the line without the mission suffering.

If anything this would help big blue, not hurt it.

Here's an idea, instead of building an entirely new rank structure and providing less training and less pay for the same responsibility in the jet, why don't we bring in more airmen and GS-4's to do the office work that is driving said pilots away and removing their focus on flying, and stick with a system that's been working fine for the last 60 years? 

Pilots will *gasp* get to focus on flying and being better, smarter pilots.

Congressmen get more jobs in their district.

Big blue gets squadrons with tons of experience and less turnover, giving them better combat capability and allowing us to focus on getting better products out of UPT and trimming it down, eliminating possibly 1-2 UPT bases and returning all those white jet slots to the MAJCOMs to give us even better manning.

Edited December 30, 2015 by pintail21

[Fuzz]

"What, are we going to make QOL so much better for the Enlisted drone corps that they wouldn't dream of getting out? Fat chance, $hit still rolls downhill."

You think being the new LT in the squadron getting stuck with SNACKO duties and Friday night training lines sucks? Imagine being the new A1C/SrA/SSgt operator in the squadron.

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Fuzz
Formatting

[Lawman]

 

If you are already generating the next generation of Eakers and Lemays with the 60-70% burned out manning you have now it's not like expanding your roles to enlisted/WOs to get to 90% manning won't still achieve that goal.

The WO/Enlisted pilots aren't gonna suddenly steal command/staff slots and vital flight time. They are gonna give you the man power to:

1. Take the constant burn out down and give your O-drone community some breathing room.

2. Allow the AF more opportunity to breed leaders and not managers because not as many burned out guys with potential are going "F this place" and walking.

3. Get guys the PME/Schools/back to a jet/TDYs they need to progress because they can leave the line without the mission suffering.

If anything this would help big blue, not hurt it.

Here's an idea, instead of building an entirely new rank structure and providing less training and less pay for the same responsibility in the jet, why don't we bring in more airmen and GS-4's to do the office work that is driving said pilots away and removing their focus on flying, and stick with a system that's been working fine for the last 60 years? 

Pilots will *gasp* get to focus on flying and being better, smarter pilots.

Congressmen get more jobs in their district.

Big blue gets squadrons with tons of experience and less turnover, giving them better combat capability and allowing us to focus on getting better products out of UPT and trimming it down, eliminating possibly 1-2 UPT bases and returning all those white jet slots to the MAJCOMs to give us even better manning.

Look it's all just COAs from the shit house on here, but if you want to waive how long it's worked as the flag of success the Army has been doing the same thing with a split warrant/RLO community in aviation for as long as you guys have done it the other way. It's not exactly a metric either of us should be using in this discussion.

I get what Fuzz and others are saying about how can you expect enlisted airmen to stay when captains/majors leave because QOL... But you guys seem to not understand they don't do what Captains and Majors do. There is a known way Warrants are used and a way RLOs are used and very little overlap besides sitting in an aircraft. The day you leave flight school as a warrant or a Lt you will not and do not show up to a unit with the same expectation. There are a host of duties an RLO will do that WOs will not touch and vice verse. But more important is the longevity in aviation and staying in the cockpit. For one the squadron/battalion is not the identity you use as a pilot it's the company/troop of 8 aircraft and 3-4 officers and 10-14warrants. We have pilots who have been troop pilots all but the last few years of a 20 year career. Some even manage to always stay there because they don't need to leave to make their 20 from prior E time. RLOs are lucky to stay in a troop for 5 of a 20 year career and one of those positions will be commanding it.

And all this screaming of "it doesn't F'ing work" without

1. acknowledging it does outside your service and

2. Admitting that whatever you are doing now is unsustainable

Is telling the guy with the row boat to "F off your boat sucks" while standing on the roof of a house in a flood. You are going to have to do something. And if this is really more painful than going to a 14 year ADSO or telling people even more often they are going to UAVs after spending the money to put them in a real plane is a better idea I think it just comes down to not wanting to do something because "that's the way it's always been." And that phrase is dangerous as hell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk