USAF in danger due to pilot shortage
03-16-2023, 09:02 AM
#12
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,502
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Any discussion of bonuses for guard and reserve retention. When the new round of airline contracts kick in the exodus there is going to increase!
16 Mar 2023
Military.com | By Rebecca KheelThe Defense Department within "weeks" will take the next step on a report that will pave the way for National Guardsmen and reservists to receive higher incentive pay, a department official pledged Wednesday.
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subpanel, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., confronted officials for being nearly six months late in following a congressional mandate to give members of reserve components incentive pay equal to the bonuses given to active-duty service members. Under the 2021 annual defense bill, the Pentagon was required to submit a report to Congress before increasing the pay, but the report has yet to be finished.
"I think you guys are slow-rolling this because you don't want to implement it," Duckworth said after a department official gave a jargon-heavy answer to her question about why the report is six months late.
Read Next: Pentagon Unsure It Can Recover Drone Downed by Russia
While the official demurred on a timeline to provide the report to lawmakers, he promised staffers would be briefed in "weeks or less."
"Not years, not months," Thomas Constable, the acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, told Duckworth. "I think the answer is weeks. Obviously, faster when I go back than before I left the building."
Duckworth demanded lawmakers get the report in four weeks.
"You need to do this," she said.
At issue are 18 categories of incentive pay used to attract recruits or retain service members with specific skills or qualifications. Many of the bonuses, which can add hundreds of dollars a month to a service member's paycheck, require specialized training or involve duties that put a service member at greater risk.
Current Pentagon policy caps the incentive pay for Guardsmen and reservists lower than for active-duty troops, despite the fact that they are required to do the same training or duties as their active-duty counterparts to receive the bonuses. For example, Duckworth said Wednesday, both active-duty and reserve paratroopers are required to keep up their skills with three jumps a month, but reservists get only $5 compared to active-duty members getting $150.
To close the disparity, the National Defense Authorization Act passed in 2021 requires that the bonuses be the same for reserve components and active duty. But it also required the Pentagon to first submit a report laying out an implementation plan for incentive pay parity and certifying in writing that parity will not have a detrimental effect on force structure.
That report was due Sept. 30. Duckworth, a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel, and five other Senate and House members from both parties sent a letter weeks after the report was due bemoaning the delay. At the time, the Pentagon told Military.com it would have an update on the report "within the coming months."
At Wednesday's hearing, Constable suggested the delay has revolved around some bonuses that officials don't want to increase and concerns that offering higher incentive pay to Guardsmen and reservists could lure some troops away from active duty.
"Not all special skills, not all special pays are created equally or should be treated the same," he said. "We just have to find the right mix of places wherein we seek equal dollars versus equal consideration. And of course, cognizant of creating incentives to draw people from one force to the other."
Duckworth said she found that argument insulting.
"This idea that you can slow-roll this and that an active-duty troop is going to leave the active duty to go to the reserves because he's gonna get 150 bucks extra a month for three jumps is an insult to the troops who are on active duty," she said. "And it's still an insult to the [reserve] troops who do those same three jumps every single month in order to meet those standards."
-- Rebecca Kheel can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @reporterkheel.
Related: Delay to Incentive Pay Boost for Guard and Reserves Draws Rebuke from Lawmakers
Show Full Article
Military.com | By Rebecca KheelThe Defense Department within "weeks" will take the next step on a report that will pave the way for National Guardsmen and reservists to receive higher incentive pay, a department official pledged Wednesday.
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subpanel, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., confronted officials for being nearly six months late in following a congressional mandate to give members of reserve components incentive pay equal to the bonuses given to active-duty service members. Under the 2021 annual defense bill, the Pentagon was required to submit a report to Congress before increasing the pay, but the report has yet to be finished.
"I think you guys are slow-rolling this because you don't want to implement it," Duckworth said after a department official gave a jargon-heavy answer to her question about why the report is six months late.
Read Next: Pentagon Unsure It Can Recover Drone Downed by Russia
While the official demurred on a timeline to provide the report to lawmakers, he promised staffers would be briefed in "weeks or less."
"Not years, not months," Thomas Constable, the acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, told Duckworth. "I think the answer is weeks. Obviously, faster when I go back than before I left the building."
Duckworth demanded lawmakers get the report in four weeks.
"You need to do this," she said.
At issue are 18 categories of incentive pay used to attract recruits or retain service members with specific skills or qualifications. Many of the bonuses, which can add hundreds of dollars a month to a service member's paycheck, require specialized training or involve duties that put a service member at greater risk.
Current Pentagon policy caps the incentive pay for Guardsmen and reservists lower than for active-duty troops, despite the fact that they are required to do the same training or duties as their active-duty counterparts to receive the bonuses. For example, Duckworth said Wednesday, both active-duty and reserve paratroopers are required to keep up their skills with three jumps a month, but reservists get only $5 compared to active-duty members getting $150.
