Jump to content

AIr Force Pilot Shortage


Recommended Posts

F-22 pilot retention is a complex issue as well, but it has nothing to do with the aircraft being, "uncomfortable to fly." Not sure where that would've even come from, unless it was a rumor related to the oxygen system issues a few years ago. I've also never met a pilot who, "disliked" flying the F-22, which is another reason why the AF is having such a hard time answering the question, "why do we keep losing our F-22 pilots?" So far, they've not come up with a satisfactory answer.

If it's not OPSEC, how many hours/month does an F-22 pilot fly compared to F-15 or F-16 pilots ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that a big chunk of those top tier guys who get into those positions are, well, "top tier" and can generally feel very constricted by the military as a JO and don't see advantages to moving up. All of them have aspirations outside the military and service was only a step in their path. For every new JO who steps into my command, I get to review the resignation letter of a top notch submarine officer who is on his/her way out. Granted, the departures over the last six months fall into three categories: want to start a family, going to med school, going to Wharton business school. With all of the stuff JOs are required to do that has nothing to do with their warfare or leadership jobs, I am not surprised that they are running away elsewhere too.

Dave

Someone made the point that you dont see drastic changes even by the year but by the decade US military 2026 might look very different and people are going to ask what happened and how.

The USN just put the guidelineS out for paying for transgender surgery, recovery, hormonal treatment, and counseling. All paid for by blue dollars. In the mean time people still cant get in for minor medical problems, and of course we are letting people go over tattoos. I remember one of my Sgt majors ranting about how he would "turn in his uniform" if males were ever allowed to have pieced ears. I wonder how my DIs are handling all this.

The services are more about trying to get gold stars for civil enlightenment than warfighting. The implications are huge especially since the military and service are about what is good for the group, not the individual. It's turning the military world upside down and creating separate standards all over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone made the point that you dont see drastic changes even by the year but by the decade US military 2026 might look very different and people are going to ask what happened and how.

The USN just put the guidelineS out for paying for transgender surgery, recovery, hormonal treatment, and counseling. All paid for by blue dollars. In the mean time people still cant get in for minor medical problems, and of course we are letting people go over tattoos. I remember one of my Sgt majors ranting about how he would "turn in his uniform" if males were ever allowed to have pieced ears. I wonder how my DIs are handling all this.

The services are more about trying to get gold stars for civil enlightenment than warfighting. The implications are huge especially since the military and service are about what is good for the group, not the individual. It's turning the military world upside down and creating separate standards all over.

The military is a reflection of society. I wouldn't get too hung up on the transgender thing TT. Although it makes for some great talking points on certain news networks, how many personnel do you really think are going to be signing up for this procedure? What percentage of the health care budget is being blown on stuff like this? I'd guess it's an insignificant number.

I'd just remind you that every older generation seems to have felt that the current military is falling apart due to being forced to accept the same changes going on in society as a whole.

Hell, when I was in, some of the old hands were still in an uproar about women. Couldn't believe that "girls" should be allowed to fly tactical jets or fill any role except pretty much admin and nursing. Things worked out ok, didn't they? Before that, I'm sure there were similar comments made about the military to going to hell in a handbasket because some liberal politicians were forcing them to accept black folks.

Pretty sure it's all going to work out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The military is a reflection of society. I wouldn't get too hung up on the transgender thing TT. Although it makes for some great talking points on certain news networks, how many personnel do you really think are going to be signing up for this procedure? What percentage of the health care budget is being blown on stuff like this? I'd guess it's an insignificant number.

you would be surprised what people sign up for when its free. There are also as I pointed out, some very bizarre questions that get a little tough to answer.

Before that, I'm sure there were similar comments made about the military to going to hell in a handbasket because some liberal politicians were forcing them to accept black folks.

not the same beast, but its always rolled out as an "example" that somehow applies to everything.

I'd just remind you that every older generation seems to have felt that the current military is falling apart due to being forced to accept the same changes going on in society as a whole.

i'd like to remind you that the older generation is sometimes right. Its not some inevitably that a military remains superior. Couldn't we point to the myriad of people in uniform who were looking at Vietnam and saying "whoa we are falling apart" and then you know, being kind of right? If we are going to bring up how Political interference was great for racial integration, maybe we bring up how its been wrong in various conflicts where politicians decided to overrule the military?

