Terms:
Production: UPT and FTU output. UPT is producing near 100% capacity, as are the FTUs of most MWS's.

Absorption: the capacity of an MWS to take in UPT grads and make "experienced" aviators. Limited by iron, flying hours, UTE rates, and unit manning, among many other variables.

Experienced pilots: Ones that have met the experiencing criteria of their weapon system. They can then fill staffs, ALO billets, teach UPT, teach at FTUs, etc. They also fill other flying billets ("non-absorbable") that require experienced pilots (WIC IP, aggressor, some VIP/SAM MWS's, E-4, test, etc).

Attrition: loses from all causes

RL/BL - the Red Line/Blue Line charts produced by AF/A1PP and A3O-AT. RL is the requirements (billets), BL is the actual bodies (manning).


Right now the AF is producing at near max capacity, and it's just enough to keep the total number of pilots at 100% of requirements. So, for the foreseeable future the Total AF Pilot RL/BL charts are matched up. But it's the mix of pilots within those RL/BL totals that's the problem.

The AF drastically cut fighter production (BRAC'd 2 FTU sq's at Luke, etc) and absorption capacity (fighter redux, TAMI21, etc) several years ago. But they didn't cut requirements for experienced pilots (UPT IPs, ALOs, staffs, aggressors, WIC, etc). So the fighter BL is dropping fast. The FTUs can't push them through fast enough, and then there's not enough iron and flying hours available to experience them.

On the other hand, mobility production hasn't decreased, and they've been using OCO flying hours to absorb and experience their pilots faster then they would be able to normally. You can send a UPT grad to a C-17, and have him come out as an experienced pilot in half the time it takes to make an experienced fighter pilot. Then you can use said experienced mobility pilot to teach at UPT, or work on a staff, etc.

When you break the RL/BL charts out by community, fighters are and will be undermanned, but mobility is and will be overmanned. Mobility overmanning was directed by CSAF and is intentional in order to keep total AF pilot manning at 100%. The AF can't afford to stop the overmanning of mobility. If we did, we wouldn't be able to fill all the pilot requirements. Mobility will continue to pay a higher share of the bills - UPT IPs, staffs, etc - than they would in a perfectly balanced world.

So when a mobility recallee asks for an extension, it's hard to justify approving it given mobility manning, total pilot manning, and the AF's total manning issues combined.

 

Kikuchiyo:

That is the most eloquent and lucid explanation I have ever read on the subject. With you, we get honest, concise, clear answers.

Will you please run for President in 2012? Under a new party: The "Sanity and Reason" party.

 

I am often accused of being too long-winded and thorough in my responses to questions. My answers won't fit in a 5-second TV-news sound bite. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

K-

No longer as confused. Thanks.

Btw, you'd never know there was an 11F shortage by looking at the number hanging out at the USAFA airfield.

(that sounds like a knock, it's not meant as one)

 

I'll primarily direct this at Kikuchiyo, unless someone else has knowledge:

I'm on the standard 3-year order. I'm applying for an extension. Secretary tells me she was told that if granted an extension, the total service length for anyone in any of the recall programs is 48 months.

Is that correct? I know the email from Randolph said you could apply for 1 or 2 year extensions.

I think she's right, but looking for verification (she's new).

 

She is correct. The total amount of time served on either RRORP or LPRP orders is 48 months.

They wrote it as "1 or 2 year extensions" to cover all the possible tour lengths that people took initially. Remember, those guys that took staff jobs in the CONUS only incurred 2 year tours up front, as did anyone coming overseas unaccompanied. Versus guys who did flying assignments who had 3 years after training, or overseas accompanied tours which were 3 years. It was just a catch-all phrase.

Also note that I said "on either RRORP or LPRP orders." Once an ARC member declares sanctuary, they are no longer considered to be in the LPRP program. They get new orders to AD, the rules change, and they are no longer limited by the 48-month maximum of the LPRP.

 

OK, this may be splitting hairs...but this a relevant question for the guys like me that need a one year or less extension to get 20 yrs AD. Can you apply for a shorter than 1 year "extension" of your LPRP and still be in the LPRP program vice simply declaring sanctuary? Does it have to be the full year? If you can, then I suppose applying for the extension couldn't hurt--if you don't get it you can at some point just declare sancutary and get it that way...

 

Yes, you can request any length of extension, up to 4 years total time on your LPRP (or RRORP) orders. I know a guy who is requesting an 8 month extension to line him up for a summer move and the end of kids' school. The simple fact that it's not a nice, round year isn't going to cause them to deny it.

Turtle, they won't approve an extension for you, being a mobility guy. I just talked to the guys at HAF again this week, and there's still no chance of mobility guys getting extensions.

 

Kikuchiyo--Do you have any insight on extensions for guys in 11R billets. Even though I'm in rescue, we still come under Recce. I'd like the one more year and have the letter from my Wing King. I was led to believe that if you had commander concurence, you were supposed to get it. Obviously not the case anymore. Thanks for any info you might have.

 

Kenn, you can give it a shot, but I'd bet against it. They denied an extension for a bomber guy in a Key Nuclear Billet, even though they know that we're short of nuke-knowledgeable guys and the emphasis that nukes got after the incidents of the last couple years.

Although extensions were on the table when we all came back a couple years ago, they're now only being approved for fighter guys. Times changed.