What is right with the Air Force

[SurelySerious]

Yes.

Some overzealous people have it in their heads that we can get more dollars and serve more “customers” to consolidate a basic entry rotary program under one roof at Novosel. Then the idea would be to push people to follow on advanced airframes and mission sets and back to their respective services. This would coincide with divestment of the Lakota as our entry trainer to a new trainer or possibly 2 platform solution. I’m firmly in the 2x platform camp on teaching the basics of rotary wing flight in something like the R66 then moving to a more capable aircraft to replicate tactical and national airspace flight training as an intermediate lead in. That way when we put you in a chinook or a 64 we aren’t having to spend much more expensive blade hours teaching the fundamentals of formation flight.

When it was brought up that what we qualify as complete in comparison to our friends at Whiting as well as the entry training fixed wing programs that preceded other services rotary phases you got this confused look from people that they wouldn’t just adopt our shitty model. We also do absolutely 0 mission planning in our advanced airframe training syllabus but we tell units when they get this new winged pilot that they are “mission ready.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounded way too much like the Air Force.

[pbar]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Yes.

Some overzealous people have it in their heads that we can get more dollars and serve more “customers” to consolidate a basic entry rotary program under one roof at Novosel. Then the idea would be to push people to follow on advanced airframes and mission sets and back to their respective services. This would coincide with divestment of the Lakota as our entry trainer to a new trainer or possibly 2 platform solution. I’m firmly in the 2x platform camp on teaching the basics of rotary wing flight in something like the R66 then moving to a more capable aircraft to replicate tactical and national airspace flight training as an intermediate lead in. That way when we put you in a chinook or a 64 we aren’t having to spend much more expensive blade hours teaching the fundamentals of formation flight.

When it was brought up that what we qualify as complete in comparison to our friends at Whiting as well as the entry training fixed wing programs that preceded other services rotary phases you got this confused look from people that they wouldn’t just adopt our shitty model. We also do absolutely 0 mission planning in our advanced airframe training syllabus but we tell units when they get this new winged pilot that they are “mission ready.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haven't they taken a look at how the AF does its RW training at Novosel?  Maybe have some recent AF RW grads do Army checkrides and vice versa to see what the gaps are?  

[SurelySerious]

Haven't they taken a look at how the AF does its RW training at Novosel?  Maybe have some recent AF RW grads do Army checkrides and vice versa to see what the gaps are?  

Actual validation? No, sir. We must cut training programs regardless of effectiveness.

[Lawman]

Haven't they taken a look at how the AF does its RW training at Novosel?  Maybe have some recent AF RW grads do Army checkrides and vice versa to see what the gaps are?  

They (the delusional that think what Novosel does is a well oiled machine) aren’t interested in hearing what the other services do. If they were I wouldn’t be asking for this information informally through a social media forum to then take as talking points to the Senior leaders forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

@hindsight2020 @Lawman

Might need to be it’s own thread but in all the discourse on military pilot training and the changes / thrashing I have to ask watching from the retired bleachers, this has been going on for a while does the leadership of either / both the USAF / USA know what / why they are trying to do anymore with respect to pilot training?  
Seems like these efforts have spanned different tenures of leadership and each put their own spin on it and it gets more buzzwordy and less common sense with little to nothing getting done except for spending money on short lived programs 

- Is it to increase production?  Permanently or to develop a surge capacity?

- Is it to increase quality of graduates or decrease attrition in training?

- Is it to teach concepts earlier to save money from training in operational aircraft?

- Is it to save money by consolidating more training to one fleet and divest infrastructure?

- Is it to reduce the military position requirements to ease the active duty manning bill?

 

Looking at these efforts they seem like a lotta thrust with no vector

[viper154]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

@hindsight2020 @Lawman

Might need to be it’s own thread but in all the discourse on military pilot training and the changes / thrashing I have to ask watching from the retired bleachers, this has been going on for a while does the leadership of either / both the USAF / USA know what / why they are trying to do anymore with respect to pilot training?  
Seems like these efforts have spanned different tenures of leadership and each put their own spin on it and it gets more buzzwordy and less common sense with little to nothing getting done except for spending money on short lived programs 

- Is it to increase production?  Permanently or to develop a surge capacity?

- Is it to increase quality of graduates or decrease attrition in training?

- Is it to teach concepts earlier to save money from training in operational aircraft?

- Is it to save money by consolidating more training to one fleet and divest infrastructure?

- Is it to reduce the military position requirements to ease the active duty manning bill?