Hell, when I was in, some of the old hands were still in an uproar about women. Couldn't believe that "girls" should be allowed to fly tactical jets or fill any role except pretty much admin and nursing.

Things worked out ok, didn't they

I really hate it when someone says this. without looking at any of the evidence they judge that the military not completely falling apart means it worked out. I guess that depends on the definition of "Ok"-- if you mean its made things much more difficult then yes, its been very OK. If it means that its lead to hundreds of thousands of sexual harassment, rape, ill timed (or perfectly timed depending on the perspective) pregnancy, double standards, lowered standards, increased cost of training, lost training time, higher rate of discharges, increased disability/permanent medical problems, infertility, increased cost, misconduct of all types and even death not to mention endless briefings about not doing the above --the news is not so cheery. or maybe you mean the OK as in "not good, not bad. but ok" I really prefer "good" when it comes to the military.

People predicted early on all the problems we have been having AND CONTINUE TO HAVE the last 25 years. 2/3 of women still aren't performing to the male standards, and stress fractures continue to sideline large groups of females to the tune of 100 million dollars per year in medical costs-- and thats for stress fractures alone. It hasn't gotten better, people just choose to ignore it, forget how it was, or they simply don't have to deal with it at all, or don't realize the additional cost and hardship it brings. or the worst option, they aren't the ones who will suffer death or injury, so they really don't care. I guess its just easier for people to be cavalier about a mess they don't have to clean up. in the mean time there's less money to use for training to fight wars, less time to do it, and fewer people to do ever increasing work. Naturally it "works out ok" if we spend more to get less, and if we continue that trend it surely won't have repercussions.

Your sergeants were right, even if they weren't great at articulating it. It puts "yuge" amounts of pressure on leadership at all levels to make this work, and it invariably makes life tougher, The only way to make it work is to lower standards, or simply toss them aside as "unneeded". whats worse is it takes away from the reason people originally joined. Officers and NCOs sign up to lead, not play camp counselor. They want to be in the field, doing their job not filling out charge sheets. And that is really hard to measure but its an intangible that crops up all too often. People eventually quit or leave in frustration, or as the future may bring, people are warned not to serve at all. Eventually all those guys who say "it aint like it used to be, and we're falling apart" get to be right. people aren't stupid. They know who is shacking up with who, and how that changes the unit dynamic, respect for authority, discipline, and teamwork. It happens a lot, and most people know it its really hard to meet folks now who haven't encountered this at this point. That's why combat arms are freaking out. Its all fun and games with POGs but if this stuff happens downrange the consequences are far more immediate and seen in much more direct way.

150322203651-exp-david-petraeus-00001722-exlarge-169.jpg

example of things working out OK^

Frankly there should be some studies carried out reviewing the last 25 years with a cost benefit analysis, I don't think the results would be positive. It's not like women in the military are going to go away anytime soon. I am simply pointing out that hand waiving it as something that has just worked out is a gross and wrong oversimplification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-22 is currently the platform with the lowest retention rate in the AF for pilots. I have plenty of theories as to why that is so. None of them have anything to do with money or career opportunity.

OK, you wanna share with the class as to your theories?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you wanna share with the class as to your theories?

I am also very curious. Why would one of the most highly sought-after jobs in the world have such a low retention rate? I'd give anything to be a fighter pilot, esp an F-22 pilot.

Is it because it is such a frontline fighter that F-22 pilots are constantly sent to "hot" areas, which translates to being away from their families more often?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also very curious. Why would one of the most highly sought-after jobs in the world have such a low retention rate? I'd give anything to be a fighter pilot, esp an F-22 pilot.

Is it because it is such a frontline fighter that F-22 pilots are constantly sent to "hot" areas, which translates to being away from their families more often?

That was my only guess as well but from the (pretty limited) info I have, it doesn't appear that these folks are deploying any more than most ACC units, and in some cases (like Rivet Joint crews), significantly less. So if it's not deployments, it's not a complaint with the aircraft itself, it kind of ends up looking like there is something uniquely toxic within the entire Raptor community? I'd also be real curious as to what the average F-22 pilot gets for flight hours each month.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd also be real curious as to what the average F-22 gets for flight hours each month.

