Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I remember a little about those programs but they were just before my time (99 yr group dude) so I'm low SA on that topic.

Nothing readily popped up from a Google search, what was the result of that initiative?

Copy, I agree with his overall sentiments but see that it is not a perfect fix for immediate problems, it (his proposals/observations) are really critiques of the legacy culture in the rated communities of the AF and they're impact in a changing operational environment.

Fair to say though that the pilot shortage has largely cultural causes and that culture change is not immediate. The general at the beggining of his article is likely going to end up displeased that there isn't an easy answer to this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair to say though that the pilot shortage has largely cultural causes and that culture change is not immediate. The general at the beggining of his article is likely going to end up displeased that there isn't an easy answer to this. 

Agree that the referenced GO is looking for the silver bullet when it is one of several cultural problems but if it is describable and can be reduced to one word or phrase, I would say it is the loss of prestige.

That sounds bad as prestige I think has an undeserved negative connotation but the loss of prestige of the rated community in the AF is fundamentally “it” as to What Is Wrong With The AF. That idea has other stuff in orbit around it (loss of trust as adults and officers, emasculating treatment by shoe clerks for meaningless reasons, etc...) but I think that is what mainly ails the rated community


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

12 hours ago, Hacker said:

It is interesting that Maj Byrnes' analysis doesn't incorporate or consider the results of the late-90s fighter crossflow program.

 

Different times. Didn't you hear? Wing don't need to keep visual while maintaining TAC position while working sensors on the sweep while not making an ass out of himself in the AOR. It's all BVR datalink Betty EZ-bake oven, pick-your-position formation and Windows 10 pop-up fire control systems.  So easy a regional FO can do it, hell he might be better at it!  Add some 2-piece snag-o-matic Army Cosplay in there for good measure (who needs their limbs after an ejection anyways) and 11F shortage fixed! 😄 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2020 at 9:03 AM, Clark Griswold said:

I remember a little about those programs but they were just before my time (99 yr group dude) so I'm low SA on that topic.

Nothing readily popped up from a Google search, what was the result of that initiative?

Results were mixed, to be fair, but skewing heavily toward being not very successful.  I've posted on baseops previously about the half-dozen guys I knew who'd done it and the difficulties they faced in the fighter world.  All high-achievers, fantastic dudes, and excellent officers (and obviously great aviators in whatever heavy platform they came from), but the majority not particularly well suited to decisionmaking at the speed and G of the fighter business.

My take, based on the guys I personally interacted with, was that it wasn't a talent issue so much as it was an experience issue, but that the experience early on in a pilot's career was important to their performance further on down the line.

All that being said, it was the only time in "recent history" that the writer's idea was actually attempted, so I'd think that the data would be useful to evaluating the hypothesis.

Edited by Hacker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2020 at 12:14 AM, HuggyU2 said:

Any idea how many pilots were selected for the crossflow?   If it was like the early and mid 90's, it was a very small number.  

I don't know the total numbers, no.

So far as I'm aware there was only one board, and those guys were going through IFF and FTU about the same time I did in the 98-00 timeframe.

Edited by Hacker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hacker said:

Results were mixed, to be fair, but skewing heavily toward being not very successful.  I've posted on baseops previously about the half-dozen guys I knew who'd done it and the difficulties they faced in the fighter world.  All high-achievers, fantastic dudes, and excellent officers (and obviously great aviators in whatever heavy platform they came from), but the majority not particularly well suited to decisionmaking at the speed and G of the fighter business.

My take, based on the guys I personally interacted with, was that it wasn't a talent issue so much as it was an experience issue, but that the experience early on in a pilot's career was important to their performance further on down the line.

All that being said, it was the only time in "recent history" that the writer's idea was actually attempted, so I'd think that the data would be useful to evaluating the hypothesis.

Copy that, it is probably the only data set to study if the AF were inclined to take up Maj Byrnes ideas, or this particular one.

Agree on that base of experience, acquired at an early stage in one's military flying career is crucial and likely what led to a higher rate of difficulty, sub-par performance you observed in cross-flows.  I would still support a Heavy/RPA/Recce/FAIP cross flow program but with lead in experience building to promote a better cross flow fighter pilot / wingman.  

