US Air Force Reporting Pilot Shortage

An anonymous reader writes "Times sure have changed: it is no longer cool to be a fighter pilot. The Pentagon expects to be short some 200 fighter pilots this year, and is projecting that shortfall will increase to 700 pilots by 2021. Various factors seem to be involved: better paying jobs in the commercial sector with more stability, the stress of repeated overseas deployments, and the threat that ultimately the job they trained to do — fly planes — is being superseded by remotely-controlled drones. With demand for commercial aviators heating up as thousands of pilots are expected to reach mandatory retirement age (65) in the next five years, the Air Force is caught in a quandary. Where are they going to get the pilots to fly their shiny new F-35s?"

Comments

Maybe fix them?

[jandrese]

Maybe if they could make a F-35 that absolutely positively won't asphyxiate you they would get more interest from pilots?

Re:Maybe fix them?

[Extremus]

I guess that was a problem with the almighty F-22.

Re:Maybe fix them?

[sabri]

Maybe if they could make a F-35 that absolutely positively won't asphyxiate you they would get more interest from pilots?

Maybe they could add some normal flight instruments so I could fly it with my PPL!

Re:Maybe fix them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the USAF can import foreigners on H1-B visas to train as pilots. I mean if these people are the best and brightest why wouldn't the USAF want them too?

Re:Maybe fix them?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I've heard the Air Force make this complaint before: No pilots, mission endangered...

My! How they do drone on.

Re:Maybe fix them?

[Mr. Freeman]

The F-35 shared the same issue. The F-35's systems are based heavily on the F-22.

Re:Maybe fix them?

[davester666]

The AF only wants the best that can follow orders. The bright do a little too much free thinking.

Re:Maybe fix them?

[cold fjord]

They would need a security clearance?

Re:Maybe fix them?

[hairyfeet]

That was the F-22 and the bigger problem is that all the MIC has been able to build since the early 90s is large clusterfucks and huge bills, the tech has been crap!

If the USAF wasn't run by brown-nosing MIC asskissers they would scrap the F35, use the F22 for as long as its worth using then dump THAT turkey as well and take a page from the Israelis and buy more F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. The lines are still popping them out and they even have the Stealth Eagle if you decide you HAVE to have stealth but frankly the enemies we are likely to face? stealth isn't gonna matter, goat herders in caves aren't using advanced radar, in fact nearly all of our realistically possible enemies are using old as hell Soviet era stuff, just look at North Korea getting busted trying to buy old surplus Mig 21s from Cuba.

Sadly I look at the current "strategy" of our armed forces and you know what it reminds me of? The Axis powers in WWII. The USAF like The Germans is betting waaay too much on "Wonder weapons" that spend more time on the ground than flying, are incredibly expensive so we can only afford a handful (thus making sure you can NEVER get economies of scale on planes or parts like we have on the Teen series, and because of the crazy price per unit most likely won't be flown against anybody where its tech can be useful for fear of losing it) and take a hell of a lot to maintain. Compare this to the fact you can get the SU27 at 30 mil a pop, the MiG 29 at 27 mil a pop which means any enemy with real resources will be able to spam us.

Then you have the USN which seems to be taking a page straight from the IJN in that just as the IJN stuck with outdated tactics and weapons (didn't have much choice really) likewise the USN is acting like its the late 50s and going carrier batshit. I mean when the next nearest potential enemy has a grand total of two (and last I checked one of the Chinese carriers was nothing more than a hulk) and you have ELEVEN? That is fricking dumb and it gets even worse when you realize that the Chinese have a sea skimmer now that will reach out 900 miles at 1 foot off the water (thus making the Phalanx useless) and they are already working on a 1200 mile version. Again unless you are going after goat herders which aren't a threat to carriers so no more than five TOPS would be needed carrier groups will be sitting ducks, the enemy could just spam sea skimmers and turn the task force into nothing but debris without risking a single pilot.

At the end of the day we need to go back to the pre WWII way of buying weapons, where we put out a spec and they weren't getting shit until a prototype was available for testing, stop giving the MIC blank checks for turkeys like the F-35, and finally use some of that money they have been throwing at the MIC to offer ALL of our brave men and women better pay, thus increasing the chance to get pilot butts to put in those seats.

Obvious Solution

[some old guy]

Outsource routine missions to the Indian Air Force and grant thousands of H1B visas to fill the rest of the vacancies.

Re:Obvious Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to say, is this the Air Force learning from Corporate America: "We need more drones because darn it, there just aren't enough qualified pilots. Please expand our budget by 60 billion so we can perform the needful."

Re:Obvious Solution

[TubeSteak]

The Indian Air Force embarrassed the USAF in Cope India 2004 and again at Red Flag in 2008.
The first time was against USAF F-15Cs and the second time, against the F-22.

The real problem for the USAF is that the F-22 and F-35 will always run out of missiles before they run out of targets.
And when that happens, their close combat abilities cannot out-class previous generation fighters.

Re:Obvious Solution

[mapsjanhere]

There's a real problem for the air force brass behind all this. Pilots are all "officers and gentlemen", drones are flown by enlisted people. Any large swing to more drones not only changes the combat environment, it changes the whole structure of the force. If you no longer have a large collection of ex-fighter jocks to staff your higher ranks with, the whole attitude of the air force as we know it will change in the long run.

Re:Obvious Solution

[peragrin]

Good.

Because of chair force fighter jocks, our air services are divided into 4 separate competing groups for no other reason than they can't think any other combat theater is more important.

The air force has tried to retire the A-10 warthog for 35 years now. instead of having a proper ground support craft that can take all sorts of punishment(the A-10 can fly missing significant chunks of vital parts) they keep trying to put more and more advanced craft there, but none of them can take or dish out the punishment the A-10 can. The F-35 is supposed to replace it now it too will fail in that roll.

The air force only cares about speed, and flash. Sometimes slow and ugly is far more useful.

Re:Obvious Solution

[speederaser]

The Indian Air Force embarrassed the USAF in Cope India 2004 and again at Red Flag in 2008.
The first time was against USAF F-15Cs and the second time, against the F-22.

The F-22 has never participated in Cope India. A little googling got me some guys speculating about how it would stack up, but that's it. My guess would be the F-22 will never be at Cope India since the USAF already has plenty of data on how it stacks up against the F-15 (that is, very very well), and the USAF is simply not willing to risk revealing too much.

Re:Obvious Solution

[darkmeridian]

When will people understand that the U.S. military loses these mock battle so they can demand more funding? American aircraft were outnumbered 3:1 at Cope Indian. But that allows us to say, "Oh, noes, we lost to Indians. We need $100 billion in new planes." From an article: "The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters."

Re:Obvious Solution

[Teancum]

The A-10 also led to the U.S. Army willing to take them on after the USAF decided to retire that aircraft. The problem was that the Army Air Corps was also going to be re-created.... and the USAF could have none of that.

It didn't help that the original schedule retirement was right around the time of the Gulf War, where the A-10 proved to be an essential part of that war.

Re: Obvious Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir your mistaken, drones are flown by officers. Kind of sucks for them, they through flight school and end up flying behind a computer desk.

Re:Obvious Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cute; and the satire is 100% on target, but you miss the reality of it. I'm a former Naval aviator (retired after 21 1/2 years) and I'm quite sure that the Air Force, the best run corporation in America, will have no trouble filing its ejection seats. This is carefully calculated propaganda meant to increase the branch's overall budget (which is the lion's share of pentagon spending already). When I was in, I hated the air farce for it's macro, homogenized, model in which everything was the same no matter where you were stationed and all your gear was first rate and perfectly maintained (doesn't happen in the Navy, we're way too micro for this) but now I see it's attraction. I love your sense of humor though, it's apropos of everything that's wrong with this country right now.

Re:Obvious Solution

[umghhh]

I had a good laugh - not at your post really but thinking about human condition and all the skill needed to perform the job, years to acquire them and these 5 minutes when CEO decides to outsource your job to Zamunda.

Re:Obvious Solution

[Luckyo]

True, however as pointed out above, the real issue isn't the aircraft but the missile bay size coupled with severe issues with AIM-120C adapted for F-22 (it essentially had its wings clipped to fit into the internal bay).

The missile has already been known to have severe issues with maneuverability when fired at meidum-to-long range, which is main engagement range for stealth F-22 due to issues with how thrust is generated. It will not have enough onboard fuel to generate new acceleration run if target evades first approach and it has severe problems turning without losing massive amounts of speed to match maneuverable target it's racing head on which has been obviously worsened by clipping of wings.

