USAF Woes

[CBH99]

Some of the latest US fighter acquisitions (Not including the new F-35 being rolled into units now) - was approximately 15yrs ago.

Beyond their personnel issues, especially pilots -- they have to start replacing their planes with new ones before they can even consider expanding.  Some of their transport & air refuelling fleets are beyond 40yrs old, some of them even 50yrs old.

Without orders from the Middle East, both the F-15 and F-16 production lines would have been shut.  Those same customers are flying variants of those aircraft that are far more modern than their USAF counterparts.  Throwing a few AESA radars into a few F-16's patrolling the capitol region isn't exactly "modernizing the fleet"...it was only a few years ago that CF-18's had to patrol Alaska because of the F-22 oxygen issue & F-15's literally falling apart in mid-air. 


Streamline your paperwork system.  Let pilots fly.  Give pilots a greater choice in where they are stationed, and stop moving their families every 5 years. 

Replace the aircraft in a gradual manner, the way the USN orders approx 14 to 16 new F-18's every year to replace their older aircraft & make up for airframe attrition.  Get your programs on point (No reason at all Boeing still can't deliver new refuellers).  THEN, once your poop is in a group, think about expanding.  Might not need to expand if your airframes are more modern & your not bleeding pilots... 

 

[Baz]

pointing out the obvious: U.S. 386 squadrons with a population of 300 million.  On an equal level we should have somewhere between 35 and 38 squadrons.  Woops

Hmmm... when I look at http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/wings-squadrons.page I count 37 flying squadrons (plus 18 non-flying squadrons) ... so does that mean the RCAF is just fine?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Hmmm... when I look at http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/wings-squadrons.page I count 37 flying squadrons (plus 18 non-flying squadrons) ... so does that mean the RCAF is just fine?

Remove MPA, MH, TH from that number since those roles are maintained by USN, USMC and US Army in the US.  Oh, and remove SAR too.  That's a coast guard role.

 

[tomahawk6]

Here is a list of squadrons in the USAF and Air National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Air_Force_aircraft_squadrons 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_National_Guard_Squadrons

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Isn't this the same service that can't find enough pilots and maintainers to fill the planes and squadrons it has?

Not only a USAF concern...

Canadian Air Force short 275 pilots as attrition outpaces recruitment, training

Sep 18th, 2018

OTTAWA—The Royal Canadian Air Force is contending with a shortage of around 275 pilots and needs more mechanics, sensor operators and other trained personnel as well in the face of increasing demands to conduct and support domestic and international missions.

The Air Force says it is working to address the deficiencies and that they have not negatively impacted operations.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Back to USAF pilots:

Air Force Wants to Halt Pilot Attrition by Appealing to Sense of Community

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- The U.S. Air Force is trying new initiatives to sustain and build its pilot ranks, including a unique fly-only track within Air Mobility Command, bonus incentives and preferred basing.

But another element the service wants to build on? Trust.

"We have asked them to do a lot over 25 years," said Gen. Mike Holmes, head of Air Combat Command. He spoke during a panel addressing the service's pilot shortage at the Air Force Association Air, Space and Cyber conference.

The panel also included Lt. Gen. Scott Rice, director of the Air National Guard, and Gen. Maryanne Miller, head of Air Mobility Command, who was most recently the head of the Air Force Reserve.

Related content:

    Amid Pilot Shortage, Air Force Tests Out Fly-Only Career Track
    Student Pilots Given Unlimited Simulator Time in New Air Force Experiment
    Air Force to Study How Many Training Squadrons It Needs for Operational Plus-Up

"I think the momentum is building. In Air Combat Command, we're flying more. … My preferred technique is to keep you busy flying. But I want you to trust us," Holmes said.

He pointed to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Chief of Staff Gen David Goldfein's vision to reduce additional and miscellaneous duties that take airmen away from their primary jobs.

Miller said she expects to hear from more airmen on flight lines as she travels in her new role to AMC bases in coming months.

"I hope to get that feedback. My gut says we haven't broken trust," she said. "[But] are we busy? We are busier than we've ever been. Is that demand signal going to slow down? The answer is it is not going to slow down. We're going to have to prioritize the training versus getting the mission done versus building that [downtime] with your families. We've got work to do."

She said AMC is responsible for roughly 40 percent of the Air Force's pilot attrition each year, contributing to the service's overall pilot shortage. The bonus take rate has not seen a spike either, she said.

"The economy is looking for you," Holmes said to airmen in the room, referencing the recent airline hiring boom. He said airline hiring efforts are the biggest factor that drives pilot retention and production problem in the services [emphasis added]...
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/09/18/air-force-wants-halt-pilot-attrition-appealing-sense-community.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

The USAF says it will need 74 more fighter squadrons. Where the pilots will come from and the money is a mystery. 

