USAF Woes

[Humphrey Bogart]

Reported a while back. ROE's: Obama would not strike the semi oil tankers trucks until Nov 15 which were used to transport black-market oil as the drivers were civilians.Thus ISIS had a revenue source.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?_r=0

U.S. Warplanes Strike ISIS Oil Trucks in Syria

Trinity of Gravity - Leadership, Population, Funding.  All three must be targeted in a campaign against an Anti-Government Force (AGF) or the AGF won't be defeated.

Leadership - Kill them;
Population - Isolate them from the AGF; and
Funding - Aggressively target it as it's linked to the other two pieces.

Our failings in Afghanistan have a lot to do with the fact that we didn't target the financial muscle of the AGF; thus, our efforts in the other two areas were in vain.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Woes on bomber front:

Maintenance needs limit availability of B-1 bomber fleet

The Air Force’s most maintenance-intensive aircraft isn’t its oldest, or even its stealthiest. It’s the B-1 Lancer, and the bomber needs about 150 hours of maintenance after each flight.

“The B-1 is the most manpower-intensive aircraft in the inventory by far,” said Col. Michael Lawrence, chief of the Air Force’s maintenance division. “That’s three to four times more than any other platform in the Air Force.”

The nation’s remaining 62 B-1 bombers are about 30 years old. They’ve seen constant combat for the last 15 years, and the pace of operations has taken a toll. Of those 62 aircraft, only about 25 are ready to fly on any given day, Lawrence said.

“Our No. 1 challenge is our inability to generate the number of sorties our aircrews need to make them proficient,” Lawrence said. “The Air Force is spending a great amount of time and resources to try and help with that problem.”..
http://www.stripes.com/news/maintenance-needs-limit-availability-of-b-1-bomber-fleet-1.456096#.WLRz338xnwr

More broadly:

Air Force Chief: Lack of Defense Budget More Dangerous Than Any Enemy

The chief of staff of the Air Force on Thursday [Feb. 23] warned decision-makers that failing to pass a defense budget will damage his service like no foreign enemy can.

“There is talk right now of going to a year-long continuing resolution,” Gen. David L. Goldfein told an audience at a Feb. 23 Center for Strategic and International Studies event.

“There is no enemy on the planet that can do more damage to the United States Air Force than us not getting a budget,” he said, adding the service has “serious challenges.”

Of the many responsibilities the Air Force maintains, guaranteeing air superiority is at the top of the list, Goldfein said.

“I don’t ever want a Marine or a soldier or a sailor or airman who hears jet noise — I don’t ever want them looking up,” he said. “I want them looking directly into the eyes of their enemy because I want them to know in their heart that that is me. I don’t ever want them thinking that is somebody else.

“If we don’t invest in those capabilities, I’m going to have them looking up, and that spells failure,” he said.

The Air Force is also responsible for two-thirds of the “nuclear enterprise, the bomber leg of the triad and the missile leg of the triad,” Goldfein said.

Currently, there is an executive order to review the country’s nuclear posture and ballistic missile defense to determine, “Do we want to walk away from the attributes that were built into the triad?” he said.

Missiles are the most responsive part of the triad, giving the commander-in-chief the quickest capability, Goldfein said. “The bomber leg is the most flexible; it’s the one you can call back. It’s the one that you can deploy forward.”

The U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine force is the most survivable, he said. “Do those three attributes still make sense? If so, modernization of all three legs is still required.”

If a continuing budget resolution is put into place, readiness will suffer, Goldfein warned.

“I’m not going to be able to hire the people I need to get those aircraft airborne or have the pilots I need to actually fly those missions,” he said. “I’m not going to be able to get aircraft in a depot; the lines are going to stop. The civilian hiring freeze will continue for the remainder of the year.

“I’m not going to have the flying hours to get those planes airborne, I’m not going to be able to invest in the training and I’m not going to have any relief on the time,” he said.

At Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, “You are going to find one squadron that’s down range, one squadron that just got back and one squadron that is getting ready. That’s the story of where we are right now,” Goldfein said.
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/24/air-force-chief-lack-defense-budget-dangerous-enemy/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of major piece on USAF fighter woes, force mix:

Maladjusted, Part II: How the U.S. Air Force Went from Eagle to Chicken

In 1964, the Air Force officially entered the war in Vietnam. And they did so with the wrong mix of tactical airpower. The fighter force of the time bore little resemblance to an actual fighter force. It consisted largely of leftover Korean-era relics, interceptors designed to fight Soviet bombers, and “fighters” designed for a nuclear strike role.  Blinded by the perceived need to engage in a massive nuclear exchange with the Soviets, the Air Force leadership of the time had built a combat aviation enterprise that was largely unsuited for anything short of nuclear war. Vietnam quickly proved this. The Air Force adapted, and did so at an impressive pace. Within five years, it added new fighters as well as attack and observation aircraft for service in Vietnam – all with new capabilities.  This explosive growth increased the inventory by over 1200 aircraft, more than offsetting the 1000 tactical aircraft lost in that same time period.  This was the eagle at its best, making a sharp turn to adjust to the reality of Vietnam, and incidentally laying the groundwork for the aircraft that would face the Soviets in the Cold War.

Half a century later, the Air Force encountered the same conundrum. Its high-end fighter force was designed for a climactic battle with the Soviets over Europe. By 2001, when the Air Force deployed aircraft to fight in Afghanistan, it was ending purchases of the F-15E and F-16, had no observation aircraft in the inventory, and wouldn’t produce another multi-role fighter for more than a decade. Its last attack aircraft purchase had ended in 1984. By 2001, the Air Force had been at war continuously for ten years, having sustained multi-theater, continuous combat operations since January 16, 1991.  The Air Force was ripe for recapitalization, replacement, and reconstruction. But that didn’t happen.

Instead of adding aircraft, it continued its drawdown.  Instead of investing in attack and observation aircraft, it attempted to retire the one attack aircraft it did have.  The end result has been a fighter/attack fleet that is smaller, older, and less ready than at any time in the Air Force’s history.  The eagle had become a chicken, and it was entirely self-inflicted. But there are hints that the eagle is coming back...

Figure 5:  Air Force Fighter / Attack total aircraft inventory 2000-2015.

Col. Mike “Starbaby” Pietrucha was an instructor electronic warfare officer in the F-4G Wild Weasel and the F-15E Strike Eagle, amassing 156 combat missions over Iraq and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and taking part in 2.5 SAM kills over 10 combat deployments. As an irregular warfare operations officer, Colonel Pietrucha has two additional combat deployments in the company of US Army infantry, combat engineer, and military police units in Iraq and Afghanistan. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. government.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/03/maladjusted-part-ii-how-the-u-s-air-force-went-from-eagle-to-chicken/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Tanker front, sure hope ISIS is beaten before need too many new ones!

ISIS And F-35 Drive Need For More U.S. Air Force Tankers

The U.S. Air Force’s tanker fleet is the backbone of the joint force. The hardworking KC-10s and KC-135s have flown almost half of the service’s flying missions in support of operations in Syria and Iraq, and 90% of all U.S. and allied tanker missions for the campaign. But despite decades of unrelenting operational tempo around the world, demand for tanker gas shows no sign of letting up.

As the fight to defeat Islamic State group terrorists, also known as ISIS, in the Middle East continues and the U.S. armed services bring on thirsty new aircraft such as the F-35 fighter, Air Mobility Command (AMC) Chief Gen. Carlton Everhart believes that the Air Force will require more new tankers than currently planned.

“As new fighters come on, as they have enhanced capabilities, what does that drive the tanker bill to be?” asks Everhart. “The way I’m seeing the evidence come out, being a commonsense person, I think that we’re going to need more.”

Everhart’s comments come as the Air Force takes a hard look at its tanker requirements. The service is in the midst of an AMC-led Advanced Air Refueling Capabilities-Based Assessment, which will assess the tanking capabilities required to support the mission for the next several decades. The assessment is expected to conclude by this summer, says Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns.

The Air Force’s current fleet of 455 tankers is simply not enough to meet wartime demand, Everhart says. Between fiscal 2012-16, the KC-135 flew a staggering 237% more than planned worldwide; meanwhile the KC-10 overflew planned flying hours by 178%. A force of at least 479 tankers is required to keep up with the operational tempo, he says.