Essentially it's a missile that has very bad performance against maneuverable target at medium-to-long range as it simply lacks ability to maneuver at speeds.

Russians recognized the same problem and completely reworked rear control surfaces on their "head on" R-77 missiles. For some reason, US has not done the same (yet?).

Outsource to china

[Anonymous Coward]

what could go wrong

The more likely reason

[EmagGeek]

People don't want to sign up for the armed services knowing that they're just going to be shipped off immediately to one of these middle-eastern hell holes to fight some undeclared war over some bullshit "terror" campaign to "keep us safe" from that big, evil Constitution that is making government's job so difficult.

Re:The more likely reason

[couchslug]

That's been going on a very long time and hasn't stopped potential aircrew. The perception they won't get a slot for their effort IS a deterrent.

What does piss off pilots and ruin RETENTION (which creates shortages) is their "extra duties" and square-filling they are tasked with when not flying. If the Air Force wanted to retain pilots it would reduce the bullshit they have to put up with. It's not as if pilots aren't vocal about it. Many would be delighted with a full career "flying track" even if they weren't promoted as quickly. With command comes a desk, and that desk never empties.

Pilots do not live in "hellhole" conditions, and neither to most Airmen when deployed.

Re:The more likely reason

[Jane Q. Public]

"People don't want to sign up for the armed services knowing that they're just going to be shipped off immediately to one of these middle-eastern hell holes to fight some undeclared war over some bullshit "terror" campaign to "keep us safe" from that big, evil Constitution that is making government's job so difficult."

Corollary: maybe we should make Wall Street and Washington bigwigs be the pilots, since they are the ones who have benefited from all this.

Re:The more likely reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me, that may be a problem with the Army but never with the chAir Force.

No, their problem is a ridiculous "up or out" policy in the officer corps where if you can't get promoted to a higher rank within a certain length of time, you get shitcanned. Since they only let officers fly planes, they now have a pilot shortage as too many of them are now either gone or at too high a rank to actually do the whole flying thing.

Re:The more likely reason

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the fact that civilian pay for airline pilots is so low. In fact, officer pay (all pilots are O rank) is usually higher than what one can find in the civilian industry.

A lot of people don't want to be pilots just because there is no future in that field unless one wants to buy their own plane and run their own charter service (good luck.)

Almost any other profession, the amount of hours one has to log would get them a journeyman or master rank. A commercial airline captain? $40k/year. To boot, the allowances for hotels and such have been pared to the bone... airline crews end up sleeping in bunks/dorms.

Make the pay worth it, then people will consider that route.

Re:The more likely reason

[maliqua]

woah is the american population finally realizing they're just the tools of the super rich, and sick of fighting/dying/killing for a bunch of greedy shit heads who are already rich.. but could probably be a little richer

Re:The more likely reason

[clarkkent09]

I would think one of the biggest factors is the increased reliance on unmanned aircraft. If you become a pilot today, say in your early 20s, there is no way you are going to hold on to that career until retirement, be it commercial or military. Right now, sure, we still need pilots. In 10 years you will be a dinosaur. In 20 you will be completely obsolete.

Re:The more likely reason

[pspahn]

A handful of years ago, my younger brother was considering enlisting to become a pilot. He's always had a knack for driving machines (tractors, large trucks, planes, etc) so I knew he would be successful.

One day he talked to a retired pilot and it was suggested that instead of enlisting he should get his private license and do whatever he can to log the hours he would need. Once he was ready he could enlist and be that far ahead of the game.

I suppose this path is somewhat common with young aspiring pilots and would lead me to believe that eventually the luster of being in the Air Force wears thin.

Re:The more likely reason

[DerekLyons]

What does piss off pilots and ruin RETENTION (which creates shortages) is their "extra duties" and square-filling they are tasked with when not flying. If the Air Force wanted to retain pilots it would reduce the bullshit they have to put up with.

This, plus the 'up or out' system. They've both been known problems for decades.
 
But any solution to these leads to it's own potential problem - pilots do not like being commanded by non-pilots. (And arguably should not be.) And you do need experienced pilots in places like contract management, maintenance support, etc.... So you have to come up with a solution that lets some pilots filter outwards and upwards without requiring them all to do so. Pay is another huge issue, while there are plenty of guys who'll fly forever if the chAir Force let them, they won't do so for a butterbar's salary.

Re:The more likely reason

[Nidi62]

There is the fact that civilian pay for airline pilots is so low. In fact, officer pay (all pilots are O rank) is usually higher than what one can find in the civilian industry.

A lot of people don't want to be pilots just because there is no future in that field unless one wants to buy their own plane and run their own charter service (good luck.)

Almost any other profession, the amount of hours one has to log would get them a journeyman or master rank. A commercial airline captain? $40k/year. To boot, the allowances for hotels and such have been pared to the bone... airline crews end up sleeping in bunks/dorms.

Make the pay worth it, then people will consider that route.

Get your facts straight. A captain in a major airline makes much closer to 6 figures a year than 40k. And most are former military meaning they draw military benefits as well. 40k a year is what a pilot might make if they go through civilian flight school and have just gotten hired on as a mainline pilot (and they would not be a Captain, they would be an FO) after a few years as a pilot with a subsidiary carrier such as Expressjet or SkyWest. While working for one of those smaller carriers, yes, they will make probably $25-30k a year. Former military will start closer to 60-70k a year, and can start up with a mainline carrier immediately. $40k a year? Most other airline employees have to work for about 8 years before they get close to $40k a year base pay. And then don't forget all of the union negotiated benefits such as guaranteed pay, and other ancillary benefits(can jump seat on any carrier). And bunks/dorms? When commercial pilots are on an overnight rotation, they get put up in hotels, and rather nice ones to boot. You are way off on your assessment of the "hardship" pilots have. And I have been around the airline business literally my entire life: my mother has worked for a major air carrier as long as I have been alive, and has been a manager in charge of dealing with part of the operation relating to pilots for about 8 years now, and I have worked for the same carrier since 2006 in various capacities.

Re:The more likely reason

[Nidi62]

I worked with a couple people that were hoping to become pilots with the Air Force. Instead of enlisting into the Air Force proper, however, they went into the Air National Guard. The main reason was that, in the Air Force, once you go through flight school you essentially get assigned an aircraft type (based on ranking and possibly a little on personal preference). With ANG, you go into it as a pilot already knowing what aircraft you are going to fly: you go around to different squadrons and they have to sponsor you, almost like rushing a fraternity. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of it.

Re:The more likely reason

[Teancum]

Perhaps this is just sensational journalism, but there are situations like this found with regional pilots (not major airlines):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video/inside-airline-pilot-crash-pads-12874917

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2012/02/01/confessions-regional-jet-pilot/

Admittedly this is for people who are trying to break into the industry and become established as opposed to those who are at the top of their game working for the major airliners, but if you want to become a pilot today and go through the steps to be qualified to become a commercial airline pilot, the path you must take today runs through these "crash pads" and comparatively low salaries. Note that few pilots start out from college or a decent air training school and go straight to major carriers. Former military pilots do get to count their flight time in military aircraft in a variety of ways for certified flying time, and some military aircraft definitely have civilian equivalents or certainly can compare in terms of general types that might get you into the major carriers after flying for the military for 20 years (necessary for retirement benefits), but not everybody can or cares to go that route either.

Airlines have also been gradually cutting salaries on their pilots and doing so in a variety of ways... with many of the airlines that paid the highest salaries simply going bankrupt (like Pan-Am... to name one airline in particular). I agree that life isn't nearly so bad as is sometimes claimed and a pilot who has been flying for 30 years can expect to be earning a pretty decent salary, but that is the end of their career, not the beginning.

Re:The more likely reason

[couchslug]

"maintenance support,"

HAHAHAHA! My sides!

I was a maintainer (avionics, engines, later crew chief) for 26 years (1981-2007 on Broncos, Phantoms, F-16 A/B/C/D/CJ) and experienced highly effective non-flying DCMs (Deputy Commanders for Maintenance), the attempts to do away with them, and the return of powerful Maintenance Squadron commanders.

Running Maintenance in no way requires being a pilot and in many ways is better done by one not of a "pilot" psychology. It has everything to do with holding sufficient rank to communicate with squadron commanders on a peer level when deconflicting their needs/desires with requirements of maintenance, inspection, paint/coating, airframe availability for mandatory ground crew training and so forth.

I've had very good pilot squadron COs, but their specialty is FLYING and having them run maintenance too is (further) task-saturating them with shit they don't need to micromanage.

