Originally Posted by
Riddler
Short of pilots? Well, yes. But the real problem is that the USAF refuses to budge from its model of requiring pilots to be full time administrators and part time pilots. My opinion is that we've got plenty of pilots. Most of them are just too damn busy doing the job of SrA and MSgts in support career fields. Each squadron could probably cut 20% of its pilots if it could get rid of the following additional duties:
- DTS
- Resource Advisor
- MICT
- Readiness, UDMs
- Awards & Decs
- Execs
On the other hand, each squadron could really use:
- A Personnel NCO instead of a bunch of Execs
- A Finance NCO instead of an RA and DTS Flight
- A Contracting NCO instead of an RA and End of Year UFR Czar
- An IT person who can actually do IT work like hook up computers and keep the printers working.
- Zero ancillary training. It's "ancillary" and by definition has nothing to do with the primary mission.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just an AMC pilot who's been muddling through this for 19 years. I've never been a 4-star exec or aide-de-camp, so I suppose I'm lacking the "big picture" that explains why it's smart to use an organization's most highly trained/paid/scarce resource to do the work of low to mid level Airmen.
Heck you don't need an NCO, a GS-5 would be just fine. In your plan that's 5 more civilians per flying squadron.
Assuming long as you keep a ratio of about 1 pilot retained for every 20 civilians hired the AF saves money by reducing UPT costs. If you cut demand for UPT slots you BRAC a base and return 100+ pilots to big blue and who knows how many millions are saved.
The AF gets better and more experienced pilots for Day 1 of the campaign vs a JATWSH or North Korea scenario.
Congress gets a cheaper, more combat effective military plus dozens of jobs in their district.
Everybody wins in this scenario, what's not to like?