To close the disparity, the National Defense Authorization Act passed in 2021 requires that the bonuses be the same for reserve components and active duty. But it also required the Pentagon to first submit a report laying out an implementation plan for incentive pay parity and certifying in writing that parity will not have a detrimental effect on force structure.
That report was due Sept. 30. Duckworth, a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel, and five other Senate and House members from both parties sent a letter weeks after the report was due bemoaning the delay. At the time, the Pentagon told Military.com it would have an update on the report "within the coming months."
At Wednesday's hearing, Constable suggested the delay has revolved around some bonuses that officials don't want to increase and concerns that offering higher incentive pay to Guardsmen and reservists could lure some troops away from active duty.
"Not all special skills, not all special pays are created equally or should be treated the same," he said. "We just have to find the right mix of places wherein we seek equal dollars versus equal consideration. And of course, cognizant of creating incentives to draw people from one force to the other."
Duckworth said she found that argument insulting.
"This idea that you can slow-roll this and that an active-duty troop is going to leave the active duty to go to the reserves because he's gonna get 150 bucks extra a month for three jumps is an insult to the troops who are on active duty," she said. "And it's still an insult to the [reserve] troops who do those same three jumps every single month in order to meet those standards."
-- Rebecca Kheel can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @reporterkheel.
Related: Delay to Incentive Pay Boost for Guard and Reserves Draws Rebuke from Lawmakers
Show Full Article
03-16-2023, 08:04 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'll be honest, even at age 18 I might have balked at going down a road that involved a 15-year commitment after wings... at that point, might as well stay for 20.
03-16-2023, 09:34 PM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,277
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
Interesting. If someone's ultimate goal were the airlines then the current hiring wave will be a distant memory after that many years. Of course, if I could read the tea leaves that far out, I would be getting paid a lot more as an analyst for someone.
03-17-2023, 12:52 PM
#15
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,683
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
Interesting. If someone's ultimate goal were the airlines then the current hiring wave will be a distant memory after that many years. Of course, if I could read the tea leaves that far out, I would be getting paid a lot more as an analyst for someone.
All that said, USAF doesn’t have a pilot recruitment problem. It does have a pilot training problem and a retention problem.
03-18-2023, 10:03 AM
#16
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,502
Logistics, logistics, logistics…
T-38 Talon engine repair woes could slow pilot training for months
By Rachel S. CohenMar 16 at 11:20 AM
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/WVCWGAGSXNGHBEVWQSMY247POE.jpg)
Airmen conduct pre-flight operations with the T-38 Talon training jet as part of undergraduate pilot training at Vance Air Force Base, Okla., Dec. 9, 2021. (Airman 1st Class Christian Soto/Air Force)The Air Force’s T-38 Talon training jet fleet is digging out of engine maintenance delays that could slow military pilot production for at least another six months.Service officials say the main contractor, Arizona-based StandardAero, hasn’t delivered enough freshly refurbished engines to train American and foreign combat pilots. Those deliveries have lagged the usual rate for several months due to a web of complications
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ng-for-months/
In fairness, the J85 never really was engineered for longevity. It was designed to power Bomarc missiles on a single one way trip.
03-19-2023, 10:10 AM
#17
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
The J85 was designed for the ADM-20 originally, but has been a very successful engine over the years; in the civil world, the same engine without afterburner is the CJ610, and was adapted into the CF700. The engine and it's variants has a very successful history.
The early J85 developments for drone/missile use were built with lower grade materials; and are not the same as the J-85's and CJ610's used for manned aircraft. The notion that the J85 is a missile engine that wasn't engineered to last, is a myth.
The early J85 developments for drone/missile use were built with lower grade materials; and are not the same as the J-85's and CJ610's used for manned aircraft. The notion that the J85 is a missile engine that wasn't engineered to last, is a myth.
03-19-2023, 11:46 AM
#18
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,277
Missiles and civil aircraft engines both spend most of their time at steady-state cruise power, in straight & level flight.
Mil tactical engines get cycled a lot, and are subject to a lot of maneuvering forces. Even more so for a trainer.
You could argue the engine wasn't "designed", or optimized for that role... but how much would a clean-sheet engine cost? Those costs have to be balanced with the utility. Sometimes cheaper in the long run to use off the shelf, even if that's not the perfect technical solution. I'm pretty sure the B-21 engines are something off the shelf, they simply buried it enough ducting to provide the needed LO and airflow characteristics.
Mil tactical engines get cycled a lot, and are subject to a lot of maneuvering forces. Even more so for a trainer.