"contract management,"

Only in specific areas where their expertise as flyers matters.
Most USAF contracting isn't that.

Re:The more likely reason

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one advantage of the guard period: you basically get to choose your job. I had countless people at my tech school (network engineering, basically) who barely knew how to use a computer yet were placed there because of their ASVAB. Smart people, but not meant for that job.

Re:The more likely reason

[antifoidulus]

Actually it's probably the exact opposite. Even during the darkest days in Iraq the air force(unlike all other branches of the military) was turning away otherwise qualified people largely because it had too many applicants.... And a potential reason for the air force pilot shortage may very well be a lack of action, anyone who wants to make a career in the military pretty much knows that you really cannot get that far without seeing any action. With almost no need for certain classes of pilots(for instance fighter pilots), career-minded soldiers/airmen are simply moving to other fields where they are more likely to be deployed and see action.

Re:The more likely reason

[oh2]

With drones alone the US has "avenged" the 9/11 attacks more than enough. Add to that the Iraq war, the Afghanistan mess and the various other campaigns you are involved in and you are way beyond any kind of proportional response.

Re:The more likely reason

[serviscope_minor]

In 20 you will be completely obsolete.

This is entirely at odds with the article in that there is a shortage of pilots. That pretty much guarantees a job. Secondly people are not computers and don't "go obsolete". Ther difference between training for a new plane and learning to fly from scratch is vast. Once you've been well trained you can switch to fly most things pretty easily. Thirdly, planes both commercial and military have a service life of well over 20 years.

If you think pilots will be dinosaurs in 2023 and gone completely in 2033, then you are gravely mistaken.

PIlots don't make much

[Rich0]

Pilots have always left the air force for private jobs. I think the issue is likely that fewer are signing up to replace them, because the news is out that pilots don't make much money.

If you pay commercial pilots more, then more pilots will join the air force for 5-10 years in order to become commercial pilots later.

Sure, we're likely to see many pilots retire at 65 and all that, but with all the industry consolidation the fact is that new pilots can't make money. There are tons of people with experience flying airliners who can't get jobs flying airliners.

Re:PIlots don't make much

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots have always left the air force for private jobs. I think the issue is likely that fewer are signing up to replace them, because the news is out that pilots don't make much money.

If you pay commercial pilots more, then more pilots will join the air force for 5-10 years in order to become commercial pilots later.

Sure, we're likely to see many pilots retire at 65 and all that, but with all the industry consolidation the fact is that new pilots can't make money. There are tons of people with experience flying airliners who can't get jobs flying airliners.

This is true. It doesn't take long to realize that decent pay only exists for pilots who work for a large carrier. I was surprised to learn that regional air carrier pilots could earn as little as $25K/year. I assume that pilots have to keep up certification and pay for certification to upgrade their skills (i.e., learn to fly larger planes). Heck 25K barely feeds you and your family.

Re:PIlots don't make much

[jedidiah]

With that kind of civilian pay, you're better off staying in the Air Force.

Re:PIlots don't make much

[Spy Handler]

nobody flies fighter jets in the Air Force and then goes on to fly for regional carriers for $25k a year. Those regional carrier jobs are filled by entry level pilots that graduated Bob's Flying School who are looking to build up their flight hours and beef up their resume in hopes of eventually flying for the majors.

Air Force pilots leaving the military are in high demand at the majors as they have thousands of hours in jets and typically have exceptional flying skills compared to Bob's Flying School graduates.

Re:PIlots don't make much

[rossdee]

"This is true. It doesn't take long to realize that decent pay only exists for pilots who work for a large carrier"

you must be thinking of the Navy and Marines - the airforce doesn't have any carriers .

Re:PIlots don't make much

[Anonymous Coward]

In Ontario, civilian training is somewhat more rigorous than Bob's Flying School. It's a program at Centennial College, with a substantial failout (won't say dropout) rate.

Re:PIlots don't make much

[ShanghaiBill]

nobody flies fighter jets in the Air Force and then goes on to fly for regional carriers for $25k a year.

Flying an F-16 is not very good preparation for flying a 737. What the airlines really want is C-17 or C-130 pilots, with plenty of multi-engine experience.

Re:PIlots don't make much

[ColdWetDog]

What I want is a 737 pilot who thinks they are still in an F-16.

Whoo hooo!

Re:PIlots don't make much

[fahrbot-bot]

Flying an F-16 is not very good preparation for flying a 737.

Nor a 787 - there's a big difference between being fired "on" and fired "in" ... :-)

Re:PIlots don't make much

[Nidi62]

This is true. It doesn't take long to realize that decent pay only exists for pilots who work for a large carrier. I was surprised to learn that regional air carrier pilots could earn as little as $25K/year. I assume that pilots have to keep up certification and pay for certification to upgrade their skills (i.e., learn to fly larger planes). Heck 25K barely feeds you and your family.

Any decent military pilot, upon leaving service, is pretty much guaranteed a position with a major passenger or cargo carrier. The only people working for regional carriers are people fresh out of civilian flight school. Ever notice if you fly regional that their pilots seem to average around the middle to late 20s but pilots flying major carriers are in their 40s or 50s? It's because the ones at major carriers either flew with regional carriers for a few years or are former military. In fact, the best way to get a pilot job at a major carrier is to go military for 5-10 years (where you get good pay, GI Bill, and VA access when you get out) then leave and join a carrier. Or, even better, get any job with a carrier, then go military. You will actually keep your time and get credit for time served to count towards seniority (for things like flying benefits) but will not count towards pay when you get out if you go back to the carrier (a lot of major carrier pilots are actually still on reserve or guard status: they even have an entry/code on pilot tracking/scheduling software for military service).

Re:PIlots don't make much

[Anonymous Coward]

Best I can do: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-am-the-top-gun-of-commercial-airline-pilots,10686/

Re:PIlots don't make much

[Anonymous Coward]

KAL and Asiana hire former fighter pilots, and their exceptional flying skills leave something to be desired.

Time for TOP GUN 2

[Joe_Dragon]

TOP GUN made a lot of people sign up for the navy

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[alen]

you can't enlist and be a pilot

for a pilot you have to be an officer which means college first, more specifically the naval or air force academy which only take the top 5% or so. and you have to get a nomination from your congressperson. its like a 2 year process to apply in high school

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[h4rr4r]

Top 5% of what?
I highly doubt the top 5% of any group apply to such academies. I am not disparaging their applicants, merely observing that these are not high paying positions most people know about or seek out.

Needing nomination from a congress person again makes me doubt this top 5% thing. It sounds more like a way to keep these high prestige jobs for their friends and family.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[alen]

nope, to get into west point or one of the other academies you have to be in the top 5% or so of your HS class. lots of these people are one of the top 2 people of the class. i've known west pointers in the army and they told me what it takes to get in. someone i work with, her son made it in but ended up going to NYU.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[MightyYar]

It certainly was the smart kids in my high school. My high school wasn't the greatest, but we had an Ivy Leaguer or two in the class. The academies have some soft majors, but mostly it is sciences - everyone gets a B.S., not a B.A.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to go to a military academy to become an officer.

But people with the wherewithal to get into officer training tend to be less likely to sign up for military service during an unpopular war (especially if they're looking at a combat assignment like fighter pilot).

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[h4rr4r]

I just figured no one with another opportunity would bother. Even going into the military there are better paying fields to deal with. That made me assume most just would not bother.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[ColdWetDog]

We all get BS. And plenty of it. Doesn't take being in the top of your class....

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[RussR42]

Now they use a three-pronged attack. Subliminal, liminal, and super liminal.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[evilviper]

TOP GUN made a lot of people sign up for the navy

So did the Village People... The Navy and the YMCA.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[Rich0]

I just figured no one with another opportunity would bother. Even going into the military there are better paying fields to deal with. That made me assume most just would not bother.

Well, not everybody is in it for the money. I'm sure quite a few are interested it for patriotic reasons, though I imagine that was more appealing back when being in the military was more about being ready for war and not constantly being in a state of war.

West Point isn't that large, and the top 5% of the entire country's graduating class is VERY large. It doesn't take that many applicants to fill it up.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[Rich0]

especially if they're looking at a combat assignment like fighter pilot

While I tend to agree in general, the air force is probably about as far from the action as you can get in the military. If you don't leave the base it would be almost impossible to get shot at, and the bases are likely to be in relatively safe areas of any occupied territory. Even in a combat assignment like being a fighter pilot there aren't a lot of countries with the ability to shoot down a US plane unless they get VERY lucky.