 

Looking at these efforts they seem like a lotta thrust with no vector

Because it is all thrust and no vector. The shit show gets handed to the next staff weenie every 2 years, grasping at straws to survive their assignment.  The AFPC O-6 that I got briefed by seemed concerned with one thing. They don’t have enough FGOs to choose from for for SQ/CC and staff. The main objective isn’t the best training or creating a foundation for the most lethal pilots, it’s getting the numbers they want to have a pool big enough where they can choose their people, not just take who is left. 

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

@hindsight2020 @Lawman

Might need to be it’s own thread but in all the discourse on military pilot training and the changes / thrashing I have to ask watching from the retired bleachers, this has been going on for a while does the leadership of either / both the USAF / USA know what / why they are trying to do anymore with respect to pilot training?  
Seems like these efforts have spanned different tenures of leadership and each put their own spin on it and it gets more buzzwordy and less common sense with little to nothing getting done except for spending money on short lived programs 

- Is it to increase production?  Permanently or to develop a surge capacity?

- Is it to increase quality of graduates or decrease attrition in training?

- Is it to teach concepts earlier to save money from training in operational aircraft?

- Is it to save money by consolidating more training to one fleet and divest infrastructure?

- Is it to reduce the military position requirements to ease the active duty manning bill?

 

Looking at these efforts they seem like a lotta thrust with no vector

You're not new, you know this song and dance already. They have a retention self-created "problem" due to crap QOL post-UFT ADSC and people becoming older heads of household. By proxy  that becomes a production problem, because they decided to fill the gaps with new accessions instead of addressing the original self-created problem, full stop.

The real problem for them is that they also don't have the political capital to make undergraduate pilot training (an enterprise already scoffed at as scutwork by many within the combat coded echelons, ACC/11Fs in particular) a capitalization priority, but the Pharaoh demands more brick.

Boeing being a malicious MIC grifter doesn't help matters on that effort. This thing should have been COTS solved 5 years ago (and it would have, both COTS solutions were plug and play and operational for DECADES).

At any rate, in the absence of political capital, all you can do is kabuki dance. So in comes the sophistry: "CRAFT""VR""UPT NEXT""Innovate!". Then the secondary effort to strawman objective critics of the obvious, as anachronistic malcontents that are getting in the way of progress (that's yours truly and company btw).

That's how you get the current status quo. An enterprise dead set in fixing a retention problem they created, by digging themselves into a production problem they can't control, via diluting the quality control of the product and insist you don't dare say publicly they are. Then wash their hands when the core competency and loss rate of the grey jets become too public for the senior management in the DC swamp to stomach. Since this COA exceeds the median VML cycle, it's plausibly deniable. 

None of this is conjecture, it's my lived experience since oh say, fiscal '18? Through all the jokes, the meme witchhunts on instagram, the non-judicial punishments, and all the banter on here about the leadership changes you highlight, they have been the most emphatic about never tolerating the utterance that these SGTO evolutions are a dilution of quality. Most RegAF just doesn't have that corporate memory because they PCS too frequently. But Pepperdige Farms (AFRC) remembers. 

The all-contractor wet dream they've always had is also DOA, because Congress won't let them touch the pork earmarked for the aforementioned localities.

So we're stuck in this morass, and more young guys will end up dead for it, before somebody finally tells HAF to KIO and addresses the capitalization of this enterprise with the gravitas it deserves.

Edited December 28, 2024 by hindsight2020

[12xu2a3x3]

14 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

You're not new, you know this song and dance already. They have a retention self-created "problem" due to crap QOL post-UFT ADSC and people becoming older heads of household. By proxy  that becomes a production problem, because they decided to fill the gaps with new accessions instead of addressing the original self-created problem, full stop.

The real problem for them is that they also don't have the political capital to make undergraduate pilot training (an enterprise already scoffed at as scutwork by many within the combat coded echelons, ACC/11Fs in particular) a capitalization priority, but the Pharaoh demands more brick.

Boeing being a malicious MIC grifter doesn't help matters on that effort. This thing should have been COTS solved 5 years ago (and it would have, both COTS solutions were plug and play and operational for DECADES).

At any rate, in the absence of political capital, all you can do is kabuki dance. So in comes the sophistry: "CRAFT""VR""UPT NEXT""Innovate!". Then the secondary effort to strawman objective critics of the obvious, as anachronistic malcontents that are getting in the way of progress (that's yours truly and company btw).