The addition of Boeing’s new KC-46 Pegasus starting later this year will help alleviate the burden. AMC will start phasing out the legacy tankers once it receives the first 24 out of a planned 179 KC-46s, likely in the 2019-20 time frame, bringing the total force up to the required 479.

But 179 new KC-46s may not be enough, Everhart says...

“There will be a need to field hundreds more tankers to recapitalize the Air Force’s aging fleet,” he adds.

Capacity is not the only problem AMC faces. The aging tanker fleet requires more maintenance. The last KC-135 was purchased in 1965, and the average age of the aircraft is 55 years; meanwhile, the average age of a KC-10 is 32. Based on where the fleet is today, the KC-135 could still be operational up to age 100, Karns says [emphasis added]...
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/isis-and-f-35-drive-need-more-us-air-force-tankers

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

F-15C/Ds to be replaced by upgraded AESA F-16s, note NORAD (CF-18 centre barrels anyone?):

Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achilles’ Heel
U.S. Air Force considers major F-15C life-extension too costly

The F-15C may still have an undefeated aerial combat record, but the 38-year-old aircraft could be slated for retirement if the U.S. Air Force decides not to fund a major structural life-extension program.

Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Mike Holmes says it could cost $30-40 million per aircraft to keep the Eagle soaring beyond the late 2020s, including rebuilding the center fuselage section, among other refurbishments. “We’re probably not going to do that,” he tells Aviation Week.

The better answer, he says, is to rapidly begin buying more fighter aircraft, at least 100 per year. That includes ramping up Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II output once the low-observable fifth-generation aircraft matures, but also successive purchases of air superiority jets under the service’s new Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA) program.

The F-15C is operated primarily by the Air National Guard (ANG) in support of the homeland defense mission, capable of intercepting and shooting down adversary fighters, bombers and cruise missiles. ANG Director Lt. Gen. Scott Rice sent shockwaves through the F-15 community on March 22 when he admitted to Congress that plans are being hatched to retire the 235-aircraft single-seat F-15C fleet and the twin-seat D-model trainers in favor of Lockheed Martin F-16s upgraded with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars.

In December, the Air Force put Raytheon on contract to replace the mission computers in its F-16 fleet, providing “near-fifth-generation aircraft computing power” with twice the processing output and 40 times more memory. This upgrade is the bedrock on which future Fighting Falcon improvements will be based, including the radar upgrade. The Northrop Grumman APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar and Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar could compete for that work.

The ANG has an urgent operational need to install AESA radars on 72 of its F-16s, delivered in batches of 24 and 48 units depending on acquisition authority and funding beginning in fiscal 2018.

That plan has been talked about for some time, but Rice’s comments before Congress suggest these upgraded F-16s could, without serious capability gaps, fulfill the role now performed by the Eagle. But the F-15C carries eight Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles compared to the F-16’s six, along with two heat-seeking AIM-9Xs as backup. The Eagle’s wider radar aperture offers longer-range target detection, tracking and engagement of threats. It flies at twice the speed of sound and is more maneuverable than the F-16.

The service says the F-15 retirement proposal is just one of many being considered as part of its “planning choices” process for fiscal 2019 that began last fall.

Holmes says the F-15 remains capable, but the cost of rebuilding the center fuselage section will likely be too great...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/center-fuselage-rebuild-could-be-f-15cd-achilles-heel

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Pilot woes (RCAF?):

U.S. Air Force Looks Inward To Improve Pilot Retention
With experienced aviators leaving in droves, the U.S. Air Force is struggling to fill cockpits

An unprecedented shortage of experienced pilots is forcing the U.S. Air Force to reexamine training and operational regimes.

Huge numbers of aviators, many with hundreds of hours of combat time in their logbooks, are leaving to establish a more stable family life and gain better pay. They are unhappy with the high tempo of training and deployments that has typified service life, particularly with conflicts in the Middle East.

Now a joint service task force has been established in the Pentagon to examine and begin to resolve the issue. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel recently held hearings on the matter as well.

“We think it’s a national crisis,” Maj. Gen. Scott Vander Hamm, assistant deputy chief of staff of operations told an audience at a flight training conference in London on March 29. “More and more [pilots] right now are making the decision to exit service at the peak of their readiness and capability,” he added. “The Air Force’s largest problem in the aircrew community is retaining that experience.”