Re:Time for TOP GUN 2

[Lord Lemur]

Depends on what you mean by relatively safe. Compared to kickboxing a pack of hungry lions, yeah it's relatively safe. Compared to surfing a desk in the bussiness park, taking indirect fire 3 or 4 times a week for 6 months, at a tilt isn't what I would really call relatively safe. The farthest you can get from action in the military is teaching, recruiting or personel in any of the services. There are plenty of non-deployment or low deployment careers, they play a larger role then the service.

Drones

[hawguy]

Who wants to be a pilot and put your butt on the line every day as you enter enemy territory when you can be a drone pilot half way across the world and go home to your wife and kids every night.

Besides, it's looking more and more like "fighter pilot" is a dead end job and won't be around forever. Why send one fighter when you can send 10 drones that can outmaneuver any manned plane for the less cost and no risk to pilots life.

Re:Drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to be a pilot and put your butt on the line every day as you enter enemy territory when you can be a drone pilot half way across the world and go home to your wife and kids every night.

Besides, it's looking more and more like "fighter pilot" is a dead end job and won't be around forever. Why send one fighter when you can send 10 drones that can outmaneuver any manned plane for the less cost and no risk to pilots life.

..and in either case your targets are not likely to even be military targets. That must bite into the motivation factor, knowing that you'll be second guessing if you're shooting up pajero full of teens going to the market, paramilitaries on your side or "enemy combatants". It's not a dead end job but there is no glory.

Re:Drones

[bobbied]

I think you are partially correct... This is certainly a ploy to get more budget, only it's not for drones, it's for attracting and keeping pilots... No Really, pilots.

Drones are not THE answer for the conflicts that the Air Force faces. Drones (and fighters for that matter) are but a fraction of the Air Force's budget. They are really saying what they need.. Money to train and retain pilots..

Re:Drones

[hawguy]

USAF meets Robot Wars - they should build a simulator and start a competition to build an AI for dogfighting.

Or maybe they should find young children with an aptitude for remote combat, send them to special schools to grow those skills, and trick them into joining live combat without enough knowing it.

Hey, someone should write a book about that.

Re:Drones

[dywolf]

Why send one fighter when you can send 10 drones that can outmaneuver any manned plane for the less cost and no risk to pilots life.

You are living in a fantasy world.
No such combat drone exists.
No such situation will ever happen.
The pilot in a cockpit will always have better situational awareness than the drone pilot 1000 miles away looking at a monitor.
A computer controlled UAV would need an AI that was a better pilot than a pilot, and that doesnt exist either.

Drones

[hierofalcon]

The movement to unmanned planes isn't helping their case any either. There aren't as many fighter wars expected to be left - so why join up for a position that may be phased out in just a few years. The Navy might have better luck recruiting, but the Air Force is in a harder spot unless a major land war with a well equipped adversary materializes that lasts enough to bring the Air Force to bear.

Well, slashdot is a great place to start

[TWiTfan]

We're in incredible physical condition, none of us have near-sightedness, or color blindness. We love the military in particular and the government in general. And combat and sports are what we excel at!

You've definitely found the recruitment pool you're looking for!

Re:Well, slashdot is a great place to start

[RoknrolZombie]

I think you misunderstand - they aren't here to recruit people, they're here to find the solution to their problems so that they can go elsewhere to recruit people.

Re:Well, slashdot is a great place to start

[idontgno]

Um... this is "tech.slashdot", not Ask Slashdot.

Which means that the answers being provided here have SOME hope of being appropriate and on-topic. That's probably a plus.

Re:Well, slashdot is a great place to start

[thejezus]

WOOOSSHHHHH !

pfft

[meglon]

....the Air Force is caught in a quandary. Where are they going to get the pilots to fly their shiny new F-35s?"

And here i thought their quandary was wondering: if, when, and for how many trillions of dollars it was going to be for the F-35 to be anything more than a theft of taxpayer money by the MIC.

IMO an indirect effect

[GodfatherofSoul]

I was in AFROTC 20 years ago. It was known for a long time that the "battle boom" of pilots from Vietnam who went to the air lines was drying up, and when those numbers fell, there'd be a suction of active duty pilots lured into the civilian sector to fill in the need. There's always going to be a line of kids trying to fly fighters. This is more a Pin vs Pout issue. Couple that with a smaller Air Force of gourmet fighters and drones and now the civilian sector is going to have to get used to finding/creating other pools of pilots with 1000s of hours in hand.

Aviators

[Anonymous Coward]

They can hire some Naval Aviators. They're better than pilots.

Problem not lack of interest

[LinuxFreakus]

Many many people desire to be fighter pilots. The problem is not a lack of people wanting to sign up. The problem is that the USAF is highly selective about who can be a fighter pilot. You need to meet all sorts of physical requirements, then you need to meet very high academic standards, then you have to meet a whole bunch of psychological/personality requirements, etc, etc. By the time they go through the pool of applicants there is nobody left.

Re:Problem not lack of interest

[LinuxFreakus]

They don't have to be musclebound freaks. They need to have exceptional vision, hand-eye coordination and other sorts of spatial awareness aptitudes. It is a different set of physical requirements from what you are thinking of.

Re:Problem not lack of interest

[drinkypoo]

They are claiming that this is becoming more of a problem. We are left with the option to speculate as to why this is happening. Personally, I'm figuring that educated people can crunch the numbers and find out that going into the military is not a good idea.

Re:Problem not lack of interest

[nojayuk]

A friend's father was a fighter pilot, flying Lightning interceptors in the RAF. He was about five foot six and quite skinny with unexceptional eyesight. The big thing he had going for him was reaction times maybe 60% of human normal and an amazing ability to master complex technical flying, resulting in him doing two seasons in the Red Arrows at the end of his RAF career.

He didn't have to be all muscles, not in a plane with hydraulic-assisted controls. Being small and compact meant he fitted nicely into a cramped cockpit and when flying at speed and altitude he used his radar controller to vector him onto targets (usually Russian Bears over the North Sea) and used his instruments to tell him what was going on inside the plane so Eye of Eagle was not actually an operational requirement.

Re:Problem not lack of interest

[LinuxFreakus]

Those are general requirements. The chances of someone with 20/50 vision actually being made a fighter pilot as opposed to some other role are basically zero unless they have absolutely amazing abilities otherwise. They'll tell you anything you want to hear during recruiting, but you have almost no chance no matter what they say.

Re:Problem not lack of interest

[LinuxFreakus]

No I'm pretty sure the main problem is the requirements I mentioned above coupled with the raging obesity epidemic which continues to spiral out of control. The number of people who can fit the requirements keeps shrinking because we are a bunch of lazy fat asses.

Re:Problem not lack of interest

[LinuxFreakus]

Selectivity is not *the* problem, but it is the reason they can't find people. The main reason the number of qualified applicants keeps shrinking is because obesity is out of control, our country is turning into a bunch of lazy fat asses.

I'll gladly do it

[Atomic Fro]

I'll gladly do it... they'll have to overlook the fact I am in my early 30's and don't have 20/20 vision. If they did, I'd sign up immediately.

Re:I'll gladly do it

[jdcrayme]

Actually, that's kind of what happened to me. I was just an EE with thick glasses and bad hair, but through an unlikely series of events, I ended up as a test subject to see if people with laser vision correction could effectively fly military aircraft. 10 years later, it turns out they can.

Re:I'll gladly do it

[Atomic Fro]

Wow, good for you. I'm very glad that worked out for you. What did you end up flying?

Re:I'll gladly do it

[Hartree]

Brings back rather sad memories, Fro. After being in the active Army, I'd gone back to the National Guard as a sergeant. I'd applied to be a warrant officer chopper pilot, and was all but on my way to the Army's helicopter school. It had taken a little more than a year of chasing paperwork and legwork to various places to get the tests taken and such. So that it would be current, I was sent for another flight physical at a nearby air base.

During that year my left eye declined just enough that I couldn't make the 20/20 eye test. This was long before Lasik was accepted and it was just some new thing that not many had tried.

Normally, I still could have gone, but I would have to become an officer as they had less stringent vision requirements than warrant officers. Unfortunately, there was a cut off age for starting flight school (specifically because eyesight deteriorates with age), and I couldn't get into officer candidate school and still get to Fort Rucker (Army's helicopter training center) in time.

The real kicker, was I'd given up an offered platoon sergeant slot that would have meant a nearly immediate promotion, since I thought I was going to chopper school. On the way back from the flight physical, I stopped at the Guard unit and found out they'd given it to another guy that morning.

Needless to say, that wasn't my favorite day.

