Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

Active Duty or ANG?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-18-2013, 06:30 AM
  #41  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,405
Default

Originally Posted by Pyro View Post
Cleverly planned? Sarcasm? If not, please explain, I have not heard/thought of this angle.

Sorry for thread derail.....
Yes, sarcasm.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-18-2013, 02:08 PM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
1Seat 1Engine's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Yes, sarcasm.
Not one word of it was sarcasm.

The USAF has been planned into a manned aircraft pilot shortage for a while. The personnel guys were already spouting the math a couple of years ago. It has already begun to hit the RTU's in the fighter world.

My son is currently in F-16 RTU. I talk to my old friends out there all the time.

The big "IF" is how many F-35's is the USAF going to buy. With the current numbers, there is almost no way they can produce enough pilots.
1Seat 1Engine is offline  
Old 06-18-2013, 02:49 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Retired AF/A320 FO
Posts: 326
Default

The fighter pilot pipeline has become so small that the community cannot produce enough pilots to fill all it positions (AETC, rated staff, RPA, etc). This has impacted AMC where for example the mobility community is readily used to fill AETC IP slots and ACC staff positions. Where AMC sqdns used to be manned at 110% plus we are now held to 100% and the prior excess is used to fill prior ACC allocations. Can only give my opinion on the "why" or "how" we got here but it's where we are today. It's now the norm in AMC to see pilots do 2-3 ops to ops assignments. The AMC pipeline has the ability to produce bigger/excess numbers to make up for the shortfall on fighter side. Interesting times ahead.
gr8vu is offline  
Old 06-18-2013, 03:51 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
1Seat 1Engine's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
Default

Originally Posted by Pyro View Post
Cleverly planned? Sarcasm? If not, please explain, I have not heard/thought of this angle.
Now that I read this again, I will say that my use of the word "cleverly" was entirely sarcastic. Otherwise my post was as factual and sober as I could make it.

The story I've heard is that when the money started drying up they "cleverly" (read stoopidly) cut the training force well out of proportion to the line force. The result is that we cannot train enough pilots to fill the needed force structure. Why? Dunno. I can confirm that the RTU syllabus is cut to the bone in an attempt to shorten the pipeline. Most instructors leaving Luke right now are getting F-16 flying assignments.

Also, the UAV world now has it's own pilot training so they will no longer be boning young Lt's straight out of UPT.

If you have a UPT assignment it is a good time to have it.
1Seat 1Engine is offline  
Old 06-18-2013, 04:55 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Flamer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Default

Originally Posted by 1Seat 1Engine View Post
Not one word of it was sarcasm.

The USAF has been planned into a manned aircraft pilot shortage for a while. The personnel guys were already spouting the math a couple of years ago. It has already begun to hit the RTU's in the fighter world.

My son is currently in F-16 RTU. I talk to my old friends out there all the time.

The big "IF" is how many F-35's is the USAF going to buy. With the current numbers, there is almost no way they can produce enough pilots.
No problem. Just cut a whole bunch of frontline combat proven jets.

A-10, B-1 Vertical Cuts On the Table

Then when the JSF production line is cut waaaay short you are good to go. Probably have the same AD end strength, so without all those pesky pilots and jets the shoe clerks should finally get some much needed peace and quiet.
Flamer is offline  
Old 06-18-2013, 05:15 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hilltopper89's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 737
Posts: 1,061
Default

Originally Posted by guido15 View Post
I always envied the guard/reserve guys in UPT. (pilot training). But only those going to fighter units. They had guaranteed fighter slots. Well, as long as they could get the FAR qualification. Some of The others (not all by any means) who were locked into a heavy due to their guard/reserve slot came to regret it; Especially once they began training in the white rocket, the T38. the best advise I ever got was from a crusty old Colonel who said I could always fly a heavy at some put in my life, but I wouldn't always be able to fly a fighter--especially if I started out in a heavy. I am so grateful to have that fighter and military experience. Personally, I don't know how people say sane being in this business for 30-40 years. Take it for what it's worth and good luck.
A buddy convinced me to go fighters after reminding me that when I was growing up I never said, "When I grow up I wanna be an AWACS pilot."

This said, in 2013 I'd go Guard. Just be advised that that VIP transport mission could change to RPAs or lose airframes altogether at any moment. Talk to the guys at Barksdale, Ft Smith, etc.
Hilltopper89 is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 07:36 PM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
1Seat 1Engine's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
Default

Originally Posted by Flamer View Post
No problem. Just cut a whole bunch of frontline combat proven jets.

A-10, B-1 Vertical Cuts On the Table

Then when the JSF production line is cut waaaay short you are good to go. Probably have the same AD end strength, so without all those pesky pilots and jets the shoe clerks should finally get some much needed peace and quiet.
Still leaves the problem of training the required number of F-35 pilots since the F-35 was going to replace A-10's anyway.

If the F-35 buy is cut way short all bets are off.

I'm just saying that the current math is already dictating that all current and qualified fighter pilots are staying in the cockpit.

As always, there is no way to predict the future of USAF rated personel assignments, even 2-3 years. That's the way it's always been.
1Seat 1Engine is offline  
Old 06-24-2013, 03:58 AM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Default

Originally Posted by Hilltopper89 View Post
Just be advised that that VIP transport mission could change to RPAs
They're going to transport VIPs in RPAs?
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 06-24-2013, 05:52 AM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
reCALcitrant's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Default

We're not short fighter pilots. We're fat on hours and fighters. That will change with the current budget cuts. I think you'll see continued belt tightening next year too. The ground pounders won't be happy until the Air Force is just the Force.
reCALcitrant is offline  
Old 06-24-2013, 06:21 AM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
thrust's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,129
Default

Originally Posted by 1Seat 1Engine View Post
If the F-35 buy is cut way short all bets are off.
Considering how big of a disaster the F-35 program has been, and our trainwreck of an economy... I'm guessing we'll end up with around 300-400 total F-35s in the USAF, so about a 2:1 ratio to the F-22. The 1700+ we're "supposed" to get? Yeah, right.
thrust is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
RiddleEagle18
Southwest
302
08-12-2011 07:12 AM
Riddler
Military
959
08-04-2010 09:17 PM
webecheck
Military
1
01-05-2010 05:22 PM
N261ND
Flight Schools and Training
22
09-12-2008 07:57 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices