Marco Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Rebalancing the Rated Pipeline: The Air Force needs to boost fighter pilot production to 278 pilots a year as it works to rebalance the rated training pipeline, wrote Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz in a letter to Air Force major commands and members of the Air Staff. Schwartz said this will be accomplished primarily through the new active associations with reserve fighter squadrons. Specifically, the Arizona Air National Guard at Tucson will support "significantly more" B-course students each year and reduce the number of foreign military sales students. Air Combat Command will reduce the F-16 flight training unit syllabus. The A-10 crew ratio will increase and more aircraft will be added to the FTU in an effort to produce more pilots, wrote Schwartz in the Nov. 2 letter. Also, the F-15C aggressor squadron will be converted to an FTU at a location still to be determined, and F-22 FTU throughput will be increased significantly. Schwartz requested the major command take the lead and "rapidly implement" the specific decisions made at a recent Rated Summit. The Air Staff's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Requirements function will lead a working group charged with tracking and synchronizing the staffing and codifying a new program action directive, which must be submitted to Schwartz by Dec. 1 for signature." Go figure. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetter Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 So, we are going to start training more fighter pilots to send them off for 1 operational tour, call them experienced, then send them off to all the billets that don't require flying a fighter. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 A-10 crew ratio will increase? WTF?!?!? The A-10 crew ratio as of 01 October just decreased all across ACC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 So is this just for UPT to catch up after the last few years, or will there be aircraft crossflow for 38 dudes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 A-10 crew ratio will increase? WTF?!?!? The A-10 crew ratio as of 01 October just decreased all across ACC. You get rid of all of your experienced tactical experts and bring in totally new pilots. Combat effectiveness goes up, it's science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone deaf Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Here's the letter from the CSAF: http://www.airforce-...ATED_ACTION.pdf The last page is the attachment with the specific proposals. One line item is to stabilize the MC-12 at a 2.5 to 5.0 crew ratio--anyone have the latest gouge on what ACC is planning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1083x Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Can anyone give their take on what this will mean for AFRC fighter squadrons sponsoring UPT candidates in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 So is this just for UPT to catch up after the last few years, or will there be aircraft crossflow for 38 dudes? I'm putting my money on the crossflow option...it is the quickest, least expensive fix so it would make the most sense....when it happens, it will also mark the time the Air Force finally figures out that it really doesn't have an overage of 11M pilots, or rather the reason it appears to have an overage is because they keep giving 11F/B programmed (T-38 track) UPT graduates airlift assignments. I think someone's lightbulb just lit up... In any case, good news for new pilots who want to be fighter pilots..... Anyone taking bets on the next rated recall?? I'm saying within 15 months from TODAY. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcola Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Yep, all those 11Xs with ADSC that just got RIF'd, enjoy your vacation. See you in 2 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I love the way the Air Force/gov't thinks. - Lets BRAC 2 squadrons at Luke, the fighter pilot shortage won't hit for years. - Lets move 2 squadrons from Luke to Holloman thereby cutting production by 25-30%, the fighter pilot shortage won't hit for years. - Lets RIF a bunch of dudes, the shortage won't hit for years. - Shit! We're a few years from a huge shortage, who let this happen!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I love the way the Air Force/gov't thinks. - Lets BRAC 2 squadrons at Luke, the fighter pilot shortage won't hit for years. - Lets move 2 squadrons from Luke to Holloman thereby cutting production by 25-30%, the fighter pilot shortage won't hit for years. - Lets RIF a bunch of dudes, the shortage won't hit for years. - Shit! We're a few years from a huge shortage, who let this happen!? They should be fired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I don't exist Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Recall TAMI-21 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kikuchiyo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I was a member of the Fighter Pilot IPT that developed some of these proposals. Others came from HAF and other outside inputs, and all were agreed upon by the 4-stars at the Rated Summit on 22 Sep. The problem is BRAC and other programmatic decisions were made without considering the full impacts - cutting 2 FTU sq's at Luke, among others. UPT is producing full bore just to maintain the total number of pilots that we need to fill all the cockpits that we need for the foreseeable future (please don't get me started on what's foreseeable - we all know the AF's poor history of foreseeing.) We can make about enough T-38 grads as we need, but they all need to go to fighters. But there's not enough fighter FTU capacity and then not enough absorbable iron to experience them. So the solutions presented in the memo are a mix of increasing FTU capacity (converting F-15C aggressors to an FTU, etc,) and increasing absorption (higher crew ratios, putting guys into ARC units, etc). Doing all these, and re-scrubbing non-flying fighter pilot billets, should stabilize fighter manning. So, yes, as noted the A-10 crew ratio was reduced previously. That was one of those poorly made decisions where the impact was not considered fully. That decision was made by the FM guys, not the operators or the HAF offices responsible for aircrew training and manning. So, we went to the 4-stars to overturn it. FYI, USAFE did not reduce the crew ration on their A-10s when originally told to do so, which is why they're not an OCR on the memo directing the MAJCOMs to increase the crew ratio. MC-12: ACC has said repeatedly that they need a 5.0 crew ratio when the aircraft are deployed. But ACC only put enough billets at Beale to man the units at 2.5 (plus the FTU). That was a decision made purely by ACC, not AFPC and not HAF. The memo is asking the AF to look at Total Force (translated