What that lead in experience would be for these already rated dudes coming from a non-fighter assignment would be is the $64,000 question, unfortunately we don't have a platform like the A-37 in the inventory that took pilots from all platforms that met a requirement and built tactical experience in aircrew from other backgrounds. 

Cross Flow (X to fighters) is not / would not solve all the AF's cultural problems but I think it would be beneficial.  Costs to be sure but in the rated community I think it would have a sizable positive impact, particularly with aviators in the beginning of the career looking for that second shot and likely to stay for a career with a background that could make a well rounded leader.  Benefits to the AF and the fighter community I believe also if executed properly.

Good article on the A-37:

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-super-tweet-8974282/

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

This guys article has a logic problem.  If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

RAND also says we should put more FAIPs into fighters since they meet the definition of experienced faster.  The problem is, they really aren't any more experienced than anyone else except in admin and tend to progress along with their non-FAIP peers.  

Drone operators have useful kinetic experience that only translates to a very small slice of what fighters do.  Similar to FAIPs being good at an ILS, it isn't that relevant to being a good tactical aviator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Longhorn15 said:

This guys article has a logic problem.  If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

RAND also says we should put more FAIPs into fighters since they meet the definition of experienced faster.  The problem is, they really aren't any more experienced than anyone else except in admin and tend to progress along with their non-FAIP peers.  

Drone operators have useful kinetic experience that only translates to a very small slice of what fighters do.  Similar to FAIPs being good at an ILS, it isn't that relevant to being a good tactical aviator.

Faips progress a bit faster than their peers... slightly. But not really important. 
 

Your issue highlights why Adair T38s worked fairly well. Cheap, plentiful, and UPT newbies that went there got faip-like hours with added tactical experience. As an added bonus the Tyndall Adair kids got to fly to/from/in the same airspace and see the b-course missions and debriefs (from the other side of the table). I think it freed up a lot of brain cells later since they weren’t having to learn motherhood (to from airspace, shot Val litany, etc) fresh in the b-course. 
 

also was the way upt next was headed (at least last I heard). UPT to IFF to Adair to bourse. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Longhorn15 said:

This guys article has a logic problem.  If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I believe this analysis of the opening of the article is gratuitous and misrepresents the spirit of the article. 

In regards to RPAs from the author, "The Air Force seems intent to simply refuse to purchase or integrate commercially available modifications that would answer each of the concerns, then claim the aircraft are not viable. " which is a sentiment that is widespread here and on other aviation forums.

The Col. in the story seemed to try and get the General to think along the lines of, "perhaps given the disparity in production, perhaps more missions and/or opportunities could be given to the RPA community given our cost and retention advantages". Either missions in the form of more capable RPAs or opportunities to alleviate manning issues in our sister 11x community. The generals immediate refusal to even consider such an idea is partially what the whole article is about.

The sentiment of being emasculated and being second rate is so widespread in this community that the best way to cope is to just joke about it. Its not perceived emasculation, it is woven into the very fabric of URT. There was a thread a few weeks ago about an RPA guy who was feeling pretty down. Best piece of advice on that thread was for the Lt. to buy his own plane and pursue his aviation development on his own dime and time. No one purposed any type of solution coming from big blue to alleviate these sentiments. Are RPA "pilots" actually pilots? Seems like we still haven't even answered that basic question.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Your issue highlights why Adair T38s worked fairly well. Cheap, plentiful, and UPT newbies that went there got faip-like hours with added tactical experience. As an added bonus the Tyndall Adair kids got to fly to/from/in the same airspace and see the b-course missions and debriefs (from the other side of the table). I think it freed up a lot of brain cells later since they weren’t having to learn motherhood (to from airspace, shot Val litany, etc) fresh in the b-course. 

Although most of you weren't around for it, ADAIR was around in the 70's and 80's at Tyndall, Hickam, and other places using the T-33.  Some of those pilots racked up a shit-ton of T-33 hours (1000-2000 hours) before transitioning to the Eagle.  

I never did it, but those I know that do/did say it is very cost effective.  

Years ago, Beale T-38's used to work with Fresno's Vipers on occasion.  We did a variety of "different" presentations for them and it was great training for all of us.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, theoriginalturk said:

I believe this analysis of the opening of the article is gratuitous and misrepresents the spirit of the article. 