I'm guessing this ^...nothing is more precious (or beneficial to ones future) to a pilot than hours.

Flying fighters is great fun and all...but it's the E-6B TACAMO pilot with a million hours of 4 engine heavy time that'll be sitting in the seat of an Airbus or 777 for one of the majors, or better yet, FedEx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying fighters is great fun and all...but it's the E-6B TACAMO pilot with a million hours of 4 engine heavy time that'll be sitting in the seat of an Airbus or 777 for one of the majors, or better yet, FedEx.

Not necessarily, anecdotally Delta and American tend to prefer fighter pilots, while United tends to prefer heavy pilots. At the end of the day they'll all hire both, and what they demonstrably do want are military trained pilots because they know exactly how they've been trained and that their logbooks aren't fudged. The airlines are on a bow wave of hiring right now that is expected to continue for quite some time, and they are hiring every military pilot they can get their hands on.

As far as other factors, just because you're not deployed doesn't mean you have a home life. I recently watched a "patch wearer" PCS to a school, and he was damn glad to do it, just to get a break and have some family time again. A lot of this is cyclical too; in the late 90s the morale in the fighter community was at rock bottom due to the constant deployments to police the various no-fly zones while the flying hours at the home base plummeted, but the airlines weren't hiring the way they are now, plus some other factors.

Regards,

Murph

Edited by Murph
Link to post
Share on other sites

The services are more about trying to get gold stars for civil enlightenment than warfighting. The implications are huge especially since the military and service are about what is good for the group, not the individual. It's turning the military world upside down and creating separate standards all over.

Well put.

I had a "discussion" with my oldest son's liberal girlfriend about women in direct combat roles, to which I am opposed for a host of what I think are legitimate practical and social reasons. The main point I tried to make to her was that Job #1 in the military is combat effectiveness, and politically correct personnel policies that diminish combat effectiveness are unwarranted. Her perspective was ALL about individual equality (or more, to make up for the past), and she was incredulous that I would disenfranchise roughly half of the population from participating in this noble, historic, and important occupation (combat arms). I suppose she thinks I am a sexist Neanderthal. Many progressives have similar viewpoints, with little regard for common sense conventional wisdoms that stand in the way of politically correct personnel policies.

Unfortunately, the politically correct tide continues to rise and does seem anywhere close to ebbing. I heard from someone generally well connected that the military is being directed to establish "lactation stations" so that women can pump and store milk to take home to their infants. One might assume that it would likely apply to non deployed units, but what if a woman has made the "healthy choice" of providing only natural mother's milk to her baby? Does that mean the mother is non deployable during this period? If not,are they going to ship frozen breast milk from deployed areas back to whoever is looking after the baby?

This kind of stuff drives me crazy and should not be what our military leaders have to think about.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure it's all going to work out.

No it hasn't, and it won't. Although the military will continue to be "functional" and the PC compromises required endured, this is a poor avenue we have chosen. Women in combat roles is a bad idea, and that includes flying fast jets. Sure, women can competently operate them, but what about when there is a shoot down and capture? What civilized society would willingly subject its women to the rigors of combat and the physical abuse that invariably occurs to POWs? We are sacrificing common sense on the alter of political correctness. We are lucky in the sense that we can rely to a large degree on technology and that we are starting to realize that nation building and meddling overseas can have long term unintended consequences, Can you imagine the horror if we had tens of thousands of female troops deployed in Vietnam, duking it out with Charlie in Malaria filled jungles and rice patties, doing tunnel rat duty, falling into punji stake traps, etc, Combat arms is a man's job. Our woman and children are who we fight to protect. Aside from the social reasons, women, in general, are not nearly as physically robust as men. That is a fact. Like high level sports, Combat Arms is not just a mental occupation, it is physical. That is why you don't see women in the NFL, NBA, or in equivalent college sports, or even on your local high school teams. War is about fighting, and generally speaking, woman are at a huge disadvantage in physical strength compared to men.

And with that, I will let it go, since it has veered into politics. Maintain whatever opinion suites you, and our discussions here are going to have no effect. The PC inertia has already been established in the military.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...