Pilot shortage?

[Swanee]

It's not quite that simple. You need a bunch of MLS facilities just to operate the aircraft, mission plan and train, etc. This is something that existing AD bases are already way behind on. Replicating those facilities is cost prohibitive.

Your second paragraph makes no sense to me. This has nothing to do with training for the boat.

It's not like guys live in the same place as their squadron. Lessening the cost burden to the Navy (Or AF, or Marine Corps) by creating/moving existing Guard/Reserve units to where it makes sense to centralize those facilities, and everyone who uses those facilities pays into the funds to build them seems to make sense to me.

Second paragraph was a complete second thought.

 

[Brett327]

I don’t disagree and this is the logical “no” argument. But now we find ourselves like a monkey swinging from vine to vine. We can’t afford more airframes (perhaps because we by bloated systems that take years to field and try to do too much) but we can’t keep good people in those airframes. In effect, from my distant outpost, it looks like we are buying big-league equipment and training up youngsters to fly them but then letting them slip away right when they gain efficiencies and capabilities that make them pros. Our current answer of offering some pocket change to stay in is rather short sighted in my nearly pointless opinion.

So, what vine do we reach for next? Money for people or money for aircraft? The reserve solution might be seen as money for both. But @Brett327 is right, it would be expensive and the dollars would come at a cost to something else. Personally I am a believer in people power. I don’t really want any more Captains/Colonels...Admirals/Generals....I want the people that are at that perfect point where they can plan and fight - senior O-3’s to early O-5. I want to keep those people in the game even when they want step away a bit.

I guess the answer is Mo Money?

Unfortunately, we’re going to have fewer resources, not more. C’est la vie.

 

[Brett327]

It's not like guys live in the same place as their squadron. Lessening the cost burden to the Navy (Or AF, or Marine Corps) by creating/moving existing Guard/Reserve units to where it makes sense to centralize those facilities, and everyone who uses those facilities pays into the funds to build them seems to make sense to me.

Second paragraph was a complete second thought.

I don’t think you’re catching my drift.

 

[squorch2]

Unfortunately, we’re going to have fewer resources, not more. C’est la vie.

taps sign

 

[taxi1]

There are efficiencies to consolidating T/M/S in relatively few geographic locations.

Fewer targets to hit for our foes?

We can’t afford more airframes (perhaps because we by bloated systems that take years to field and try to do too much)

Amen

Acq world tried cost as an independent variable (CAIV) but that is a lousy control because it is too hard to predict.

I think the key metric should be time to fielding. Here's where would like to be (objectives) and here is the absolute minimum set of thresholds (gotta haves). Give me the best you can do in 4 years.

At a minimum failure would come sooner.

 

[Swanee]

I don’t think you’re catching my drift.

So what is your drift then? That we can't afford anything, so we just need to fold our hand, pack up what we have left, and stop playing?

 

[sevenhelmet]

Fewer targets to hit for our foes?

Amen

Acq world tried cost as an independent variable (CAIV) but that is a lousy control because it is too hard to predict.

I think the key metric should be time to fielding. Here's where would like to be (objectives) and here is the absolute minimum set of thresholds (gotta haves). Give me the best you can do in 4 years.

At a minimum failure would come sooner.

There's a big argument to be made for this type of program. The whole argument with F-35 was "revolutionary, not evolutionary", and that doesn't seem to have panned out as well as everyone hoped. Shorter-cycle programs could also have the added advantage of keeping potential adversaries off-balance (hey, they fielded something new again!), and avoiding a lot of the spiraling costs of late-cycle maintenance, particularly when follow-on programs are delayed. Finally, if platforms are being developed and fielded on a shorter cycle, it can have positive benefits with respect to industry ramp-up in the event more units are needed on short notice (conflict buildup, attrition, etc.).

What's better? An evolutionary replacement platform for the next 30 years that reaches IOC several years behind timeline, or a replacement platform for the next 10-15 years that costs half as much and IOCs when promised?

The trick, as always, is avoiding scope creep; e.g. "Hey, if we add this one more widget, we could do XYZ too...". On a shorter development cycle, I argue it's easier to say "No", because there are future versions on the horizon to help counteract FOMO.

 

[Pags]

There's a big argument to be made for this type of program. The whole argument with F-35 was "revolutionary, not evolutionary", and that doesn't seem to have panned out as well as everyone hoped. Shorter-cycle programs could also have the added advantage of keeping potential adversaries off-balance (hey, they fielded something new again!), and avoiding a lot of the spiraling costs of late-cycle maintenance, particularly when follow-on programs are delayed. Finally, if platforms are being developed and fielded on a shorter cycle, it can have positive benefits with respect to industry ramp-up in the event more units are needed on short notice (conflict buildup, attrition, etc.).

What's better? An evolutionary replacement platform for the next 30 years that reaches IOC several years behind timeline, or a replacement platform for the next 10-15 years that costs half as much and IOCs when promised?

The trick, as always, is avoiding scope creep; e.g. "Hey, if we add this one more widget, we could do XYZ too...". On a shorter development cycle, I argue it's easier to say "No", because there are future versions on the horizon to help counteract FOMO.

Good luck avoiding scope creep. But communities need to be ruthless with their requirements and really understand how long something is going to take, ie believe guys who have done it before vice the OEM.

There's a great story about how when Growler first got started the senior test guys went and got a big roll of paper and sketched out how long they thought it would take to get everything done. No one believed them at first and instead made their perfect dream schedules. But by the time end of the initial test program the schedule ended up matching the realistic schedule within a few months.

 

[robav8r]

I think the key metric should be time to fielding. Here's where would like to be (objectives) and here is the absolute minimum set of thresholds (gotta haves). Give me the best you can do in 4 years.

The main character in this book seemed to understand that concept pretty well . . .

 

[robav8r]

Give me the best you can do in 4 years.

Also, when your in a race to introduce technology & stealth faster than your adversaries, but your adversaries are emptying the shelves of your local grocery store during a peaceful protest, well, you get the idea . . .

 

[Brett327]

Fewer targets to hit for our foes?

20th century thinking.

 

[Brett327]

So what is your drift then? That we can't afford anything, so we just need to fold our hand, pack up what we have left, and stop playing?

No.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The Army uses civilians in the Training Command - wonder how long it will be before the Navy revisits that idea? I would imagine you could tempt quite a few pilots away from the show for a comfortable job flying acrobatic airplanes and being home every night.

Happened to see this in the news today:

Air Force may use contractors to train pilots
In a bid to finally overcome a chronic pilot shortage, the Air Force says it may use private contractors to train some of its fledgling aviators.
It has issued five “requests for information” that could produce 200 pilots a year over a five-year period.

Air Force might outsource some pilot training

Struggling to produce more pilots, the Air Force is looking to use private contractors to...

www.expressnews.com

 

[villo0692]

Happened to see this in the news today:

Air Force may use contractors to train pilots
In a bid to finally overcome a chronic pilot shortage, the Air Force says it may use private contractors to train some of its fledgling aviators.
It has issued five “requests for information” that could produce 200 pilots a year over a five-year period.

Air Force might outsource some pilot training

Struggling to produce more pilots, the Air Force is looking to use private contractors to...

www.expressnews.com

and yet they reject very highly qualified applicants.....just sayin' ....

 

[Swanee]

and yet they reject very highly qualified applicants.....just sayin' ....

It's not a problem of people coming in. There is no shortage of people who want to be pilots in the military. There is a shortage of experienced pilots and flight leadership who want to stay being pilots in the military.

The point of using contractors in the training squadrons is to free up the experienced guys so they can stay in the fleet squadrons and other operational billets.