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/wilson-air-force-needs-massive-combat-squadron-boost-to-compete-with-russia-china-1.547901

WASHINGTON – The Air Force must add 74 combat squadrons to retain military advantages over near-peer adversaries seeking to challenge American power, the service’s top civilian said Monday.
“We know now from analysis … that the Air Force is too small for what the nation expects of us,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said during a speech on the opening day of the Air Force Association’s annual Air, Space and Cyber Conference at National Harbor in Maryland, just south of Washington. “312 operational squadrons is not enough.”

 

[CBH99]

Perhaps this is a move by the USAF to overstate their new requirements, in the hopes they will be able to generate another 20 squadrons instead?  (Like the US Navy saying we need 355 ships, knowing full well they will NEVER get to that number, but the effort to do so will boost hulls in the water nonetheless?)


And why the need for 74 new squadrons? 

If the USAF & NATO air forces are truly engaged in an air-to-air war...why the need for 74 new squadrons?  Given the enemy will be losing aircraft & pilots far more quickly than they could possibly replace them, any "force on force" theatre will quickly turn into an "overwhelming force" and "losing force" fairly quickly - within the first few days I'd imagine.

Sure, 74 new squadrons in the case of an all out war would be handy.  But what happens after the first month, when air superiority is EVENTUALLY gained?  Now you've got a ton of new squadrons flying CAP & assisting ground units the way they do now?

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on pilot retention problems--start and end of a major piece at War on the Rocks:

Difficult Decisions: Practical Policy for the Air Force’s Pilot Retention Crisis

The popular blog John Q. Public caricatures every development in the Air Force as causing impending doom for the service’s pilot retention crisis: One article describes “the worst decision in [the Air Force’s] institutional history,” while another narrates “the exact day the tailspin started”, leaving readers unsure whether it’s tongue-in-cheek or histrionic.

The pilot retention crisis has also been the subject of insightful commentary and in-depth studies, citing root causes ranging from competition with civilian airlines to cultural shifts. While all of these explanations are valid, some are probably more pertinent than others. If everything is a huge problem, it’s hard to triage — to separate what’s merely annoying from what’s truly defeating the morale of the aircrew. Now the Air Force needs to determine where to operate to save the patient.

To understand how to solve this problem, we conducted a survey of Air Force aircrew. More than 10 percent of the active duty aircrew provided responses to our proposals as well as raw input on what would keep them in the Air Force longer.

The results show that the pilots’ largest concerns are ones that Air Force leaders generally already know about: Aircrew flagged the duty station assignment process, deployment length, and financial incentives as areas where reform would incentivize them to stay in the force. Indeed, several policy changes made in recent years are intended to address these problems and will likely have good effects.

The deepest problems, however, are less conducive to short-term reforms and instead require more fundamental changes. Specifically, airmen cited as problematic the additional duties they believe leadership prioritizes above flying. The Air Force should strongly consider establishing a technical fly-only track in the long term, while in the short-term increasing Airman and contractor support for administrative functions. While the problem has deep roots and will take a long time to address, there are tangible programs that can be expected to help the Air Force accomplish its growing mission set.

What’s the Problem, Exactly?

...this is not a comprehensive outline of the policy options available to the Air Force, the data analysis provided here is a useful starting point for thinking through the pilot retention crisis and possible remedies. The Air Force has demonstrated its seriousness in addressing the issue both through words and actions. The easy decisions have been made — only tougher ones remain. Our results show that adopting a fly-only track is the tough decision that is most likely to improve retention. While there are important drawbacks to this option, if retention continues to be as large of an issue as it has been, the benefits of the fly-only track should outweigh the costs. The secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force have been aggressively working through tasking assignments and instructions and taking away unnecessary additional requirements. The next steps may be the most difficult to take. Whether the service adopts a fly-only track or increases the number of administrative personnel, our research suggests that focusing on reducing additional duties is the way to best retain the warriors who will fly, fight, and win in potential future conflicts.

Col Jesse Friedel is a prior U.S. Air Force Squadron Commander, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Weapons School and F-16 Pilot with over 2,500 flight hours, and a former National Defense Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington D.C.  Matthew Cancian served as a Captain in the Marine Corps from 2009-2013. He currently is a PhD student in Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and  a non-resident fellow at the Modern War Institute.

The views expressed are those of the authors 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/2018/09/difficult-decisions-practical-policy-for-the-air-forces-pilot-retention-crisis/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

The problem isn't new. The economy is rolling along and the airline industry need pilots. The easiest way to put fannies in the cockpit is where do you get experienced pilots ? The US Air Force and Navy.I would rather see industry grow their own air crews.

 

[dimsum]

I would rather see industry grow their own air crews.

Yeah, but that costs money and time.  Meanwhile you can pull from disgruntled military pilots until the end of time (or the USAF/USN has completely autonomous aircraft).

 

[tomahawk6]

A friend sent his kid to a university that after 4 years gave him a multiengine pilots license and I guess he was hired by a regional airline and went on to a major airline so you are correct that it takes time.

 

[dimsum]

A friend sent his kid to a university that after 4 years gave him a multiengine pilots license and I guess he was hired by a regional airline and went on to a major airline so you are correct that it takes time.