Now, I'm 51, fat, and see only slightly better than Ray Charles without my glasses. Think they'd take us as a package deal? ;)

Re:I'll gladly do it

[blindseer]

As I recall there was a shortage of people both qualified and willing to pilot aircraft for USAF. The biggest problem was that people could not pass the vision test. This changed once laser corrected vision was approved for pilots. After that there was a surplus and USAF didn't have a problem filling slots. Again, this is just what I recall.

Now it appears that the shortfall does not come from those unable (due to vision) but now from people unwilling. I don't suppose that USAF brass has some sort of approved surgery for that?

do like airlines, GO CHEAP

[alen]

at this point to be a pilot you have to be in the top 5% of your HS class, go to the air force academy, go to flight school and then train on your aircraft

where to be an airline pilot all you need is to go to flight school and pass a test

this isn't the 70's and 80's. if you're in the top 5% of your HS class you can make a lot more money in medicine, banking, law and lots of other careers

Re:do like airlines, GO CHEAP

[OzPeter]

where to be an airline pilot all you need is to go to flight school and pass a test

Oh god nooooooooooo. I can just see (to reuse a comment from above) ads for Bob's Flying school:

"We now teach Air Combat!!!!! Come and train on our latests planes .. Migs, Phantoms and Mirages.

Are you ready to be Top Gun?"

Re:do like airlines, GO CHEAP

[Nidi62]

at this point to be a pilot you have to be in the top 5% of your HS class, go to the air force academy, go to flight school and then train on your aircraft

Join the ANG. You have to get recommended by a squandron, and you go in to it knowing ahead of time what aircraft type you will be flying. Skip the academy, just do basic training then flight school.

Re:do like airlines, GO CHEAP

[aaarrrgggh]

Actually, to become an airline pilot now you need 1,500 hours of flight time. To do this in any reasonable time frame, you would be spending at least $250k of your own money. The airlines are having problems now, and it will get worse.

Re:this is just a ploy

[HaZardman27]

Right now there still need to be a pilot controlling those drones.

Can't see there being a shortage of fighter pilots

[willy_me]

A shortage of pilots is possible but not fighter pilots. The jobs that will require pilots will be the boring jobs - not those where you get the break the sound barrier. For every F22 pilot I'm sure the air force requires 100 other pilots and it's those for which the air force might be hard-up to find replacements.

Too little time in the air

[Milharis]

I don't know if that's as true as in Europe, but the biggest complain I've heard by far from would-be pilots as well as pilots is that they don't fly enough. A flight is so costly that they don't fly more than a few times a month.

What's rather funny though is that in Europe the situation is reverted, there are far more people that want to become a pilot, fighter or commercial, than jobs available. A lot of airlines have totally frozen hiring for a few years.

I'd love to

[avm]

...but I can't. Have a family, which doesn't work all that well with active duty deployments. Have TERRIBLE vision and have had corrective lenses since age 4, also a non-starter. On top of that I'm 35...I couldn't get recruited for any of the armed services regardless of physical condition. In addition, the penchant of the current (and several prior) administration to engage other militaries and paramilitaries on a global scale, with no declaration of war (aside from a nebulous and ever-changing "terror" tag applied), renders training via our military an unavailable option to an otherwise very interested party.

In the current climate, without the flight time afforded by military experience, you are unlikely to make a livable wage as a commercial pilot (unless, perhaps, you are single, unattached, and can live on shoe strings for awhile). This combined with the initial expense of private pilot training really does not do anything to increase the available commercial pilot pool.

Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

Where are they going to get the pilots to fly their shiny new F-35s?

They'll just turn the F-35 into a UAV then.

Or, since I'm skeptical the F-35 will ever fly because it was a badly conceived project from the get go (you know, make everyone sign on for and pay for your R&D costs on a plane whose feature lists reads like a demand for a pony) ... you may never have to worry about F-35 pilots at all.

I think a lot of governments are starting to decide they may have been hoodwinked with this F-35 program, and are starting to reconsider if it is (or ever was) a good investment.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, since I'm skeptical the F-35 will ever fly because it was a badly conceived project from the get go

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the program then. DoD currently has 51 F-35s at various bases, training up the initial cadre. Navy took delivery of the first F-35C recently, and USAF and Marines have been flying the A and B versions for more than a year.

Check the F-35 section of F-16.net to get a better idea of what's actually going on, rather than relying on your assumptions.

Then increase the pay...

[harvestsun]

If the reason that you don't have enough pilots is that there are "better paying jobs in the commercial sector with more stability", then start paying the pilots more! Isn't that how capitalism works? You can't expect intelligent people to take an inferior job simply out of patriotism.

Instead they'll probably waste millions of dollars on advertising campaigns, sigh.

Re:Then increase the pay...

[Dcnjoe60]

If the reason that you don't have enough pilots is that there are "better paying jobs in the commercial sector with more stability", then start paying the pilots more! Isn't that how capitalism works? You can't expect intelligent people to take an inferior job simply out of patriotism.

Instead they'll probably waste millions of dollars on advertising campaigns, sigh.

Or it could be all of those new planes the pentagon said they didn't need but congress made them purchase anyway. Maybe congress's intention to appease the defense contractors is the cause of the shortage.

Amazing!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean telling pilots that they can't go to school or be released for staff jobs, because they are needed in Afghanistan 6 months of the year then laying them off because they haven't been to school or a staff job wasn't the best way to handle manning. Next you will be telling me that we should start giving medals to people who do things in combat instead of to people who do things in PowerPoint. Because of several factors, in the U.S. we are rapidly moving to a combat Air Force with leadership who have never flown in combat. My last 2 squadron commanders have yet to see the desert. And I recently talked to some U-2 guys who's squadron commander wasn't even qualified in the jet. (He failed out of training, but still kept his command slot) Right now if you want to get promoted in the USAF you simply cannot waste time on things as trivial as flying, and if you don't get promoted, you get fired. BTW Sorry for posting anonymously, but it is easier than having to explain this to Public Affairs.

Opposite of previous article

[vossman77]

This seems to be the opposite story of the previous slashdot article from 2 week ago, The Air Force's Love For Fighter Pilots Is Too Big To Fail

Re:Opposite of previous article

[chuckinator]

The particular message is tailored to meet the prejudices of the submitting editor. Old timers have been telling me not to believe everything I read long before internet access became commonplace.

Re:Good god. Air force Obsolete.

[couchslug]

"Gone are the days of fighting cables and air pressure. It's all computers. "

I've been in the back seat of an F-16 D-model (I was a crew chief and we got rides when there was no one scheduled to go up for other purposes). The G-forces are considerable and you certainly do "fight" them (straining maneuvers etc). Flying any modern fighter takes considerable physical endurance.

A "belly" doesn't indicate lack of resistance to G's.

Drones it is then

[sl4shd0rk]

Clearly the only thing left to do is contract out several hundred billion dollars to privatized military manufacturers to offshore the immediate production in China of military drones which can be flown by congressmen and Top Brass during their lunch hours.

Re:this is just a ploy

[NatasRevol]

Or video game experts. Perhaps named Ender.

Re:Not pilots , assassins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing is killing. This macho bullshit about how it's done is just an argument for someone that's too stupid to know that it doesn't matter where you're sitting. If you think there's such thing as a "fair" fight, perhaps these fighter pilots should fly all the same planes as well.

Well, use drones.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Just last week I was reading that the less than 1000 or so combat planes in US Air Force has some 20 wings/squadrons whatever. And more than thousand unmanned aircraft have just two squadrons. (numbers very very approximate, quoting from memory and am too lazy to look up, not even sure what they call a brigade sized unit in USAF). Thus RPV pilots have much fewer promotion opportunities etc. So if there are not enough pilots, scrap the planes and do some retro mod and make them RPVs. Or ask Google to create a self flying plane.

Re:F35 and F22

[hey!]

Overpriced death-trap it may be, but the F-22 is an elegant tool designed to do a single thing well: wrest control of European airspace from the Soviet Union.

The F-35 is not the problem

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The F-35 is not the problem. There will always be people lining up to fly the newest, hottest fighter. The problem is finding pilots for slow, unarmed, propeller-driven cargo planes on the milk run into Kabul or Basra.

Re:The F-35 is not the problem

[PPH]

Not to mention the 747s with loose cargo pallets.

Re:The F-35 is not the problem

[gmhowell]

The F-35 is not the problem. There will always be people lining up to fly the newest, hottest fighter. The problem is finding pilots for slow, unarmed, propeller-driven cargo planes on the milk run into Kabul or Basra.

