Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

Would a "Golden Apples & Known Follow On" program / assignment encourage retention?  Thinking mostly of pilots (aircrew generally) but could be applied to other career fields (not sure exactly what but this is not necessarily exclusively for the rated community).

Reading this thread and seeing that there has been some elimination of queep, shoe clerkism, bullshit, etc... not much but some and that is apparently all the Bobs are going to get rid of, could they win over the masses (or at least enough of them to mitigate the talent arterial bleeding) with assignments/programs to stay for a bite of a Golden Apple and the inevitable payback?

Ex:  3 year flying assignment of choice (jet, location, both, something cool, etc..) followed by a known follow on assignment of equal length that meets the needs of the AF first but also is acceptable to the member (ex:  UPT, RPA, Staff, etc...).  All of this covered with a decent retention bonus also.  

If the follow on assignment can not be honored, the member would have the option to reject the re-assignment and either 7 day opt, Palace Chase/Front or accept the new follow-on, potentially with a new, larger bonus if the AF really needs this assignment filled, sts.  This would pressure the AF to keep its word to and give the member certainty.  Likely the initial bonus would be smaller but what the military can not match in the civilian world in monetary terms (by policy choice) it could offer in unique and personally rewarding work.

Revival of the ACE program, Aggressors, more Special Flying Assignments, Light Attack, etc...

Say there would 200 aircraft in these programs, coming in at about 500 hours each FY, averaging out at $5k per hour that's $500 million.  Not chump change but if you retain about 145 pilots per FY you offered it as people came in and went out of the program, you break even.  That's figuring an average pilot at the end of his/her ADSC cost $3.5 million to train (conservative estimate as some cost $8+ mil).  Even when you figure in the support cost per tail, WAG that at $1 mil per FY, you only need about another 60 pilots to sign up per FY.  

Secondary benefits include reduced pressure on SUPT to graduate substandard students, reduced pressure on training fleet, reestablishing esprit de corps, not screwing over your guys, etc...

Light a candle and crack a beer, if leadership really wants to fix retention, they have to do something different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, that's all well and good, but why take a flimsy deal that the AF will probably renege on, when I can just be a full-time guard dude or reservist, and have ironclad protections so that big blue can't eventually fuck me over? Because they definitely will at some point. But as an ARC member, I still have the freedom to drift from job to job as I please, yet not be on the hook for active duty fuckery.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Would a "Golden Apples & Known Follow On" program / assignment encourage retention?  Thinking mostly of pilots (aircrew generally) but could be applied to other career fields (not sure exactly what but this is not necessarily exclusively for the rated community).

Reading this thread and seeing that there has been some elimination of queep, shoe clerkism, bullshit, etc... not much but some and that is apparently all the Bobs are going to get rid of, could they win over the masses (or at least enough of them to mitigate the talent arterial bleeding) with assignments/programs to stay for a bite of a Golden Apple and the inevitable payback?

Ex:  3 year flying assignment of choice (jet, location, both, something cool, etc..) followed by a known follow on assignment of equal length that meets the needs of the AF first but also is acceptable to the member (ex:  UPT, RPA, Staff, etc...).  All of this covered with a decent retention bonus also.  

If the follow on assignment can not be honored, the member would have the option to reject the re-assignment and either 7 day opt, Palace Chase/Front or accept the new follow-on, potentially with a new, larger bonus if the AF really needs this assignment filled, sts.  This would pressure the AF to keep its word to and give the member certainty.  Likely the initial bonus would be smaller but what the military can not match in the civilian world in monetary terms (by policy choice) it could offer in unique and personally rewarding work.

Revival of the ACE program, Aggressors, more Special Flying Assignments, Light Attack, etc...

Say there would 200 aircraft in these programs, coming in at about 500 hours each FY, averaging out at $5k per hour that's $500 million.  Not chump change but if you retain about 145 pilots per FY you offered it as people came in and went out of the program, you break even.  That's figuring an average pilot at the end of his/her ADSC cost $3.5 million to train (conservative estimate as some cost $8+ mil).  Even when you figure in the support cost per tail, WAG that at $1 mil per FY, you only need about another 60 pilots to sign up per FY.  