And that's the best case scenario for the friend's kid.  Until recently, once you got said licenses you had to work bush flying, flight instructing, or whatever for years (5 wasn't uncommon) to build up your hours.  Regionals at the time in Canada weren't even considering anything less than 2000+ hours.  Now they'll take 1000 or even less - I've heard rumblings of 750 and that some will take people right off the bat at 200. 

Mind you you'll be a First Officer for a long time and still build hours.

 

[GR66]

Perhaps this is a move by the USAF to overstate their new requirements, in the hopes they will be able to generate another 20 squadrons instead?  (Like the US Navy saying we need 355 ships, knowing full well they will NEVER get to that number, but the effort to do so will boost hulls in the water nonetheless?)


And why the need for 74 new squadrons? 

If the USAF & NATO air forces are truly engaged in an air-to-air war...why the need for 74 new squadrons?  Given the enemy will be losing aircraft & pilots far more quickly than they could possibly replace them, any "force on force" theatre will quickly turn into an "overwhelming force" and "losing force" fairly quickly - within the first few days I'd imagine.

Sure, 74 new squadrons in the case of an all out war would be handy.  But what happens after the first month, when air superiority is EVENTUALLY gained?  Now you've got a ton of new squadrons flying CAP & assisting ground units the way they do now?

I'll start by admitting that I don't claim to know the number of squadrons that the USAF should have, but I do admire your confidence in the ability of the US military to totally dominate enemy air forces.

I didn't do any extensive search, but this website claims to compare the number of fighter aircraft by country in 2018 (https://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total-fighters.asp).  Of course that's just numbers of aircraft and doesn't take into account the qualitative difference between US and Chinese/Russian aircraft.

However, it may be wise to take a number of things into account.  Like it or not, the "West" has given the role of global policeman to the US.  If the proverbial excrement hits the oscillating air current distribution device, it will be the US that will take on the task of making the bulk of the military response.

What might that entail?  Say the US gets in a shooting war with either Russia or China.  What kind of air power will the US need to muster in response?

- Fighter aircraft to take on the air-to-air role in order to try and gain air superiority.
- Multi-role aircraft to take part in the ground support role.
- Strategic strike aircraft to hit targets supporting the enemy operations (transportation hubs, supply columns, strategic fuel reserves, production facilities, etc.)

But since the US is physically located far from the point of conflict they will also need:

- Aircraft to defend the continental US, US logistical bases, ports of entry for US forces, Allied supply lines, etc.
- Air cover to defend attempts to disrupt US/Allied airlift and sealift operations to bring combat forces to the area of conflict.

Now say the US comes into conflict with China over Taiwan or islands in the South China Sea.  Might Russia take this opportunity to make a play for the Baltic states while the US is already engaged in a major peer conflict in Asia?  Might North Korea launch an attack on South Korea to pin down US forces?  Might Iran take the opportunity to seize the Shia regions of Iraq, or the Arab states launch attacks on Israel?

I know that is a worst case scenario, but how many squadrons would the USAF need to face all of those conflicts at once? 

And as for your last point "But what happens after the first month, when air superiority is EVENTUALLY gained?  Now you've got a ton of new squadrons flying CAP & assisting ground units the way they do now?".  My answer to this would be YES!  The whole point of gaining air superiority is to be able to redirect your air forces to be able to focus on the enemy's ground forces. 

I don't think it would be wise to underestimate the strength of the ground forces of our potential enemies (and their GBAD capabilities and indirect fire capabilities).  It should be a primary goal of the US (and the rest of the West if we decide to carry our weight) to be able to sweep the skies of enemy aircraft so that we can overwhelm our opponents ground forces so that we don't have to see our ground forces facing potentially numerically superior enemy forces. 

How many squadrons does that objective take?  I'm not sure, but maybe they are not wrong in thinking it's more than they have now.

:2c:

 

[tomahawk6]

The pay is good for a kid with college debt. It aint cheap. Here is a link.Might be better going USAF ROTC and learn to fly C17's IMO.

https://polytechnic.purdue.edu/schools/aviation-and-transportation-technology

 

[tomahawk6]

Too bad the USAF cut short their F22 program,but no doubt money played a part. If they want 74 squadrons or 1480 more fighters I wonder what the mix will be ? More F35's  ?

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe they could be talked into re-opening the C17 line?

 

[tomahawk6]

It would take a big order to reopen I think.Although Boeing is supporting aircraft already in service. 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-ends-c-17-production-california

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen.

But I can't help but think the Canada is not the only place where those aircraft have been, and still are, being ridden hard.  Though the economics/politics of repair vs replace are always hard to calculate.

 

[CBH99]

It surprises me that Boeing did that.

I realize a lot of western air forces, including some in the middle east, really filled out their air transport fleets in the last decade with C-17's -- I think those aircraft are being ridden hard by almost everybody.  Environmental factors contributing to things also (coastal areas with salty air, for example.)

I'm surprised they didn't keep some sort of capacity to build as needed (although I'm sure the economics wouldn't be in favour of that) - because as of right now, the only airlifter being produced by the west is the A400M.