Originally Posted by hvydvr (Post 3782187)

Great idea if it was an accession issue. It's not.

There is zero shortage of people who want to be AF pilots. None. There has never been an empty seat on the first day of UPT. Not one.

Unfortunately, the shortage is 10 year experienced guys who actually know what they are doing. Officers in their shoes get out for every reason under the sun--pay, QoL, queep. Give a warrant officer the same fixed wing qualifications as the current officers at the end of their service commitments and they will punch out at the same rate. So unless WOs have some secret source of patriotism that only they know of, this is really a non-starter.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3782409)

The Navy has tried over the years several different programs not requiring a degree. What you are missing is the complexity of the weapon systems the Navy and AirForce employ off aircraft. Flying the aircraft is a means to employ weapons. The Navy and AirFrorce employ far more sophisticated systems and more types. Many of those systems are far more complex than learning to fly the aircraft.

Originally Posted by trip (Post 3782446)

That theory doesn't stand throughout entire NATO architecture of airpower, and then you have the transport and helos in the USMC/NAVY/AirForce.
It's really nothing more then "that's how weve always done it" measure of finding a succesful candidate who will go on to become a leader.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3782283)

There's a reason the AF and Navy do it the way they do.

Aviation is THE mission for the USAF. It is the large preponderance of the conventional power projection capability for the Navy. Both services need aviation to be very well-represented in staff and key leadership positions all the way up the chain of command. So they need aviation experienced officers who can punch at the appropriate weight (rank) relative to other branches and services. Especially in the joint and coalition contexts.

In the Army aviation is an enabler mostly for the Army itself. It only needs representation relative to other Army branches, which it has with a relatively small cadre of commissioned officers. Not that Army aviation doesn't need officer representaton, it just doesn't need as much, or in as many places.

The issue isn't compensation, don't need a particular O vs. E pay scale, bonuses can take care of that. Some enlisted SEALs have gotten retention bonuses at least as generous as pilots.

From a recruiting perspective, bright shiny military jets allows the AF and Navy to attract people who they hope will make good senior staff officers and leaders down the road. The want a large inventory of those to start with to account for attrition (airlines are an aggravating factor).

Originally Posted by 3006hunter (Post 3782707)

Let's be honest here....

If the AF wants to take a highly experienced fighter squadron, shut it down and make a cyber wing. Its obvious they dont give a **** about a "pilot shortage".

Originally Posted by NoDrop (Post 3780826)

Yet there always seems to be money to add another VIP transport aircraft.

Originally Posted by 4dalulz (Post 3783298)

If all 50-ish VIP transporters are blowing an irreperable hole in the USAF budget - you've got other problems and likely have already lost any war before it starts.