Secondary benefits include reduced pressure on SUPT to graduate substandard students, reduced pressure on training fleet, reestablishing esprit de corps, not screwing over your guys, etc...

Light a candle and crack a beer, if leadership really wants to fix retention, they have to do something different. 

I'm a big fan of ACE because it reinforces that AF pilots should be good "pilots" not good "MWS Pilots" . Airmanship is a skillet and is transferable in many avenues. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no assignment or string of assignments offered that could have kept me in (they tried). Of course there are some that will be motivated by that, but in general the bullshit outweighs any good deal assignment...and then you add that to what joe said above. Yeah no thanks AD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys it’s not that difficult really. Simple economics in the end. The pay has to be commensurate with the job. Either more pay or less work. Until they do that, people are going to keep migrating towards opportunities where the pay is commensurate.
And relying on patriotism won’t work either when most of us view the last 20 years as a total waste of blood and treasure.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brabus said:

There was no assignment or string of assignments offered that could have kept me in (they tried). Of course there are some that will be motivated by that, but in general the bullshit outweighs any good deal assignment...and then you add that to what joe said above. Yeah no thanks AD.

They would have had to get to you MUCH earlier. Waaaay before getting close to the end of your ADSC for any “good deals” to have any effect.

basically, they’d have to make the AF great again from the start. Good luck. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pcola said:

Guys it’s not that difficult really. Simple economics in the end. The pay has to be commensurate with the job. Either more pay or less work. Until they do that, people are going to keep migrating towards opportunities where the pay is commensurate.

Right...it's nearly impossible to compete when guys figure out they can get out and make significantly more whilst working significantly less.  Even Guard squadrons, minus maybe the ones that are in BFE, are even struggling keep their full time jobs filled.

Edited by SocialD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm a big fan of ACE because it reinforces that AF pilots should be good "pilots" not good "MWS Pilots" . Airmanship is a skillet and is transferable in many avenues. 

Concur

A light jet (or t-prop) that's inexpensive, light footprint and can fulfill the range of flight training (acro, spin, close formation, instruments) and keep the CT beans manageable is feasible.  DART 450 would likely fit the bill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2019 at 8:03 PM, Majestik Møøse said:

IDGAF if Maj Gen Wills “cares” about anything or not. He’s got a job to do, and it’s extremely disappointing that he doesn’t grasp the concept of increased retention pay being cheaper than the expense of replacing experienced guys. He also thinks he can’t afford to compete with the airlines, which is a foolish take on the problem. The truth is that he’s spending billions to train the airlines pilots for them.

He cares, he also bleeds blue so what do you expect?  I knew him at DLF, straight shooter but definitely the party line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2019 at 2:51 AM, joe1234 said:

I mean, that's all well and good, but why take a flimsy deal that the AF will probably renege on, when I can just be a full-time guard dude or reservist, and have ironclad protections so that big blue can't eventually fuck me over? Because they definitely will at some point. But as an ARC member, I still have the freedom to drift from job to job as I please, yet not be on the hook for active duty fuckery.

Yeah, I resemble that remark. I have a few marked regrets in this life; having decoded the AD/ARC chasm as a civilian, before I ever agreed to set foot at OTS, is definitively not one of them. A relative outlier outcome compared to most military aspirants, and certainly one of the one or two times in my life I've been #foresight2020. 