In regards to RPAs from the author, "The Air Force seems intent to simply refuse to purchase or integrate commercially available modifications that would answer each of the concerns, then claim the aircraft are not viable. " which is a sentiment that is widespread here and on other aviation forums.

The Col. in the story seemed to try and get the General to think along the lines of, "perhaps given the disparity in production, perhaps more missions and/or opportunities could be given to the RPA community given our cost and retention advantages". Either missions in the form of more capable RPAs or opportunities to alleviate manning issues in our sister 11x community. The generals immediate refusal to even consider such an idea is partially what the whole article is about.

The sentiment of being emasculated and being second rate is so widespread in this community that the best way to cope is to just joke about it. Its not perceived emasculation, it is woven into the very fabric of URT. There was a thread a few weeks ago about an RPA guy who was feeling pretty down. Best piece of advice on that thread was for the Lt. to buy his own plane and pursue his aviation development on his own dime and time. No one purposed any type of solution coming from big blue to alleviate these sentiments. Are RPA "pilots" actually pilots? Seems like we still haven't even answered that basic question.


 

People who go through URT are factually not pilots.  You’re also talking from shortsightedness: for at least ten years the majority of this forum was advocating for a companion trainers for pilots assigned to UAVs. 
 

Frankly, the spirit of this article sounds a lot like gratuitous whining like Longhorn alludes to than any actionable solution. 

Edited by SurelySerious
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Although most of you weren't around for it, ADAIR was around in the 70's and 80's at Tyndall, Hickam, and other places using the T-33.  Some of those pilots racked up a shit-ton of T-33 hours (1000-2000 hours) before transitioning to the Eagle.  

I never did it, but those I know that do/did say it is very cost effective.  

Years ago, Beale T-38's used to work with Fresno's Vipers on occasion.  We did a variety of "different" presentations for them and it was great training for all of us.  

Damn it that would have been fun...  Well kept T-33 in aggressor colors for a what could be if the AF still gave a shit about flying... #bitterandcrusty

d2d4d605f8256201a772531f579223a5.jpg

Add pods, radars, sensors, etc... with a new build airframe, engines, avionics, links, etc... you have a platform to segue to different missions:  aggressor, light attack, support and utility platform, flight based training, etc...

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

People who go through URT are factually not pilots.  You’re also talking from shortsightedness: for at least ten years the majority of this forum was advocating for a companion trainers for pilots assigned to UAVs. 

Frankly, the spirit of this article sounds a lot like gratuitous whining like Longhorn alludes to than any actionable solution. 

Amen.  They took the CTP from the Global Hawk right as I got there.  The CTP budget to rent Aero Club aircraft and fly all the GH pilots at the time (early 2000s) cost less than the copier toner budget for the FY at the 12th RS about 90k at the time, it was cheap and effective therefore it had to be killed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

The CTP budget to rent Aero Club aircraft and fly all the GH pilots at the time (early 2000s) cost less than the copier toner budget for the FY at the 12th RS about 90k at the time, it was cheap and effective therefore it had to be killed.

Yes, that was a decision that saved no money, and ruined an excellent program.  

I remember when "they" were giving the hairy eyeball to the T-38 CTP at Beale back in the 2006 timeframe.  IIRC, we were flying around 3700 T-38 hours.  

Around 2005, there was an F-22 at Hill that sucked a gear pin down the intake and trashed the engine.   

Damage cost?  About $6.9M... more than the entire 3700-hour budget of Beale's T-38 CT program.  

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Yes, that was a decision that saved no money, and ruined an excellent program.  

I remember when "they" were giving the hairy eyeball to the T-38 CTP at Beale back in the 2006 timeframe.  IIRC, we were flying around 3700 T-38 hours.  

Around 2005, there was an F-22 at Hill that sucked a gear pin down the intake and trashed the engine.   

Damage cost?  About $6.9M... more than the entire 3700-hour budget of Beale's T-38 CT program.  

I remember that.  

Everything that doesn't fit some mold I have yet to perfectly visualize that the Bobs in charge think is right is always under the gun regardless if it is chump change in terms of money, personnel and trouble while adding value that is either not readily quantifiable like induced crew retention for military only opportunities, morale or military flight, tactics and leadership development.

