Ram Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 No thanks, Learjetter. Purely from the fact that the LPA is WAY too small (or even nonexistent) in most (if not all) CAF squadrons. We have enough Capts in MQT that were former FAIPs, thankyouverymuch. (Myself included, FAIPs, so don't vag out and get all butthurt.) There's something really awesome about having a LOT of LTs in a fighter squadron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 http://www.airforce-...ATED_ACTION.pdf It's in MFR form so I guess that makes it official, right? welcome to the 6th post of the thread, on the first page... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcola Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 WTF does "normalize MC-12" mean? I've volunteered to deploy in the MC-12 for 6 months early next year. I sure as fack hope this doesn't turn into some kind of UAV-like scenario where I end up getting stuck for life. Hell yeah, I want to go contribute to the war, the MC-12 has a great mission. No, I don't want to do it forever and end up in some kind of 1:1 dwell between Beale and Asscrapistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kikuchiyo Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 WTF does "normalize MC-12" mean? It means to stop using the AEF system and start assigning people full time like you would for a "normal" weapon system. ACC has been given a deadline of Q1 FY13 to transition to a "normal" manning structure for the MC-12. Won't happen by then, but they're on notice from CSAF and the other MAJCOMs that it's time to man their own airframe rather than have everyone else man their airframe for them. They've been using OCO funds to provide the manning, rather than POMing and spending normal manpower $ like any other MWS does. ACC only ever POM'ed for enough permanent party billets to provide a 2.5 crew ratio (plus the FTU.) But they keep saying they need a 5.0 deployed crew ratio, and they had planned to continue to use the AEF manning to make up the difference. The Rated Summit said they have to either fund those extra billets, get the ARC to provide them through an associate-type arrangement, or change their deployed crew ratio down to whatever they're willing or able to fund. Or some other possibility, but stop using AEF manning. It does not (necessarily) mean that just cause you deployed in the MC-12 once, are scheduled to, or have volunteered to do so, that you'll get tagged to non-vol PCS to Beale. There are more guys that have flown the MC-12 than there will be billets at Beale. Although, it might open up the possibility of getting hired into an ARC associate unit if they choose to go that route. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDALPHA Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 It means to stop using the AEF system and start assigning people full time like you would for a "normal" weapon system. ACC has been given a deadline of Q1 FY13 to transition to a "normal" manning structure for the MC-12. Won't happen by then, but they're on notice from CSAF and the other MAJCOMs that it's time to man their own airframe rather than have everyone else man their airframe for them. They've been using OCO funds to provide the manning, rather than POMing and spending normal manpower $ like any other MWS does. ACC only ever POM'ed for enough permanent party billets to provide a 2.5 crew ratio (plus the FTU.) But they keep saying they need a 5.0 deployed crew ratio, and they had planned to continue to use the AEF manning to make up the difference. The Rated Summit said they have to either fund those extra billets, get the ARC to provide them through an associate-type arrangement, or change their deployed crew ratio down to whatever they're willing or able to fund. Or some other possibility, but stop using AEF manning. It does not (necessarily) mean that just cause you deployed in the MC-12 once, are scheduled to, or have volunteered to do so, that you'll get tagged to non-vol PCS to Beale. There are more guys that have flown the MC-12 than there will be billets at Beale. Although, it might open up the possibility of getting hired into an ARC associate unit if they choose to go that route. They started dropping the MC-12 out of UPT with no follow on... Most are 38 dudes too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcola Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Thanks for yet another great answer, kikuchiyo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on the fence Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 This was all confirmed by Gen Welsh on Monday to some USAFE fighter pilots. The biggest thing he said was that after looking at all the information he recieved about the looming fighter pilot shortage, it was a production problem, not a retention problem that was causing the shortage. "Not a retention problem"... seriously? Nobody has been able to get out for the past two years! I would love to be a fly on the wall at AFPC when the summer VML 7 day opts start dropping. The trick will be to get a guard or reserve slot before the active duty AF starts showing up with all their dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chida Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) The 10-year committment has caused more issues than AFPC realizes. It sure solved the retention "problem" for now, though. If it were still 8 years there wouldn't be this overage of majors, thus no reason to deny continuation to 157 passed over majors, or whatever the number is. Now, because of this anecdotal evidence of non-continuation, majors will be less likely to sit on the fence in hopes of a retirement and will be more likely to bail once their 10 years is done. I'm thinking 8 years was working better for the AF. Edited November 18, 2011 by Chida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 The 10-year committment has caused more issues than AFPC realizes. It sure solved the retention "problem" for now, though. If it were still 8 years there wouldn't be this overage of majors, thus no reason to deny continuation to 157 passed over majors, or whatever the number is. Now, because of this anecdotal evidence of non-continuation, majors will be less likely to sit on the fence in hopes of a retirement and will be more likely to bail once their 10 years is done. I'm thinking 8 years was working better for the AF. I would say 9/11 had more to do with retention than the 10 yr ADSC did. Simply the fact that there were very few airline jobs out there and the fact that they moved the O-4 boards up to the point that by the time your 10 yr ADSC was up you were already a pinned on Maj kept more guys staying. Guys who could somehow manage to get on with Southwest, FedEx or UPS bailed knowing that they could be back on the same pay scale in a few years, but in this economy it was too much to pass up $100K in the AF for $25K working for a Regional with a long road to upgrade, especially knowing that once you pinned on Maj you were good through 20 yrs. We'll know for sure this coming summer, but it looks like continuation may be a thing of the past (or extremely selective at best) which will most definitely play a factor for those ADSC fence sitters as you mentioned. I would be interested in seeing what numbers the AF (AFPC?) is using to determine their rated requirement. My big question would be this... are they using the current retention rates to predict meeting their future rated requirement and is that requirement a "bare bones" one? In other words, if retention rates for pilots after their ADSC is complete was historically 60%, but recently (assume since 9/11) it is upwards of 80% are they using a planned retention of 60% or 80% or somewhere in between? I've heard some crazy comments coming out of AF and AFPC PA citing the highest retention rates ever and comments along the lines of "pilots will stay on AD by a sense of patriotism" when asked about a pending hiring boom by airlines. The CSAF is obviously acknowledging the 11F shortage, but if they are using the higher planned retention % for their future requirements does that mean that the 11F shortage/gap is going to be bigger than they are advertising/predicting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stayeagle Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 The Air Force closes the only F-15C active duty training squadon last year. Oregon NG has been cancelling TX courses because they can't support them, and now they are turning the F-15C Aggressor squadron (which is only 5 years old) into an FTU---- at a different location?? Where? Tyndall? WTF--this is getting ridiculous. I need a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosswind Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Rumor mill turned out "Tyndall, 2014, full up". No real facts or jet flow dates, just an end date. Supposedly Florida's Congressmen are beaked that they lost 4 Fighter Squadrons from Tyndall & Eglin. The JSF Squadrons they were promised aren't showing up and the "noise" issue still exist. Plus the sims are still at Tyndall. Yes, the Air Force gave the contractors for the F-15C sims a 5 year deal, then cut the B course a year later. They've been sitting there doing 1 sim a month ever sense. Yet we had to RIF dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 They've been sitting there doing 1 sim a month ever sense. Yet we had to RIF dudes. Oh, thank God. We've fixed our manning problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db84 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Didn't the AF take over the sims and make the instructors jobs GS? Or was that just on the 22 side? Edited December 14, 2011 by db84 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