An AD OG once uttered in the middle of a hot swamp-ass bread van in the middle of July at DLF, when confronted with pilot talk about retention, and me being the only ARC patch wearer in the van: "Thing is guys, we already have a technician track...it's called the Guard/Reserves". Took me a while to process, as the AD dudes initial reaction was to quietly snicker and roll their eyes, but the dude was right, and I was proof of it. Not what the AD cats wanted to hear, and certainly a bit of a Pontius Pilatus derelict stance on the part of said OG, but not an inaccurate statement in the least. To each their own. Nothing will change. Recession's coming. Run the clock offense wins again, from Big Blue's perspective. We all gotta make lemonade, and we all have our personal/family drivers. AD martyrdom doesn't have a high ROI from where I sit, but I don't discourage those who wish to pursue that avenue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Concur

A light jet (or t-prop) that's inexpensive, light footprint and can fulfill the range of flight training (acro, spin, close formation, instruments) and keep the CT beans manageable is feasible.  DART 450 would likely fit the bill.

 

Clark, it's a great idea in theory, but we have zero money for it. AFRC completely ran out of funding with almost two months left in the fiscal year...This trend will continue in perpetuity until one day we're bankrupt 1 month into a new fiscal year. The entire future of the USAF and its personnel has been mortgaged to a multi-decade unending conflict,  the B-21, KC-46, and F-35. Management bought into the sales pitch from the contractors that all we need to win any future battle is just a few goldplated wonder machines, and future generations are footing the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don’t think you can argue we need new airplanes for the medium/long term timescale if we expect to maintain parity with the likes of China.

It’s just that our acquisition process is bogus and ends up costing way more time and money than we are led to believe.

Also doesn’t help that we are constantly deployed to CENTCOM and other AORs and have very little to show after 20 years of effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2019 at 3:51 AM, brabus said:

There was no assignment or string of assignments offered that could have kept me in (they tried). Of course there are some that will be motivated by that, but in general the bullshit outweighs any good deal assignment...and then you add that to what joe said above. Yeah no thanks AD.

I found myself the specific next assignment that would have kept me in for 4+ more years of AD, and was still told, "No, FU, PCS to Cannon." Oh well, see ya guys then I guess 🤷‍♂️

Been in the Guard almost 5 years now with a good shot to be on orders as long as I want, as well as the option to just DSG and fly the line occasionally if shit goes sideways. The grass is definitely greener. Go Guard!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Concur

A light jet (or t-prop) that's inexpensive, light footprint and can fulfill the range of flight training (acro, spin, close formation, instruments) and keep the CT beans manageable is feasible.  DART 450 would likely fit the bill.

 

So like...a T-6? Why would you buy some unproven aircraft with a Ukrainian engine rather than the aircraft damn near every pilot left in the AF already trained on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

So like...a T-6? Why would you buy some unproven aircraft with a Ukrainian engine rather than the aircraft damn near every pilot left in the AF already trained on?

Where else would Clark throw down his inane knowledge of random aircraft if he went with that simple of an idea?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Pontius Pilatus depicted below:

1887329464_ScreenShot2019-08-20at7_14_17PM.thumb.png.ef41ecb2a97642f439dcc56ee6ecffaa.png

 

LOL I always get that. It's not wrong;  your "correction" is a common misconception from the American mouthbreathing collective. Marcus Pontius Pilatus is the full Latin naming convention for said historical figure. Pilate is for those who think historical Jesus spoke 'Murican and had Jim Caviezel for a doppelganger. 

Image result for the more you know gif

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As to a T-6, no doubt there would be cost savings in commonality but the DART would be cheaper to buy and fly, maintain as a fleet of ACE aircraft, not sure about that...

11 hours ago, Royal said:

Clark, it's a great idea in theory, but we have zero money for it. AFRC completely ran out of funding with almost two months left in the fiscal year...This trend will continue in perpetuity until one day we're bankrupt 1 month into a new fiscal year. The entire future of the USAF and its personnel has been mortgaged to a multi-decade unending conflict,  the B-21, KC-46, and F-35. Management bought into the sales pitch from the contractors that all we need to win any future battle is just a few goldplated wonder machines, and future generations are footing the bill.

