I know this has been mentioned time and time again, but AD needs to develop a senior leadership track for those that desire and have shown promise of command. Develop them young and send them to appropriate schools instead of for-profit factory schools to check boxes. As for the rest, develop their combat effectiveness. These officers can run the squadron/group departments without PCS...kind of like ARTs and stay at the top of their game. They can deploy and do certain staff tours requiring expertise. Cap them at LtCol. The point is, we are in the business of logistics, breaking things and killing people. Combat effectiveness is not served by a graduate degree from some crap college or tour as wing exec pushing paper. Leave that for the guys who are selected for command and teach them to be good commanders. We are so broke right now with the system in place. The staff officers are running the show and not the warriors. Except for Gen Welch.

In many ways the Military is cyclical and depends on budget and posture, retention is tougher when times are better on the outside and easier when times are tough on the outside and wars demand more manpower.

I don't regret my time in at all, and I owe the Military a debt of gratitude.
The Military, like any well run corporation is going to do what it determines to be the best course of action. Don't count on changing that, at the same time you have to determine your best course of action.

Times and budgets change, but the teeth of the tiger are always small in relation to the whole. The body has gotten a lot bigger since WWII, in fact it has exploded in size and the teeth are a lot smaller. The teeth may be sharper and stronger, but they are now miniscule in relation to the whole.

Yeah, like Gen Cody, poor guy never made it anywhere. Or younger guys like Gen Richardson.

That's BS, the Army promotes pilots. Or more specifically, they promote officers who are pilots.

Of course they do, but it's not the cornerstone of their service. Frankly I suspect that the army enjoys the highest percentage of officer accessions who actually have an interest in becoming a GO someday. Navy and AF JO's...I think we all just wanted to drink, screw, and fly (or whatever).

If the AF turned flying over to enlisted, all the talented folks would either just enlist or go to medical school instead. What would you do for leadership?

1.1. Program Description. The USAF Military Personnel Exchange Program (MPEP) is an instrument by which the USAF builds, sustains, and expands international relationships that are critical enablers for our Expeditionary Air and Space Force. MPEP allows the USAF to exchange personnel in substantially equivalent grades and specialties with foreign nations, enhancing our ability to perform coalition opera- tions with global partners.

Nice to avoid the mistakes foreign defense forces make, and possibly implement some of their successes.

In the Navy a common saying was, "The good guys get out". A lot less true in the USCG. And even less accurate in the RNZAF. The USCG and commonwealth air forces share a similar trait, the ability for aviators to stay in the cockpit for a longer part of their career.

@ USMCFLYR, not sure if the flying WO program is still running. From what I remember it was open to P-3 and Helo communities.

@ BILLY PILGRIM, an active duty retirement pension may not be worth sticking in for. Hard to put a price on piece of mind. Read "My Secret War" by R. S. Drury. You'll find this argument has been going on for years now. Again, the USCG DCA program is a chance for you to fly for 20 on active duty.

-Conformity is not a virtue. It will kill your system because you won't get fresh ideas. -Richard S. Drury "My Secret War"

And yet many times that a senior commander passes on all we hear about is what a great leader and teacher he was and how warriors would follow him into battle......case in point Lex - who didn't get out.

That is a popular saying by many frustrated with the situation and the process. MANY good ones get out. MANY good ones stay in. A sad few never get the chance one way or the other, and yes, a few that shouldn't make it do. It is life.

Yes - that is what I remember of the program too but haven't heard hide nor hair of it since leaving.

I'm confused with your leads on saying the USCG pilots can stay in the cockpit longer than other services. Are you saying that it is common for a pilot in the USCG to rise in rank AND retire at 20 or more while *choosing* to stay in the cockpit or that there is some sort of WO-like flying track in the USCG? I know that some do their fair share of HQ staff tours and such; one that is trying to get on with FC and get gets the yearly mins because he is flying so little on his USCG HQ staff tour (C-130 background). Are different communities handled differently?

USMCFLYR

Very true! However, when many of us decided to serve our country, we were "selected" or given a choice in which manner we wanted to serve. To not take advantage of this option to me would have been silly. I don't think that Billy is saying he doesn't want to serve his country but that he wants to do it in the way he was given specialized training to do. I personally don't think that it is an outrageous expectation. How many Air Force nurses(also air force officers) do you see being assigned something not in their career field? Doctors for that matter? They're officers too?

BP

The 10 yr commitment is perfect to decide if you want to leave or not. The air force isn''t saying that they will guarantee a cockpit til retirement. IMHO, being non vol'd to a non flying assignment prior to your first 10 point, is not a smart use of an asset. You have definitely completed your training obligation and have become an expert in your career field. To me, if one decides to stay after that, all bets are off. The Air Force needs leaders and exposure in other areas is crucial to accomplishing this.

The new variable to a flyer is the UAV. It is in aviation but most flyers don't consider it flying. Unfortunately, being the wave of the future, it is a tough one to avoid.

The only way to try keep this from happening is to take control of your future in aviation. I was lucky and discovered the guard and reserves very early in my career. While you can't control base closures and units converting to UAV/s , you can control if you stay or transfer to another flying operation. Years ago, once you were an 0-4 you couldn't move. Not the case today. 0-4s have no problem moving and I know many 0-5 that have had that option also. But you decide. Do I move the family for a part time job so I can stay flying? Whatever the choice, at least it is your choice. The problem for most is, that they have a very stable, well paying career, a family and the fear of not being able to provide for them. Big Cojones are easy to have when it's just a simple single killin machine LT but, with a wife, 2.3 kids and a dog make things have a different look. That said, if you know what you want, preplanning takes the sting right out of it! Both with sinc home and financially.

So with all that said, my humble recommendation is to serve your country, do your 10 yrs then get out and serve your country with the guard and reserves where you will at least have some input as to where your future is going. If you want to become a general, well then you have to play the reindeer games to make it happen.
Pakaage

Generalize much? I didn't recommend turning flying over to enlisted. But as been already referenced here, the Army seems to have a pretty successful system in place that has worked for decades. We could try that model.

Actually up till last year the AF had a pretty good unofficial dual-track system for pilots--Majors. Most units I've been in had a few random pilots hanging round how didn't make O5. Solid pilots, experts, been around forever and consequently had seen everything there was to see. Continuity.

Wanna fly 20 years? Don't make O5. Seemed to work pretty good. Till they kicked out all the Majors last year anyway.

By the way, there are of course plenty of "talented folks" in the Air Force who aren't pilots or Dr's.

I was on active duty flying Hercs 85-92..... even back then many saw the need for a dual track system.... an Aviation Track if you will.... which more than likely ended at O-4. Many guys would have stayed for something like than rather than suffer endless staff tours.

Are they Staff Corps like they are in the USN?
If so then they join in a specialized service and are not Line Officers - like pilots. I'll use JAGs as an example. You may join because they told you they needed experienced prosecutors in the JAG, but when you are selected, trained, and into the fleet you end up doing Legal Service and Defense work and then other associated staff jobs. In other words - you sign on the dotted line to be an officer in the US military for a certain number of years. They can put you where they best see use for you.

So these *pilots* would have spent 10 years only in the cockpit and then be taken out and put into various important staff billets without any other experience? Nah....I think the answer here still lies in the selective track option.

It seemed that the avenue of using experienced pilots or even UPT graduates was a knee jerk reaction required due to a huge uptick in the use and needs of UAV in the current conflicts. They got caught behind the manpower-vs-requirement power curve and turned to the first source of qualified people they could to fill the void. Isn't there a specific UAV training track now or are pilot candidates still getting UAV on your drops?

USMCFLYR