According to Vander Hamm, the Air Force is short of its requirements by 723 fighter pilots in the current fiscal year and by 1,555 regular Air Force aviators overall. By 2020, the pilot numbers for air mobility squadrons will drop below the required level...
http://aviationweek.com/air-combat-safety/us-air-force-looks-inward-improve-pilot-retention

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

Pilot woes (RCAF?)

Yes.  And ACSOs, and AESOPs, and FEs, and pretty much every other trade.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this post,

F-15C/Ds to be replaced by upgraded AESA F-16s, note NORAD (CF-18 centre barrels anyone?)
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/66423/post-1482498.html#msg1482498

looks like Vipers will serve some 70 years, about 20 less than BUFFS (weird combat aviation world):

Air Force authorises extended life for F-16

The F-16 Falcon will live to fight another day, or at least another 4,000 hours, according to the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin.

The USAF authorized extending the F-16’s service life from its original 8,000 flight hours to 12,000 flight hours, a 12 April Lockheed release states. After performing SLEP modifications, the service will be able to operate the Block 40 through 52 aircraft beyond 2048 [emphasis added], according to Lockheed. The authorization marks a milestone within the USAF’s seven-year SLEP, according to Susan Ouzts, vice president of Lockheed Martin's F-16 programme...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-force-authorises-extended-life-for-f-16-436186/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of piece on pilot retention--RCAF?

Why I Took the Bonus: A View from Inside the Air Force’s Pilot Retention Crisis

The U.S. Air Force has been the master of the sky for decades — and the sky is falling. At least, that is what it feels like as our over-tasked and under-manned branch of service comes face to face with a seemingly insurmountable challenge: keeping experienced pilots in the service when their original commitment expires. The fear and angst is understandable. In the fighter community, the manning shortfall was expected to be 1,000 pilots by 2022. Now, according to as yet unreleased data from the Air Force, we expect to be 950 short during this fiscal year. In a security environment with no shortage of threats, this demands action.

Tempting as it may seem, the U.S. Air Force cannot recruit its way out of this shortfall and our leadership is right to focus on retention. The much-publicized Aviator Retention Program (commonly known as the “pilot bonus”) is key to enticing the service’s most experienced pilots to keep flying. The active duty service commitment for a pilot is 10 years. Most pilots are then eligible to sign on for an additional commitment and receive $25,000 for each additional year. That amount has been capped since 1999. Congress recently authorized an increase in the amount (now $35,000) to further incentivize a new commitment. The outlook, however, has been grim: The bonus “take” rate among fighter pilots plunged from 47.8 percent in 2015 to 39.5 percent in 2016. In the special operations community, from which I hail (I fly the MC-130), the take rate is not much better, dropping from 56 percent to 43.6 percent. In all communities, we’re far short of the target 65 percent rate. With the airlines in the midst of a hiring boom, I thought it was a good time to explain why I took the bonus and chose to stay in the Air Force.

A cash bonus is a useful incentive for a re-commitment of service and an increase in that bonus amount is definitely warranted. But it is not going to be the overwhelming factor in any pilot’s calculus. It’s really not just about the money. While love for my country certainly played a role in my decision to stay in the Air Force, I am not writing a patriotic clarion call. I hope instead to highlight the unique fulfillment that pilots can only get flying for the Air Force. Pilots need that. And it is my opinion that most of them ultimately want that more than money...

Maj. Matthew Taylor is a Defense Fellow in the U.S. Senate as part of his Intermediate Developmental Education. Prior to this assignment, he was the Group Tactics Officer for the 353rd Special Operations Group at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. An MC-130J pilot by trade, he has spent his entire operational career overseas in both Europe and Asia as well as multiple deployments to the Middle East.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/04/why-i-took-the-bonus-a-view-from-inside-the-air-forces-pilot-retention-crisis/

'Twould be nice if we could see the signed views of serving Canadian military personnel in public like above.

Meanwhile:

Air Force: Stop-loss is not on the table in effort to retain pilots

The Air Force on Tuesday shot down a four-star general's suggestion that the service could use a controversial program called stop-loss to force crucial pilots to stay in the service and not depart for lucrative commercial airline jobs.