How are they doing on their quote of people flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong? Or is that more a Navy specialty?

Re:Yeah. I thought you'd say that.

[fermion]

So I knew people 20 years ago who wanted to be a pilot in the air force. These were extremely intelligent, bright, fit people, good eyesight, knew multiple languages, were willing to do whatever it took/ Couldn't get a plane, they were not the right type.

Today I see kids that have great spatial ability, score way above what they need on the test, and have good process skills. These kids want to be in the military, they are not looking to make $100K a year. They want the government to take care of them for 10-20 years, then they want a pension, and if they are air force they expect to get a job flying planes, which they would,if they had the chance. But because the Army and Marines are seen as the low hanging fruit for these kids, and the incentives evidently don't encourage placement in the the most qualified kids in the most appropriate service, they end up in the Army or Marines.

Most of the these shortages are manufactured to meet some goal of some paper pusher somewhere. Like the shortage of software people or the shortage of teachers. We know what the current goals of the military are, the current issues that they are pushing back heavily against legitimate constitutional civilian oversight. And of course there are, evidently, only between 700-800 female pilots in the USAF.

Re:F35 and F22

[RetiredMidn]

I think every fighter produced starting with the F-4 Phantom II was criticized as having some fatal flaw, and most ended up being liked by their pilots.

Great!

[Dcnjoe60]

Great, now the military is going to want to increase H1B Visas for their shortage, too.

Robot Overlords

[jfdavis668]

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...

bad idea

[Xicor]

nobody wants to fly them anymore for many reasons: 1. unsafe(screaming metal death trap) 2. requires ridiculous training 3. cant have eye surgery 4. bad for ppl with motion sickness 5.. etc. why dont they just make these planes controlled by some geek at a computer with a joystick? im sure they would get a ton of volunteers.

Re:bad idea

[Infiniti2000]

3. cant have eye surgery

This is no longer true. Aviators can have surgery, but they just need a Flight Surgeon waiver. Nowadays, that'll probably be pretty easy, especially considering the shortage.

Re:Good god. Air force Obsolete.

[jitterman]

Fighter pilots have always needed to be extremely mentally capable as well as in excellent physical condition. Physical fitness is not the same as being able to bench 350 pounds.

Ever notice that in order to be a fixed-wing-aircraft pilot in any service, you must be an officer? That requires a college education. It doesn't mean you're smarter, but it may imply that you're more dedicated to learning what you need to know to do the job you're required to do.

Re: F35 and F22

[Mabhatter]

Of 22 yo kids CARE ABOUT that stuff?

Truth is that for decades flying has been packed with incumbents not moving out. In 2002 if you went to a recruiter and wanted to fly you'd be laughed at... The best enlisted folks would ever get is cargo planes anyway. To fly fighters, you have to be an officer...it's not like the old days where just anybody could try out. And who is going to Military Academy (Annapolis, West Point, Colorado Springs) for a dead-end airline career?

Not to mention the physical attributes are outright bigoted... They haven't updated planes from 5'8" pilots (MAX HEIGHT) in decades, which means your High School average sports star doesn't even get asked. And that's before the other physical exclusions...

They've been elitist brats for 40 years and there's nobody left to play in their club. Besides, drones are where it's at and the skills favor geeks, not jocks.

Air Force Tradition

[musterion]

Part of the problem stem from the first commandant/general of the Air Force who required all of the pilots to be college graduates. This is dumb. Israel does not require this, and I bet their pilots can whip our butts. Additionally, why do piolots have to be officers? From what I read most pilots want to fly; they don't want to lead. If they must be officers of some kind, make them warrant officers.

Re:Air Force Tradition

[robot256]

If all we wanted was someone to keep the thing in the air, we wouldn't bother putting a person in the plane to begin with. When we give these guys billion-dollar planes with the ability to fly across a continent or level a town on a whim, we want them to be able to make intelligent decisions quickly when the situation changes. Being able to fly the plane is only a prerequisite to being able to use it safely and effectively--it's been a long time since being an Air Force pilot was as simple as "don't crash, shoot the bad guys". Maybe there are some bureaucratic hurdles keeping out good people, but as a citizen and taxpayer, I don't mind them being picky about who gets wings.

Re:F35 and F22

[ZombieBraintrust]

To be fair fighter planes have a long history of being death traps.

Show me the money

[Anonymous Coward]

The airplane costs millions of dollars. But how much are they willing to pay the pilots. How much does fuel and ordinance cost. That's right the pilot is probably the cheapest thing in the plane.

Re:Show me the money

[robot256]

That's right the pilot's salary is probably the cheapest thing in the plane.

FTFY. It's the initial training investment, and continual air time to keep them sharp, that make the pilot more valuable than the plane, and harder to replace.

Re:F35 and F22

[Anonymous Coward]

Overpriced death-trap it may be, but the F-22 is an elegant tool designed to do a single thing well: wrest control of European airspace from the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union is no more and the Europeans are more than capable of withstanding what little forces the Russians still have in operating order.
Now the A-10 is a plane that should never have be retired. It WAS the primary defense against a Soviet Invasion of western Europe with thousands of tanks. F-22 puke what a piece of costly shit. Bring the warthog, the only useful plane in the US Air Force's inventory in the last 30 years.

Re:F35 and F22

[ColdWetDog]

Well, we won haven''t we?

Seen any tigers recently?

I know where to get them

[erroneus]

I hear Sum Ting Wong is looking for a new job. :)

2006 RAND study recommending fewer fighter pilots

[Animats]

"Fighter Drawdown Dynamics: Effects on Aircrew Inventories" - a 2009 study from RAND, says "to maintain the health of fighter units, the number of new pilots entering them must be reduced, ultimately to below 200 per year by 2016." Fighter pilots are high-maintenance - they have to fly frequently to stay good. Having too many fighter pilots for the number of available aircraft results in a big pool of mediocre pilots.

The USAF seems to be having trouble balancing their personnel pipeline.

Re:Not pilots , assassins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing is killing. This macho bullshit about how it's done is just an argument for someone that's too stupid to know that it doesn't matter where you're sitting. If you think there's such thing as a "fair" fight, perhaps these fighter pilots should fly all the same planes as well.

If killing is all the same we wouldn't have rules of war. Soldiers wouldn't be convicted of war crimes and so on.
So no not all killing is equal. Certainly not in war nor in peace.
Of course you can do like the last 2 US administrations that have "redefined" what war, torture and killing are so as to remove any kind of reticence in carrying out your patriotic duty. But hey in this they're in good company with the Fascists and National-Socialists and even Communists of days of yore.

Re:Shortage of both manned missions and manpower

[ColdWetDog]

Cheap? You called an F-35 cheap?

Who are you really - Daddy Warbucks?

Re:F35 and F22

[dkleinsc]

Yes, along with the rest of the US troops over at Rammstein, our brave boys stand ready to defend West Germany from the USSR!

Shortfall based on what number?

[iamwahoo2]

Every US Government agency reports personnel shortfalls across all fields in every branch of the organization. This despite the fact that we are experiencing ever higher levels of government spending, particularly in the DoD. I gaurantee that they are already experiencing shortfalls in secretaries. Is it because there are not enough qualified individuals to perform secretary jobs or because people with the right experience hate the idea of working for the Federal Government where they would get excellent benefits and very small chance of ever being fired?

Re:Shortfall based on what number?

[adrn01]

Why would anyone hesitate to work in government or the military these days?
Hmmm....

Sequester.
"Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem." ...

Re: F35 and F22

[KernelMuncher]

you're way off on the height info

from: www.ehow.com/about_5063412_air-force-fighter-pilot-qualifications.html#ixzz2ZoGZ1tSj

"To enter pilot training, you must be have a standing height between 64 to 77 inches"

that's 5'4 to 6'5 for the mathematically challenged

US Air Force Academy has exactly the same guidelines so I'd say they are accurate.

http://www.usafa.net/mirrored/appenda.htm

I'm sure the vision requirements knock out far more pilot candidates than their height restrictions

Where to get F35 pilots ?

[MondoGordo]

I dunno ... a suicide help line ?

Re:Shortage of both manned missions and manpower

[intermodal]

I'm not sure you actually read my post. I referred to building a single-engine aircraft where redundancy counts as being cheap.

Re:I'll do it.

[PPH]

Where do I sign.

Right there on the dotted line. Can't see it? Clean your glasses off. Still can't see? Hold the contract right up to your nose.

Flying Sergeants

[shanmoon]

Time to bring back the flying sergeants program...

Well duh...

