Vincent Chase

Exactly what the AF needs! Some arrogant shoe clerk on the "leadership track" telling pilots where, when, what, and how to fly.

If you think about your proposal above, it wouldn't work. You think top brass is too stuck in their ways? Try making them in charge of flying when they don't do any flying. And why the hate for Academy grads? I've met a few. They're not all cut out for leadership roles!

JTwift

My last base had two OSSs (that's a lot of S).

One was entirely unnecessary, and everyone knew that it was kept around because it's a spot for another CC and DO position.

KA350Driver

The USAF’s ability to pick quality candidates to fill those leadership roles is their own problem and one for another discussion. There are general officers in the Army who don’t know how to shoot that tell junior soldiers how, where and what to shoot on a daily basis. There are hospital administrators in the civilian sector that don’t know which end of the stethoscope goes in their ears that tell doctors how, when and whom to treat. Let’s not pretend that this challenge doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world and that, in fact, many other professions and industries have managed to overcome it. There is no perfect solution to any problem, but what we’re doing now is quite literally insane.
I have no hate for the Academy grads. Simply put it out there as a possible pool of officers that can lead and manage the Air Force. If they can’t cut it then get rid of them or keep them in the cockpit. Where the leadership ultimately comes from is irrelevant.

Hacker15e

Having fought and flown with, against, and beside all three of these at one time or another, the RAAF is the only one that fits the bill in this particular case of individual competency.

There's an argument to be had over the IAF, but certainly not "NATO air forces" as a general statement.

rickair7777

Going high, big philosophical picture...

The services (especially the Navy) have plenty of folks on staff/shore tours doing work which could be done by contractors/GS/retirees.

But there's a reason for that. Our culture dictates that operational tours are hard. But that makes us good warriors. In some cases adding manpower would alleviate workload. But in many operational cases, a warfighter who trains 14+ hours/day is going to be more effective than two warfighters who train 8 hours/day. So operational tours probably need to be challenging to build hard warriors.

With that assumption, you have to allow for decompression, that's where your shore, staff, educational, and other random duty tours come into play.

Not sure about other services, but the navy is about three on, two off for operational vs. shore duty.

So just because a particular job is underwhelming, doesn't mean it's fraud, waste, and abuse... maybe it's just that poor guy's turn for a well-deserved break. Of course it's up to the services to properly manage how much of their force is doing what and when, to achieve a good ROI for tax dollars.

tomgoodman

Yes, and why would an enlisted pilot be any more tolerant of queep and SJW annoyances than an officer pilot?

Albief15

Exactly.

A pilot on an officer pay rate sees the airlines and says "more money, less BS, why not?"

So the idea is an enlisted guy will look at say "even MORE money than I make, less BS, but I'll stay because...well...I'm ENLISTED..."

I don't think it solves anything.

C-17 Driver

As for the "fly only" track, be careful of what you wish for. Remember, in the AF, there is no union. Our only "contract" is our 11-202v3 & 11MDS-V3.

I have over 10 years active duty, and over 11 in the Reserve and have flown a lot of airlift over the years. I have gone on orders (short term voluntary activation) to fly missions. I would argue that while on these orders, I was on a "fly-only" track. It wore me out. They wanted to turn and burn us as much as they could to the point where our Post-mission crew rest was calculated down to the minute before they alerted us. Thankfully, this was only for 45 or 60 days at a time. I cannot imagine maintaining a lifestyle like that for several years.

I am not saying that the "fly-only" track will be like what I experienced, but there is nothing to stop them.

"You wanted to be on the "fly-only" track, well here ya go. You'll fly only and be gone 40 weeks a year. Time at home will be pre/post mission crew rest...etc"

I'm still a huge advocate of the fly-only track. However, under current rules (AFIs), it would burn people out quickly.


just my $.02

C17D

HoursHore

There is a fly only track. It's called retiring as a Major.

KA350Driver

Full disclosure: I’m not a military pilot. But how much flight time does an average military pilot fly? My google searched tell me about 150 hrs a year for fighter guys. I’d assume it’s more for heavy pilots. I realize that there is a lot of time that goes into mission/training planning as well. Let’s call it 3 hours of planning to every 1 hour of flying. That gives us 600 hours of actual mission oriented work per year. The average American works about 2000 hours a year. Now, I’m sure that there is plenty of other worthwhile tasks that must be accomplished aside from flying and mission planning but I’m quite sure that a lot of the asspain and headache that wears pilots out to the point that they need a break with a staff/educational tour is self induced nonsense by the military. Workload can absolutely be reduced to the point that an operational tour isn’t so much of a grinder. When the Air Force figures out how to do this it will go a long way towards solving the problem.