Air Mobility Command head Gen. Carlton Everhart told CQ Roll Call in an interview that he has told airline executives that Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein is keeping stop-loss on the table to solve the pilot retention crisis.

"I said to the industry ... if we can't meet the requirements, the chief could drop in a stop-loss — and you need to understand that," Everhart said in the Monday Roll Call story.

But Lt. Gen. Gina Grosso said in a statement to Air Force Times that stop-loss is not being considered...

The Air Force...also feels implementing such a program — where service members are involuntarily retained beyond their separation date, and is a program that has been criticized as being tantamount to a "backdoor draft" and proved highly controversial during the Iraq war — would be counterproductive to its pilot retention strategy.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-stop-loss-is-not-on-the-table-in-effort-to-retain-pilots

How much then?

3-star: Air Force may need even bigger pilot retention bonuses

Congress has already given the Air Force permission to increase the annual retention bonus it pays some pilots from $25,000 to $35,000, but a leading three-star general said that may not be enough.

The increased Aviator Retention Pay bonus is a key component in the Air Force's effort to try to hold on to its departing pilots — especially fighter pilots — being lured to the commercial airline industry. Commercial airliners, trying to stave off a manning problem of their own caused by mandatory retirements, are hiring about 4,000 pilots per year and can pay much more than the Air Force as they try to lure experienced military pilots...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/3-star-air-force-may-need-even-bigger-pilot-retention-bonuses

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on Viper vs F-15C/D--further to this post,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/66423/post-1484092.html#msg1484092

still some flux:

US Air Force chief ambivalent on F-15 Eagle retirement

The Air Force’s top general isn’t sold on the potential retirement of the F-15C/D Eagle, he said Wednesday [April 12].

After an event at the Heritage Foundation, Gen. David Goldfein told reporters he was still undecided on whether the service should retire its fleet of F-15C/D jets in the mid-2020s.

“We’re looking at all options all the time because until we get a budget, it’s really hard to plan. So occasionally you’re going to see us look at all kinds of different options,” he said. “So I have not made any decision on the F-15. I actually haven’t made a decision on any of the aircraft. We’re going to keep the F-15C around at least until 2020.”

Earlier this month, Air Force officials disclosed a budget planning option that would sideline the F-15C/D, replacing them with F-16s upgraded for better survivability in air-to-air combat. The younger fleet of F-15E Strike Eagles would remain intact.

Goldfein, speaking today, said continued high operational tempo precludes any immediate decision on its fleet of C and D model F-15s...

The Air Force owns about 230 F-15Cs and Ds. The majority of those jets are flown by the Air National Guard for homeland defense missions, with the exception of active squadrons at Kadena Air Base in Japan and RAF Lakenheath in England.

At an earlier event, Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Nowland, the deputy chief of staff for operations who is also a former F-15C/D pilot, said the F-16 could probably fill that homeland defense role if it gets the right upgrades, such as an active electronically scanned aperture (AESA) radar. But ultimately, neither the F-16 nor F-15 will be viable in future high-threat environments overseas, and both will rely on fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22 to clear out advanced weapon systems...
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-chief-undecided-about-f-15-eagle-retirement

Nice to have such public debates in Canada, eh?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Guess what? Boeing says simple F-15C/D longeron upgrade better than improved AESA F-16s:

Boeing Opposes F-15C Retirement Plan

Boeing is speaking out against a controversial proposal by the U.S. Air Force to retire the F-15C Eagle fleet, saying an upgraded Lockheed Martin F-16 is no substitute for its Cold War-era air superiority fighter.

The service has floated the idea of retiring all F-15C squadrons in favor of F-16s equipped with active electronically scanned array radars for the homeland defense mission. This would avoid a major structural service life extension of the F-15C, pegged at $30-40 million per airplane for new wings and a remanufactured center fuselage. Money saved could be spent on the development and production of a future air dominance aircraft, or perhaps free up cash to boost the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II buy rate.

Boeing says the F-16 cannot match the F-15 in terms of speed, range, payload or radar capability, and would make a poor Eagle replacement, even as a short-term stopgap.