Reserve/ANG) solutions. Expect an Associate unit of MC-12 crews but without aircraft. Could be at Beale, but wouldn't have to be, since there's only enough aircraft at Beale for the FTU and all the operational birds are downrange anyway. The ARC associations in fighter units will likely be "pods" of 4 to 10 AD guys. UPT grads plus one AD experienced guy to cover mentoring, assignments, OPRs, and other qweep the ARC doesn't want to deal with (no slight intended, that's a quote from the ARC reps to the IPT). The size of the pods will depend on many factors including the size of the ARC unit, number of PAA, location, mission, MWS, and any further refinement of the plan. The intent is essentially to utilize the iron that is currently underflown and to harness the vast instructor and general flying experience of the ARC to help grow new fighter pilots. Item 3 will be interesting. They're going to allow some UPT grads straight into aggressor squadrons. They can learn to fly and fight there (as wingmen most of the assignment anyway) as well as they can in a regular squadron. And they won't deploy, so their skills won't be affected by the deployment cycle. Crossflows and recalls are not on the table right now. Crossflows are not being considered because, as previously noted, we already don't have enough FTU capacity to train the UPT T-38 grads. Recalls are out cause, as previously noted, we're RIF'ing guys. But who knows, all this will be OBE in 2 yrs, and anything could happen. These aren't perfect solutions. Will there be mistakes in these - yes. But we got ourselves into this pickle by letting the bean counters instead of the warfighters decide how many of what kinds of fighter units we needed. Hopefully in sum, they'll help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murdocjxx Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Get rid of the B-1 and crossflow those dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 They're going to allow some UPT grads straight into aggressor squadrons. They can learn to fly and fight there (as wingmen most of the assignment anyway) as well as they can in a regular squadron. You're kidding, right? So are the aggressors going to start using blue air-to-air tactics or teaching bomb dropping, HARM slinging, etc, that a "regular" F-16 squadron would teach a young pup? Learning how to "fly and fight" gomer-style isn't really "learning how to fly and fight". I'm not shooting the messenger here. I understand the big picture problem and the difficulty of finding solutions. I personally don't have a big problem with sending young guys to the aggressors. But I just hope that there is no expectation within the AF that a guy who has flown red air on the wing for 3 years will suddenly be at all capable of going to combat (on our side) after that assignment. He'll have some experience in the air, but they by no means will be remotely competent at blue air combat skills. They will be starting damn near over again once they get to an operational squadron. So is this really a benefit? Did we really produce more fighter pilots by doing this? Debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAMInated Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) I was a member of the Fighter Pilot IPT that developed some of these proposals. Any mention of TAMI guys? Last time I checked a TX course would get pilots into the jet faster than a B-course. Edited November 9, 2011 by TAMInated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Kikuchiyo, Thanks so much for posts like this. I wish I could get this type of information from AFPC or my commander. It's absolutely invaluable. With regards to the "pods", how soon do you see this happening? Will any of this stuff be implemented on the upcoming Summer VML? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobs Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Is it normal to send fighter guys to one operational sq and move them to something else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Is it normal to send fighter guys to one operational sq and move them to something else. Yes. UPT, IFF, ALO, UAV, aggressors, etc. Ops to ops are few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) What exactly does this mean for a non-current Hog driver on the summer 12 VML? Sounds like an increased chance for a TX course. This is the closest thing to winning comm since the creech whammy three years ago... The worst part is that people on this last VML was affected by the lowering of crew ratios. So because of that, people are going back to white jets/ALO/RPAs after only one year back in their MWS after the TX because all the fighter squadrons are "over manned". Now with this new memo and proposal, they want to raise the crew ratios again, thus making the fighter squadrons under manned and needing experienced fighter pilots and of course, those experienced fighter pilots are the the ones going back to another ALPHA tour. It's been said before but if the Air Force was a Fortune 500 company, all the bosses would have been fired long ago because of incompetency and this is just another example of that! Edited November 9, 2011 by Tank 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperStud Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Yes. UPT, IFF, ALO, UAV, aggressors, etc. Ops to ops are few and far between. Old gouge. Current/qual guys in the Viper world, especially IPs, are increasingly staying in the jet. At Luke, we've seen most guys getting Viper assignments unless some other PFA takes precedence (join-spouse or application to another community) or unlucky (ie the only Maj-select being rack-stacked against all Majs with leadership that puts him auto-bottom). Been that way for 2-3 assignment cycles. CAF is not too different. 38s have a lot of bomber drivers, particularly because most of those dudes are dying to do it. Not a shot at all, just look at PIT classes and you see tons of Buff/Bone dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap-10 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 F-15E WSO's are being told they will stay in the jet for the fore-seeable future....pilots are getitng Ops-to-Ops even if they are on the WIC train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seriously Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 ....better question is how can there be a crew ratio without a crew? 2 Guys 1 Seat. The Air Force is accepting of these sort of arrangements now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobs Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Good info, for those guys not going ops to ops what are the odds of them going back to the jet? Or does that depend on where they end up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Under-utilized Iron.....what? Better flow some crew chiefs and support people to the ANG/ARC or it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now