That's how you get the current status quo. An enterprise dead set in fixing a retention problem they created, by digging themselves into a production problem they can't control, via diluting the quality control of the product and insist you don't dare say publicly they are. Then wash their hands when the core competency and loss rate of the grey jets become too public for the senior management in the DC swamp to stomach. Since this COA exceeds the median VML cycle, it's plausibly deniable. 

None of this is conjecture, it's my lived experience since oh say, fiscal '18? Through all the jokes, the meme witchhunts on instagram, the non-judicial punishments, and all the banter on here about the leadership changes you highlight, they have been the most emphatic about never tolerating the utterance that these SGTO evolutions are a dilution of quality. Most RegAF just doesn't have that corporate memory because they PCS too frequently. But Pepperdige Farms (AFRC) remembers. 

The all-contractor wet dream they've always had is also DOA, because Congress won't let them touch the pork earmarked for the aforementioned localities.

So we're stuck in this morass, and more young guys will end up dead for it, before somebody finally tells HAF to KIO and addresses the capitalization of this enterprise with the gravitas it deserves.

tell em king

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

The real problem for them is that they also don't have the political capital to make undergraduate pilot training (an enterprise already scoffed at as scutwork by many within the combat coded echelons, ACC/11Fs in particular) a capitalization priority, but the Pharaoh demands more brick.

UPT and PIT as a whole are complicit in 'fixing' the AF's retention problem with new accessions. The result of this complicity is realized in what we all know is UPT/PIT studs making it through that shouldn't. B-Courses and Ops squadrons see this as a failure of IPs to hold the line, which at best leads to a reduction in lethality, and at worst an increase in mishaps. I'm not saying IPs at UPT/PIT are solely responsible, but the enterprise as a whole owns part of the problem and it's 2nd/3rd order effects.

PIT pushes some ppl through that are unsafe. They pass ppl that are staying at PIT and then spend months getting them through MQT before they're safe enough to fly with PIT students. This bends the squadron over even more, but their other option is to wash out/FEB a pilot that didnt have an issue in their previous airframe.

This isn't 100% of studs, but there is enough of it at PIT/UPT that the increased scoffing from the CAF is, to some extent, earned.

I'm not saying all UPT/PIT DOs/CCs for the last x years should be burned at the stake. The decline has been insidious and the external pressures play a huge factor. On the -38 side IPs know there's a better chance they'll get a 5th gen follow-on than a stud getting washed out. If they hook him, the timeline is going to suffer, if the timeline gets any worse they're going to have to go back to flying local weekend sorties in 100 deg heat, and none of it matters because the stud in question is gonna drop a KC-135 anyways.

The stud is gonna drop KC-135s because B-Courses can't keep up with the increased production, to include the extra sorties required for the lower quality product from UPT/IFF. Yeah that's right, IFF owns this too. 

The IPs showing up at UPT/IFF now were a product of the lowered standards caused by increased production pressure. They saw their bros/possibly themselves skate by and think that's how the sausage is supposed to be made.

If anyone figures out a way to get the entire AETC enterprise to grade IAW the CTS, and find some bobs that will back their IPs up, maybe the icecream cone gets cleaned.

TL;Dr version:

 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

You're not new, you know this song and dance already. They have a retention self-created "problem" due to crap QOL post-UFT ADSC and people becoming older heads of household. By proxy  that becomes a production problem, because they decided to fill the gaps with new accessions instead of addressing the original self-created problem, full stop.

The real problem for them is that they also don't have the political capital to make undergraduate pilot training (an enterprise already scoffed at as scutwork by many within the combat coded echelons, ACC/11Fs in particular) a capitalization priority, but the Pharaoh demands more brick.

Boeing being a malicious MIC grifter doesn't help matters on that effort. This thing should have been COTS solved 5 years ago (and it would have, both COTS solutions were plug and play and operational for DECADES).

At any rate, in the absence of political capital, all you can do is kabuki dance. So in comes the sophistry: "CRAFT""VR""UPT NEXT""Innovate!". Then the secondary effort to strawman objective critics of the obvious, as anachronistic malcontents that are getting in the way of progress (that's yours truly and company btw).

That's how you get the current status quo. An enterprise dead set in fixing a retention problem they created, by digging themselves into a production problem they can't control, via diluting the quality control of the product and insist you don't dare say publicly they are. Then wash their hands when the core competency and loss rate of the grey jets become too public for the senior management in the DC swamp to stomach. Since this COA exceeds the median VML cycle, it's plausibly deniable. 