Bean counting a-holes with low experience in operations, intensive military training (participation in mil exercises, mission qual tng, etc..) or formal qual training don't realize that quantity of experience has a quality all its own.  Just the shear number of sorties a mil pilot flies is going to put him/her/it (for the wokesters) into unforseen circumstances, hopefully rise to the occassion, learn something and debrief it to their peers so they all get stronger. 

Repetitions build experience, proficiency and confidence.  That confidence is the basis of a good pilot so they can use more their nugget when things are not as planned, excrement hits the fan or they need to help a member of the team who is trouble/not as strong.

Rant complete.  Buy cool iron AF and get your mojo back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I remember that.  

Everything that doesn't fit some mold I have yet to perfectly visualize that the Bobs in charge think is right is always under the gun regardless if it is chump change in terms of money, personnel and trouble while adding value that is either not readily quantifiable like induced crew retention for military only opportunities, morale or military flight, tactics and leadership development.

Bean counting a-holes with low experience in operations, intensive military training (participation in mil exercises, mission qual tng, etc..) or formal qual training don't realize that quantity of experience has a quality all its own.  Just the shear number of sorties a mil pilot flies is going to put him/her/it (for the wokesters) into unforseen circumstances, hopefully rise to the occassion, learn something and debrief it to their peers so they all get stronger. 

Repetitions build experience, proficiency and confidence.  That confidence is the basis of a good pilot so they can use more their nugget when things are not as planned, excrement hits the fan or they need to help a member of the team who is trouble/not as strong.

Rant complete.  Buy cool iron AF and get your mojo back.

We face the same thing now.  We've got 'operational' GO's who don't think certain exercises are a good idea because they're not operational enough.  Like...wtf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2020 at 10:17 PM, Clark Griswold said:

What that lead in experience would be for these already rated dudes coming from a non-fighter assignment would be is the $64,000 question

It is important to also remember that the guys who crossflowed in the 90s were all UPT T-38 trained.

There's an additional data set of rotary-wing background guys who were hired by a couple of the A-10 ANG units in the 2003-2006 timeframe, most of whom also struggled substantially in IFF (and I understand performed similarly in Hog FTU).  Again, based on the guys I flew with as an IFF IP, their struggles were not a talent issue but an experience issue.

There's a small subset of guys in the heavy world currently who were assigned out of the T-38 track 8-10 years ago, and the number in the RPA community who came from 38s is an even smaller sliver.

 

Edited by Hacker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hacker said:

There's a small subset of guys in the heavy world currently who were assigned out of the T-38 track 8-10 years ago, and the number in the RPA community who came from 38s is an even smaller sliver.

If you want to just pull from communities, then why not BUFF/B-1 guys to fighters and AMC guys to AFGSC? At least the A-G weaponeering, SAM threat knowledge etc is there for the bomber dudes, and they are 90%+ T-38 trained as it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2020 at 10:25 PM, 17D_guy said:

We face the same thing now.  We've got 'operational' GO's who don't think certain exercises are a good idea because they're not operational enough.  Like...wtf. 

Not operational enough?  What the hell do they want?  A mash up of Iwo Jima, Gettysburg and the Tet Offensive to make it tough enough?

3 hours ago, Hacker said:

It is important to also remember that the guys who crossflowed in the 90s were all UPT T-38 trained.

There's an additional data set of rotary-wing background guys who were hired by a couple of the A-10 ANG units in the 2003-2006 timeframe, most of whom also struggled substantially in IFF (and I understand performed similarly in Hog FTU).  Again, based on the guys I flew with as an IFF IP, their struggles were not a talent issue but an experience issue.

There's a small subset of guys in the heavy world currently who were assigned out of the T-38 track 8-10 years ago, and the number in the RPA community who came from 38s is an even smaller sliver.

Copy that.

Thinking about a better cross-flow program (x to fighters), I'd probably have the program mainly look at applicants that came from other specialized communities that could give some transferable skills and experience to make the accepted applicants more likely to succeed.

B-2, U-2, Light Attack, etc... and alluding to the mil adversary program @HuggyU2 mentioned earlier, that might be a first stop for an accepted applicant, ADAIR first then based on that performance as an wingman, moving on to a B course in a pointy nose.

