That is the only language HAF responds to. They have a number. It's a political number, and they won't tell you what it is, but it's the one they find acceptable before at-scale recapitalization of primary and intermediate training is taken seriously.
The rest of this exercise is nothing more than your typical morale-crushing regAF practice bleeding/running in place/ people put up with until they too bail for the airlines. Which is why I no longer get my blood pressure up about all the malfeasance, nor the political double speak. Any time people of my age demo have spoken up about this issue, all you get is tone policed and Luddite accussations.
The AF has accepted atrocious gaps in basic training infrastructure for decades. The T-38 and the T-7 is the most glaring example, but the T-6 GPS is a poster child example as well, especially in the context of COTS solutions. To be clear, the -6s lack of NAS RNAV 1 compliance dates back to 2009, so they've been scoffing at it for a lot longer than this thread intimates.