Agreed, this has negative 6.9% chance of happening but it never hurts to argue for it over BO

No argument also as to how screwed up things have gotten thanks to the Higher, Farther, Faster crowd that Boyd fought at the Puzzle Palace.  Also, I see no end to it with current crop of leaders at the controls now or in the future, no one is going out on a limb to say not every plane has to be the absolute best in category or it's shit, the party line is continuing.

In other threads I've argued for less costly, less sophisticated platforms to be an appropriate part of the overall AF fleet and will continue to do so along with others, only a total idiot or a corrupt narcissist would continue this delusion that we need overkill for 80% of the time we deliver airpower.

Don't mind getting teased/chided for my incessant, cultish advocacy for platforms like the Scorpion or YA-7F, these are platforms we need, can afford and quite frankly, would be the easy A the AF needs to get it's mojo back with Congress and Media.  Every time we dream up some science project that blows up in our faces and we have to go back to Dad for more money is that much more political and real capital we don't have in the future for the other things we will need to just keep the lights on, but hey that's the next guy's problem...

Rant complete.

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Royal said:

Clark, it's a great idea in theory, but we have zero money for it. 

Semantics.

It's a function of whether they want to allocate the $$ or not.  But the money is there.

For a number of years, the AF paid for the RQ-4 pilots (which included some Nav/CSO's) to fly the Aero Club Cessna 172s.  Great deal for them... dirt cheap for the AF... benefits were readily quantifiable.  But it was cut.

I remember one of the many attacks on the Beale T-38's.  Around 2005 time frame at Nellis, and F-22 crew chief allowed a gear pin to get sucked into the engine.  The resulting damage to that F-22 engine was more than it cost to fund 3800+ flying hours in the Beale T-38A companion trainer.  Yes... 3800+ hours in the T-38 were cheaper than the F-22 FOD'd motor.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantics.
It's a function of whether they want to allocate the $$ or not.  But the money is there.
For a number of years, the AF paid for the RQ-4 pilots (which included some Nav/CSO's) to fly the Aero Club Cessna 172s.  Great deal for them... dirt cheap for the AF... benefits were readily quantifiable.  But it was cut.
I remember one of the many attacks on the Beale T-38's.  Around 2005 time frame at Nellis, and F-22 crew chief allowed a gear pin to get sucked into the engine.  The resulting damage to that F-22 engine was more than it cost to fund 3800+ flying hours in the Beale T-38A companion trainer.  Yes... 3800+ hours in the T-38 were cheaper than the F-22 FOD'd motor.  

The yearly flying hour budget for G-Hawk guys to fly the Aero Club Cessnas for the 12th RS was about $90k for the entire squadron for the entire FY.
It was so little money ACC didn’t even know about it until they began the process of creating the 18XX AFSC and started to audit the existing RPA squadrons.
We argued like hell for it but no soup for us or anyone else flying a robot. ACC said it would be too much trouble at OCONUS locations because GA type aircraft are almost exclusive to CONUS US airspace... #totalbullshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:


The yearly flying hour budget for G-Hawk guys to fly the Aero Club Cessnas for the 12th RS was about $90k for the entire squadron for the entire FY.
It was so little money ACC didn’t even know about it until they began the process of creating the 18XX AFSC and started to audit the existing RPA squadrons.
We argued like hell for it but no soup for us or anyone else flying a robot. ACC said it would be too much trouble at OCONUS locations because GA type aircraft are almost exclusive to CONUS US airspace... #totalbullshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The global hawks here at my overseas base are parked next to the base aero club hangar...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:


The yearly flying hour budget for G-Hawk guys to fly the Aero Club Cessnas for the 12th RS was about $90k for the entire squadron for the entire FY.
It was so little money ACC didn’t even know about it until they began the process of creating the 18XX AFSC and started to audit the existing RPA squadrons.
We argued like hell for it but no soup for us or anyone else flying a robot. ACC said it would be too much trouble at OCONUS locations because GA type aircraft are almost exclusive to CONUS US airspace... #totalbullshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did the Air Force decide it hates airplanes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...