None of this is conjecture, it's my lived experience since oh say, fiscal '18? Through all the jokes, the meme witchhunts on instagram, the non-judicial punishments, and all the banter on here about the leadership changes you highlight, they have been the most emphatic about never tolerating the utterance that these SGTO evolutions are a dilution of quality. Most RegAF just doesn't have that corporate memory because they PCS too frequently. But Pepperdige Farms (AFRC) remembers. 

The all-contractor wet dream they've always had is also DOA, because Congress won't let them touch the pork earmarked for the aforementioned localities.

So we're stuck in this morass, and more young guys will end up dead for it, before somebody finally tells HAF to KIO and addresses the capitalization of this enterprise with the gravitas it deserves.

Wise words and the Ted Lasso side of me wants to say yes all true but here’s how we fix it… and I’m at an impasse for a solution…

I could post COA 6.9 or something other but unless there’s a CODEL or GO lurking here with a desire to do the right thing and charge forward with a plan to change there’s no point 

Still there are members of Congress who are veterans

https://veterans.house.gov/resources-for-veterans/veterans-in-congress.htm

Unless there’s a GO willing to buck the group think, these would be the people to approach 

As to the hubris of the institution I would say use an aikido like move and not confronting them but deflect and allow them to just move on from their obvious mistakes.  

Something like revaluation of the future needs of the USAF in its pilot training program has lead to AETC to require these changes and these resource changes to achieve them.  No admittance of previous fault just a moving on from previous policies.

 

[raimius]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

@hindsight2020 @Lawman

Might need to be it’s own thread but in all the discourse on military pilot training and the changes / thrashing I have to ask watching from the retired bleachers, this has been going on for a while does the leadership of either / both the USAF / USA know what / why they are trying to do anymore with respect to pilot training?  
Seems like these efforts have spanned different tenures of leadership and each put their own spin on it and it gets more buzzwordy and less common sense with little to nothing getting done except for spending money on short lived programs 

- Is it to increase production?  Permanently or to develop a surge capacity? More production, due to retention problems.

- Is it to increase quality of graduates or decrease attrition in training? The latter

- Is it to teach concepts earlier to save money from training in operational aircraft? Not sure,but failing at reducing MWS training requirements 

- Is it to save money by consolidating more training to one fleet and divest infrastructure? Yes, trying to save money by fleet divestment (T-1 now, T-38 later)

- Is it to reduce the military position requirements to ease the active duty manning bill? Not sure, but functionals have to factor high 7-day opt rates.

 

Looking at these efforts they seem like a lotta thrust with no vector

My comments in bold.

Edited December 29, 2024 by raimius

[MCO]

12 hours ago, viper154 said:

Because it is all thrust and no vector. The shit show gets handed to the next staff weenie every 2 years, grasping at straws to survive their assignment.  The AFPC O-6 that I got briefed by seemed concerned with one thing. They don’t have enough FGOs to choose from for for SQ/CC and staff. The main objective isn’t the best training or creating a foundation for the most lethal pilots, it’s getting the numbers they want to have a pool big enough where they can choose their people, not just take who is left. 

Both are problems. Yes you need to focus on creating lethal pilots, but the FGOs are the ones setting the rules and working to make the space to create those pilots. Shitty QOL, development, and leadership leads to people getting out. Everyone left becomes the shitty leadership because there is no one left to choose from for a quality cut. These shitty leaders/pilots make decisions destroying QOL and good pilot development driving out the younger pilots and continuing the cycle.

[brabus]

14 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

the increased scoffing from the CAF is, to some extent, earned.

It’s fully earned. But also the CAF is not innocent in their own actions. The B-course is AETC, but it’s still fully staffed and ran by fighter pilots - so I consider that the CAF for purposes of this discussion. They pass guys that have no business passing, just like down stream. Then you get to CAF bases where leadership stops letting some guys fly upgrades with patches because the patches won’t pass them, so the fix is not take the guy out of the upgrade, but rather to fly him with inexperienced IPs who will pass him…”we’re all good on FLs sir, just got 6 of them through before the deployment!”

Root Cause: The AF is filled with pussies who prefer passing the buck over doing the right thing. Like most problems in our country today, it’s a cultural issue, and those are hard to fix once they’ve been allowed to spiral out of control.

Side note: On top of all this the AF’s asshatery is unforced error driving those patches mentioned above to disillusionment and the airlines. Good for them, they should go to the airlines. And the AF continues sustaining pipe hitter losses, and senior leadership DGAF. It’s sad.