[ilsaloving]

There can't be THAT many evangelicals with the skills to fly.

Re:F35 and F22

[bobbied]

Sure... Getting shot at by all manner of ground, sea and air based weapons while flying very close to other aircraft and the ground is what fighter pilots do. All of this is dangerous.

Fighter pilot business is dangerous and many pilots die. But does that make the aircraft they fly bad? I don't think so. Have some aircraft proved to be more difficult to fly than others? Yes, but usually the Air Force is able to alter their tactics and procedures to mitigate any issues. They train better to avoid dying because the handled the aircraft incorrectly and fly missions in ways that suit their aircraft better.

So are fighters death traps? Not really, unless you don't have enough skill or performance to out fly your adversary. THEN I'd call them death traps.

Re:F35 and F22

[Scarletdown]

Now the A-10 is a plane that should never have be retired. It WAS the primary defense against a Soviet Invasion of western Europe

The A-10 is still in service, and won't be retired until 2028 at the very least. I predict it will be the C-130 of fighter/attack craft, just like the C-130 is the Energizer of cargo planes. Just keeps going and going and going...

Where are they going to get the pilots...

[rnturn]

``... to fly their shiny new F-35s?''

It doesn't matter. Congress and their military-industrial campaign donors will make sure the F-35s get built regardless of the availability of pilots.

Re:2006 RAND study recommending fewer fighter pilo

[DerekLyons]

The USAF seems to be having trouble balancing their personnel pipeline.

It's hard throughout the armed services, because it's a dynamic problem and often the controlling factors are outside the control of the planners. There's also a delay effect more-or-less proportional to the length of the pipeline.

Re:Can't see there being a shortage of fighter pil

[drinkypoo]

But you're basically right. The fighter jocks are usually easy to fill. It's finding drone pilots that is hard. No one wants to fly a video game once they've learned how to soar with eagles.

Nah. They're relaxing physical requirements so that they can hire people to do that job that would never pass an exam to be an actual pilot. Or possibly even make it through basic. If you're going to be piloting a drone from U.S. soil, you don't really have to meet more than a basic qualification which suggests that you will be able to crawl out of the middle of the hallway in a disaster situation.

Re:Not pilots , assassins.

[shutdown -p now]

If killing is all the same we wouldn't have rules of war. Soldiers wouldn't be convicted of war crimes and so on. So no not all killing is equal. Certainly not in war nor in peace.

Care to cite any established rules of war that define the minimum permissible distance to engage targets for the sake of "fair fight"? You can't, because there aren't any.

Most existing rules have to do with means of killing people, in a rather hopeless and outdated attempt to minimize the suffering caused through war (e.g. they ban expanding bullets but not flamethrowers). A missile is a missile, whether launched from a drone or from a manned aircraft. A target is either legitimate or it is not, again, regardless of where the missile that hit it came from.

As for fighter pilots, where, exactly, is that "line of fire" they're on?

so be less restrictive

[xaoslaad]

Hell, I'll do it. Especially if I can fly A-10's. Pay to fix my eyes, give me a decent paycheck, commission me, and I'm onboard. I'm prior service and now college educated, so you're getting a deal the way I see it. But then I'm probably too old (if only a little) and they'll probably make a big stink out of me having Crohn's disease, despite enlisting and serving 4 years with it in the USMC no problem. But that's the problem. They're beggars and choosers, so people like me who would practically pay to fly fighter jets instead do something else.

Fighter pilots are desired by airlines ...

[perpenso]

nobody flies fighter jets in the Air Force and then goes on to fly for regional carriers for $25k a year.

Flying an F-16 is not very good preparation for flying a 737. What the airlines really want is C-17 or C-130 pilots, with plenty of multi-engine experience.

Those with experience in the small single seat aircraft are also desired. Much of what the pilot learned is applicable. He or she is still far far ahead of someone coming from a civilian flight background. Retraining the former fighter pilot for a large multiengine aircraft yields the airline a far more capable pilot.

Keep in mind that one of the things that makes USAF and USN pilots desirable is their extensive screening for and training to keep calm and work through the problem when something is going wrong.

Many fighters are flawed in their initial delivery

[perpenso]

I think every fighter produced starting with the F-4 Phantom II was criticized as having some fatal flaw, and most ended up being liked by their pilots.

I think that goes back pretty much to the Wright brothers. Many fighters were flawed on their initial delivery. Even the P-51 Mustang was mediocre at high altitude until it got into the hands of military pilots and ground crews. In particular the British pilots/crews who replaced the Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.

Military academy not required

[perpenso]

You don't have to go to a military academy to become an officer or a pilot in the U.S. You can go to any accredited university and get a four year degree and then go to Officer Candidate School (OSC). You may be able to go to OCS during summer breaks and become a commissioned officer upon graduation.

Re:Shortage of both manned missions and manpower

[ColdWetDog]

I was just pulling your rhetorical leg. The F-35 (as I am sure you are aware) is anything but inexpensive.

Military offers university scholarships ...

[perpenso]

you can't enlist and be a pilot

Untrue. You can enlist and if you pass the various screenings they may give you a scholarship and time off to attend a regular 4 year college. A classmate did this in return for some number of years of service as an officer upon graduation.

for a pilot you have to be an officer which means college first, more specifically the naval or air force academy which only take the top 5% or so. and you have to get a nomination from your congressperson. its like a 2 year process to apply in high school

Untrue. Officer Candidate School (OCS) only requires a 4 year degree from an accredited college. You can also attend OCS while you are still a student during summer breaks to save some time.

Demise of manned fighters

[AlienSexist]

Fighter pilots in particular want and need to be good. Part of being good is having good tools. It is a terrible motivator if the military is having difficultly modernizing the arsenal while perceived likely adversaries continually make gains. The F-22 was killed. No more will be purchased. The F-35 is having issues and for all we know could suffer the same fate. The mainline is still good ole' F-15s and F-16s and I have trouble imagining a young aspiring pilot striving to fly those. The truth, I think, is that Human pilots are too expensive to train and the aircraft far more costly than just using drones. In an Ender's Game sense, the world's youth are a vast repository of video game piloty goodness.

jingoistic warhawks make trollmod

[drinkypoo]

Ah yes, the old "You are saying bad things about American servicemen, and I am a brainwashed idiot so I will mod you down". I didn't even bring up the culture of rape endemic to the armed forces, are you a rapist as well as a trollmod?

Re:F35 and F22

[Rich0]

Bring the warthog, the only useful plane in the US Air Force's inventory in the last 30 years.

The A10 is a great plane, and it would be wonderful if there were other aircraft to fill the niche. However, it does need support to operate. You're not going to be having a great time shooting up tanks if the sky is crawling with enemy air-superiority fighters who have free reign to drop missiles on you all day long. You can duck behind hills from SAM sites, but not when the SAM site is at 37,000 feet.

It's no longer honorable

[Rubinhood]

I heard that people no longer enlist to the armed forces anymore because it's no longer the noble thing to do. They have too much precedent that they will just become toys of corrupt politicians.

They can see how many have ended up helping the slaughter of a million innocent civilians in the Middle-East. Others helped with the assassination of legitimate leaders who genuinely cared for their country, and installed puppet dictators who were willing to help maintain the Empire while pushing their own citizens to poverty. Yet others ended up regularly spying on half the world...

Apart from 5-year-old children who were mesmerized by the latest G.I. Joe or other propaganda film, I don't know anyone in their right mind who would willingly sign up to be such a puppet.

(Now cue the obligatory government agent trying to sway public opinion in a response post:)

Re:It's no longer honorable

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah. There's NO form of engagement today, that would not have been considered an atrocity 90 years ago, or a war crime, 35-50 years back.

Most folks have also begun to twig that the "Government" has become just a shell-company, to hold baggage for constituent corporations. The idea of "fighting for our freedoms and defending liberty" doesn't even seem quaint, anymore...

Re: It's no longer honorable

[Anonymous Coward]

Being in the military and coming across posts like this makes me sad that you don't take pride in the people that protect the constitution. I hope you see the value of those who serve, someday. Maybe the next time a foreign entity attacks you in your home town, you will take pride in the people who are willing to move towards danger to protect others. So many service members have.

Re: It's no longer honorable

[Rubinhood]

That's just it. The Constitution is being trampled upon, because good men who signed up to defend it are instead being used as puppets to further the Big Co's indecent agenda.