Boeing is fatigue testing the Eagle and its air-to-surface attack variant, the F-15E Strike Eagle, at the company’s plant in St. Louis. The results suggest that a relatively simple and inexpensive longeron replacement will keep the F-15 fleet soaring into the mid-2030s and perhaps longer.

The $30-40 million cost cited by the head of Air Combat Command in March represents the total cost of remanufacturing the center fuselage and installing new wings, Boeing says. That cost estimate was provided at the service’s request, it adds.

“That approach, we believe, is the costliest solution and a worst-case scenario; it’s not something we believe is under serious consideration at this time,” Steve Parker, vice president of Boeing F-15 programs, said in an April 17 interview. “That would take it out another 40-50 years.”

Parker says the longerons are already being replaced by the Air Force as the F-15s cycle through programmed depot maintenance. The total cost is $1 million per aircraft for parts and labor.

Boeing says the Eagle is structurally viable out to 15,000 flight hours with this upgrade, allowing the fleet to continue in its current role until the mid-2030s, based on current flying rates.

The Air Force will replace the longerons on all 235 F-15Cs by 2023/24 based on the current timeline. In its fiscal 2017 budget request, the service proposed flying the aircraft through 2045, which would require major structural upgrades, beginning with a full wing replacement in the 2020s...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-opposes-f-15c-retirement-plan

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

So not replacement F-15Cs by F-16s after all:

Course Change: The US Air Force Now Wants to Keep the A-10, U-2, and F-15C

In a reversal, the service will not retire three Cold War-era planes still making an impact on the battlefield.

The U.S. Air Force plans to keep the A-10 Warthog and U-2 spy plane flying, reversing course after years of arguing that the service needed to retire the Cold War-era aircraft to pay for newer planes and drones.

The Air Force has also decided keep the F-15C fighter, a plane that generals had recently suggested was also on the chopping block. The decisions were announced in the Trump administration’s first military budget request sent to Congress on Tuesday. Lawmakers are likely to support the plan since they have routinely added funds to save the A-10 and U-2 from retirement time after time in recent years...

“Fleet strategy and viability [for the A-10] will be assessed as the Air Force determines a long term strategy,” says a budget document released by the service on Tuesday [May 23 http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY2018%20Air%20Force%20Budget%20Overview%20Book%20FINAL.pdf?ver=2017-05-23-153529-293 ].

A separate Defense Department budget document [ http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2018/fy2018_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf ] says that the Air Force has “restored funding to maintain the Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet across the [5-year] Future Years Defense Program.”..

As for the F-15C, the Air Force has decided start investing in a series of upgrades to modernize the fighter jet. The overhaul of the plane’s’ fuselage is set to begin in 2018.

“We’re dedicated just to making sure that the F-15 fleet remains viable and survivable and capable,” Martin said.
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/05/course-change-us-air-force-now-wants-keep-10-u-2-and-f-15c/138115/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If they fix the 02 problem and actually allow pilots to drop bombs on targets of opportunity, I suspect pilot retention rates will improve. Watching the enemy go on their merry way while you await approval to kill them, would affect morale and retention.

 

[GAP]

Hmmm....this had nothing to do with Trump adding 10% to the budget I would guess......

 

[MarkOttawa]

Trump has added nothing to actual defence budget--that must be passed by both houses of Congress.  Admin has only proposed.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

The Air Force is bringing back into service 8 C5M's over 4 years.I suspect that these numbers could increase as needed.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26716/air-force-reactivating-c-5-galaxy/

The U.S. Air Force is bringing back C-5M Super Galaxy transports recently mothballed due to budget cuts. The gigantic planes, sent to an early retirement in a cost-cutting move, are being brought back as money flows back into the service's coffers. The C-5M's range, greater than any other air transport, is a key factor.

The C-5 Galaxy was originally introduced in the late 1960s as a strategic airlifter able to cross entire oceans without refueling. The C-5 is the largest airlifter built by the United States, 65 feet high and with a wingspan of 247 feet. It can carry a maximum of 135 tons of cargo. With a combat load of sixty tons of cargo, the C-5M can fly from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to Incirlik Air Force Base, Turkey nonstop without refueling. According to the Air Force, it can fly 7,000 miles without cargo.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Dealing with pilot probs:

Air Force Gets Creative to Tackle Pilot Shortage

The Air Force's pilot shortage has leaders worried not only about filling gaps in the immediate future, but also how the military and civilian airlines may suffer without fine-tuned aviators in decades to come.