Edited December 29, 2024 by brabus

[Boomer6]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

It’s fully earned. But also the CAF is not innocent in their own actions. The B-course is AETC, but it’s still fully staffed and ran by fighter pilots - so I consider that the CAF for purposes of this discussion. They pass guys that have no business passing, just like down stream. Then you get to CAF bases where leadership stops letting some guys fly upgrades with patches because the patches won’t pass them, so the fix is not take the guy out of the upgrade, but rather to fly him with inexperienced IPs who will pass him…”we’re all good on FLs sir, just got 6 of them through before the deployment!”

It'd be interesting to see stats on guard/reserve ran B-Courses v. AD. I'd like to think the former hooks/washes out/generally holds the line better over AD but who knows. Either way B-courses have definitely been kicking the can to ops units to some extent

To your scheduling point, why isn't the wpns officer throwing the upgrade IPs? Where I grew up the patch decided who flew with dudes on an upgrade. Are DOs/CCs now directing how the upgrade program is ran and getting into the weeds of scheduling?

Edited December 29, 2024 by Boomer6

[brabus]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

Are DOs/CCs now directing how the upgrade program is ran and getting into the weeds of scheduling?

In some places, yes. For example, when you have inexperienced IPs as IPOR (vs. a patch) for an IPUG, you’ve lost. 

[Boomer6]

Sounds like something I would expect from the bobs at Luke.

[brabus]

7 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Sounds like something I would expect from the bobs at Luke.

Not just Luke, and from talking with bros, its community agnostic. The timeline/“required numbers” can’t afford busts, so pass them, and if you won’t pass them (e.g. a patch), then we’ll find someone who will (e.g. the brand new IP who probably shouldn’t even be a FL).

Bottom line, the CAF should bitch about AETC, but they should also do some introspection and realize they are very much a part of the problem (not so much in the guard).

Edited December 29, 2024 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

17 minutes ago, brabus said:

Not just Luke, and from talking with bros, its community agnostic. The timeline/“required numbers” can’t afford busts, so pass them, and if you won’t pass them (e.g. a patch), then we’ll find someone who will (e.g. the brand new IP who probably shouldn’t even be a FL).

Bottom line, the CAF should bitch about AETC, but they should also do some introspection and realize they are very much a part of the problem (not so much in the guard).

Do you think it is lack training or quality in training before they get to the big leagues or is it lack of innate ability?  

[brabus]

17 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Do you think it is lack training or quality in training before they get to the big leagues or is it lack of innate ability?  

Lack of quality training/holding students to a specified criteria, which sets them up for failure. I don’t think the younger generation is less capable to learn than previous ones or has a different mix of people on the spectrum of can’t fly worth shit to God’s gift to an aviation. The difference is the younger generations aren’t provided the learning/training experiences they need compared to previous generations, combined with not being held to standards. This enables them to go do things/gain quals that their older counterparts never would have been allowed to do/have at the same career point. 

[Clark Griswold]

Lack of quality training/holding students to a specified criteria, which sets them up for failure. I don’t think the younger generation is less capable to learn than previous ones or has a different mix of people on the spectrum of can’t fly worth shit to God’s gift to an aviation. The difference is the younger generations aren’t provided the learning/training experiences they need compared to previous generations, combined with not being held to standards. This enables them to go do things/gain quals that their older counterparts never would have been allowed to do/have at the same career point. 

Gotcha
Hmmm I’ll resist my default response(s) and say we need this new plane or that one but do you think it would be worth the money, time, effort and resources to add more flying time in either at UPT or at a post UPT program?
Would flight time IYO address some of the deficiencies you mentioned?
Truly not a leading questions but asked honestly.
If yes, then I think that could be a way for someone / a group of like minded aviators to approach the Bobs or a CODEL with a plan to address it.
Not sure which thread but I day dreamed in one about a post UPT program using Scorpion, this ain’t a subtle or overt way to reintroduce that or something else.
If the Bobs, Congressman X or whoever with sway bought off on it, they would have a process to figure out what right was: more time in the planes / programs we have in place now or something new, before FTU in whatever MWS newly minted pilots are going to. That process would be fraught with risk as it would make juicy target for shoe clerks who hate flying and pilots to attack and bog down but the machine has to run a certain way.
We’re talking about the fighter community but I would guess the mobility community at the FTU IP level would probably be okay with a top off program of sorts too.
This would be a hard trick to pull off, convince people we need more money and authorization to fly / train pilots more while ignoring that for years the AF has been saying officially there is no problem requiring more flying / training required.