You could argue the engine wasn't "designed", or optimized for that role... but how much would a clean-sheet engine cost? Those costs have to be balanced with the utility. Sometimes cheaper in the long run to use off the shelf, even if that's not the perfect technical solution. I'm pretty sure the B-21 engines are something off the shelf, they simply buried it enough ducting to provide the needed LO and airflow characteristics.
04-22-2023, 01:53 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 218
Just a casual observer here, but why hasn't the military (at least publicly) looked at doing with pilots what they are doing with other specialty positions like doctors and lawyers? If I am a licensed civilian doctor, my civilian licensing and education is recognized, I can join the military up to age 48, and go through a 5.5 week OTS. If someone had told me at 40 or 45 that my FAA ATP and 8,000 hours of flight time would be recognized by the Air Force, I would have happily applied. The military does not send experienced and licensed doctors or lawyers back to year one of medical school or law school, but at least the last time I looked at it 20 years ago, they did send experienced and licensed pilots back to day one of flight school. If you are going in active duty as an experienced doctor, you are going to be in the military as a doctor. But If you were going in active duty, as an experienced pilot, you may not even get a pilot slot (again, this is the last I looked at it 20 + years ago, when I was still in my 20s, may be different now), the only way to ensure you get a pilot slot was to get hired by a guard or reserve unit. I get that there is some kind of front line combat flying you might not want a 45 year old jumping in to, I certainly wouldn't expect the Air Force to throw someone like me in to an F-35 or F-22. But being an experienced Boeing pilot, how much of a transition would it be to put me in a C-5, or C-40, or KC-135? I am not expecting a six to eight week airline style training program, I get that it would be a longer training program. But if you accept that someone is arriving as a licensed and experienced pilot, just as you would if they were a licensed and experienced doctor or lawyer, that would certainly reduce training timelines and expense, and may increase the pool of potential pilots, especially among the guard or reserve. For you military guys, is this faulty thinking, or is there any merit to this idea?
04-22-2023, 05:39 AM
#20
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,277
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
Just a casual observer here, but why hasn't the military (at least publicly) looked at doing with pilots what they are doing with other specialty positions like doctors and lawyers? If I am a licensed civilian doctor, my civilian licensing and education is recognized, I can join the military up to age 48, and go through a 5.5 week OTS. If someone had told me at 40 or 45 that my FAA ATP and 8,000 hours of flight time would be recognized by the Air Force, I would have happily applied. The military does not send experienced and licensed doctors or lawyers back to year one of medical school or law school, but at least the last time I looked at it 20 years ago, they did send experienced and licensed pilots back to day one of flight school. If you are going in active duty as an experienced doctor, you are going to be in the military as a doctor. But If you were going in active duty, as an experienced pilot, you may not even get a pilot slot (again, this is the last I looked at it 20 + years ago, when I was still in my 20s, may be different now), the only way to ensure you get a pilot slot was to get hired by a guard or reserve unit. I get that there is some kind of front line combat flying you might not want a 45 year old jumping in to, I certainly wouldn't expect the Air Force to throw someone like me in to an F-35 or F-22. But being an experienced Boeing pilot, how much of a transition would it be to put me in a C-5, or C-40, or KC-135? I am not expecting a six to eight week airline style training program, I get that it would be a longer training program. But if you accept that someone is arriving as a licensed and experienced pilot, just as you would if they were a licensed and experienced doctor or lawyer, that would certainly reduce training timelines and expense, and may increase the pool of potential pilots, especially among the guard or reserve. For you military guys, is this faulty thinking, or is there any merit to this idea?
I agree an experienced pilot could probably spool up faster in the air mobility community, or for things like AWACS, but it would require a custom course.
Probably the big thing is formation flying... almost all platforms have some mission which requires that, air drops in mobility and AR for pretty much everyone including AWACS, MPRA, TACAMO. Military training has a very strong formation flying foundation so IMO you'd have get folks through that at the very least.
But the fundamental problem todays isn't one of lacking enough entry-level pilots... it's retaining those with experience who can lead and train the junior folks. That's a very big deal given the complexities of Joint military operations... many hours going into preparing for each flight.
Also the mil has a very large overhead of "management pilots", mostly mid or senior-grade pilots who fill staff (non-flying) jobs at major headquarters. Yes that's absolutely essential to ensure that all of that Joint (and international allied) warfighting gets planned with proper guidance from those who know the intricate ins and outs of air warfare. Same applies to all other military specialties... you don't want a Army artillery officer planing the air warfare part of Joint ops, or vice versa. When the mil says they have a "pilot shortage" it's not really at the squadron level, it's the staff positions which suffer first.
The really never has been a shortage of kids who want to fly jets in the mil, and once they get them they're obligated for 12+ years. The problem now is keeping them after that.
The crux of the matter today is the airline demand and opportunities which is attracting mid and senior mil pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