Don't you get it? Veterans' day, war movies, etc. are now nothing but government propaganda to keep the sinking Empire afloat in the sea of moral corruption and debt. Soldiers today are nothing like the World War veterans of old. Many who enlist want the right thing, but that doesn't matter if today they are only deployed for unjust causes. The American military has become what it was created to fight, and the Constitution proves it. Think of all the ways the forefathers distanced themselves from the British in the Constitution. The US is doing the exact same things today.

The military is no better than what it's used for, and these days I can only cry at how it's being abused.

Re: It's no longer honorable

[cold fjord]

So what are these "unjust causes" and corruption? What does the Constitution prove? What "empire?" Can you name the foreign lands under US governance and control that constitute an "empire?"

The US was attacked on 9/11 and the country responded. How do you think that isn't correct? Or are you one of the 9/11 "Truthers?"

Re:It's no longer honorable

[emilper]

There's NO form of engagement today, that would not have been considered an atrocity 90 years ago, or a war crime, 35-50 years back.

you must be behind with your history reading, 90 years ago mortality rates of 50% among prisoners were cool, nobody gave a f....g f..k over shelling a village, shooting civilians happened by default not as an exception, and taking all the food from the civilians while armies moved about

Re: It's no longer honorable

[bcmm]

We're "truthers" if we don't think Saddam attacked the towers? Nobody outside of the United States believed that.

Re: It's no longer honorable

[cold fjord]

Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, September 16, 2001: "[Interviewer: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to [the 9/11 terrorist attacks?]] Cheney: No "

President Bush, White House briefing, September 17, 2003: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Saddam was involved with terrorism, but not with the 9/11 attack.

Re:It's no longer honorable

[dywolf]

You two both have absolutely no concept of what you're talking about. "no form of engagement..." ?? "quaint" ?? the only thing that is new or different is drones, and theres no functional difference between a bomb from a uav or one from and f16.

i cant decide which is more true: that you have absolutely no concept or knowledge of the events of our past wars and conflicts and what occured, or absolutely no concept of today's.

either way, you're both ignorant bags of meat spouting the same retarded pseudo intellectual bullshit, while patting yourselves on the back over how smart and superior you are because you would never deign to lower yourself to serving your nation, not in its military, not in its governance, not even in its soup kitchens. but you'll bitch about your nation constantly, and never once do a thing to help fix it.

to paraphrase: You know nothing Jon Snow, sitting in your ivory tower. Woe to you if you should ever learn the truth the hard way.

(and just to cut you off: I'm neither republican, nor conservative, nor particularly enamored of our government's policies)

Re:It's no longer honorable

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

OK.

Kill people, who are non-combatant. Do it for "Liberty". Feel good, because you did the right thing.

Re:It's no longer honorable

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes, but they were identified as atrocity. Now? Only when "they do it".

My Lai is a near daily occurrence. Lt Calley is nearly every Lieutenant and nearly every village is destroyed to save it...

Re:You are not qualified to comment.

[PPalmgren]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I used to think the same way, then I managed to pry some stories out of my calculus teacher during a key club convention, who was a former USAF pilot. One of my friends was looking to follow that path so he discussed the dark side of being a pilot. I was always wondering why the guy looked so beat up given that he was only 60, and its because of the intense strain on your body by the profession. He was telling us about how when you're taking sharp turns, you basically have to flex your entire body and breathe in tiny spurts. It can stress every blood vessel in your body so badly that a single flight can force you into days of physical pain.

I suggest you go to youtube and look up airforce centrifuge training, click on one of the longer videos, showing you the strain level of different prolonged G-forces and what they have to do to stay consious. It gave me a new respect for how difficult it can be.

Re:Not pilots , assassins.

[manu0601]

There is a difference

.

When you kill with physical presence, your enemies can try to kill you.

When you kill remotely, your enemies only possible retaliation is exploding bombs on your territory, because you are not the battle field anymore

Drone killing and terrorist bombing are two sides of the mirror

Re:Not pilots , assassins.

[shutdown -p now]

Banning land mines is a good idea. My point is that most of those bans are very old, and most of them (like the one on expanding ammo) are long obsolete by new advances in weapon tech.

Anyway, drones are pretty much the exact opposite of land mines as far as collateral damage goes...

Re:F35 and F22

[gmhowell]

Now the A-10 is a plane that should never have be retired. It WAS the primary defense against a Soviet Invasion of western Europe

The A-10 is still in service, and won't be retired until 2028 at the very least. I predict it will be the C-130 of fighter/attack craft, just like the C-130 is the Energizer of cargo planes. Just keeps going and going and going...

B52s laugh at these silly newcomers to the flying game.

Re:You are not qualified to comment.

[couchslug]

"Computers do EVERYTHING. "

Maybe in your flight sim game.

No, "computers" give you different displays of information and simplify some tasks, but you still have to know how to USE those computers, interpret what they tell you, and not get task saturated so you don't CFIT, select the wrong weapons release settings and shack a target with your wing tanks, or otherwise have a bad day.

There is so much info that writeups such as "IFF does not work in OFF mode" are real (the switch sequence on the control box wasn't intuitive) and "CND" (Can Not Duplicate) signoffs of writeups are moderately common because said writeups can often be bogus. (Of course, some won't duplicate on the ground so "swaptronics" is done with line replaceable units to see if the problem moves to another aircraft.)

"Knuckle dragger"? Sure pal. What pilot refers to the people who take his entire aircraft apart and reassemble it as "knuckle draggers"?

Every system the pilot uses, maintainers not only operate, but troubleshoot (life isn't all BIT checks nor is every possible condition covered in Technical Orders) repair and modify.

Suicidally changing military

[Sqreater]

There's a lot of solid thinking about why this is happening, but let me point out that in the new gynocentrified military environment any position that stinks of too much testosterone is slated for elimination. If a pregnant young breeding age female cannot now do a military job it must be altered or done away with. The new feminish generals (generals who take on the female agenda and worldview to attain and retain their jobs) must strive to make it possible for an eight-months-pregnant female to "fly combat" from a plush chair in an airconditioned room thousands of miles from danger while drinking a Starbucks coffee and scarfing down bon bons. Never underestimate the power of the nineteenth amendment to destroy this country's ability to pursue and retain excellence in any area, including national defense.

Re:F35 and F22

[dywolf]

The B52, B1, F15, F16, C130, C17, C5, KC135, E3 and E8 might all have something to say about that. I'd include the Blackbird, but they kinda got retired almost 25 yrs ago, so it'd be a stretch to include them within your given time limit.

Re:Many fighters are flawed in their initial deliv

[dywolf]

classic non-engineer vs engineer perception problems.

non engineer: IT DOESNT WORK AT 100% ALL THE TIME! ITS A WASTE OF MONEY! TRY IT AGAIN!
engineer: We achieve 95% of our goals, we're still working on that last 5%. But I have some ideas.

Re:my name...jose jimenez

[dywolf]

mod up for getting the reference.
classic book.
classic and all time favorite movie.

Err...

[DarthVain]

That's like the Russians having more troops than the Germans had landmines in WWII, then calling the landmines failures.

Pretty sure the landmines did their jobs, only the Russian commanders lack of caring about their soldiers welfare (I guess you can call that a tactic) were they able to just run a ton of troops through a field and clear it of landmines at the same time.

Then again, they apparently also had officers behind their troops ready for any "cowards" who refused to go.

Pretty sure if I was an Indian Pilot, up against the USAF, and I had to wait til each of their planes shot off all of the 8 missiles or whatever to down 8 of us before I could close and have a shot, it might give me pause. It is all very nice that during a "war game" which I presume these were as I don't recall any actual conflict between India and the US, were you can simply "sacrifice" a bunch of planes/pilots as a tactical ploy, however I would bet in real life things don't work out quite so smoothly. It is not altogether very good to moral to start an engagement down 8-1 (or whatever it is) prior to just having a change to do anything.

Then again (not knowing the specifics of the two dates you mentioned) but whats to stop the USAF from entering radar horizon, fire all missiles, bug out, re-arm, repeat?

Re:this is just a ploy

[HaZardman27]

Well he or she is trained and certified as a pilot, so they are still likely much more qualified to control a multi-million dollar piece of equipment than you, sorry.

An empty jumbo is a bit like a F16...

[SuperBanana]

You know how hard the plane accelerates when it's full of fuel, you + all the other passengers, luggage, cargo, etc on take off? Enough to push you back into the seat preeeeeeetty hard, right?

Imagine that same force, but in a plane with no passengers, no cargo or luggage, and a light fuel load.

It won't do 62,000 feet a minute like a F-16 will, but I've heard pilots describe unladen performance as breathtaking, and at airshows, they can buzz the runway and do a HARD climb.