If possible, I'd try to synch the CTP programs, Light Attack, Chase Plane and mil ADAIR.  Might end up with a jack of all trades, master of none but that might be ok in the big picture.  Scorpion would be my choice as I think it could probably fulfill the majority of requirements for all and more than all for some (particularly light attack).  This could avoid the original sin of specialized programs, small fleet size and expensive/risky logistics with support over the life of the airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waaay back in the day UPT grads that received FAC assignments (O-2/OA-37) were guaranteed a fighter after a 3 yr DM tour.  I was a flight/CC and my guys went to F-15/F-16/A-10.  Most are airline capts now but one retired as Wing/DO at Cannon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Springer said:

Waaay back in the day UPT grads that received FAC assignments (O-2/OA-37) were guaranteed a fighter after a 3 yr DM tour.  I was a flight/CC and my guys went to F-15/F-16/A-10.  Most are airline capts now but one retired as Wing/DO at Cannon. 

You're right!  I completely forgot about this track out of UPT.  I worked with a number of these guys that went on to successful fighter careers having done exactly what you stated.  

Case in point:  Brig Gen (later Lt Gen) Bob Otto.  Started in the O-2, and then off to the Eagle after 2-3 years in the Duck.  Great pilot, officer, and American.  

p.s.  what's an OA-37 ???

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2020 at 7:40 PM, 12xu2a3x3 said:

would love to hear him speak unencumbered about this.

Briefed BG Orcutt several times before I retired from the AOC at Tyndall. He seemed a nice enuff guy, but behind the scenes he didn’t want any of us calling each other by our call signs and he made it known when 1st AF Bossman wasn’t anywhere to be seen. What a PC bend over or whatever you want to call it. 1st AF Boss didn’t care... he used our call signs. Cucumbered would be fine with me, 😐 sorry that wasn’t too funny...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Springer said:

Waaay back in the day UPT grads that received FAC assignments (O-2/OA-37) were guaranteed a fighter after a 3 yr DM tour.  I was a flight/CC and my guys went to F-15/F-16/A-10.  Most are airline capts now but one retired as Wing/DO at Cannon. 

What’s old is new again.  (Albeit slightly more ed up and delayed by bureaucracy... and I imagine an MC-12 to be significantly less exciting than O-2 flying.) The McDozen folks who flowed to fighters should all be through their B-courses now.  What are the reviews there?  The crossflows from all sources who I’ve interacted with haven’t been top of the class, nor the bottom. None have washed out that I’m aware of. 
 

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:


Thinking about a better cross-flow program (x to fighters), I'd probably have the program mainly look at applicants that came from other specialized communities that could give some transferable skills and experience to make the accepted applicants more likely to succeed.

B-2, U-2, Light Attack, etc... and alluding to the mil adversary program @HuggyU2 mentioned earlier, that might be a first stop for an accepted applicant, ADAIR first then based on that performance as an wingman, moving on to a B course in a pointy nose.

If possible, I'd try to synch the CTP programs, Light Attack, Chase Plane and mil ADAIR. 

Note here: if we want to crossflow, it should be a continuously operating system. In times of max throughput required, or when you need to balance year groups, open the valve. Otherwise, keep a trickle going so that 1) we don’t have to invent a “process” as an aid to avoid decision making and 2) the CAF knows what to do with/how to instruct these people. (Hint: in most cases if your root cause is related to somebody’s personal history, you’re likely two assumptions and a stereotype off the instructional fix.)

Next note: Not sure if you intend to sync airframes or units themselves. Airframes: great. Units: WRT light attack, absolutely not. Light attack is a combat role, and folks going into combat deserve dedicated training to stay alive. 

I do think ADAIR and CTP are likely compatible, given sufficient resources. I’d love to see somebody plop down a 20+ airplane squadron of jets at Beale to service the U-2’s CTP needs while also serving as ADAIR for Fresno, Klamath, Portland, and Nellis. You’d need a cadre of IFF/ADAIR instructors and enough fighter/Adair wingmen to meet demand (you couldn’t expect robust BVR/WVR threat rep with dual qual’d folks alone), but a shared fleet could be beneficial for everybody.  
 

WRT ADAIR as a stopping point in crossflow: there just isn’t time, unless you want to severely restrict opportunities for promotion/leadership for those folks. Officership and potential to lead isn’t explicitly tied to quals, but credibility and perception of that person’s value to a fighter squadron are. Rip the bandaid off and fully crossflow or borrow them for ADAIR then send them back.

 

Edited by jice
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...