As a result, Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, if given permission, may start a small group tryout for pilots testing a new program in which aviators stay at their home-duty stations longer, thus increasing their longevity and likelihood to stay in service, the head of the command told Military.com in an exclusive interview.

"Should we go with a 'fly-only' track?" Gen. Carlton Everhart II said in an interview Wednesday.

Everhart said he envisions something like this: "You stay with me for 20 years, and I let you fly. You … could maybe [make] lieutenant colonel, but you may not make higher than that.

"Then, [we] allow you to stay at your home station for three to four years instead of two to three, so you can get some longevity," he continued. "Then, it's not just [flying airlift cargo or tanker planes]. You could go to [Air Education and Training Command] and help out there for three to four years to help bring on new pilots.

"To sweeten the deal, as you come into your career, maybe in the last four years, we allow you on a 'dream sheet' to put your top three choices, try to get you moved to there so you can establish your family and where you want to retire," he said.

Everhart said the 'fly-only' effort would still encompass wing, squadron and group duties and deployments but -- bottom line -- "it's longevity."

The same aviator retention bonuses would also apply, he said...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/07/30/air-force-gets-creative-to-tackle-pilot-shortage.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What? Actually employing expensively trained pilots in the cockpit?

Madness.

That is no way to run a military bureaucracy....

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on pilot probs:

Airlines Step Up Hiring So Air Force Boosts Retention Pay

Eager to stem the flow of Air Force pilots chasing bigger paychecks and cushier gigs with America’s airlines, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson announced today [Aug. 25] the service is increasing what used to be called flight pay for the first time since 1999.

US airlines hired 4,000 pilots last year, many of them former military pilots. Wilson said officers will now get $1,000 a month, up from $850 and enlisted will get $600 up from $400 a month. It looks as if the pay is going up because the Air Force just isn’t retaining as many pilots as it had expected to. The service, Wilson said. will also try to recruit up to 25 former military pilots for one-year contracts to serve on critical rated staff positions. Many staff jobs require rated pilots to understand the technicalities they deal with.

Wilson also named Brig. Gen. Michael G. Koscheski as head of the Aircrew Crisis Task Force. Assigning a general officer is an indication, along with the task force’s name, that the Air Force is beginning to get really worried about pilot retention and that the effort needs clearer focus.

Intriguingly, Wilson said the service’s attempts to improve drone pilot retention were on track and that no new measures were needed...
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/airlines-step-up-hiring-so-air-force-boosts-retention-pay/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

RCAF?

Pilot Shortage May Force U.S. Air Force To Outsource Training
Facing shortage, U.S. Air Force weighs contracting out training

Faced with a critical shortfall, particularly in the fighter community, the U.S. Air Force may be forced to take drastic steps to produce new pilots.

The service is short 1,500 pilots, including 1,000 fighter pilots, says Brig. Gen. Michael Koscheski, director of the new Aircrew Crisis Task Force established to tackle the problem. That gap will continue to grow with an increased demand for experienced combat aviators in regions such as the Middle East and Asia.

“In Desert Storm, we had 134 combat-coded fighter squadrons. Today, we have 55,” Koscheski said on Sept. 18 at the Air Force Association’s annual air, space and cyber conference. “We have gotten smaller, and the mission has at least stayed the same, if not grown.”

Although the Air Force is stepping up recruitment efforts to combat the shortage, recruitment is not the core issue. In fact, there are more men and women who want to fly than the service has capacity to train, says Lt. Gen. Darryl Roberson, commander of Air Education and Training Command.

The real challenge is pilot production, absorption and retention, officials say. In simple terms, due to a combination of snowballing factors—budget cuts, longer deployments and a recent spike in commercial airline hiring, to name a few—the Air Force is challenged both to train enough new aviators to keep up with demand from the field and to keep experienced pilots from leaving...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/pilot-shortage-may-force-us-air-force-outsource-training

Mark
Ottawa