Added thought:
I come to ask about more flight time versus elimination or career track diversion as the AF sees it needs more pilots, apparently is willing to accept more risk by opening the aperture to allow more studs to pass versus eliminating so if you have more studs with either fewer natural skills or less training (flight time) than historically was the case then would more flight / training (assuming it is quality time / training) address this?
Kinda an elevator speech to convince a decision maker that it’s justified but just wanted add to it to clarify this as not a post just for more / new metal

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

This enables them to go do things/gain quals that their older counterparts never would have been allowed to do/have at the same career point. 

As a ridiculous example of this I witnessed a 1LT (product of an AETC UPT experiment) do MCUG at an exercise...it went about like you'd expect. No hate for the dude, seemed like a good bro/pilot, but FFS.

[brabus]

@Clark Griswold Yes more flight time would help, but the major problem is cultural: lowering standards (both official and unofficial) to unacceptable levels in the name of meeting subjective goals on a spreadsheet (X amount of pilots, Y amount of insert-qual, etc.)

Phase 1 fix is establish reasonable standards and hold everyone to them. If that means 80% of a UPT class washes out, then so be it. If that means 50% of the B course class washes out, so be it. If that means chuckle nuts just can’t seem to pass FLUG after 3 years in the CAF, then thanks for your service, good luck in your future, non-fighter flying endeavors. You’re on your second or third willfully unsafe flight incident (not mistake, but you meant to do it), then it’s not sit for a week or two punishment, it’s you’re done flying, enjoy the rest of your ADSC in the non-flying world.

Phase 2 is based on the attrition seen after a year or two of phase 1 implementation, then determine what must change in training and CT requirements to reduce the attrition. That could be a lot of things, not just flying hours.

Also I know I’m rapidly approaching old man yelling at cloud status. There are many phenomenal young dudes out there crushing it. But there are way more guys out there today (vs. yesterday) who should not be where they are due to relaxed standards and their IPs/leaders not having the fortitude and/or judgement to call a spade a spade.

Edited December 30, 2024 by brabus

[Smokin]

Flight time is also critical.  When I was an Lt in the fighter squadron, we laughed when we were briefed that the North Korean pilots were flying 80-100 hours a year.  "How can they do anything besides takeoff and land?"  Fast forward 17 years and I found myself averaging 80-100 hours a year my last couple years in the AF and it wasn't because I was avoiding flying.  There just were not enough sorties to give experienced guys much more than the vastly reduced RAP numbers.  Extra flights above RAP were prioritized (properly) to the young guys.

In the second half of my career I saw guys that were actively spinning up for WIC make airmanship mistakes/poor decisions that I'm sure wouldn't have been made by a similar aged dude 15 years earlier.  The 2007 average flight lead probably had more sorties than the 2022 line IP.  You can't replace time in the air.

[Clark Griswold]

@brabus I hear your point on standards and there shouldn’t be a drop in the standards themselves but in my oft referenced point on more flying time, if “they” are going to pass more to the LAF including some that maybe should not be I would argue that more time in the seat(s) BEFORE they get to the FTU could address deficits 

The Line needs more pilots as the AF somewhat of its own making and somewhat of what Congress will let and not let it do and outside events has foisted on it.  The pilot bill must be paid by what is available, if what is available needs more / better training to meet the required standards then so be it.  The why can be debated / investigated but the what needs to be done.

I know you are not against more flying / training before FTU but I’m trying to figure out if the AF can have its cake and eat it too, if it was willing to treat the pilot / aircrew training enterprise with the seriousness it should, stealing @hindsight2020 ‘s words / point from earlier.

I think a legit point could be made to the decision makers this is a strategic use of resources as you’re building a foundation of strong, trained, vetted aviators and officers thru a more rigorous approach to build their foundational operational skills and career genesis.

[brabus]

Absolutely need more flying hours, as most of the young guy issues are lacking airmanship and decision making skills (specifically decision making while handling an aircraft in a real, dynamic environment…e.g. cannot be replicated in a sim). From a tactical proficiency perspective, we need sims to take a 6-9 year leap yesterday. 5G perspective: In a perfect world we’d train to missionized stuff primarily in the sim environment and do primarily part-task training in live fly. 
 

Bottom line: more flying needed, but also need meaningful sim training environments that are accessible daily at the wing level.